ML20071N164

Reply to Util 830516 & NRC 830523 Filings,As Suppl to Suffolk County Findings & Opinion on Suffolk County Contention 11.Util Failed to Address Need to Consider Check Valves in safety-related Sys.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20071N164
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/02/1983
From:	Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8306060292
Download: ML20071N164 (9)

Text

g(gg 6/02/83

~

uPW UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.g3 Jgt -3 NO M2 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

)

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

I Unit 1) )

)

SUFFOLK COUNTY SUPPLEMENT TO SC CONTENTION 11 OPINION AND FINDINGS In accordance with the Board's April 28, 1983 " Memorandum and Order Providing for Further Filings on Suffolk County's Motion to Reopen the Record on Contention ll," Suffolk County submits the following reply to the recent SC Contention 11 filings of LILCO-1/ and the Staff. -2/ The County-notes that the Board on May 26 posed questions to LILCO and the Staff con-cerning the SC Contention 11 Supplemental Filings. See

! Memorandum and Order Directing Clarification of Certain Matters Related to Contention SC 11. In accordance with j that May 26 Memorandum and Order, the County, as appropriate,

l' will submit on or before June 20 views on the answers received.

I j -1/ LILCO's Supplemental Paragraphs for Inclusion in Its j Proposed Opinion and Supplemental Proposed Findings l

on SC Contention 11 - Valve Failures, May 16, 1983.

2/ NRC Staff's Supplement to Its Proposed Opinion and Proposed Findings on SC Contention 11 - Passive Mechanical Valve Failures, May 25, 1983.

8306060292 830602 EAT Du >

PDR ADDCK 05000322 j G PDR

I. REPLY TO LILCO FILING A. LILCO Opinion LILCO states.at page 2 of its filing that " [ t] he com-prehensiveness of Shoreham's in-service test plan is shown by the fact that certain check valves were included in the plan and both forward and reverse flow testing were specified for the valves." (emphasis supplied) . This statement suggests that a review of all check valves has been performed, with "certain" valves being selected for special treatment. In fact, however, there is no evidence to indicate that a com-prehensive review of check valves has been accomplished to ascertain which valves need enhanced in-service testing to ensure detection of potential valve failures. Rather, the evidence cited by LILCO (LILCO Finding D-30c) indicates only that LILCO has done nothing more than the minimum required by IE Bulletin 83-03 and that the "certain check valves" are the six diesel generator cooling system valves.

In the County's May 5, 1983 SC 11 filing, the County noted that swing check valves may be used in many other systems beyond the diesel cooling systems and that IE Bulletin 83-03 recognized that the concern was broader than just valves in the diesel cooling system. (See County Findings ll:24 (a) and 25(a)). The County then argued that the LILCO actions were inadequate because they focused only on the diesel cooling system. (See County Supplemental Opinion, p. 2). LILCO disputes this need for additional actions, stating that the

County has failed to identify any valves which should be but

are not included in the Shoreham in-service testing program "or that either the use of position indicators or the surveillance testing at Shoreham is deficient or inadequate in any regard." (LILCO filing, p. 3). However, IE Bulletin 83-03 itself documents that valves beyond those in the diesel cooling system may be subject to difficult-to-detect failures.

(County Finding ll: 25 (a) ) . Thus, the need for enhanced detection is documented on the record.

In short, LILCO has failed to address specifically the need to consider check valves in other safety-related systems.

LILCO states on page 3 that "certain check valves may need special testing" and implies that the Shoreham testing plan has recognized this need. However, LILCO stops short of fully asserting this claim and states only that there is nothing in the record to suggest otherwise. However, the burden of proof is on LILCO, and LILCO has failed to provide evidence that necessary reliability and safety analyses have been performed. Similarly, LILCO claims at page 3 that there is no indication of deficiencies in "any regard," including the use of position indicators. However, LILCO fails to l discuss the fact that check valves generally are provided with essentially no position indication (County Finding ll: 4 0 (a) ) ,

and that many such valves continue to be listed with Relief Requests from quarterly testing, even in the Revision 3 version of the IST which is referenced on page 4 of LILCO's May 16 filing. LILCO also fails to mention the recent failure of position indication devices on two valves as reported in

the May 6, 1983 letter to James M. Allan.-3/ This reported deficiency could extend to a total of 14 valves of this design used at Shoreham. LILCO's reluctance to address the reliability of all such valves used at Shoreham is further indication of LILCO's failure to take appropriate action in response to the latest and most significant operating experience.

B. ILCO Findings LILCO Findi ng D-30a. LILCO references in this finding the recent undertaking by the NRC Staff of a " generic effort to improve valve in-service test programs" and that LILCO will be required to comply with the requirements developed as a result of this effort. Examination of the citations given indicates something much less specific.Bulletin 83-03, page 2, states only that this Bulletin is expected to be part of a generic response and no specific program is identified. The April 1 Starostecki letter to Pollock states only that LILCO is to

! provide a written response to items 1 through 6 of the Bulletin t

l and makes no mention of a requirement for a new generic program. Accordingly, this Board should not rely on a possible Staff program to address these problems but, rather, should ensure in this proceeding that the LILCO testing program in fact has addressed all valves subject to potential undetectable failure.

l 3/ SNRC-880, May 6, 1983, J. L. Smith, LILCO letter to James M. Allan on a potential deficiency required to be reported under 10 C.F.R. 50.55 (e) .

