ML20112H021
| ML20112H021 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1985 |
| From: | Brigati J KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART |
| To: | Brenner L, Ferguson G, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112H025 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#185-104 OL, NUDOCS 8501160601 | |
| Download: ML20112H021 (2) | |
Text
'
j.
e, KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M STREET, N.W.
g
_:ED WASHINGTON, D.C. 200M oNE nosToN FLACE nosTON. MA 02ics TE12 PHONE Cc2) 452-7000 (617) 971 5400
'85 Ri 15 P 4 :13 im.cuu. AvENts
==~2"""""
TELECOF1ER QC2) 452 70$2 M1AML FL 31131 0 05) 1744112 b ICf5,,, - dL E
- 100 OUVER N 00CKt.iat> zijt F'v'KJ.
,rrissuRcH, PA. $2D WRITERS DULECT DIAL NUMBER (412) 3154500 (202) 452-7060 January 14, 1985 BY HAND Lawrence J.
Brenner, Esquire Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judges Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson School of Engineering Howard University 2300 Sixth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20059 Re:
Long Island Lighting Company; Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-322-OL Gentlemen:
I am enclosing a Stipulation agreed to among the State of New York, Suffolk County, LILCO, and the Staff concerning the cam gallery sections of the engine blocks.
In so agreeing, the parties reached additional understandings about the meaning and intent of paragraph 3 of the Stipulation which we agreed to inform you of by this transmittal letter rather than by including them explicitly in the body of the Stipulation.
The County's cam gallery contention is that " cracks have also been observed in the camshaft gallery area of the blocks."
In light of the results of the x-ray crystallography, the County has stipulated that it does not seek to disqualify the blocks of the EDGs on the basis of the existence of cam gallery cracks.
However, the County contends that the cam gallery cracks in EDGs 101 and 102 should be monitored with wire strain 8501160601 850114 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C
.p e
a KIRKPARICK & LOCKHART Administrative Judges January 14, 1985 Page Two gages across the repair welds of the cracks and that the depth of the cracks should be measured before operation and at the first refueling outage.
If the monitoring and depth measure-ments show crack propagation to a significant degree in the future, the County further contends that the blocks should be replaced.
In the event that LILCC does not undertake the monitoring and measuring outlined above, or some other monitoring program that is acceptable to Suffolk County, the County reserves the right to litigate whether monitoring should be required.
Suffolk County's position with respect to the need for monitoring is that there is no reliable evidence concerning the depth of the cam' gallery cracks in the EDG 101 and 102 blocks; that these cracks have not been removed or adequately repaired; and that the strain gage test results on the replacement EDG 103 block, which shows only compressive stresses, could be altered by residual stresses in the EDG 101 and 102 blocks.
LILCO does not agree with any of Suffolk County's positions.
However, LILCO does not contend that the County is procedurally precluded'from contending and litigating that the cracks should be monitored even though it has agreed not to seek to disqualify the blocks'on the basis of the existence of the cam gallery cracks.
J Sincerely,
_ _ _W
_s Jose J
rigati JJB:so Enclosure
_