ML20132F545
| ML20132F545 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/17/1985 |
| From: | Palomino F, Scheidt D KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#385-828 OL, NUDOCS 8507180499 | |
| Download: ML20132F545 (33) | |
Text
-
hb l
l l
0%Mii:0 Unsf 1
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
$3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION dE I7 p4;7y c}lfg
[3h'{.
@ c:.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal ca
)
In the Matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF JUNE 14, 1985, ASLB DECISION Lawrence Coe Lanpher Fabian G. Palomino Alan Roy Dynner Special Counsel to the Governor Douglas J. Scheidt of the State of New York KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART Executive Chamber, Room 229 1900 M Street, N.W.
Capitol Building Washington, D.C.
20036 Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Suffolk County Attorney for Mario M.
Cuomo Governor of the State of New York July 17, 1985 hD
t TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1
I.
Introduction............................................
2 II.
Procedural Background...................................
6 III.
Argument................................................
15 IV.
Conclusion.............................................
Attachment Pages 15-17, 20-21 and Exhibits 85 and 86 to the Testimony of Messrs. Bridenbaugh and Minor 1-
\\
I l
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES-l l
l Page f
CASES:
l NRC North Anna Environmental Coalition v.
10 533 F.2d 655 (D.C. Cir.
1976)..........................
1 Porter _
Northern Indiana Public Service Commission v.
Inc.
County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, 11 423 U.S.
12 (1975).....................................
International Union of Electrical, Power Reactor Dev. Co. v.
Radio, and Machine Workers 11 367 U.S.
396 (1961)....................................
Clark (1982)...................................'.
11 United States v.
454 U.S.
555 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS:
Island Lighting Co.
Long Unit 1),
(Shorcham Nuclear Power Station, 2
LDP-83-30, 17 NRC 1132 (1983)...........................
Long Island Lighting Co.
Unit 1)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, 1
LDP-85-18, NRC (1985).............................
REGULATIONS:
1 10 CFR 2.762.................................................
10 CPR Part 50, Appendix A, General Design 1,
passim criterion 17......................................... _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _
- - ~ '
OY.4CfD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U Hei NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N JR 17 P4;;3 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ae:
.a 00Cs),gugt,4 ;
BRANC4 ' ' '
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL (Shoreham Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF NEW YORK BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF JUNE 14, 1985, ASLB DECISION I.
INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 10 CFR {2.762, this Brief is submJ tted in sup-port of the appeal by Suffolk County and the State of New York of the Partial Initial Decision issued by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on June 14, 1985 (LBP-85-18).
That decision held that the three emergency diesel generators ("EDGs"), which LILCO proposes to use to supply backup emergency electrical in the event of a power to safely shut down the Shoreham plant satisfied the requirements of General loss of off-site power, Design Criterion 17, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A ("GDC 17").
The decision should be reversed because the Licensing Board er-roneously excluded evidence showing that GDC 17 has been con-unlike in sistently interpreted and applied to require that, the case of the EDGs at Shoreham, the maximum load at which
l EDGs are permitted to operate (" Maximum Permitted Load") must be substantially higher than the EDGs' maximum emergency ser-vice loads ("MESL").1/
Contrary to GDC 17 requirements, the I
Licensing Board found the EDGs at Shoreham qualified, although their Maximum Permitted Load is 3300kW / and their highest MESL 2
is 3253.3kW.
II.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 2, 1983, Suffolk County filed a motion to admit a new contention alleging, among other things, that the EDGs did not comply with the requirements of GDC 17 because of cracking of cylinder heads and excessive vibration.
The Licensing Board granted the County's motion in part (LBP-83-30, 17 NRC 1132 (1983)), and scheduled hearings on the EDG contention.
In August 1983, however, shortly before those hearings were sched-uled to begin, the original crankshaft on one of the EDGs se-vered during testing and additional cracks were discovered in the crankshafts of the other two EDGs.
The hearings were 1/
The MESL is the maximum electrical load existing on an EDG during a design basis event.
The design basis event at Shoreham is a loss of off-site power coincident with a loss of cooling accident.
(Decision at 90.)
2/
The Licensing Board would allow a total of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> of operation during the first fuel cycle at loads between 3300kW and 3400kW.
