ML20127B566
| ML20127B566 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1985 |
| From: | Kelley E NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127B541 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8506210525 | |
| Download: ML20127B566 (27) | |
Text
m -
- s Y
~ 00LnEitf-l ,
- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- MNRC '
L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal oM21 A10:42
'~-----X Grrrtfor E uhit.:
000nf.TINii & Sl:IMO In the Matter of O N CH LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No.
50-322-OL *
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) -
, ,- ,--- X SUFFOLK COUNTY'S NOTICE OF APPEAL AWD REQUEST FOR STAY
- O Suffolk Cou'nty, pursuant to 10 CFR, 52.762, he.reby
, . , i appeals f rom an ' Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board dated June 14, 1985, authorizing issuance of a license to authorize low power testing (up to 5% of rated power),of the
, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
In view of the complexity of the issues' raised during those proceedings, Suffolk County hereby f urther requests the Appeals Board to issue a stay of the said license or, should the license be lasued, to stay its off ectiveness pending the Appeals Board review of the County's appeal of the merits of the June 14, 1985 ASLB decision. The County is especially concerned that, pending review of the
. e various matters ref erred to, the Plant not be unnecessarily ,
irradiated or contaminated bf radiation.
0 9
0 9 m
'6 , i.
,u - i
=
l
~
R;FFOLK COUNTY' S MOTION FOR STAY OF LOW POWER LICENSE
- j
~
On June 14,198'$ , the Atomic Safety and Licensing ,
t Board issued a decision (LBP-85-18) in which it authorised i
~
l l'ssuance of a license permitting operation of Shoreham at up i
to 5% of rated power. Suf f olk County has moved the Appeal Board to stay issuance of the license, or, should the license i l
be issued, to stay Lts ef f ectiveness pending Appeal Board t :
review of the County's appeal of the merits of the June 14, j 1985 ASLB decision.
l l The County has been unable to find out f rom the IRC i
when it intends to issue a 11 cense to LILCO, or when the terms '
, r 4 of a license will permit LILCO to begin operation above 0.0018 [
of power (which was authorised by the license issued on Decembe r 7,198 4) . Accordingly, the County files this motio,n at this time, since
[
l (1) The June 14,"1985 ASLB order was, by i ts' f
terms, immediately ef fective; [
( 2) The NRC provided no delay in the issuance of a I i
license or pemission to operate to permit Intervenors to seek ;
i i
expedited judicial review; (3) According to counsel to the Appeal Board, the NRC staf f will provide to the Appeal Board only three hours !
prior notice of the ntaf f's intent to issue a license, which j is insufficient time to seek both administrative and judicial stays; !
, l l
i t
r -
s
~
l .
( 4) The County must seek admin strative rollef, if
. at all - possible; (5) The County must assume that LILCO will be ,
prepared to begin operations immodiately upon issuance of a licenso. Since the County is operating without access to the facts known only to the NRC and LILoo concerning the actual' '
l timing of license issuance and 'commencoment of operations, the County must assume that the licenso could be issued imminently and that LILCO could begin operations immediately thereaf ter.
We demonstrate below that the requirements f or j granting a stay are satisfied. -
I. PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS The licenso should be stayed pending review by tho l Appeal Board of the administrativo appon1 which the County intends to filo with respect to the substanco of the Juno"14, 1985 ASLB Partial Initial Decision. Timo and space constraints do not permit us to enumerato in detail horo the specifics of the innues to be appealod; however, in summary, they involvo serious substantivo and procedural violations resulting f rom the Board's handling of the Trannamorica Delaval, Inc. ("TDI") diosol litigation.
Major errors of .the Bronnor Board included, intor alia, the following:
(1) the Board arroneously interproted tho l requi,rements of GDC 17 and arbitrarily excluded evidenco 4
l ;
i i
prof erred by the County which would have demonstrated that GDC 17 requires a maximum permitted omorgoney diesel generator load high enough to absorb loads above the maximum cmergoney servico load added by possiblo operator errors; (2) the Board erroneously applied the single failure critorion of GDC 17 to permit the use of inadequately sized omergoney diosol gonorators.
