ML20097E283
| ML20097E283 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1984 |
| From: | Irwin D LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-4, NUDOCS 8409180145 | |
| Download: ML20097E283 (6) | |
Text
l o
I?
LILCO, SeptembeE0L M E.4984 I
USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 84 SEP 17 P3:07 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-.,. c p....
'n ?
Ip Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
(Low Power)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1
)
LILCO'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1984 LILCO replies preliminarily as follows to this Board's September 11, 1984 Order Scheduling Conference of Counsel, at
-which the Board instructed the parties "to come prepared to dis-cuss the effect and implications of the letter of September 11, 1984, by A.
Schwencer [NRC]
to J.D.
Leonard of the Long Island Lighting Company... upon substantive issues and scheduling in the security segment of this proceeding."
LILCO will be prepared to elaborate on the following basic propositions at the prehearing conference tomorrow:
1.
The Schwencer letter does not relate at all to Phases I and II of low power tsting and therefore has no effect whatever on this Board's disposition of the pending contentions as they relate to Phases I and II.
It can apply as a matter of logic only to f
g(($
0 a_
s ', j D
S
e a: those circumstances in which any emergency power supply could be required to prevent the plant from exceeding safety standards set in the regulations in the event of a security incident at Shoreham.
The only circumstance under which emergency AC power might be needed in low power operation is the occurrence of a LOCA during Phases III and IV of low power operation.
As the Board has found in its September 5, 1984 Order at 7-10, no backup power sources are required to mitigate the effects of a LOCA or any other event during Phases I and II of low power testing.
Thus the Schwencer letter does not affect this Board's disposition of the pending suffolk County /New York State security contentions as they relate to Phases I and II,1/ and can relate only to the pending disposition of them as they relate to Phases III and IV.
2.
As te Phases III and IV, the Schwencer letter, presupposing a need to treat backup power sources as vital areas, presupposes their need to protect the plant against unacceptable consequences.
Again, the only circumstances where such a need arises presumes the occurrence of a LOCA.
LILCO does not under-stand the Staff to be asserting that a sabotage event could induce 1/
LILCO understands this Board's September 5 Order to have concluded that while GDC-17 applies conceptually to all phases of low power operation, there are no circumstances in Phases I and II where emergency power sources are required and hence none where an exemption from GDC-17 is required.
Therefore,
-there was also no requirement for explicit findings either on the "as safe as" and " exigent circumstances" tests of CLI-84-8 nor on arrangements for the security of emergency backup power sources at Phases I and II.
r
-3 a LOCA (indeed, the Staff has asserted the opposite, Tr. S-35 (August 16, 1984), but rather that a LOCA and a sabotage event might occur close enough together-in time that emergency backup power sources would have to be protected as vital areas.
The Staff apparently bases its current view on a "re-evaluation" of the Shoreham emergency backup power supplies since SSER-5.
(See Schwencer letter of September 11, 1984).
t LILCO does not believe that such a coincidence of a LOCA and a security event is proper for consideration in a licensing pro-ceeding for the following reasons:
(1)
It requires the presumed concurrence of two such un-likely events that, as a policy matter, there is no value in their analysis; this concurrence is what used to be referred to as "in-credible."
(2)
There is no present regulation requiring treatment
-of backup power sources as vital areas at full power, much less low power.
The pendency of a proposed rule to effect such a re-quirement (49 Fed. Reg. 30735, August 1, 1984) is ample evidence of its absence now.
(3)
Such an assumption is inconsistent with the Staff's analysis of Shoreham in SSER-5, where the approval of the proposed emergency power arrangements presumes, as a matter of logic, that a LOCA need not be analyzed simultaneously with a security event.
No pertinent facts have changed since SSER-5.
T e
(4)
The Staff's apparent position reflected in Mr.
Schwencer's letter cannot be reconciled with its approvals of ei-ther the Grand Gulf or Catawba plants for low power operation.
3.
For the reasons stated above, LILCO does not believe that there is any requirement for simultaneous analysis of a LOCA and a security event at Phases III and IV and does not believe that Mr.
Schwencer's letter alters that conclusion.
If, as to Phases III and IV only, the Board has any doubt about what would be an issue of first impression if litigated, LILCO believes that the matter should be promptly certified to the Commission.
4.
Resolution of-the Staff's request in Mr. Schwencer's let-ter for the provision of further security measures for Shoreham's alternative emergency power sources at low power operation is a matter that can and will be resolved by LILCO and the Staff in the normal licensing-review process.
That letter does not automat-ically give rise to litigable issues before this Board.
Respectfully submitted, LONG jSLAND LIG' ING COMPANY
~
I ff
.v Donald P.
Irwin Robert M. Rolfe Anthony F.
Earley, Jr.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
September 13, 1984 l
l
[
LILCO, Scptsmbor 13, 1984 i
In the Matter of.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 (Low Power)
(ASLEP No. 77-347-OlC-OL)
I hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO BOARD ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1984 were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by telecopier (one asterisk), or by Federal Express (two asterisks).
Judge Marshall E. Miller
- Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Special Counsel to the Board Governor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Executive Chamber, Room 229 Commission State Capitol Washington, D.C.
20555 Albany, New York 12224 Judge Glenn O.
Bright
- Alan R. Dynner, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Herbert H.
Brown, Esq.
Board Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Commission Christopher & Phillips Washington, D.C.
20555 1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Judge Elizabeth B. Johnson **
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Mr. Martin Suubert P.O.
Box X, Building 3500 c/o Congressman William Carney Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 113 Longworth House office Building Eleanor L.
Frucci, Esq.*
Washington, D.C.
20515 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board James Dougherty, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Commission Washington, D.C.
20008 Washington, D.C.
20555 Jay Dunkleberger, Esq.
Honorable Peter Cohalan New York State Energy Office Suffolk County Executive Agency Building 2 County Executive /
Empire State Plaza Legislative Building Albany, New York, 12223 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 L
-f p, !
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.*
Docketing and Service Branch j
Office of the Executive Office of the Secretary Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
l Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building l
Veterans Memorial Highway l
Hauppauge, New York 11788 Nm _
Donald P.
Irwin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
September 13, 1984 l
o