(Decision at 82-83).
2-
l l
postponed and lengthy technical reviews of the EDGs wero conducted.
Numerous defects in other EDG components, particu-larly the cylinder blocks, were discovered.
(Decision at 1-2.)
the Based in part upon these numerous defects in the EDGs, County moved to admit a supplemental EDG contention on January 27, 1984.
In oral rulings on February 22 and July 5, 1984, as confirmed by written order dated July 17, 1984, the As admit-Licensing Board granted the County's motion in part.
ted by the Board, the supplemental EDG contention alleged that, the EDGs would not op-contrary to the requirements of GDC 17, erate reliably or adequately perform their required functions and certain because the EDGs were over-rated and undersized, including the crankshafts and the cylinder EDG compcnents, were inadequately designed or not satisfactorily
- blocks, manufactured.
Hearings on the supplemental EDG contention began on September 10, 1984.
On November 6, 1984, however, shortly be-fore the close of the record, LILCO moved to reopen and supple-ment the record.
In connection with its motion, LILCO sought to amend the Shoreham FSAR by reducing the Maximum Permitted Load ratings for the EDGs from their original continuous duty rating of 3500kW and short-time rating of 3900kW / to the 3
3/
Section 3.7 of the Institute for Electrical and Elec-tronics Engineers, Inc. ("IEEE") Standard 387-1977 defines (Footnote cont'd next page) \\
(
l l
l so-called " qualified load"4/, a Maximum Permitted Load of l
1984, the Li-3300kW.
By unpublished order dated December 4, censing Board granted LILCO's motion and permitted any party to l
file a contention challenging the lower " qualified load" rating i
proposed by LILCO.
(Footnote cont'd from previous page) continuous and short-time ratings as follows:
3.7.1 continuous rating.
The electric power output capability that the diesel-generator unit can main-tain in the service environment for 8760 h[ours) of operation per (common) year with only scheduled out-
. ages for maintenance.
3.7.2 short time rating.
The electric power output capability that the diesel-generator unit can main-tain in the service environment for 2 h[ours] in any 24 hCour] period, without exceeding the manufactur-er's design limits and without reducing the mainte-nance interval established for the continuous rating.
IEEE Standard is referred to by Regulatory Guide 1.9 This as delineating "... principal design criteria and qualifi-cation testing requirements that, if followed, will ensure that colected diesel generator units will meet their per-formance and reliability requirements."
Regulatory Guide 1.9, Rev.
2, December 1979, at 1 $B.
The NRC Staff introduced the concept of a " qualified load" 4/
as an interim licensing basis for the EDGs and other emer-
~
gency diesel generators manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc.
The " qualified load" is that load at which EDGs have successfully oper-certain key components of the least 740 hours0.00856 days <br />0.206 hours <br />0.00122 weeks <br />2.8157e-4 months <br /> and which bounds the maximum ated for at load existing on any EDG during a loss of off-site power coincident with a loss of cooling accident.
(Decision at 89-90.) _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ -
I l
l On December 17, 1984, the County and the State jointly As modified and ad-moved to admit an additional contention.
1985 unpublished mitted by the Licensing Board's January 18, order, the new EDG load contention specifically alleged that the EDGs with a maximum " qualified load" of 3300kW as the Maxi-mum Permitted Load did not provide sufficient capacity and ca-pability to assure various safety functions because the quali-encompass all of the loads that could be im-fled load did not including loads that may be imposed due to posed on the EDGs, operator error.-
1985, and'tha The reopened hearings began on February 12, 1985.
On June 14, 1985, the Li-record was closed on March 12, censing Board issued its partial initial decision holding that the EDGs complied with GDC 17 and authorizing the Staff to for the Shoreham plant.
issue a low-power operating license 5-
III. ARGUMENT l
The Licensing Board erroneously excluded evidence showing 17 has been consistently interpreted and applied that GDC that the Maximum Permitted Load of emergency to require diesel generators must be substantially higher than their_
Since the Maximum Permitted Load for the EDGs at MESLs.
the Shoreham is nearly the same as their highest MESLs, Board applied an incorrect and lower GDC 17 standard to the Shoreham EDGs.