II. Tile COUNTY WILL SUFFER IRREPARADLE INJURY IF THE STAY IS DENIED The irroparablo injury standard is natisfied hora.
First, if the atay is not granted, the ponding County appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals will bo of fectively mooted by commencomont of Phano III/IV tonting prior to a decision on the marits of tho appeal. Seo NRC Staf f Rosponso to Petitions for Roview of ALAB-800 (March 18,1985) at 8 ("the staff fails to aco how inauanca of a liconno could do anything other than moot tho vary innuo involved (in the appeall") . Clearly, any judicial docinion roverning tho NRC can have no meaningful offect unloan a stay la granted, becauno an irreversible chango in the status quo will havo occurrod.1 Indood, the A The position of Suf folk County, as represented to the NRC by the Suf folk County Attorney, in to the offect that the County'n objections to the innuanco of a low power 11conso on tho 'banic of NEPA havo boon withdrawn. Howevor, this modification of the County's former position in boing challonged in the Appo11ato Divinion of the Supremo Court of
! the Stato of Now York, Socond Dopartmont, in an expedi ted
! appoal. Thoroforo, in the ovont that the County's prosant i ponition in datormined to bo unlawful, tho innuo of the NEPA l objectionn may still bo maintained.
l i
1 Phase III/IV testing may be entirely completed prior to review on the merits unless a stay is granted. The po or.tial mooting of an appeal constitutos irreparable harm justifying a l stay.2 III. T!!E GRANT OF A STAY WILL NOT !! ARM LILCO A stay could harm LILCO only if it af fected the timing of Shoreham's f ull power ascension (assumir.g, arguendo,
! that a full power liconse oventually in issuod) . Such is not i
possible here. The grant of a stay cannot result in any delay of the plant's ultimato operation, sinco such operation could only tako place in the f uturo.3 i d sc r ippn-ilowa rd , Inc. v. FCC, 316 U. S. 4 (1942) ; _2enith Radio corp. v. United statos, 710 P.2d 806 (Pod. Cir.1983) ;
Public U tilition conm. v. Capital .Tranni t Co. , 214 P. 2d 242 (D.C. Ci r. 195 4) ; Townnhip of Loower Allowayn Creek v. NRC, 481 F. Supp. 4 4 3 ( D. N.J . 1979). Soo also, Long Island Lighting _co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Uni t 1), ALAB Memorandum and O rder, clip op. (May 24, 1984) a t 7-8 ( F EM A f rroparably hanned if appeal mooted by donial of stay) .
j 3The following eventa/docinions must occur, and all must bo
, resolved in LILOO's favor, beforo a f ull power licenso can bo insuod a revornal of the April 17 ASLB Emorgoney Planning pID (the Appeal Board argument on tho legal authority insuos is scheduled f or August 12, 1985); a reversal of the Now York Supremo Court's rob. 20, 1985 decision. ~In addition, and only a f tor the occurrenco of thono ovonto, tho following are also prorortuloiton to issuanco of a full power liconnot the conduct of an omorgoney planning oxorcino (it normally taken 120 days for FINA to preparo for an oxorcino onco scheduled, and savoral months to prepara and submit findings to the URC); a hearing rogarding tho adequacy /outcomo of tho exerciso, annuming an oxorcino in hold; a dociolon on the exorciso ,
litigation; and a 30-day immediato of f ectivanons roview. ,
e Furthermoro, other alleged " harms" which in the past have boon allegod by LILCO cannot support a denial of the stay.4 Fi rst , as the NRC Staf f stated in rejecting LILCO's arguments on this matter:
LILCO also included an af fidavit f rom John Leonard explaining how delay would prejudico LILCO. Much of this prejudice flows f rom the delay in proceeding to Phases III and IV af ter having completed testing at Phases I and II. If this affidavit is being offered to justify reauthorization of the license, the short answer is found in the Commission's Order of November 21, 198 4 ( CLI-8 4-21 )
authorizing issuance of a license for Phases I and II. The commission there indicated that issuance of a license for Phases I and II was without prejudice to any later decisions. (O rde r a t . 6 ) . In proceeding with operation at Phases I and II, LILCO proceeded at its own risk that later licenses might not issue.
