ML20100F304
| ML20100F304 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1985 |
| From: | Lanpher L, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100F302 | List: |
| References | |
| ALAB-653, CLI-84-008, CLI-84-8, OL-4, NUDOCS 8504040286 | |
| Download: ML20100F304 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.l ~ xl L '[ April 1, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' g,3pg7 NUCLEAR _ REGULATORY COMMISSION USMC 3 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bpprd APR -2 All 34 w LFac: .u-.. ) C0CASi. 4 D$.Q/ In the Matter of ) enANCH ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 ) (Low Power - Remand) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) STATE OF NEW YORK AND SUFFOLK COUNTY REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION In acc'ordance with the Board's March 22, 1985 Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Threshold Safeguards Questions and Establishing Partial Schedule) (the " Order"), the State and County request Board clarification / interpretation of the following matters. 1. The Board uses the term " safeguards risks" at several places in the Order. E.g., Order at 2, 3, 13-14. The Board poses the issue whether the " safeguards risks associated with lcw power are lower than those associated with full power." Id. at 2. The Board distinguishes such safeguards risks from safety risks, which pertain mostly to items such as the smaller fission product inventory at low power. Id. at 7, 13. Clarify that when the Board speaks of greater or lesser safeguards risks during Shoreham low power operation, the Board is stating that the parties may contest whether there is a greater or lesser likelihood of the defined design basis threat of Secticn 8504040286 850401 PDR ADOCK 05000322 Q PDR
o- /, 73.l(a)(1) being able to breach LILCO's security arrangements at Shoreham so as to achieve radiological sabotage during low power operation using LILCO's alternate AC power system versus during full power operation using the previous configuration that relied on the TDI diesels. 2. At page 2 of the Order, the Board states that LILCO . will comply with Section 73.55 if LILCO is able "to demonstrate that its safeguards measures, although not fully meeting the (b)-(h) standards (which assume full power operations), will nevertheless provide protection ' equivalent' to those standards during low power operations because the safeguards risks associated with low power are lower than those associated with full power." (Emphasis supplied). At page 3, the Board states that it will consider " proposed contentions alleging that safeguards risks at low power, under LILCO's safeguards measures, will be as great or greater than full power safeguards risks associated with a fully qualified emergency power source." (Emphasis supplied). (a) Are we correct that it is LILCO's burden to prove, if it does not demonstrate compliance with Section 73.55(b)-(h) or that it has implemented measures fully equivalent thereto, that the safeguards risks during Shoreham low power operation, i.e., the likelihood of successful radiological sabotage, are less under the alternate AC power system and protective measures proposed by LILCO than would have been the case under LILCO's original security plan relying on the TDI diesels? By how much
. i must the safeguards risks at low power be lower in order for LILCO to show Section 73.55 compliance? (b) What is the basis for the Board's statement and apparent conclusion that Section 73.55(b)-(h) assumes full power operation? At page 7, the Board cites page 8 of the Staff Response, which states that "the (security] regulations were not designed with low power operation in mind." However, when one looks at the Staff Response, there is absolutely no citation provided by the Staff to support the assertion that Section 73.55(b)-(h) was not designed to cover low power operation. Further, the State and County know of no citation which supports the Staff or Board positions. There is no language in Section 73.55 itself to support a finding that Section 73.55(b)-(h) is not fully applicable at low power. Thus, for the Board to so find, it should provide a basis, founded on the regulatory history or some other authoritative basis, to support its conclusion. (c) The essence of the alternate " compliance" standard enunciated by the Board appears to be the Board's reading of Section 73.55 as constituting a full power regulation which permits a lesser standard for low power, without an applicant seeking an exemption, provided that the low power safeguards protections are equivalent to those that would be provided by full compliance with Section 73.55(b)-(h) during full power operation. See Order at 2 (lines 5-10), 10. This same low power / full power comparison was also articulated by the Board in l
5 - the conference call on March 28. Tr. 3246. This low power / full power comparison conflicts with the Commission's May 16, 1984 Order (CLI-84-8). See 19 NRC at 1155, 1 2. Indeed, it is similar tx) the ASLB's April 6, 1984 low power / full power comparison,l/ which the NRC reversed in CLI-84-8.2/ Please 1/ See ASLB Memorandum and Order Scheduling Hearing on LILCO's Supplemental Motion for Low Power Operating License, April 6, l 1984, at 7. I 2/ GDC 17 did not specify on its face whether it applied to low power operation. The Miller Board read into GDC 17 a different standard for low power operation. The Commission reversed (19 I NRC at 1155) and directed that any lesser standard of compliance could only be considered in an exemption context. Further, this Board's decision of March 22, 1985 relied on San Onofre (Order at 7-8). The Miller Board also relied on San Onofre (April 6, 1984 Order at 9), but the NRC reversed. Similarly, this Board's l reliance on Diablo Canyon (ALAB-653) is also misplaced since ALAB-653 preceded the NRC's decision in CLI-84-8, which makes' L clear that a low power / full power comparison is not proper in a " compliance" context. l I
. 4 clarify how this Board's ruling calling for a low power / full power comparison is consistent with the Commission's precedent. Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 3erbert H. Brown / Lawrence Coe Lanpher Michael S. Miller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County h, emake 4 y April 1, 1985 Fabian G. Palomino Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M.
- Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York 1
l t
63 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safet'y an'd L'icensing Board ~ ) In the Matter of ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-4 ) (Low Power Security Remand) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of State of New York and Suffolk County Request for Clarification, dated April 1, 1985, have been served on the following this 1st day of April 1985 by U.S. Mail, first class, except as otherwise noted. Copies of the Security Contentions of Suffolk County and New York State were served only upon those persons marked by a number sign, since the Contentions contain safeguards information.
- Judge James L.
Kelley, Chairman Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Long Island Lighting Company U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 250 Old Country Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Mineola, New York 11501
- Judge Glenn O.
Bright Honorable Peter Cohalan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suffolk County Executive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission H. Lee Dennison Building Washington, D.C. 20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
- Judge Elizabeth B.
Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory
- Fabian G.
Palomino, Esq. P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Special Counsel to the Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Governor Executive Chamber, Room 229
- Ellen C. Ginsberg-State Capitol Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Albany, New York 12224 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- gw, Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Donald P. Irwin, Esq. Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Robert M. Rolfe, Esq.
- & Robert Perlis, Esq.
Hunton & Williams Office of Exec. Legal Director 707 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, Virginia 23212 Washington, D.C. 20555
-{. b Mr. Martin Suubert James Dougherty, Esq. c/o Cong. William Carney 3045 Porter Street, N.W. 1113 Longworth House Office Washington, D.C. 20008 Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Mr. Brian McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Shoreham Nuclear Power Sta. -Suffolk County Attorney P.O. Box 618 H. Lee Dennison Building North Country Road Veterans Memorial Highway Wading River, New York 11792 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Jay Dunkleberger, E:sq. Docketing and Service Branch New York State Energy Office Office of the Secretary Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12223 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
- f Mrs. Inez Bailey, Chief John F. Shea, Esq.
Records Service Branch Twomey, Latham and Shea Division of Technical Information 33 West Second Street and Document Control,' Riverhead, New York 11901 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 hf C Michael S. niller KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900_M. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 DATE: April 1, 1985
- Persons receiving Security Contentions only
- via Hand
- via Federal Express 0**
via Certified Mail !}}