The Shoreham plant was designed so that the EDGs would According-comprise the on-site source of AC electrical power.
GDC 17, how-the EDGs are required to comply with GDC 17.
ly, is not prescriptive, i.e._, it does not set forth a defin-
- ever, itive quantifiable standard by which to judge the adequacy 'of EDGs.
GDC 17 merely provides that, in the assumed absence of the on-site electric power the off-site electric power system, system must have sufficient capacity and capability to assure systems and components important the functioning of structures, to safety.1/
in the assumed ab-5/
GDC 17 provides in pertinent part that the EDGs must sence of the off-site electrical system, provide sufficient capacity and capa-bility to assure that (1) specified acceptable fuel design limits and de-sign conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded as a result of anticipated operational occurrences and (2) the core is cboled and containment integrity and other vital functions are maintained in the event of postulated accidents.. _ _
l Traditionally, and in all prior cases, the standard prac-tice in the nuclear industry for determining whether EDGs com-I ply with GDC 17 has been to refer to their continuous and I
short-time ratings.
(Decision at 18.)
To ensure that an EDG has sufficient capacity and capability to handle the maximum loads imposed on it, the Staff's standard practice is to con-firm that the continuous rating /, which constitutes the Maxi-6 mum Permitted Load, encompassses the MESL and that the short-time rating / encompasses the MESL plus the single highest ad-7 ditional load'that could be connected by an operator.
(Knox, ff. Tr. 27,735, at 9: Tr. 27,997-98 (Knox); Tr. 27,952-53,,
27,980 (Berlinger).)
In this case, however, both LILCO and the Staf f abandoned the traditional approach in favor of the " qual-ified load" approach, because the Staff determined that the Shoreham EDGs' continuous and short-time ratings could not be relied upon to assure that they had sufficient capacity and ca-pability to comply with GDC 17.
(Tr. 27,962-65, 27,968-69, 27,981-84 (Berlinger).) Under this novel approach, the Staff required only that the Maximum Permitted Load rating of the EDGs, the " qualified load" rating, exceed the MESL.
(Tr.
27,967-89 (Berlinger).)
6/
See note 3.
7/
Id. - - - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
i The EDG load contention alleged that the EDGs did not com-ply with GCC 17 because the " qualified load" rating did not provide sufficient capacity and capability as required by GDC 17.
In support of this contention, the County attempted to in-troduce evidence showing that GDC 17 has been consistently interpreted and applied by the nuclear industry and the NRC Staff to require that the Maximum Permitted Load of EDGs must be substantially greater than their MESLs.
In its February 11, 1985 unpublished order, however, the Licensing Board refused to admit this evidence as irrelevant and immaterial.
Id. at 3.8/
The Licensing Board's exclusion of this evidence was reversible error.
~8/
As submitted by the County and the State, the proposed EDG load contention also alleged that the " qualified load" of 3300kW did not provide sufficient capacity and capability to assure that the requirements of GDC 17 would be met be-cause "[t]here is little or no margin between 3300kW and the maximum emergency service loads for the EDGs, in sharp contrast to emergency diesel generators at other nuclear plants Where a substantial margin provides adequate assur-ance of requisite reliability under GDC 17."
By order dated January 18, 1985, the Licensing Board refused to admit this portion of the proposed contention as unnecessarily redundant of the admitted portion of the contention.
Id. at 8.
The Licensing Board also ruled that, to the extent that admission of this portion of the proposed contention "would arguably include consideration of margin at other nuclear plants, such litigation would be irrelevant or at least so remotely collateral to the material issues before us as to be digressive without any redeeming usefulness."
Id. -
i The excluded evidence / demonstrates that the standard 9
practice and the GDC 17 requirement in the licensing of boiling water reactors ("BWRs") has been to provide for substantial ca-pacity and capability, or margin, between the MESL and the Max-imum Permitted Load at which EDGs are permitted to operate, as shown by their performance ratings.
The excluded evidence shows that for 27 BWRs licensed by the NRC Staff from 1969 through 1984, the average continuous and short-time EDG perfor-mance ratings (which constitute the Maximum Permitted Loads) exceed the MESLs by over 24 and 33 percent, respectively.