Response to Petitions for Review of ALAB-800 (March 18,1985) a t 8, n. 5. Thus, it was LILCO's decision to risk the incurronce of such costs, and they cannot be asserted as 9 see, o.g. , Af fidavit of John D. Leona rd, J r. , filed with LILCO's Petition for Review of ALAB-800 (March 4,1985) .
- o. j "oquities" to support a donial of a stay.5 l IV. TI!E PUBLIC INTEREST FAVORS ISSU ANCE OF A STAY Fi rst , the public interest does not favor a rush to contaminato Shoreham and moot the parties' appeal rights in the face of serious legal issues.
Second, the public interest requires, at a bare r minimum, maintenance. of the status quo. The NRC 's own practico requires that in considoring whore the public
. intorest lios, gron', wnicht should bo given to the view of the County, which reprosonts the poople and the public's intarost.6 Thoro is no concolvable public interest in (
l i
DNot only did LILCO choose to risk the del' yaor non-issuance !
j of a Phasa III/IV license, but the alleged " costs" of delay --
t e.g. , nood to purchase now neutron sources, and loss of ;
personnel -- have already boon incurred and were solely the .
result of the Appeal Board's vacation of the February 12 l liconse authorization. Therefore, such " costs" cannot bc I attributed to a stay, nor can they be considered as equities ,
weighing against the grant of a stay. In addition, as noted I
- in the Affidavit of Dale G. Bridonbaugh and Gregory C. Minor, i dated March 15, 1985, a copy of which is annexed hereto and !
markod " Exhibit A", which was attached to the Buf folk County Hosponse to LILC0's Potition for Hoview of ALAB-800 (March 18, 1985), the costs alleged by LILCO are substantially overstated. . l 1 I l 6 Sne Hospondent U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Opposition to Mmorgoney Motion for Stay, November 10, 1983, at l l 3 4, filed in San Luis obispo Mothars for Pesca v. NRC, 751 '
i F. 2d 12 87 ( D . C. ci r. 198 4) . l i
! l I
e,
[ permitting the f urther contamination of the plant at this juncture. The application of the " great weight" rule
.s requi res, at a minimum, the maintenance of the status quo for the period necessary to allow the merits of the County's
.s appeal to be decided.
~
CONCLU SION This Board should stay the issuance of a license in
. order to permit the., Court of Appeals to act upon the Notice of
-- Appeal filed by the County on June 17, 1985. Shoreham low power testing is not on any " critical path" toward any later operation of the plant. Therefore, there is no justification
, for this Board to ref use to stay the license so that the normal Court of Appeals briefing schedule for moticns can be followed. By staying the license, the NRC will allow caref ul judicial consideration of the views of all parties. There is
~
no public benefit to be gained f rom, nor is it seemly for the NRC to' be, preventing the Court f rom having the tbne period it t
customarily requires for such consideration.
, j -
Respectf ully submitted, 1
' MARTIN BRADLEY ASHARE Suffolk County Attorney
- ^
H. Lee Dennison Building
'^l , Veterans Memorial Highway
~s, Hauppauge, New York 11788
, , ,, ( 51'6 ) 360-4066 n ,
By:
@ UAl \- l#
Eugene R Kelley Ng Chief De June 18,1985 4 2ty County Att[or a'r l
O
f EXHIBIT "A"
l 3v
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICl.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Aeoeal Board In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(shoreham Nuclear Power Station, '
)
Unit 1) )
)
AFFIDAVIT OF DALE G. BRIDCNBAUGH AND GREGORY C. MINOR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR STAY
- 1. My name is Dale G. Bridenbaugh. I am president of MHB Technical Associates ("MMB"), a technical consulting firm specializing in nuclear power plant safety and licensing mat-ters, located at 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K, San Jose, California 95125. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engineering from South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in 1953 and am a licensed professional nuclear engi-neer. I have more than 30 years experience in the e'ngineering field, primarily in power plant analysis, construction, mainte-nance and operations. Since 1976, I have been employed by MHB and have acted as a consultant to domestic and foreign govern-ment agencies and other groups on nuclear power plant safety
s I1l)2" and licensing matters. Between 1966 and 1976, I was employed by the Nuclear Energy Division of General Electric Company
( "GE " ) in various managerial capacities relating to the sale, service and product improvement of nuclear power reactors manufactured by that company. Between 1955 and 1956, I was employed in various engineering capacities working with gas and steam turbines for GE. Included in my duties at GE was super-vision of startup testing of equipment in fifteen to twenty fossil or nuclear power plants. I also was responsible for various nuclear fuel projects ranging from the remote disassembly of irradiated, fuel to the supply of reload fuel for operating nuclear plants. I have written numerous technical l papers and articles on the subject of nuclear power equipment and nuclear power plant safety and have given testimony on those subjects.
