ML20093A079

Response to Aslab 840607 Order for Views on Commission 840606 Memorandum & Order CLI-84-9 Re Important to Safety/ safety-related Question.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093A079
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/06/1984
From:	Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
References
CLI-84-09, CLI-84-9, OL, NUDOCS 8407100082
Download: ML20093A079 (7)

Text

,070

.r.

1 7/06/84

me, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board' L~9 f!f,']6

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF JUNE : 1984 By Order dated June 7, 1984, this Appeal Board provided parties with the opportunity to provide views on that portion of the Commission's June 6, 1984 Memorandum and Order (CLI-84-9) which dealt with the "important to safety"/" safety-related" question. The Commission's Memorandum and Order resulted from this Board's April 23, 1984 certification to the Commission. See ALAB-769, NRC (1984). Suffolk County now responds to the June 7 Order.

- Suffolk County has reviewed the record as briefed to this Appeal Board. Based on that review, the County does not believe that any further extensive briefing is required. Rather, the central issues which must be decided on appeal have already been briefed and the Commission's Memorandum and Order has focused those issues for this Board's decision. We add only the follow-ing summary of important points:

k 0 0

D .b b b

O 1

1. The Commission directed this Board to apply current precedent in resolving the important to safety / safety-related controversy. In the County's view, this means that there is no need for the Board to go through an extensive analysis of the regulatory history (urged by LILCO in its December 23, 1983 brief) which is described in ALAB- 769. Rather, consistent with the position urged by the County in its March 3, 1984 brief (see especially pages 3-9), the Board should apply the controlling precedent cited by the Commission and rule that the term "important to safety" does have broader meaning than the term

" safety-related."

2. The Commission's guidance also stated as follows:

The Commission understands current prece-dent to hold thatsthe term "important to safety" 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 deter-mined by rule to be "important to safety" although the equipment is not " safety-related." Rather, whether any piece of equipment has a function "important to safety" is to be determined on the basis of a particularized showing of clearly identified safety concerns for the speci-fic equipment, and the requirements of General Design Criterion 1 (GDC 1) must be tailored to the identified safety Concerns.

CLI-84-9, at 3. This guidance is generally consistent with the position taken by the County, namely that systems, structures and components ("SS&Cs") important to safety are not subject to a single, predetermined set of requirements but rather must be

8

,j .

afforded the care (such as in the QA cor. text) which is commensur-ate to their safety function.

There clearly are SSacs at Shoreham which are not classified as safety-related but which can play an important role in the safe operation of the plant. For ins,tance, in its FSAR Chapter 15 transient analyses, LILCO has relied upon the turbine bypass system and the high water level trip, even though these have not been classified as safety-related. See NUREG-0420 (Staff SER, April 1981), at 15-5. Similarly, the feedwater control system, which can play an important role in creation of and response to upset conditions, is not safety-related, but certainly plays a role which is important to safety. See Goldsmith, et al., ff.

Tr. 1114, at 36. Finally, the County also identified a generic list of SSacs important to safety but not safety-related which had been developed pursuant to a Staff contract. See Goldsmith, et al., ff. Tr. 20,903, at 42.1/ See also County brief of December 23, 1983, at 13-14; Attachment to Suffolk County Response to LILCO Motion to Strike Certain References in Suffolk County's Brief, January 11, 1984.

Since there are SSacs at Shoreham which are important to safety, GDC 1 requires that there be a QA program which covers 1/ The County does not believe it is appropriate in the instant Tiling to attempt to document all SSacs at Shoreham which would fall into the category of important to safety but not safety-related. Rather, it is sufficient for the issues on appeal to note that Shoreham clearly does have such SSacs. The Appeal Board further should understand that the Licensing Board directed the County to focus on methodology matters and to limit specific examples in the Contention 7B context to only three. See ASLB Memorandum and Order Confirming Rulings Made at Conference of Parties, 15 NRC 601, 611 (1982).

(t

_4 such SS&Cs. See buffolk County brief of December 23, 1983, at 4-11 where this issue is discussed in detail. LILCO does not have such a QA program (id.) and thus this Board should hold that LILCO has failed to comply with GDC 1.

If the Appeal Board desires any further views by the County on this issue,.the County will be happy to respond.

Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 1, --

A Herbert H. Brown 7 Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County July 6, 1984

s' a

e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA __

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board u, :u d i.M ;16

) ,

In the Matter of ) g; , ,

g

) E h !CH LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF JUNE 7, 1984 and SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK FILING IN RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF JUNE 26, 1984, dated July 6, 1984, have been served on the following this 6th day of July 1984 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman

• Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith Atomic Safety and Licensing Energy Research Group, Inc.

Appeal Board 400-1 Totten Pond Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Washington, D.C. 20555 MHB Technical Associates Mr. Howard A. Wilber* 1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite K Appeal Board San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Mr. Gary J. Edles* 707 East Main Street Atomic Safety and Licensing Richmond, Virginia 23212 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, D.C. 20555 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Albany, New York 12223 General Counsel Long Islend Lighting Company James B. Dougherty, Esq.

250 Old Country Road 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

Mineola, New York 11501 Washington, D.C. 20008

. i i

Mr. Brian R. McCaffrey Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. j Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams 4

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 1535 P.O. Box 618 707 East Main Street North Country Road Richmond, Virginia 23212 Wading River, New York 11792 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Joel Blau, Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea New York Public Service Commission P.O. Box 398 The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller 33 West Second Street Building Riverhead, New York 11901 [

Empire State Plaza  ;

Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Building Suffolk County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highway H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Fabian Palomino, Esq.

Special Counsel to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Governor

. Panel Executive Chamber, Room 229 i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State Capitol Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12224 Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1717 H Street, N.W. Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Staff Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Public Service '

Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Mr. Stuart Diamond Albany, New York 12223 Business / Financial NEW YORK TIMES Mr. Bruce L. Harshe 229 W. 43rd Street Consumers Power Company New York, New York 10036 1945 W. Parnall Road ,

Jackson, Michigan 49201  ;

Stewart M. Glass, Esq. l Regional Counsel Dr. Peter F. Riehm I Federal Emergency Management KMC, Inc.

Agency 801 18th Street, N.W.

26 Federal Plaza Washington, D.C. 20006 New York, Ncw York 10278 I

\

Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq. Judge Marshall E. Miller Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson School of Engineering Judge Glenn O. Bright Howard University Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 2300 6th Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.

Washington, D.C. 20559 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Oak Ridge National Laboratory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box X Washington, D.C. 20555 Building 3500 Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Ldwrence Coe Lanph(r KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 DATE: July 6, 1984 By Hand

.