Fur-thermore, the excluded evidence shows that the smallest differ-ence between the Maximum Permitted Load and the MESL at any of these plants is just under 10 percent and the largest differ-ence is more than 100 percent.
In contrast, the Maximum Per-mitted Load of the EDGs at Shoreham (3300kW) is only 1.4 per-cent higher than their highest MESL.
(Bridenbaugh and Minor, ff. Tr. 27,500, at 20.) The excluded evidence also demonstrates that the NRC Staf f confirmed that the Maximum Permitted Loads of all EDGs at licensed BWRs are substantially greater than their MESLs.
9/
See Attachment.
1 - _______ _
?
The excluded evidence is clearly relevant and material to the EDG load contention.
The evidence of the substantial dif-ference between the MESLs and the Maximum Permitted Loads of EDGs at all other BWRs demonstrates the accepted and proper in-terpretation of the GDC 17 requirement that EDGs have "suffi-cient capacity and capability" to assure various safety func-This evidence is clearly relevant and material to the tions.
EDG load contention because it demonstrates how GDC 17 has been interpreted and applied in prior licensing actions.10/
Indeed, the excluded evidence is particularly relevant and material because GDC 17 does not specify any empirical stan-dards for evaluating the EDGs, but provides only subjective guidance.
In these circumstances, where the regulatory stan-dards are not totally free from ambiguity, the past practice of the NRC Staff and the nuclear industry in interpreting and ap-is the plying GDC 17 is not only relevant and material, but it evidence of what GDC 17 really means.ll[
best 10/
Similarly, the Licensing Board erred by refusing to permit the County to cross-examine LILCO and NRC Staff witnesses concerning the substantial difference between the Maximum Permitted Loads and the MESLs of EDGs at other BWRs and as to the Colt EDGs which LILCO intends to install in addi-tion to the EDGs already in place at Shoreham.
(Tr.
27,247, 28,366-67).
11/
Thus, in North Anna Environmental Coalition v.
NRC, 533 F.2d 655, 665 (D.C. Cir. 1976), the court upheld the NRC's (Footnote cont'd next page) _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The excluded evidence demonstrates that the Licensing Board applied a lower and erroneous standard of compliance with GDC 17 to the troubled Shoreham EDGs than has been applied to reliable EDGs.
Although the Licensing Board clearly viewed the Shoreham EDGs as suspect and restricted their operation to loads 600kW less than their former short-time rating because they have experienced so many problems 12/,
the Board (Footnote cont'd from previous page) interpreia' tion of certain regulations based upon the tes-timony of NRC Staff members who had been involved in promulgating those regulations.
Because such evidencq is relevant and properly considered, evidence of the NRC Staff's application of its regulations (which establishes the NRC's actual practice in interpreting the regulations) is equally admissible and properly considered here.
Not only is the NRC Staff's past practice in interpreting GDC 17 extremely relevant and material, but considerable deference must be accorded to it, particularly when as here that interpretation has been followed consistently over a long period of time.
- See, e.g.,
United States v.
Clark, 454 U.S. 555, 565 (1982); Northern Indiana Public Service Commission v.
Porter County Chapter of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., 423 U.S.
12, 14 (1975);
International Union of Electri-Power Reactor Dev. Co.
v.
cal, Radio, and Machine Workers, 367 U.S.
396, 408 (1961).
12/
The Licensing Board held that the Shoreham EDGs can be op-erated safely for a total of only 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> at loads between
~~
3300kW and 3400kW up to the first refueling outage (ap-proximately 18 months).
(Decision at 82-83.)
In con-the short-time rating of other EDGs requires that
- trast, in they be capable of operating at overload for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for 1 year (a total of 730 hours0.00845 days <br />0.203 hours <br />0.00121 weeks <br />2.77765e-4 months <br />).
See note 3. -- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
nonetheless permits operation of the EDGs with a margin of only i
1 1.4 percent between their MESL and their Maximum Permitted Load.
This is a far less stringent standard than has been ap-plied to all other BWR EDGs which have not had problems and which are not suspect.
In short, the Board overlooks evidence that GDC 17 has been interpreted to involve a standard for re-liable EDGs that is more than 20 times higher on average than the standard applied to the troubled Shoreham EDGs.
