ML20010F389
| ML20010F389 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/04/1981 |
| From: | Bordenick B NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Farley A, Latham S HUNTON & WILLIAMS, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8109100124 | |
| Download: ML20010F389 (2) | |
Text
o y
77
$?
y g}sg_
U
~
p 6'
O0s-
-C SEP Q6 SA' September 4, 1981 I
4 1
Stephen B. Lathan, Esq.
Anthony F. Earley, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Schuitt Hunton & Williams Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 1535 P.O. Box 398 Richnond, Virginia 23212 33 West Second Street Riverhead, flew York 11901 In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company Docket Ro. 50-322 (Shorehan fluclear Power Stetion Unit 1)
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the " Status Report on Discussions Involving SOC, LILC0 and the tiRC Staff" filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) on August 31, 1981 I aa writing to apprise you of further developments regarding SOC's discovery requests directed to the llRC Staff as to Contentions 1, 2, 9, and 19. The latter two contentions may be, in part, tne suoject of a further stipulation between the parties.
1.
Contentions 1 and 2 A. - This will confira that during a telephone conference call on September 3,1981, between Jerry 11. Wilson and Ray F. Priebe, of the liRC Staff, ana Richard Hubbard of (1d3 Technical Associates (SOG's consultants),
the riRC Staff advised that Shoreham site specific information (e.g. the "CRAC" Code and liquid pathway study, if these are, in fact, available) will net De sent to 50C pending a ruling by the ASLB on the Applicant's tiotion for Suuary Disposition of SOC Contentions 1 and 2.
Applicant takes the position, in short, that the Contentions are attacks on the Cerxaission's regulation.
- 8. - During the above referenced telephone conference call, lir. Hubbard inquired as to how the Staff utilized the emergency planning regulations in reviewing the Shoreham energency plan. Our response was as follows:
The revised plan submitted by LILCO on Hay 27, 1981, was reviewed against the requirenents in Sections 50.33 and 50.47 of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, the requireuents in Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and the guidance evaluation criteria 15- :.UREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1,
[f entitled " Criteria for f.ep.ation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of liuclear Power I
Plants," dated llovember 1980.
omm SuaN^at>
8109100124 810904
~ac ronu ais no,so, ~ncu 0240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
-o e-m e24
i
.y my r,y e* y-e y
y ar.
9 The Staff's evaluation report, which will be available in the upconing Supplenent to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) follows the format of Part II of HUREG-0654 in that each of the Planning Standards is listed and followed by a sur:rtary of the applicable portions of the plan and the deficiencies that relate to that specific standard, 2.
Contentions 9 and 19 The further information requested by SOC from Staff as to Contentions 9 dnd 19 will be provided on or before September 18, 1981. The delay in j
supplying the necessary information is due to the fact that the HRC l
Licensing Project Manager has been devoting his full time and attention to completion of the Shorenam SSER.
Sincerely, Bernard !!. Bordenick Counsel for hRC Staff cc:
Service List Distribution:
0 ELD Formal Files (2)
Shapar/Engelhardt Christenbury/Scinto Olmstead Reis/Lessy Bordenick/McGurren/Dewey A. Schwencer - 116C J. Wilson - 116C 0507 OE,LD,,[dg,,
,0 ELD,,,
oma) suasar) B.B.o..r.d.e..n i c..k : sb E.Re i s
,, /,f,/,81,,,,
=>
94./81,,,
9 e us*0 aw-a2 e24 NRC NRM Jt8 00 801NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY