ML20038A730

Advises That Sandia Mgt Changed Portions of NUREG/CR-1596 W/O Consent or Knowledge of Rept Authors & W/O Any Technical Basis.Changes Indicate That Conservative Assumptions Render Study Useless

ML20038A730
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/08/1981
From:	Niemczyk S OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
To:	Jerome Murphy NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20038A726	List: ML20038A725 ML20038A728 ML20038A729 ML20038A730
References
RTR-NUREG-CR-1596 NUDOCS 8111160234
Download: ML20038A730 (1)

Text

.

.milNLNT C OAx RIDGE N ATIONM L '

. A ?,.Y T /

c. t r. A1 L o e.v U NID. ] C4'{ nlD i Co? PO.'ll,ilN.

f . L O '. '. *. tilt'13:0!i

, , . . . SEp l i--j Ig i v5T O ' :- IC E. C O !

O /. . I:t D '; E.1 L t; H : M i ~ L/ ' ' il Septeirtur 8, M31 Joseph A. i:ui phy Division of Risk Analysis U.S. fluclear Regulatory Cc:.: mission Washing tca, D.C. 2055L

Dear Joe:

This letter is to advise you that the ion:oixmt of Sandia (in p ': ticular, G. D. Varondo, t.414) changed portions of flURI G/CR-IS% (5Al!0.'.:0-lGF,9) a f ter it had gone to the printcr Those changs we. a i.ude wi thcut the consent, or even the kno.iledge, of L::e authors of Llc repart.

i Fur then.iore , the changes were i:ade wi thout any technical b mi. Sr o f the cham.ies tha 1.1anage,;,en t lade were i ncarri:c t. Those c;nuq indicale that a Teu of the esse:nptions ca4 ployed i:. th" study were so cen cr va tive tha t the entire .

s tudy shuuld Se reg rded t.. baing usele:s.

I hope that this untter can bc rein" died e:. q'lickly as pass ihle />.t a i :i ni-inuu, en erra ta docu.:.:n t , u.cl uding a correc i.e ' repet suir ; try, shauld ha seat to all reciple iu: >i tha original cepur:

~~

Yours truly, c,. .. , ()

~ :. _ ,

.s. _=

5. J. Iliemczy!'

bnnucl n r !,ppl i .2.. i o.:, " : op lleal th and Sn fety I;..". .icc h 11iv i sion

, FfS 61f.-2'16 5.M : - :'%

~/

I, C : (( .7111 t. I',

.c {l'J!d.I 8'11160234 2 PDR ADOCK 0 PDR G

_ _ - -.- - _ = .

ja arc

,,0, UNITED STATES f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

y 3# c. ( [ ,7, 5, 'A E W ASHING TON. D. C. 20555 00LKETED c, 'h  ! UStir g * .v .. +

[p*

September 4,1981 *81 NOV -5 N1 :27 0FFICE OF SECP.ETAF '

i . 000KEi!NG & SERVICE BRANCH 4

Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Anthony F. Earley, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Schmitt Hunton & Williams ,

Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 1535 P.O. Box 398 Richmond, Virginia 23212 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 In the Matter of Long Islar,d Lighting Company Do;ket No. 50-322 -

(Shoreham Nuciear Power Station, Unit 1)

Gentlemen:

Pursuant to the " Status Report on Discussions, Involving SOC, LILC0 and the NRC Staff" filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) on August 31, 1981, 1 am writing to apprise you of further developments regarding SOC's discovery requests directed to the NRC Staff as to Contentions 1, 2, 9, and 19. The latter two contentions may be, in part, the subject of a further -stipulation between the parties.

1. C'ontentions 1 and 2 A. - This will confirm that during a telephone conference call on September 3,1981, between Jerry N. Wilson and Ray F. Priebe, of the NRC Staff, and Richard Hubbard of MHB Teci.:ical Associates (SOC's consultants),

the NRC Staff advised that Shoreham site specific information (e.g. the "CRAC" Code and liquid pathway study, if these are, in fact, available) will not be sent to SOC pending a ruling by the ASLB on the Applicant's Motion for Sunt.ary Disposition of 50C Contentions 1 and 2. Applicant takes

! the position, in short, that the Contentions are attacks on the Commission's regulation, j B. - During the above referenced telephone conference call, Mr. Hubbard inquired as to how the Staff utilized the emergency planning regulations in reviewing the Shnreham emergency plan. Our response was as follows:

The revised plan submitted by LILC0 on May 27, 1981, was reviewed against the requirements in Sections 50.33 and 50.47 of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, the requirements in Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and the guidance evaluation criteria in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, entitled " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," dated November 1980.

\

}

l l

. 2-The Staff's evaluation report, which will be available in the upcoming Supplement to the Safety Evaluation Report (SSER) follows the format of Part 11 of HUREG-0554 in that each of the Planning Standards is listed and followed by a summary 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 50C from Staff as to Contentions 9 and 19 will be provided on or before September 18, 1991. The delay in supplying the necessary information is due to the fact that the NRC Licensing Project Manager has been devoting his full tiine and attention to completion of the Shoreham SSER.

Sincerely, "I b% / 6Nfdsw fv Bernard M. Bordenick Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Service List ----

, , , , . . ~ * ~ "

pe

/

j