ML19320B102
| ML19320B102 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1980 |
| From: | Earley A, Reveley W, Revely W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007090306 | |
| Download: ML19320B102 (9) | |
Text
_
6/17/80 K
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
~
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO THE SOC / STAFF STIPULATION OF JUNE 6 The question is whether the following SOC contentions have been adequately particularized:
2(vii), 7 (a) (ii), 8, 10, 11 and 12.
We comment on each in turn.
SOC CONTENTION 2(vii)
The Applicant supports the division of this claim into SOC Contentions 1 and 2.
SOC Contention 1 We agree that this claim is adequately particularized, with one notable exception.
The words "such as" in both parts of the contention should be struck.
Words of this sort -- "such as," "not limited to," "for example," "for instance," "etc. " --
are open-ended.
Their use invites subsequent disagreement about the scope of the contention and, more important, makes difficult the preparation of sufficiently comprehensive testimony.
- Thus, Q509 8007090 M 60/
G
. it is reasonable to require 500 to specify all of the " local conditions" that it now has in mind, subject to later amendment if good cause can be shown for the change.
Indicatively, the Board in this proceeding has previously struck such open-ended.,
language from proposed contentions.
See Transcript at 63-64 (Oct. 11, 1977 prehearing conference) (concerning the words "not limited to" and "etc.").
SOC Contention 2 It appears to be adequately particularized.
SOC CONTENTION 7(a)(ii)
This multipart claim has a long preamble followed by four allegations of " failure," numbered (1) to (4).
Adequate partic-ularization is missing for the following reasons.
1.
At the outset, it is not clear whether the only opera-tive parts of the claim -- that is, the parts that must ultimate-ly be addressed by testimony -- are the four numbered allegations.
2.
If that is not the case and the preamble is meant to be operative, it is not clear what precise issue (s) the preamble poses.
3.
Allegations numbered (1) to (4) total'ly fail to identify the " issues" or " items" as to which " failure" has allegedly occurred, other than to relate them generally to "the accident at TMI" or to "the TMI Action Plan."
Literally hundreds of
" issues" and " items" can be so related.
If the claim is to be
9 '
understood, it is essential that SOC indicate which of these hundreds of questions it has in mind.
Until SOC has actually reviewed NUREG-0660 and decided which " issues" and " items" are really in question, contention 7(a)(11) will not be particular-..
ized at all, much less adequately particularized.
In addition to this fundamental difficulty, there remain several other prob-lems with the numbered allegations.
4.
To come within the ambit of the Shoreham proceeding, the first of SOC's numbered allegations needs a phrase such as "and relevant to Shoreham" added after its existing phrase
" technical issues raised by the accident at TMI."
As presently drafted, the allegation covers all TMI issues, including those that bear only on PWR's of B&W design, for instance.
The fourth of SOC's numbered contentions has a similar deficiency, which requires a sr ilar remedy.
5.
It is not clear how the second and third numbered alle-gations differ from one another.
What is the difference between "to resolve" and "to implement in a timely fashion"?
Is it simply the word "ttmely"?
Is it an attempt to assign one mean-ing to " resolve" and another to " implement"?
If so, what are the different meanings?
Absent answers to thpse questions, it would be very difficult to prepare responsive testimony.
SOC CONTENTION 8 Although this claim appears to be adequately particularized, SOC has tied it to TMI by only a terse, general reference.
It
. does not seem that this reference adequately meets the Board's directive in its March 5, 1980 Order:
It appears to us that SOC is here contend-ing that the Shoreham reactor will not be equip-ped to permit direct measurement of the temper-ature of fuel rods in the core and that this
~ '
fact poses a threat to the public health and safety.
Staff believes that this contention plows old ground, inasmuch as General Design Criteria 13 and IEEE 279 5 4.8 have existed for many years.
(Staff Answer at 21).
We believe, however, that the contention might be litigable if properly related to the TMI-2 accident and adequately particularized.
Id. at 16.
In our judgment SOC continues "to plow old ground" in conten-tion 8.
Issues concerning the measurement of fuel cladding temper-atures during accident conditions were afoot long before TMI.
Thus, SOC contention 8 is unjustifiably out of time.
SOC CONTENTIONS 10 AND 11 1.
Consolidation of these claims into one contention seems useful.
The consolidated claim, however, has not been adequate-ly particularized for the reasons below.
i 2.