LILCO Findings D-30b, D-35a. LILCO states that the NRC reviewed Shoreham's valve test plan in November and December, 1982 and cites in support the April 1, 1983 Starostecki letter. However, this letter only required written response to the Bulletin and gives as one reascn the fact that the

" licensing review" of the test program has already been performed. It is not clear to the County how that review could in fact now be cat leba since LILCO reports that Revision 3 of the LILCO valve test plan was not submitted until April 15, 1983. Further, the Staff in Staff Finding ll:9C states that the Shoreham plan "is currently undergoing Staff review."

LILCO Finding D-30d. LILCO states that it " includes check valves in its testing program." As noted by the Board, however, in its May 26, 1983 Memorandum and Order, page 4, this reference is highly ambiguous. The County agrees with the need for clarification requested by the Board. The County believes that a further question should be added to questions a-c (as part of question a) set forth at page 4 of the Board's Memorandum and Order: "What criteria, including failure and/or reliability analyses, if any, are used to determine the categories of safety-related check valves included in the in-service testing program?"

II. REPLY TO STAFF FILING A. Staff Opinion The Staff has failed to give proper attention to the relevance of the Bulletin 83-03 failure data and to other

recent valve failures.-4/ The County believes that the require-ments of Bulletin 83-03 have properly been applied to Shoreham, but that additional action is required to preclude similar failures of check valves in other systems. The Staff states as a reason that no Board action is needed:

[T]he Staff and LILCO are continuing to work to improve the general reliability and in-service testing of check valves used in other systems. The Staff over the last several years has issued a series of notices and bulletins directed toward this end. The County has not raised a significant concern which is being ignored by the Staff or the Applicant. (p. 2).

However, this statement, even when read with Staff Finding ll:9C which the Staff cites in support thereof, provides no basis for a finding that undetected valve failures in systems other than the diesel cooling system have in fact been 2'

adequately addressed for Shoreham and nothing in the Staff submittal provides such assurance.

B. Staff Findings Finding ll: 9C. The Staff states that the Staff and LILCO are continuing to work to improve the general reliability and in-service testing of check valves used in other systems. The implication of this statement is that a specific program has 4/ See, for example, SNRC-880, a May 6, 1983 letter to Allan, NRC from Smith, LILCO reporting failures of valve position indicators as required by 10 C.F.R. 50.55 (e) . See also NRC Information Notice 83-26, dated May 3, 1983, reporting repeated failures of vacuum breaker valves (swing checks) at Brown's Ferry and Peach Bottom.

been initiated. In fact, the Bulletin only states an intent of generic response, and the Staff appears to be relying only on the issuance of notices and bulletins tcward this end.

This is nothing more than " business as usual."

Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 i- /  :

s Yk&$' ~ f_

MJ. ~.

Merbert H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County

~

June 2, 1983

e

~

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 (0.L.)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY SUPPLEMENT TO SC CONTENTION 11 OPINION AND FINDINGS, dated June 2, 1983, have been served to the following this 2nd day of June, 1983 by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, unless otherwise noted.

!

• Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

t Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard L. Blau, Esq.

• Dr . James L. Carpenter 217 Newbridge Road Administrative Judge Hicksville, New York 11801 l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission }W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main St.

• Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay Dunkleberger i Washington, D.C. 20555 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Empire State Plaza General Counsel Albany, New York 12223

Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

i Twomey, Latham & Shea Mr. Brian McCaffrey P.O. Box 398 l

l Long Island Lighting Company 33 West Second Street 175 East Old Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Hicksville, New York 11801

. ., , Marc W. Goldsmith Mr. Jeff Smith Enorgy Rascarch Group, Inc. Shorchem Nuclear Powar Station 400-1 Totten Pond Road P.O. Box 618 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq. MHB Technical Associates New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive David J. Gilmartin, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Suffolk County Attorney Building H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Department of Washington, D.C. 20555 Law 2 World Trade Center Docketing and Service Section New York, New York 10047 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

• Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Commission David A. Repka, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

Staff Counsel, New York Stuart Diamond State Public Service Comm.

Environment / Energy Writer 3 Rockefeller Plaza NEWSDAY Albany, New York 12223 '

Long Island, New York 11747 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Daniel F. Brown, Esq. Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Federal Emergency Management Licensing Board Panel Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 26 Federal Plaza Washington, D.C. 20055 New York, New York 10278 1

James B. Dougherty, Esq.

. 3045 Porter Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008 . ,

/

I 1, *

/* , /, ,

Lawrence Coe Lanpher KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS DATE: June 2, 1983 1900 M Street, N.W., 8th Floor

• By hand delivery Washington, D.C. 20036

# By Federal Express ,

l 1

_ , - - - _ _ , - _ _ _ _ .._____,,.___-,,_m.__m,.__ , , . . _ _ _ , _ . _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ -