ML20094C311

Motion for Summary Resolution of ASLB 840724 Memorandum & Order Re Effects of Strike of Local Emergency Response Organization Workers on Ability to Implement Offsite Emergency Preparedness Plan & Proposal of License Condition

ML20094C311
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/03/1984
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20094C293	List: ML20094C286 ML20094C311 ML20094C344
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8408070448
Download: ML20094C311 (6)

Text

-.

lc h LILCO,-August 3, 1984

, t.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00cgna V: .

f tv4 ~ ,

Before the ' Atomic Safety and LicenEing Boird 3 P :2 /

V: 07 :-

Inlthe Matter of ) CCC tiO s s s ti ,

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)

(Shoreham' Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1); )

LILCO'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

RESOLUTION OF BOARD DETERMINATION INVOLVING EFFECT OF STRIKE ON LERO AND PROPOSAL OF LICENSE CONDITION

' INTRODUCTION I.

This Board's July 24 " Memorandum and Order Determining that a LSignificant Safety Matter Exists" poses three questions regarding the effect of a strike involving a majority of the LERO workers on LILCO's ability to implement its offsite emergency preparedness

> plan if Shoreham has been operating at. full power. This motion addresses the Board's questions, proposes an operating license condition responsive to them, and requests summary resolution of this. matter pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.749 in accordance with the pro-posed license condition, and on the basis of the attached sup-porting affidavits and Statement of Material Facts as to which JLILCO contends there is no genuine issue to be heard. Since this motion and attachments are being served by hand on August 3, suf-

-ficient time exists under 5 2.749(a) for it to be responded to and decided by the Board before August 28, the date presently scheduled for hearing on this matter.

'~

70448 840803 noocn osooossa

.0: PDR

a, . p s

Summary. resolution is appropriate since the attached license 4

condition adequately addresses the concerns underlying the Board's

inquiry.-into the effect of a potential strike og LERO, and since

~

Lthat; condition is adequately. supported by the factual averments in cthe. attached Statement of Material Facts as to which LILCO con-

tendsLis no genuine issue to be heard.

II. THE BOARD'S QUESTIONS The-Board's three questions, and LILCO's answers to them, are as:follows:

-Question 1:

a u;  ;

. Whether LILCO's ability to implement its offsite emergency preparedness plan would be impaired by a strike involving the majority of its LERO worker 1.

Answer:

Under some, though not all,~ accident. scenarios, a strike

. involving a majority of LERO workers could impair LILCO's ability to' implement its emergency preparedness plan in the event of an zaccident occurring at full power operation at Shoreham. See Statement of Material Facts, (hereinafter, " Facts,"), 11 1-2.

Questions.2 and 3 can best'be answered together.

Question 2:

Whether LILCO should be required to place the reactor in cold shutdown in.the event of a strike by LERO workers.

Question 3:

". . Whether placing the' reactor in cold shutdown during a strike by LERO' workers, after the reactor has operated at full

- power, would give " reasonable. assurance that adequate protec-tive: measures can and will be taken in the event of a ra-diological emergency."

L.__

4.-

c Answer:

LILCO would have, in virtually any circumstances imaginable, at least'several. days' notice of the start of a strike by its two' unions. Facts, 11 3-4. The Shoreham reactor can be brought from

, full power operation to cold shutdown, following normal operating procedures,_in less than.24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />. See Facts, 1 5. Union-member plant staff. employees-are not necessary to this process. Id.

Once cold shutdown is achieved, management (i.e., non-union) em-

.ployees can maintain the reactor in a cold shutdown condition in-definitely thereafter. Facts, 1 6. At the temperature and pres-sure' regimes (less than or equal to 200* F and atmospheric

. pressure) existing at cold shutdown, there is no credible accident scenario'which can produce doses beyond the site boundary in ex-cess of. EPA Protective Action Guide levels of one rem to the whole

-body orLfive rem to the thyroid. Facts, 1 8.