- 2. My name is Gregory C. Minor. I am vice president of M MB . My education background is in electrical engineering j (with a power systems option) in Which I received Bachelor of Science (University of California, Berkeley, 1960) and Macter I
of Science (Stanford, 1966 ) degrees. I have over 24 years of experience in the nuclear industry, including design and testing of systems for use in nuclear power plants. Since 1976, I have been employed by MH3 and have acted as a f
. ~ , .-.-..-------nn,n- , _ , - - _ _ . - - , - - , , , , -
consultant to domestic and forcign government agencies and other groups on nuclear power plant safety and licensing mat-ters. Between 1965 and 1976, I was empicyed by the GE Nuclear Energy Division as a design engineer and manager of engineering design organizations. My responsibilities included the design, testing, qualification and pre-operation testing of safety equipment and control rooms for use in nuclear power plants.
While with GE, I participated in the pre-startup tecting of the instrumentation and control systems for a nuclear test reactor and in numerous system tests.
- 3. Our experience with the Shoreham plant started when we were employed by GE. At that time we woro involved with the design of reactor system components for Shoreham and imple-hentaticn and resolution of problems related to that design.
After leaving GE, we have been involved with the Shoreham case on a virtually continuous basin since 1977, when we were origi-nally retained as consultante to Suffolk County. As consul-tanto on the Shorehar. plant, we have performed diverse casign-ments, focusing primarily on technical reviews and analysis of safety and cost issues. Over the courso of the Shoreham pro-ceedings, we have visited the picnt on numerous occasions and have testified on diverc. issues before t'he NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board and the State of New York Public Service Commission.
z ),
- 4. This Affidavit is to explain the technical reasons why low power testing to 5 percent power at Shorehcm is of lit-tle value and, in fact, incurs coveral irreversiblo losces while producing no electrical power.
TIMING _OF LOW POWER OPERATI_ON
- 5. Every nuclear plant needs to have fuel loaded and sys-tems tested before it is permitted to operate at power levele where the turbino can be turned and electric power generated.
In general, most of the testing is performed at power levels of 5 percent power or loss t if the testing is completed satisfac-torily and other requirements are catisfied, then the plant is permitted to operate at higher power levels at which sufficient steam may be generated to allow production of electricity.
- 6. The NRC action to permit Shoreham low power operation at this time represente a deviation from the practic5 at most other plants. Where nuclear plants are granted an operating license as a result of a single licensing action, fuel loading and low power test activitine are then performed and integrated with the approach ( " ascension") to full power. Where plants have first boon granted a low power licence no as to cenplete the fuel leading and low power testing by the time the full power licence is incued, usually the lov power testing and the full power licer.eing are relatively close together in time.1/
1/ Of 15 plants licenood for low power operation betwocn March 1979 and June 1984, and also receiving a full power (Footnoto cont' d nont page)
4
' ' 'j 17 e
- 7. In the case of shoreham, the low power license has
- been requected in not one, but four separate phases
- Phase I is fuel loading and no criticality (i.e. irradiation of the ,
i fuel) is achieved; Phase-II is cold criticality testing Vheroin extremely icw levels of criticality ( .001% power) are achieved
- for a very short period of timer Phase III is initial heatup and operation at up to 1% of full powerr and Phase IV ic low power testing and subsequent heatups involving operation at up
- to 5% of full power. LILCO obtained on December 7, 1984 a li-cense for Phases I and II only. LILCO completed its fuel load-
! ing on Janpary 19, 1935; it began cold criticality testing on February 15, 1985 and completed it roughly 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> later, on 1
- February 17, 1985.
IRRSVERSIBLE CRANGES IN STATUS 000 RESULTING FROM LOW POWER OPERATION
- 3. Before a reactor " goon critical" as it does for the i
first time during low power testing, neither the nuclear fuel <
4 h
(Footnote cont' d from previous page) license, the average time between the . low power and full power licences was less than 5 nonths. The average time from initial criticality -- which Shoreham achieved in February, 1985 -- to award of the full power license is only 1/2 month ( excluding Grand Gulf which was indefi-nitely celayed). Attachment to Letter from NRC Chairman Palladino to Con?ressman Edward Markey, June 15, 1984.
i 5
_ m,---- . . .- _ - - , - - , - -~~,,-,-,-----.__----,---.--.__,_._-._.m . - - - - . , -- .
~
7.10?
i' nor the reactor or its components, are irradiated or contaminated by radiation. Low power tonting, however, noces-sarily cauces irreversible changes to a nucicar reactor and its nupporting systems.
- 9. There is necessarily significant irradiation of the nuclear fuel as a result of icw power testing. This irradiation results in the build-up of quantities of fission producto within the fuel which requires that the fuol subec~
quently be handlod, trancported, and treated as irradiated fuel.
Once these fission products have been produced, they cannot be removed frem the fuel by any usual meano. Thus, the irradiation from low power testing is irreversible. During low power testing other ecmponente of tho Shorchem plant would also be irrevoreibl3 irradiated. Thece include the 127 control rode and control rod drives, the 31 local power range monitors, a number of cource and intermediate range neutron monitors, and other reactor components, equipment, and piping. Once contami-nated by substantial quantition of radicactive fission prod-ucts, special care would do required in handling these items.
10.
Eccauce of the unavoidabic irradiation and contamina-tion described above, the conduct of low power testing of no-censity requires some worker exposure to harmful radiation J
I L'y 3y during the course of the testing as well ao after the tecting is completed. The amount of exposure may not be large and un-less errors were made, probably would not exceed allowable lim-its. However, it is an additional unavoidable impact which re-suits from lov power testing. .
- 11. During Phases I and II of LILCO's low power testing program for Shoreham, a small amount of irradiation of the fuel and contamination of reactor internals and ccmponents occurred.
However, the amounts of irradiation and contamination that are involved in Phases III and IV of LILCO's low power testing pro-
~
gram are greater by many orders of magnitude. LILCO' e cold criticality (Phase II) testing in February, 1985 involved crit-icality, at 0.001 percent of power, for roughly 36 houre. The amount of fuel irradiation am' resulting contamination from Phase II is innignificant when compared to that which would occur during operation at S t power for roughly two months as contemplated by LILCO's low power tacting program.1/ The fuel
-2/ In fact, LILCO har predicted that the amount of time it would operate Shoreham at 5% power could be much greater than that necocacry to complete its low power tacts. In its Startup Test Program Cvaluation for a 5 t Reactor Power Limitation (at 4), LILCO ctated: "if a delay in receipt of a full power licence well beyond the two months (of low power testing) is anticipated, frequent operation at 5 %
reactor power will be necessary to reactivate etartup sources."
- 'I"h $Y i.
i irradiation, measured in megawatt days per ton of fuel, was 0.00036 MWDT/ Ton from the February 1985 Phase II criticality; j
it would be over 70 MWDT/ Ton, assuming only 60 days of 5% i i
j operation . Furthermore, the radiation levels resulting from 4
l ,
the brief criticality in February for Phase II, at this time i would be even lower than that stated above following initial criticality, since the minimal fission products produced have already had approximately four months to decay. Even if addi-tional criticalities, subsequent to that performed in February,
- were performed within the Phase II low power license limits of
.001% power, the performance of Phases III and IV testing at shoreham would nonetheless result in a substantial and irre-versible change in the status quo.
1
! - 12. In addition, in its non-irr'adiated condition, the fuel loaded into the Shoreham core probably had a recovery (or salvage) value nearly equal to the original purchase value (about $65 million) for that fuel. This fuel, if not irradi-ated, likely could have been sold to other nuclear plants to use as is, or, if necessary, to have it reconfigured for a dif-ferent reactor. (For example, some bundles might have required manual disassembly and rod rearrangement or reconfiguration of the peilets for the necessary pattern of. enrichment.) The fuel i
! still probably has a salvage value even after the light
e irradiation involved in Phases I and II. However, once the fuel is substantially irradiated and there is a substantial build-up of fission products as would occur during Phases III and IV, it makes fuel reconfiguration, and therefore most opportunities for reuse of the fuel, more complicated and costly and therefore far less likely to be implemented. -
According to LILCo, the cost to LILCO of the shoreham fuel is
$63 million. Thus, we believe that positive salvage value could be realized from the fuel in its post-Phase II condition (although not as much as if the fuel were not irradiated at all). There would be no such value if the fuel were used for testing up to 5 4 power.
- 13. Phases III and IV would also result in the loss of potential salvage value for other plant components that would be substantially irradiated (i.e., control rods, control rod drives, local power range, source, and intennediate range neutron monitors). We estimate the replacement value of these components to be at least $2 - 6 million. These components are virtually identical in all BWRs and are periodically replaced.
Thus, a resale market for them should exist unless they are heavily irradiated. The NRC Staff appears to agree with our opinion. (See Af fidavit of Edward G.
Goodwin, dated February 20, 1985, filed by the NRC in U.S. Court of Appeals, at 10) .
.g.
' -)Y Although as a result of the minimal Phase II criticality, these components have been irradiated to a minor extent, the radia-tion levels now present would not, in our opinion, preclude al-together their transfer and installation in other reactors , al-though it would be more difficult and complicated than if they were not irradiated at all. Additional irradiation during Phases III and IV, however, would reduce their marketability to practically nothing.
14.
Additional costs resulting from a decision to perform low power testing are the costs of defueling, decontaminating, decommissioning, and disposal of the fuel as well as portions of the primary reactor system following a low power testing pe-
. riod in the event that a full power license is not obtained. '
The cost of necessary removal / disposal / decontamination efforts could be tens of millions of dollars, depending on the specific disposal requirements.
Such efforts also carry with them the 4
potential for additional worker radiation exposure. The irra-diated fuel must be disposed of as high level radioactive waste. 'he T U.S.
Department of Energy has published expected costs for the receipt and ultimate disposal of irradiated fuel.
The costs are currently being collected at a rate of $.001/ kwhr of generation for fuel exposed now to be disposed of by DOE in the future.
For fuel with a design exposure of 15,000 MWD
h
. (t)/ ton this cost is equivalent to approximately _ 5120,000 per ton. The potential cost for disposal by DOE of the 100+ tons at Shoreham is therefore approximately $12,000,000, not counting transportation or possible cost increases. In addi-tion, no disposal facility is planned or expected before about the year 2000, some 15 years in the future. LILCO would there-fore be required to store and safeguard the spent fuel- on site until that time. Assaming an operations and security staff of at least 10-15 people for this chore, an annual cost of
$500,000 to $1,000,000 is not unreasonable and is probably low.
The cost of spent fuel disposti alone thus becomes a $20 to 30 million obligation. Reactor component removal, handling and disposal would be additionally required.
TESTING IN PHASES III AND IV IS VERY LIMITED
! 15. Although according to LILCO 54 systems will be "in service, operated and tested" during Phases III and IV testing, 41 of those systems are already operational and have been checked out as part of Phase I and Phase II testing. Thus, in i
theory Phases III and IV provide the opportunity to check out only 13 additional systems. However, not even that 'many sys-tems can be thoroughly or properly checked during Phases. III I .
and IV. The main turbine would not be operated during Phases i
4 .
~
i
III and IV. Mr. Gunther, a LILCO employee, stated under oath that LILCO did not intend to try to operate the main turbine i during its Phase III and IV testing. Tr. 776, 780; SCLP Ex. 2.
