ML20114C052

Response to Util Brief on Applicability of Single Failure Criterion to Suffolk County Emergency Diesel Generator Load Contention.Single Failure Criterion Not Applicable to Contention in Issue.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20114C052
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/25/1985
From:	Brigati J, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#185-298 OL, NUDOCS 8501290727
Download: ML20114C052 (7)

Text

e}

)

Suffolk County January 25, 1985 DXKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' 15 JM4 28 P1:36 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing'Bogrd7 5ECRETARY

w. c4G & SERVICf.

BRANCH

)

In the Matter of )

)

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

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE '

TO LILCO BRIEF ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SINGLE FAILURF CRITERION TO THE EDG LOAD CONTENTION LII.CO has objected to section (a)(iv) of Suffolk County's EDG Load Contention on the ground that that section goes beyond the single failure criterion of the NRC regulations. That cri-terion is set forth in GDC 17 of CFR Part 50, Appendix A, as follows:

"The onsite electric power supplies, including the batteries, and the onsite electric distri-bution system, shall have sufficient indepen-dence, redundancy, and testability to perform their safety functions assuming a single failure."

- The short answer to LILCO's argument-is that the single failure.

criterion is not applicable to the contention in issue.

The County's EDG Load Contention here in issue challenges the capacity of the EDGs to provide a reliable source of on-site power in the event of emergency because LILCO has understated the 8501290727 850125

" ^" " '

Mi! 3SO3

S

- emergency power requirements and not because of any perceived defect in the EDGs themselves. The contention is that, even assuming the EDGs function properly within the restated design

~

capacity (i.e., the " qualified load") of 3300 KW, that capacity is inadequate to. accommodate the maximum electrical loads that may be imposed upon the EDGs.

As-such, section (a)(iv) of the contention is beyond the scope of the single failure criterion in GDC 17. By its own plain terms, the single failure criterion addresses only whether the onsite electric power system has sufficient " independence, ,

redundancy, and testability" to perform its safety functions assuming a single failure, not whether it has sufficient capacity to handle the electrical loads that may be imposed upon it.

Indeed, the assumption that the system has sufficient capacity to perform its function is implicit in the single failure criterion.

That is disclosed by analysis of the regulatory definition of a single failure (10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A), which provides in part:

" Fluid and electric systems are considered to be designed against an assumed single failure if neither (1) a single failure of any active component (assuming passive components func-tion properly) nor (2) a single failure of a passive component (assuming active components function properly),.results in a loss of the capability of the system to perform its safety functions."

Obviously, if the system does not have sufficient capacity to perform its function, it will not have the " capability" of doing so in the event of a single-failure.

n_ ,_

.c

.t' 3-In effect, LILCO is arguing that, because it has proposed an onsite electrical ~ system incorporating three EDGs, one of which is redundant, the County is precluded from litigating whether the EDGs.have sufficient capacity to meet the realistic emergency needs of the plant. The argument is that the County's " quota" of failures is exhausted by the assumed failure of one of the three EDGs and therefore the capacity of any_one of them is not a liti-gable issue.- That is simply absurd. It suggests that a utility is-free to propose equipment that is plainly inadequate in terms of the design capacity needed to perform the required function so .

long as it provides redundant equipment of the same type. The NRC would be required to assume the one equipment failed and would therefore be foreclosed from considering the likely failure of the redundant equipment.1!

It should be noted that none of the decisions cited by LILCO are really in point because they do not involve the kind of issue here in question; namely, how much power may have to be supplied by the emergency electrical system in the event of an emergency.

Rather, they involve questions relating to redundancy and inde-1! Yet another absurd-consequence of LILCO's argument is noted in the Board's Memorandum And Order Ruling On Admissibility Of Emergency Diesel Generator Load Contention, dated-January 18, 1985. That is, under LILCO's view of the single failure criter-

-ion, the redundancy implicit in having three'EDGs instead of two would insulate LILCO from having to repair a known defect in one of them because failure of the other two could not be considered.

.h I

pendence of the systems there in issue. The County's research disclosed no decision applying the single failure criterion to an issue like the one raised by the contention here in dispute.

In conclusion, LILCO's assertion that section (a)(iv) of the EDG load contention alleges multiple failures beyond the single failure criterion is ill-founded. There is no regulatory basis for application of the single failure criterion to this part of the contention.

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

/fl6rbe H

Alan oy ynner fown

/

Joseph J. Brigati Douglas J. Scheidt KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County NAuw $. bbrwNed J'56)

Fabian G. Palomino Special Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamoer, Room 229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York January 25, 1985 l

p 3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00gg}Q Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 85 JAN 28 F1:36 In the Matter of

)

gj[SRANCH[gfSE hk LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL

)

-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) ) -

y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the TESTDONY OF DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH AND GRBGORY C. MINOR REGARDING SUFFOLK 000NN'S DERGENCY DTer GENERA'IOR IDAD CONTENTION, the TESTDONY OF DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH REGARDING SUFFOLK COUNTY'S POSITION CONCERNING T. Tim'S ADDITIONAL CYLINDER BIOCK TESTDONY, and the RESPONSE OF SUFFOLK CIXJNTY

• AND NEW YORK STATE 'IO T. Tim'S BRIEF ON THE APPLICABILITY OF THE SING 2 FAILURE CRITERION 'IO 'IHE EDG IDAD CONTENTION, dated January 25, 1985 by U. S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.

Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq.* MHB Technical Associates Administrative Judge 1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite K U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .3an Jose, California 95125 Washington, D.C. 20555 E. Milton Farley, III, Esq.*

Dr. George A. Ferguson* Hunton a Williams Administrative Judge P.O. Box 19230 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

School of Engineering Washington, D.C. 20036 Howard University 2300 6th Street, N.W. Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20059 Hunton & Williams

j. 333 Fayetteville Street

i. Dr. Peter A. Morris

• Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Jay Dunkleberger U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C. 20555 Agency Building 2 i Empire State Plaza Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Albany, New York 12223 i General Counsel l Long Island Lighting Company James B. Dougherty, Esq.

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

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

F k

Robert E. Smith, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

Guggenheimer a Untermyer Twomey, Latham & Shea 80 Pine Street P.O. Box 398 New York, New York 10005 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Mr. Brian R. McCaffrey .

Long Island Lighting Company Mr. John.Gallagher Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Deputy County Executive P.O. Box 618 H. Lee Dennison Building North Country Road Veterans Memorial Highway Wading River, New York 11792 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Joel Blau, Esq. Mr. Stuart Diamond New York Public Service Commission Business / Financial The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller NEW YORK TIMES Building New York, New York 10036 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 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rcom 229 Washington, D.C. 20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board 1717 H Street, N.W. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C.- 20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.*

Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

Richard J. Goddard, Esq. Staff Counsel Office of Exec. Legal Director New York State Public U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Service Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223 l

'8 ,.

a l

Stewart M. Glass, Esq.  :

Regional Counsel .

l Federal Emergency Management 1

Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 A 4EV D'ug1Ws o J'. SWheidt

• KIRKPAQRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 DATE: January 25, 1985

1. By Federal Express

• By Hand Delivery

, _ . _ . -- _ _ . _ -