As with SOC contention 7(a)(ii), this contention is multipart, with a long preamble.
Again as with 7(a)(ii), it is not clear whether the preamble is meant to raise any issue (s) for litigation, or whether allegations (a) to (c) are the only I
operative parts of the contention.
3.
If the preamble is meant to be operative, it is not clear what at Shoreham, as opposed to TMI, is being challenged j
1 and, thus, what issue (s) would require. responsive testimony if the preamble were admitted for litigation.
w
-w
. 4.
Allegation (a) attacks the " completeness" of a list that will be part of an extensive submission to the NRC Staff not yet made by the Applicant.
The allegation, thus, is pre-mature.
Moreover, it gives no indication of the areas in which.*
SOC thinks " completeness" to be lacking.
5.
The Board's Order of March 5, 1980, stated in pertinent part:
Petitioner has failed to adequately specify the equipment and systems of concern or to indicate how the TMI accident indicated that equipment and systems are improperly classi-fied.
Id. at 17.
SOC allegation (b) fails to meet these cri,ria.
It simply challenges "[t]he adequacy of the Applicant's qualifica-tion program, including the assessment of the effects of aging."
Thus, this allegation does not either "specify the equipment and systems of concern or.
indicate how the TMI accident in-dicated that equipment and systems are improperly classified."
Further, by use of the term " including," allegation (b) suggests that SOC means for the contention to cover more than the
" aging" issue actually referenced in it.
As noted on pages 1-2 above, such an open-ended approach is not appropriate.
6.
Allegation (c) also totally fails to respond to the Board's particularization criteria just quoted.
Moreover, the allegation relies on "the requirements of IEEE 323-1974 and i
IEE 344-1975," standards that are six and five years old re-spectively.
Claims ccncerning qualification in accordance with
these requirements could have been raised long before TMI.
They are not new.
An attempt to raise them now is unjustifi-ably out of time.
SOC CONTENTION 12 This claim appears to be adequately particularized, with two exceptions.
1.
It is not wholly clear whether the contention's phrases "further Mark II tests" and "this design feature" refer simply to "downcomer bracing."
If so, the contention is adequately particularized.
2.
If not, it is essential that SOC spell out what aspects of Mark II, other than downcomer bracing,to which it is referring.
To summarize, for the reasons stated, the Applicant believes that SOC contentions 2*/ and 8 have been adequately particular-ized, although the latter does not seem to have met the Board's requirement of a TMI link.
Absent that link, the contention is untimely.
SOC contentions 1*/ and 12 have particularization problems that could be easily remedied by the Board.
SOC contentions 7(a)(ii) and 10-11, on the other hand, are severly inadequate.
They provide no real information about the precise claims at issue.
- /
Formerly, SOC contention 2(vii).
- _ ~ _,
. The Applicant does not obj ect to SOC's receiving until August 6, 1980 to work further on particularizing its claims.
We are concerned, however, that none of SOC's contentions be admitted for t
. ation until its scope and meaning are reason-'..
ably clear.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l1lll W. TA~y1 r Reveley, II W. Taylor Reveley, III Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dated:
June 17, 1980
D In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicant's Response To The SOC / Staff Stipulction of June 6 were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on June 17, 1980.
Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq.
Jeffrey C. Cohen, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing New York State Energy Office Board Panel Swan Street Building, Core 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Albany, New York 12223 Dr. Oscar H. Paris Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Atomic Safety and Licensing New York State Energy Office Board Panel Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Frederick J. Shon Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing 217 Newbridge Road
. Board Panel Hicksville, New York 11801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
Secretary of the Commission 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D. C.
20555 David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
Appeal Board Panel County Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suffolk County Department Washington, D. C.
20555 of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Atomic Safety and Licensing Hauppauge, New York 11787 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Irving Like, Esq.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Richard C. Hand, Esq.
Reilly and Like Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
200 West Main Street l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Babylon, New York 11702 Washington, D. C.
20555 il' e
' Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith MHB Technical Associates Energy Research Group, Inc.
1723 Hamilton Avenue 400-1 Totten Pond Road ce K
)
r Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Jose, California 95125 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Schmitt 33 West Second Street j
P. O. Box 398
)
1 Riverhead, New York 11901 W.Taylbrdeveley,III Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Dated:
June 17, 1980 L.