And, even if LILCo did intend to operate the turbine, it is highly unlikely that the main turbine could be operated during Phases III and IV. According to LILCO's Vice President-Nuclear, John D. Leonard, Jr.:
i when you bring steam down the pipes at five percent, you can test every component of i'
that plant except the main turbine. . . .
It's conceivable we are going to look very, very carefully to see if we could possibly spin the turbine'. I don' t think we can with that small amount of steam. I don' t think we can overcome its inertia.
Transcript of Feb. 8, 1985 Oral Argument to the NRC, at 89. And, in an internal evaluation of 54 power tests, LILCO stated: .
Certain tests in the Low Power Testing phase, such as turbine roll and HPCI, are normally performed at about 20% CTP [ Core Thermal Power). . . .
The modified schedule moves tests requiring nuclear steam flow to the end of 5%
testing. These tests (main turbine roll, i HPCI fine tuning, heatup of related piping, ,
etc.) are ordinarily conducted prior to '
TC-1, but with the system at about 10-15%
reactor power. Stable operation of tne nu- ,
clear plant at 54 power may be difficult '
and has not been demonstrated during operation of other BWR plants.
1 1
' 1R'131 "A Startup Test Program Evaluation for a 51 Reactor Power Limi -
tation," SR2-K71-3 93, Oct. 25, 1983, at p.2. Therefore, the Turbine Generator and the turbine control portion of the EHC systems could not be operated in Phases III and IV. In addi- '
tion, the support systems, consisting of the Turbine Lube oil System, Generator Seal Oil Systems, and Steam Seal System ,
i I
could not be completely or finally checked out until the tur- \
bine generator is actually run.
Thus, only 8 additional sys-tems could be checked out during Phase III and IV testing .
16.
In addition, there are several tests which cannot be properly or completely performed at low power levels (54 or less). These include:
- APRM/IRM calibration at overlap point Set APRM trip reference point at 55%
APRM calibration (inaccurate ,at very low readings higher pow andlevels) would have to be repeated at
. Turbine roll and balance ~ at 1800 RPM Generator exciter test
. Moisture separator-reheater (dynamic test) and drains Extraction steam dynamic test)
Local power range (monitor calibration Although there are non-standard methods available to permit partial performance of some of these tests and partial testing of some other systems at 54 power, the te,sts would have to be substantially repeated at higher power levels.
13 -
1 1--- --w _--- ap.- , - , _ - - . ,. y ,., ,. - . ,my,, - ,,_yy.,, ,.,m__. -..-.,_y..,__y - , ,.mm. .-,--p - -
..w-.-a
o i
?
- 17. Considering that Phases III and IV would only add a j . few systems to those already checked out, and that other sys-tens require higher power levels for testing, there is rela-tively little benefit to be gained by pursuing Phase III and IV operation for the sole purpose of system testing. Furthermore, j many of the tests in Phases III and IV are one time tests.
That is, they must be done at some point prior to higher levels of operation but exactlysWhen they are performed is not partic-ularly important. However, some of the tests which involve the calibration of two systems at their point of overlap would need i
to be performed again if the approach' to full power were sub-
- stantially delayed (assuming that at some point a full power license were authorized). Accordingly, while it is difficult to be precise, it appears likely that at least s'ome of the pro-
. posed Phase III/IV activities would have to be repeated after a ,
full powar license were authorized .if" the Phase III/IV activi-ties were conducted soon and then followed by a delay prior to full power operation.
s a
l 4
j l 1
O 3y
, .~
s THERE IS NO PURPOSE SERVED, AND NO BENEFITS PRODUCED, BY LOW POWER TESTING TO OUTWEIGH THE ADVERSE AND IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES IN THE STATUS 000 __ _
- 18. The essential purpose of a low power license is to test reactor systems which cannot be effectively tested in 1
non-critical conditions. It is necessary to conduct such I testing prior to operating the plant at higher power levels (i.e. , greater than $ 4 power) . However, during Phase III and IV testing, the Shoreham reactor would never be put in the "run" mode. Therefore there would be no electric power supplied to the grid as a result of the testing, and there would be no displaced oil or fuel cost savings. Instead, power ,
from the grid would be required o run the plant during the tests. Thus, none of the benefits assumed in the NRC's 1977 EIS for shoreham would be achieved by low power testing howev-er, as noted, low power operation would result in environmental impacts, such as plant contamination with radioactive material, the likely loss of the resale value of the fuel and other com-ponents once they become irradiated, the cost of decontamination, decommissioning and disposal, and worker expo-sure.