The citi-zens of Suffolk County and the State of New York are entitled to no less protection than is accorded to persons residing near other BWRs.
The Board's exclusion of the evidence also precluded the County from showing that GDC 17 requires that EDGs have suffi-cient margin between their MESLs and their Maximum Permitted Loads so that they can accommodate additional loads that may be manually connected either erroneously or purposely to more ef-ficiently and safely respond to an emergency.
The Licensing Board's erroneous interpretation of GDC 17 as not requiring sufficient capacity and capability to accommodate such loads ignores that nothing can ensure that an operator will not erro-neously add loads and unduly restricts operators' flexibility to deal with emergencies.
(Tr. 27,916-17 (Hodges, Clifford);
Tr. 28,091 (Clifford); Bridenbaugh and Minor, ff. Tr. 27,500, _____ ___ ____.
i at 24-28; Tr. 27,542, 27,566 (Bridenbaugh).)
The evidence I
l clearly established that the capacity and capability of the EDGs to handle such loads must be considered in determining whether the EDGs compiled with GDC 17.13/
At Shoreham, the single worst case loads that could be added to the EDGs after a loss of off-site power would result in loads of 3839.2kW, 3627.6kW and 3867.3kW.
(Decision at 103).
The Maximum Permit-ted Load of the Shoreham EDGs, the 3300kW " qualified load" rat-ing, is significantly less than these loads.
(M.)M/
--13/
The NRC Staff's standard practice for determining whether EDGs comply with GDC 17 is to confirm that their highest ratings (usually the shcrt-time ratings) encompass their MESLs plus the single largest loads that may be connected to th6 generators either intentionally or inadvertently through operator error. (Knox, ff. Tr. 27,735, at 9; Tr.
27,997-98 (Knox); Tr. 27,952-53, 27,759-60, 27,980 (Berlinger); Bridenbaugh and Minor, ff. 27,500, at 11.)
The evidence further established that the Staff knows of no instance in which the highest rating of an EDG at a licensed BWR does not encompass such loads.
(Tr. 27,957 (Hodges); Tr. 27,960, 28,036 (Buzy).)
14/
The Licensing Board seems to suggest that the EDGs comply with GDC 17 because no single operator action can cause the load on more than one EDG to exceed the qualified load.
(Decision at 103.)
Such an interpretation confuses the single failure criterion of GDC 17 with the separate and additional requirement that the EDGs have " sufficient capacity and capability."
By its own plain terms, the single failure criterion of GDC 17 addresses only whether the EDGs have " sufficient independence, redundancy, and testability" to perform their safety functions assuming a single failure, not whether the EDGs have sufficient capacity to handle the additional electrical loads that may be imposed on them by operator action. -__ - __-____- __
In summary, the Licensing Board's erroneous exclusion of this evidence precluded the County and the State from introducing vital evidence on how the requirements of GDC 17 have been interpreted and applied in the past and, accordingly, how GDC 17 should have been interpreted and applied in this The exclusion of this evidence was particularly prejudi-case.
cial because the Staff's position in this case that the EDGs have sufficient capacity and capability flies in the face of its consistent application and interpretation of GDC 17 re-quirements.
The exclusion of such evidence by the Licensing Board created a gaping hole in the administrative record and is clear reversible error.
r IV.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Licensing Board's June 14, 1985, decision must be reversed.
Respectfully submitted, 4 Lf
-d O
Lawregce Coe Lanpher Alan,Roy Dynner Douglas J.
Scheidt KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Fabian G.
Palomino r
Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorney for Mario M.
Cuomo Governor of the State of New York Date:
July 17, 1985 J
ATTACHMENT e
O
SUFFOLK COUNTY, hanuary25, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
TESTIMONY OF DALE G.
BRIDENBAUGH AND GREGORY C.
MINOR REGARDING SUFFOLK COUNTY'S EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR LOAD CONTENTION
~
Testimony, Attachment and Exhibits
l A.14.
It is essential that enough margin is available.
to ensure that all expected loads, including cyclic loads, can be accomodated, taking into account the modeling and other uncertainties inherent in predicting the accident condition, plus providing some margin so that the plant operators will not be restricted in their manual load transfers and manipulations in the later stages of the accident.
