ML19347B375

Motion for Acceptance of Author Contention 6(a)(i) Re Qa/Qc. Motion Still Requires NRC & Util Signatures,Approving Newly Worded Contention.Requests Addl 60 Days to Pursue Informal Discovery & Particularization Process

ML19347B375
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/06/1980
From:	Latham S SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML19347B372	List: ML19347B371 ML19347B375 ML19347B378
References
NUDOCS 8010140529
Download: ML19347B375 (3)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __-_ _

C3 C3 z'  %

~.

- C3~ ,

JOINT MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE S. , Ung?f a l OF SOC CONTENTION 6.a. (i) AND

I .

~

p FOR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE PARTICULARIZATION 3 0 [8g 6 ej: jg[

~ gs  ?

On August 5, 1980, the above parties advised the /g ; gg \

/

Board that substantial progress had been made regarding the particularization of two SOC conteations originally submitted on January 23, 1980.* Since the last stipula-tion submitted to the Board, the parties have agreed on an acceptably particularized Contention 6 (a) (1) , and have .

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

the informal discovery that has begun on Contention 19 and i

J hopefully to reach agreement on an acceptably particularized Contention 19, the parties hereby request an additional 60 days for particularization.

t Enclosed as attachment A is " Revised SOC Contention C (a) (i)", which the parties hereby submit for acceptance by the Board. The Applicant has expressed concern that SOC intends to litigate the individual allegations identi-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

• the " allegations" are relevant to the meaits of the QA contentions. The Applicant l

l

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

'2 ,74 . - .* .-

s

[ ,,

8 010 M 052f . . . -. -- - .

l l

does not share SOC's view that all of the l referenced " allegations" do, in fact, bea on the merits of these contentions, and the i 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

.llegations themselves which are the focus of the conten-tion but rather the contention's prefaccry 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.

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 the numerous Regulatory Guides which are either: not appli-cable to Shoreham; already met by the Applicant; or covered by another SOC contention.

Of the 145 Regulatory Guides reviewed, the parties 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 (Ml!B Technical Associates) subject to confirmation by SOC's censultants 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 Staff that the standards and goals contained in 120 of the 145 Regulatory Guides have been met at Shoreham.

?.

Where appropriate, the Applicant and/or Staff have agreed to 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 .

l sections of the Shoreham FSAR in order to further specify l

SOC's concerns. During the week of September 29th, a  !

representa :i ve of MHB met with Staff in Bethesda to review l l

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 '

l 1

25 Regulatory Guides. The parties anticipate that one or l more additional meetings will be necessary to determine if SOC's concerns on any additional Regulatory Guides can be satis #ied 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.

I Th'OMEY , LATHAM & SCHMITT HUNTON & WILLIAMS i Attorneys for the Shoreham Attorneys for Long Island Opponents Coalition Lighting Company 0

• fYr by M ll, ND by Stephen B. Latham NRC STAFF COUNSEL by Bernard M. Bordenick Dated: October 6, 1980 y s, . , ,:. ,., .

. - - , . v- -

w w c'

-