ML19336A335

Forwards Executed NRC & Shoreham Opponents Coalition Joint Motion for Acceptance of Shoreham Opponents Coalition Contention 6ai & for Extension to Complete Particularization

ML19336A335
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/17/1980
From:	Earley A HUNTON & WILLIAMS
To:	Bowers E, Paris O, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8010220513
Download: ML19336A335 (1)

Text

-

~

HUNTON & WILLIAMS 707 Cast MAIN sTRtc? P.o. Box 1535

..c =owsa s.=n aus6on.. ' Rzenxown.VrmoIwa 20212 .... .c . 16v.

p.o.som isaac

. ..c ve. ...

o.c .com see -

w.saimot N.04.aoose

. 6sesw. women c no6ew. 37eca TC.E PM o n t 404 788 8200 aca.p:3.neso ces . ess . e a rs

'"' "'c. 24566.000003

' *o '.*ld'"v'3 0 . .'a ,,"o October 17, 1980

.....a......

...ce , o. 6 o.. o. ... 8 3 6 1 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Dr. Oscar H. Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20535 Mr. Frederick J. Shon

• Atomic Safety and Licensing G Board Panel N U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission _p Washington, D.C. 20555 , gge - 9

$ OCT20M P I In the Matter of 9'

patt etW LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY DodetM & 58 8 8 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) #

Docket No. 50-322 4 yggs -

Dear Members of the Board:

On October 6, 1980, counsel for the Shoreham Opponents Coalition sent you a copy of a " Joint Motion for Acceptance of SOC Contention 6(a)(1) and for Extension to Complete Particulari-cation." The motion was signed by Mr. Latham with the verbal concurrence of counsel for the NRC Staff and LILCO. As promised in Mr. Latham's letter, enclosed is a fully signed copy of the above motion.

Sincerely, fj f

jR A t ony F ma h y, Jr.

221/691 g93 Enclosure 3 cc: Other Parties j/

ca. .. ',[. ,

• ..m:22fC&.

80102205/3-G

(

c.

_.. 1 V y

m-

~ w

' g

~

.. ') L JOINT MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF SOC CONTENTION 6.a. (i)

AND il

\.'

FOR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE PARTICULARIZATION !J

?. it on August 5, 1980, the above parties advised the  !,

Board that substantial progress had been made regarding f

the particularization of two SOC contentions originally Since the last stipula-submitted on January 23, 1980.*

l tion submitted to the Board, the parties have agreed on and have ,

an acceptably particularized Contention 6 (a) (i) ,

made substantial progress in narrowing the issues identi-In order to pursue fled in SOC's original Contention 19.

the informal discovery that has begun on Contention 19 and hopefully to reach agreement on an acceptably particularized Contention 19, the parties hereby request an additional 60 days for particularization.

Enclosed as attachment A is " Revised SOC Contention 6 (a) (i)", which the parties hereby submit for acceptance by the Board. The Applicant has expressed concern that l SOC intends to litigate the individual allegations ide'nti-fied in the NRC I & E report 50-322/79-24 and thus Appli-cant's agreement to submit Contention 6 (a) (i) is conditioned as follows:

It is the Applicant's understanding that SOC does not intend to litigate the " allegations" cited in support of its QA contentions except as the " allegations" are relevant to the The Applicant

(

merits of the QA contentions.

• Contentions 6 (a) (i) and 19 contained in SOC's petition for Intervention.

O

doea not chara SOC'c vicw that all of the

" refersnced "allcgntions" do, in fact, baar on the merits of these contentions, and the Applicant reserves the right to argue later

,that some of the " allegations" are irrelevant to any matter at issue in this proceeding.

SOC concurs with Applicant that it is not the individual allegations themselves which are the focus of the conten-tion but rather the contention's prefatory language and the specific issues identified in subparagraphs A-G.

Regarding Contention 19, the parties have held two meetings, in Riverhead, N.Y. and Bethesda, Md., during. J which the status of the Shoreham plant with respect to the latest revisions to Regulatory Guides 1.1-1.145 has been reviewed. The parties believe that this review has already' greatly narrowed the areas of concern to SOC by identifying l

the numerous Regulatory Guides which are either: not appli- )

l cable to Shoreham; already met by the Applicant; or covered by anoth'er SOC contention.