Moreover, as previ'ously
_ testified to by the County's witnesses, it is industry practice to operate diesel engines at only about 75 to 85 percent of their maximum rated loads, in order not to overstress the en-gine and to enhance reliability.li/
It has been the standard prac+ ice in the licensing of all boiling water reactors
("BWRs") in the past to provide for a significant margin be-tween the MESL and the maximum rated load of emergency diesel generators, regardless of whether cyclic loads are included.
We have performed a survey of the onsite emergency power supply characteristics of all BWRs that have received their operating licenses as of December 31, 1984.
Our survey in-cludes some 27 BWRs licensed during the fifteen year period from 1969 through 1984 and a range of power ratings from 500MW 14/
Joint Testimony of Dr. Robert N.
Anderson, et al.,
regarding Suffolk County's Emergency Diesel Generator Con-tentions, at 18.
l
' l i
I I
to 1300MW.
The average EDG rating exceeds the expected peak load (maximum emergency service load) by over 33 percent.
The lowest margin we have been able to find is 9.9 percent while the largest is more than 100 percent.
A listing of the plants and respective loads and ratings is presented in. Exhibit 3.
This data is extremely important because it demonstrates the accepted interpretation of the requirements of GDC 17 as to the sufficient capacity and capability to assure appropriate re-sponses to postulated accidents.
O.15.
Has the NRC Staff confirmed your view that all BWRs that have.been licensed have had a substantial degree of margin between the maximum emergency service loads and the rat-ings of their EDGs?
A.15.
Yes, it has.
The Transamerica Delaval Diesel Generator Owners Group Program Plan, NRC Safety Evaluation Re-port, August 13, 1984, at 9, states that i
the staff notes that for many plants, that the maximum emergency service load requirements for worst case loss of off-site power or loss of off-site power and Loss of Coolant Accidents are significantly less than the engine name plate rating.
In addition, Dr. Carl H.
Berlinger of the NRC Staff has further 1
stated, with respect to the above-quoted SER language, that:
1
- in -
n i
1
'many plants' r,efers to just,about every plant that I am familiar with that is either in operation or under construction in the United States.
I don't know of any exception to that."ll/
Q.16.
Are all of the emergency loads precisely known at Shoreham?
A.16.
No.
LILCO has attempted to measure individual loads and in fact used some of the measured loads to reduce or increase the contribution of that load to each EDG's MESL.
However, LILCO still proposes that name plate values be used for the majority of the MESL loads, thus providing little as-surance that the name plate values may not be exceeded under certain circumstances.
LILCO also performed an integrated electrical. test ("IET") which apparently was an attempt to ver-ify that the appropriate conservatism does exist in the maximum load that e'ach EDG may experience.
The IET, however, did not measure individual equipment loads.11/
Moreover, this test contains a substantial amount of uncertainty as it was simply a measurement of combined loads of equipment assumed by LILCO to operate in a LOOP /LOCA.
Because there is no assurance that the 15/
Deposition of Carl H. Berlinger, December 13, 1984, at 5.
(Exhibit 4).
16/
SNRC-lO74, J.D.
Leonard Jr. to H.R.
Denton, NRC, August 22, 1984, at 2.
Type of' Load EDG 101 EDG 102 EDG 103 Measured Loads 34%
35%
64%
Name Plate Loads 66%
65%
36%
If we conservatively assume that the measured loads are at best accurate to i 2-1/2 percent system error, and that the name plate loads are at best accurate to 15 percent, we can conclude that the total load defined for the MESL is no more accurate than 13.9 percent.
Thus, the peak load might well be 128kW higher than LILCO has specified.
.Q.20.
What is the margin for the EDGs at Shoreham?
A.20.
The difference between the highest EDG maximum emergency service load calculated by LILCO (3253.3kW) and the 3300kW maximum load at which the EDGs may operate is only 46.7kW, or 1.4 percent of the maximum load allowed.
This small margin assumes no increases in the maximum emergency service loads due to the factors discussed above.
Q.21.
What then do you conclude as to the need for margin in onsite emergency power systems at BWRs in general and at Shoreham in particular?