During a reactor shutdown following the declaration of a strike, it might become desirable to handle fuel or conduct other operations requiring access to the~ reactor core. In that event,.

the reactor would.be taken to a still lower condition of op-eration, the " Refueling Mode." Scalice Affidavit 1 12; Facts,

[ T 9. .The accidents.. associated with fuel handling or other activi-ties' involving access to the core have a' variety of offsite conse-

.quences depending'on fuel burnup and on the time that has passed since the attainment of cold shutdown. As time passes following cold shutdown, all such consequences would diminish to levels

-below EPA PAG' limits._ Facts, 1 9. LILCO would agree, however,

$i~ .'

5 i

4- J TM ll '

-not.to' leave cold shutdown to undertake such operations without

previously securing the'NRC< Staff's permission. See Proposed Con-

- dition', n below.'

--The conclusions summarized above, supported by the attached

, 2g  ; Statement of: Material = Facts and the Affidavits of Drs. Cordaro and-

.Storgakos and Messrs.'Scalice and Rigert there referenced, demon-

, strate that no offsite radiological emergency response capability

-islneeded if.the reactor is brought to cold shutdown from full power operation-prior to commencement of a strike and kept in that

, status. They also show that cold shutdown conditions can be main-tained: indefinitely by LILCO management employees, and that LILCO n.

~

~

-would be willing to maintain that status (other than operations

.l . performed'with the Staff's prior approval) until termination of a

- . strike.

III. THE PROPOSED CONDITION These-facts demonstrate that placing the reactor in cold' shutdown-by the. commencement of a strike after it has operated at

,, full. power,'and maintaining it in that condition, would provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken at Shoreham in the event of a' radiological emergency occurring'during.a strike at LILCO. Thus, whether or not such a

condition is. required, it would be sufficient to ensure the avail-ability of adequate protective measures to protect the general population during a strike. In the interest of avoiding unneces-sary conflict over exactly what limitations are, in fact,

r

.g--

a. -5 necessary in the event of a strike, LILCO would agree to accept as a condition to its operating license a requirement that it bring the_ plant-to cold shutdown and keep it there for the duration of a strike on specified terms. This condition would read as follows:

PROPOSED LICENSE CONDITION So long as LILCO shall rely on an offsite emergency response organization consisting entirely or pri-marily of LILCO employees, then in anticipation of the commencement of a strike by a union repre-senting LILCO employees, LILCO shall bring the

-Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS) to cold shut-

.down condition using normal operating procedures.

LILCO.shall commence bringing SNPS to cold shutdown condition 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to the commencement of

.such strike, or immediately upon receipt of less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />' notice of the impending commencement of a strike, with the goal of having the plant in cold shutdown condition by the time the strike com-mences. LILCO shall maintain SNPS in cold shutdown condition until.the end of the strike except that, with the prior approval of the NRC Staff upon re-view of written application by.LILCO, LILCO shall be permitted:

(1) to take che reactor to a refueling mode to conduct refueling or other operations requiring access to the reactor core if it is shown that such operations cannot result in the occurrence of any events-requiring offsite emergency response ca-pability; and (2) .to conduct such other operations as the Staff shall approve if it is shown that the strike does not, in fact, impair LILCO's ability to implement its offsite emergency preparedness plan.

This condition shall terminate at such time as any or any combination of agencies of.the Federal, New

. York State, or'Suffolk County governments shall provide'to the NRC written notice of its or their agreement, under terms and conditions approved by FEMA, to' assume' legal responsibility for effectua-tion of offsite emergency response for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

6

,} -

, IV. CONCLUSION LILCO, believes that the proposed condition is amply supported by the attached Statement of Material Facts, and that each of them is_ amply supported by the attached Affidavits, and that there is thus no genuine issue of fact to be heard. For the above reasons, LILCO urges, pursuant'to 10 CFR $ 2.749(a), that the Board summa-

. rily resolve the issue raised in its July 24 Memorandum and Notice by requiring the inclusion of the condition specified above in the operating license for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

Respectfully submitted, LONC ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY k._A -

82

' Donald P. Irwin /

James N. Christman Lee B. Zeugin HUNTON & WILLIAMS P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: August 3, 1984

,