Of the 145 Regulatory Guides revi.ewed, the parties I

agree that 82 fall into one of the above three categories and thus are not of further concern at this time. An additional 38 Regulatory Guides are believed to be of no concern to SOC's consultants (MHB Technical Associates) subject to confirication by SOC's consultants of the repre-sentations of compliance made by the Applicant and NRC Staff. Thus, the initial meetings on Contention 19 have led to apparent agreement among SOC, Applicant and NRC l

l Staff that the standards and goals contained in 120 of the 145 Regulatory Guides have been met at Shoreham.

l

'm

w

s Where appropriate, the Applicant and/or Staff have agreed te provide further documentation in an effort to resolve SOC's concerns on the remaining Regulatory Guides.

In some areas, SOC's consultants are reviewing designated sections of the Shoreham FSAR in order to further specify~

SOC's concerns. During the week of September 29th, a representative of MHB met with Staff in Bethesda to review additional data on the remaining 25 Regulatory Guides.

Additional time is required to allow the parties to assemble and review the data relevant to the remaining 25 Regulatory Guides. The parties anticipate that one or ..

more additional meetingc will be necessary to determine if SOC's concerns on any additional Regulatory Guides can be satisfied and to attempt to agree on an acceptable conten-tion for any Regulatory Guides which remain at issue. _.

Accordingly, the parties request an additional 60 days to pursue this informal discovery and particularization process.

TWOMEY, LATHAM & SCHMITT HUNTON & WILLIAMS Attorneys for the Shoreham Attorneys for Long Island l Opponents Coalition Lighting Company I by -

by _

g

~~

Steg/ hen B. Latham g NRC STAFF COUNSEL by M l

Bernard M. Bordenick 8*holTO Dated: October 6, 1980 I

, t. ATTACHMENT A 2 REVISED SOC CONTENTION 6 (a) (i)

6. Quality Assurance / Quality Control 7

'Intervenors contend that the Applicant has not adequately developed and implemented a quality assurance / quality control program for the design, procurement, construction and in-stallation of structures, systems, and components for the Shoreham Nuclear Station as required by 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appe'ndix B, Criteria I through XVIII, and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix A, Criterio,,n 1. Specifically, Intervenors contend that based on the review of 30 allegations of construction irregularities at the Shoreham site as described in NRC o

Investigation 50-322/79-24, an adequece level of. safety has not been achieved at the Shorehan site with regard to root causes of the irregularities as follows:

A. (Timeliness of Quality Assurance Program) Failure of the Applicant and Applicant's contractors, agents, or con-sultants to establish and execute a Quality Assurance Program at the earliest, practible time in accordance with Criteria 1 and 2 of Appendix B, as demonstrated by allega-tions 14, 20, and 21.

t.

B. (Quality Assurance Authority) Failure of the Applicant to assure that persons and organizations performing quality assurance functions have sufficient independence from cost and sc.1edule considerations, and adequate "stop work" I

author 2ty, in accordance with criterion 1 of Appendix B, as demonstrated by allegations 14, ll, and 30. j C. _(Qualification and Training) Failure of the Applicant to adequately assure that the indoctrination and training of on-site QA/QC personnel has been provided as necessary to assure that suitable proficiency is achieved and main-tained , it. accordance with Criterion 2 of Appendix B, as demonstrated by allegations 7, 17, 19, 20, 21 and 29.

D. _(Process Control) Failure of the Applicant to establish

, measures to assure that the special processes of welding, heat treating, brazing, nondestructive testing and cleaning

, are controlled and accomplished by qualified personnel using g .

qualified procedure.s in accords oce with applicable codes, standards, specifications, criteria, and other special re-quirements imposed by the Applicant, or Applicant's con-tractors, agents or consultants, in accordance with criterion 9 of Appendix B, as demonstrated by allegations 2, 10, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 29.

E. (Construction Verification) Failure of the Applicant to establish measures to control materials, parts, or components which do not conform to requirements in order to prevent their inadvertent use or installation, in accordance with Criterion 15 of Appendix B, as demonstrated by allegations 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 22, 23, 26 and 30.

F. (Corrective Action) Failure of the Applicant to establish corrective action measures to assure that significant ,

conditions adverse to quality are determined and that correc- ,

tive action is taken to preclude repetition, in accordance with Criterion 16 of Appendix B, as demonstrated by "

Violation A and allegations 2 and 22. ,

G. (Follow-up Audit) Failure of the Applicant to take timely follow-up action, including reaudit, of deficiencies identi-fled in audits, in accordance with Criterion 18 of Appendix B, as demonstrated by allegations 1, 5, 6 and 14.

l . .

3 l

~ ,

__