A.21.
No BWR has ever been licensed by the NRC in the past without a substantial amount of margin between the expect-ed maximum emergency service load and the EDG continuous or short-term rating.
This history clearly establishes the ac-cepted requirements of EDG capacity and capability under GDC 17 _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
l I
l l
to provide sufficient reliability.
The proposal by LILCO at r
Shoreham, where essentially no margin is being provided between the qualified rating (3300kW) of the EDGs and the predicted MESL (peak of 3253kW), a margin of less than 1.5 percent, does therefore meet the requirements of GDC 17.
There is, ac-not cordingly, little or no margin available at Shoreham to accomodate the cyclic loads which are known to be approximately for the potential peak load 5 percent of the EDG rating, none and measurement / calculational error of approximate 3.9 percent, none to prcvide for the modeling, calculational, and other uncertainties inherent in the accident scenario forecast.
Q.22.
Are there concerns present in the onsite emer-gency power scheme proposed by LILCO other than the inadequacy of the qualified load you have described above?
A. 22. "
Yes there are.
One such inadequacy is the fact that LILCO did not consider the potential effect of the inaccu-load indicating instrumentation in the design racy of the EDG and conduct of the load qualification test.
This deficiency relates to section (a)(ii) of the Contention which states:
" diesel load meter instrument error was not considered."
O.23.
How has the EDG load meter instrumentation error affected the " qualified" load of the EDGs?
21 I
9 9
i EXHIBIT S6
~
O e
% Margin EDG Rating (kW)
(% of peak load _),
Unit Continuous 2000-Ilour Peak Continous 2000-Ilou Plant Rating (MW)
I n S e r v i,c,e, Rating Rating Load ( kW) 2_/
Rating Rating Oyster Creek 650 1969 2500 4_/
1950 28.2 Duane Arnold 597 1975 2850 3000 2480 14.9 21.0 Cooper 836 1974 4000 4700 3619 10.5 29.9 Dresden 2-3 828/028 1970/71 2600 2860 1950 33.3 46.7 Quad Cities 1-2 828/028 1973/73 2500 2850 1980 26.3 43.9 Pilgrim 678 1972 2600 2860 2398 8.4 19.3 Peach Dottom 2-3 1152/1152 1974/74 3250 4/
2560 7.0 Drunswick 1-2 867/067 1977/75 3500 3550 2311 51.4 66.6 Ilatch 1-2 850/850 1975/79 2850 3100 2669 6.8 16.1 LaSalle 1-2 1078/1078 1984/84 2600 2250_/
2860 15.6 27.1 5
WPPS-2 1100 1984 4400 4650 3860 14.0 20.5 Susquehanna 1 -2 1152/1152 1983/85 4000 4700 3542 12.9 32.7 Fitzpatrick 803 1975 2600 4_/
1906 36.4 Browns Ferry 1,
2, 3
1152/1152/
1152 1974/75/73 3/
2850 2594 9.9 Nine Mile Pt.
642 1969 2560 29501/
1470 74.1 100.6 Vermont Yankee 563 1972 3000 4/
2446 22.6 Millstone 1 662 1971 27656/
3042 2678 3.3 13.6 Monticello 569 1971 2500 4_/
2002 24.9 AVERAGE 24.3 33.4 NOTES:
(1)
All data taken from USNRC Public Document Room FSARs and USNRC NUREG 0020.
(2)
Peak load requirement based on auto-start loads listed in the FSARs.
(3)
FSAR does not provide a continuous rating.
The,7 day rating is 2950kW and the 30 minute rating is 3050kW.
(4)
PSAR does not provide a 2000-hour rating.
(5)
This peak load does not include the EDG dedicated to the IIPCS.
Peak load on the IIPCS EDG in 2719kW.
(6)
The single Millstone EDG is backed up by a 12MW gas turbine.
(7)
This is actually the 1500-hour rating.
d0
o S
EXHIBIT [$h 9
~
v
2/sjg 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of:
5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-1 (oL) 6 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) 7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x DEPOSITION OF CARL H.
BERLINGER 9
Bethesda, Maryland Thursday, December 13, 19*84 to Deposition.of CARL H.