- 19. Because law power testing standing alone produces no benefits but does have serious , adverse effects, it is our
v h$lf opinion that there is no reason to conduct low power testing just for its sake alone. R ther, low power testing can be ra-tionally justified only in circumstances where there is no sub-stantial doubt that the plant subsequently will operate at higher power levels so that its benefits (i.e. , generation of electricity) will be available to offset the adverse effects.
( fuel irradiation, radioactive contamination, potential worker exposure) which cannot be avoided. In our technical opinion, the optimum time for performing low power testing of any nucle-ar reactor is shortly before full power operatien is reliably anticipated to begin. -
1 DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH GREGORY C. MINOR Subscribed and sworn to before me on this day of _ , 1985.
NOTARY PUBLIC My Commission expires -
- la -
9 0
6
- l June 18, 1985 DOCKETEP CERTIFICATE OF SER VI CE
%5 JUN 21 N0 42 In the Matter of LONG I SL AND LIGH TI NG COM PANY [gf r3R A T NG & vt I~
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) BRANCH Docket No. 50-322-OL I hereby certify that a Notice of Appeal and Request for Stay on behalf of Suf folk County, dated June 18,1 85, has been served on the f ollowing by first class mail, postage prepaid.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chai rman Gary J. Edles, Esq.
M r. Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Tower, North Tower 4350 East-West Highway B e th esda , MD 20814 Fabian G. Palomino, E sq. Donna Duer, Esq .
Special Counsel to the Governor Atomic Safety and Licensing Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Board Pan'el State Capitol U. S. Nuclear Regulatory .Comm.
Albany, New York 12224 East-We st Tower, North Tower 4350 East-West Highway Ma ry Gundrum, Esq. Bethesda, MD 20814 Assistant Attorney General 2 World Trade Center Room 4614 James B. Dougherty, Esq.
New York, New York 10047 30 45 Porter Street Washington, D. C. 20008 Stewart M. Glass, E sq .
Regional Counsel Jay Dunkleberger, Esq.
Federal Energency New York State Energy Office Management Agency . Agency Building 2 26 Federal Plaza, Rm. 1349 Empire State Building New York, New York 10278 Alba ny , New York 12223 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Esgs.
1900 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
T t
, I II Stephen B. Latham, E sq . Mr. . Martin Shubert John F. Sh ea , Esq . c/o Congressman William Carney Twomey, Latham & Shea 1113 Longworth House Office 33 West Second Street Building P. O. Box 398 Washington, D. C. 20515 Riverhead, New York 11901 Docketing and Service Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Branch ( 3)
Oreste Russ Pirf o, Esq. Ofice of the Secretary Edwin J. Reis, E sq . U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 7735 Old Georgetown Road
( to mailroom) Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Bethesda, Maryland 20 814 Cammer and Shapiro, P. C.
9 East 40 th Street Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board New York, New York 10016 Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Robert E. Smi th, Esq.
Rosenman Colin Freund Lewis Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. & Cohen New York State Department of 575 Madison Avenue ,
Public Service, Staff Counsel New York, New York 10022 Three Rockefeller Plaza Al bany , New York 12223 Robert G. Perlis, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulato ry Comm.
Spence W. Pe rry, E sq . 7735 Old Georgetown Road Associated General Counsel Maryland National Bank Bldg.
Federal Dnergency Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Management Agency 5 00 C Street, , S. W. Hunton & Williams Room 840 707 East Main Street Washington, D. C. 20472 Richmond, Vi rgi nia . 23219 MARTIN BRADLEY ASHARE Suf folk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Ha uppauge, New York 11788 (51 360-4066 s/ I[
By: . @( '
EUGENE R!. KELLEY Chief De'puty County Attor ey Sworn to before me this 18th day of June, 1985 w avs D >>>/
] **P * ,o Tsim G esres,y g ,p [ ;,, g ,