ML20108B698: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(StriderTol Bot insert)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
Line 17: Line 17:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:}}
{{#Wiki_filter:-
r a.                                                                                                                            LILCO, March 4, 1985 4
Engloqure 3 71% Trn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                                          ""%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
MG ~5 AIO:45 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 3 Boar.d SEC& ~, -
                                                                                                                                                "0Cd[r;[$C?  SR                        '
'                    In the Matter of                                                                          )                                                                            -
                                                                                                                )
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY                                                              )              Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
                                                                                                                )                  (Low F5w c.- Romand)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )                                                                                          ** * * ,. * % . ,
Unit 1)                                                                              )
LILCO'S SUGGESTIONS FOR THRESHOLD BRIEFING OF ISSUES Pursuant to the Board's request (Tr. 3218-3219, 3227-3230) at the Conference of Counsel on February 28, LILCO proposes the is-sues listed below for briefing tar the parties at the outset of this proceeding.                                            The questions are posed in light of LILCO's un-derstanding that the Appeal Board has held that since LILCO relies on both the EMD diesels and the 20 MW gas turbine for safety anal-yses involving response to a LOCA during Phases III and IV of low power operation, those pieces of equipment must theref ore be con-sidered as " vital equipment" under Part 73 of the Commission's 4
regulations:
: 1.      Does Part 73 require, in the absence of an exemption,
                    .that each piece of equipment classified as " vital" meet each of the " cookbook" criteria of 5 73.55(b) through (h), or can vital equipment be found to meet the requirements of S 73.55 through provision of other measures, so long as those measures are 8503070438 850304 gDR    ADOCK 05000322 PDR e
 
consistent with the "high assurance" and "overall level of system    -
performance" objectives and requirements of Part 737
: 2. Does Part 73 invariably impose, for low power operation, exactly the same requirements for vital equipment as would be re-quired for full power operation?
: 3. -If an exemption from Part 73 is required for the low-power configuration at Shoreham, what are the implications for the structure and conduct of this proceeding?
: 4. If there is to be an exemption proceeding, (a) do the provisions of CLI-84-8 apply?    (b) If so, does this issue raise any matters under the "as safe as," " exigent circumstances" and "public interest" tests of CLI-84-8 that were not disposed of in CLI-85-Ol?    (c) If so, what are they?
: 5. How should this Board deal with the previously filed contentions in this proceeding and the subject-matter areas they l
raise?  Specifically, how chould the Board deal with contentions i        rejected by the Licensing Board, if any, whose resolution does not l        depend on its determinations of " vital equipment"?
l
: 6. In light of your answer to question 5, what should be the criteria for admission of ' issues into contention in this proceeding?    Should there be a demonstration required of the rela-tionship of any such issue to the safety of the plant at low power
        ' operation?_ If not, why not?
: 7. What procedural structure do you suggest and what general timetable do you propose?
l' l
r
 
LILCO believes that the Appeal Board's decision which gave rise to these proceedings was incor$2ct and will request the Commissio to review it, in papers which map be filed as early as today. LILCO will simultaneously serve this Board and all parties with copies of these papers. In addition, LILCO may modify various specific security arrangements for the 20 MW turbine in the very near future, and will also notify the Board and parties of ny such intended alterations.1/
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
"                                              s
                                                    /
                                                          ' Hm Oc'nald P. Irwin Robert M. Rolfe Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia    23212 DATED:    March 4, 1985 I
I 1/    LILCO does not expect that these alterations will be such as to qualify the 20 MW turbine a2 " vital" equipment under the
        " cookbook" formula of S 73.55(b) through (h).
                                                              .}}

Latest revision as of 19:57, 13 July 2020

Suggestions for Threshold Briefing Issues,Per ASLB 850228 Request
ML20108B698
Person / Time
Site: Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date: 03/04/1985
From: Irwin D
HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20108B680 List:
References
OL-4, NUDOCS 8503070438
Download: ML20108B698 (3)
v • d • e


Text

-

r a. LILCO, March 4, 1985 4

Engloqure 3 71% Trn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ""%

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5

MG ~5 AIO:45 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 3 Boar.d SEC& ~, -

"0Cd[r;[$C? SR '

' In the Matter of ) -

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5

) (Low F5w c.- Romand)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) ** * * ,. * % . ,

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S SUGGESTIONS FOR THRESHOLD BRIEFING OF ISSUES Pursuant to the Board's request (Tr. 3218-3219, 3227-3230) at the Conference of Counsel on February 28, LILCO proposes the is-sues listed below for briefing tar the parties at the outset of this proceeding. The questions are posed in light of LILCO's un-derstanding that the Appeal Board has held that since LILCO relies on both the EMD diesels and the 20 MW gas turbine for safety anal-yses involving response to a LOCA during Phases III and IV of low power operation, those pieces of equipment must theref ore be con-sidered as " vital equipment" under Part 73 of the Commission's 4

regulations:

1. Does Part 73 require, in the absence of an exemption,

.that each piece of equipment classified as " vital" meet each of the " cookbook" criteria of 5 73.55(b) through (h), or can vital equipment be found to meet the requirements of S 73.55 through provision of other measures, so long as those measures are 8503070438 850304 gDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR e

consistent with the "high assurance" and "overall level of system -

performance" objectives and requirements of Part 737

2. Does Part 73 invariably impose, for low power operation, exactly the same requirements for vital equipment as would be re-quired for full power operation?
3. -If an exemption from Part 73 is required for the low-power configuration at Shoreham, what are the implications for the structure and conduct of this proceeding?
4. If there is to be an exemption proceeding, (a) do the provisions of CLI-84-8 apply? (b) If so, does this issue raise any matters under the "as safe as," " exigent circumstances" and "public interest" tests of CLI-84-8 that were not disposed of in CLI-85-Ol? (c) If so, what are they?
5. How should this Board deal with the previously filed contentions in this proceeding and the subject-matter areas they l

raise? Specifically, how chould the Board deal with contentions i rejected by the Licensing Board, if any, whose resolution does not l depend on its determinations of " vital equipment"?

l

6. In light of your answer to question 5, what should be the criteria for admission of ' issues into contention in this proceeding? Should there be a demonstration required of the rela-tionship of any such issue to the safety of the plant at low power

' operation?_ If not, why not?

7. What procedural structure do you suggest and what general timetable do you propose?

l' l

r

LILCO believes that the Appeal Board's decision which gave rise to these proceedings was incor$2ct and will request the Commissio to review it, in papers which map be filed as early as today. LILCO will simultaneously serve this Board and all parties with copies of these papers. In addition, LILCO may modify various specific security arrangements for the 20 MW turbine in the very near future, and will also notify the Board and parties of ny such intended alterations.1/

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

" s

/

' Hm Oc'nald P. Irwin Robert M. Rolfe Anthony F. Earley, Jr.

Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 4, 1985 I

I 1/ LILCO does not expect that these alterations will be such as to qualify the 20 MW turbine a2 " vital" equipment under the

" cookbook" formula of S 73.55(b) through (h).

.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20108B698&oldid=2913183"