BERLINGER, called for examination 11
. pursuant to agreement by counsel, at the Nuclear Regulatory 12 Commission,
- / land National Bank Building, 7735 Old 13 Georgetown Road, at 12
- 45 p.m.
before ANNE G.
BLOOM, a 14 Notary Public within and for the District of Columbia, when 15 were present on behalf of the respective parties:
16 ALAN ROY DYNNER, ESQ.
DOUGLAS SCHEIDT, ESQ.
I7 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 18 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.
C.
20036 19 On behalf of Intervenor Suffolk County.
20 21
-- continued --
22 Yce-clea'crol $ porters, hne.
5 02 zgb 1
please?
2 A
Got it.
3 0
In the last paragraph on that page you see there 4
is a reference or a statement as follows:
5 "7ne Staff notes that for many 6
plants the maximum emergency service load 7
requirements for worst-case loss of off-8 site power or loss of off-site power and 9
loss'of coolant accidents are significantly 10 less than the engine nameplate rating."
11 A'
Yes, I see that.
12 0
can you tell me what are the "many plants" that 13 you are referring to in that statement?
14 A
"Many plants" refers to just about every plant 15 that I am familiar with that is either in operation or under 16 construction in the United States.
I don't know of an 17 exception to that.
18 0
Could you tell me generally speaking what is the 19 difference in those many plants?
20 I am asking for an approximation or a percentage 21 between the continuous rating of the EDGs there on the one 22 hand and the maximum emergency service load requirements on
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION sf' LED Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 3S N 17 E4:13
)
(
)
0 In the Matter of b:.
)
)
Docket No.
OU.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY AND STATE OF1985, ASLB NEW YORK BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF JUNE 14,have been serve dated July 17, 1985,.
first class, except as otherwise day of July, 1985,'by'U.S. mail, indicated.
I MHB Technical Associates Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue
~
Administrative Judge Suite K Atomic Safety and Licensing Board San Jose, California 95125 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 E. Milton Farley, III, Esq.*
Hunton &. Williams Dr. George A. Ferguson P.O. Box 19230 Administrative Judge 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Itomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20036 School of Engineering Howard University Odes L. Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
2300 6th Street, N.W.
Hunton & Williams j
Washington, D.C.
20059 333 Fayetteville Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 l
Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Energy Office Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building 2 U.S.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, Neu York 12223 Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
i General Counsel James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
250 Old Country Road Washington, D.C.
20008 Mineola, New York 11501 4
Robert E.
Smith, Esq.
Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Rosenman, Colin, Freund, Twomey, Latham & Shea Lewis & Cohen P.O. Box 398 575 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10022 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Mr. L. F. Britt Mr. John :Gallagher Long Island Lighting Company Deputy County Executive Shoreham Nuclear Power Station H. Lee Dennison Building P.O. Box 628 Veterans Memorial Highway North Country Road Hauppauge, New York 11788 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Stuart Diamond Joel Blau, Esq.
Business / Financial New York Public Service Commission NEW YORK TIMES The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller New York, New York 10036 Building Empire State Plaza Hon. Peter F. Cohalan Albany, New York,*
12223 Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Veterans Memorial Highway Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Fabian Palomino, Esq.#
Hauppau.ge, New York 11788 Special Counsel to the Governor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Chamber Panel Room 229 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Docketing and Service Section*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Secretary Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1717 H Street, N.W.
Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.*
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
Staff Counsel Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
New York State Public Office of Exec. Legal Director Service Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Washington, D.C.
20555 Albany, New York 12223
3-Mr. William Rogerst Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Clerk, Suffolk County Legislature Regional Counsel Suffolk County Legislative Federal Emergency Management Office Building Agency.
Veteran Memorial Highway 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Hauppage, New York 11788 Mr. Howard A. Wilber*
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Gary J. Edles, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 4
~
AL0 Douglajs) J. Sc#eidt KIRKPAT< RICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 l
i By Federal Express By Hand Delivery I
i l
1
=
r 9
_ _ -. ~
_m7, -, -
m
-e, m.
m.,m3
_ - - - _ - _ - - - - - - -, _. _ - - - - - -, - - - - - - _ - - - __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ --