ML20050C516
| ML20050C516 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1982 |
| From: | Lanpher L HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050C511 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8204080585 | |
| Download: ML20050C516 (8) | |
Text
ne~M GPmmmaga UNITED STATES OF AMERICAC0thES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION" too _7 f.10 T9
.no BEFORE THF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD r
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
- 2. 740 (f), Suffolk County hereby moves for an order compelling complete and responsive answers by LILCO to the following interrogatories :
Suffolk County Contention 1, Interrogatory No. 18; Suffolk County Contention 3, Interrogatory No. 29; Suffolk County Contention 4, Interrogatory No. 35; Suffolk County Contentions 13-15, Interrogatory No. 11; Suffolk County Contentions 13-15, Interrogatory No. 12; Suffolk County Contentions 13-15, Interrogatory No. 22.
Suffolk County served its interrogatories on March 5 and 6, 1982.
They were subsequently modified by agreement of the parties pursuant to the Board's oral request at the March 9-10 Prehearing Conference.
LILCO responded on March 26, 1982.
Suffolk County contends that the aforementioned responses are incomplete and/or' evasive, thus requiring an order to compel answers that are full, complete and responsive.
In no instance has LILCO objected to the above interrogatories as they are now stated, nor has it asserted a privilege with_ regard to them.
8204080585 820401 PDR ADOCK 05000322 0
PDR o
.I
. The interrogatories at issue, LILCO's responses, and Suffolk County's arguments in support of its motion are set forth as follows:
Contention 1, Interrogatory 18 Identify all indicators at remote equipment locations to be used by operators in the field assisting in remote shutdown, and identify the range displayed by each such indicator.
LILC'O's Response:
Instrumentation located other than on the RSP is not required for shutdown.
The question did not seek identification of instrumentation required for shutdown, but rather the identity of indicators in remote locations to be used by operators in the field assisting in remote shutdown, as well as the range displayed by such indicators.
Thus, LILCO's answer is completely unresponsive.
Indicators may include lights or other such items not commonly regarded as
" instrumentation."
Such indicators might be used by operators in the field assisting in remote shutdown.
The information sought is plainly relevant to Contention 1.
If no such indicators exist, then the response should so state.
Contention 3, Interrogatory 29 With respect to each response to Interrogatory No. 28, describe how the degree of accuracy was determined and identify all documents concerning such determination.
Response.
See 28 above.
Contention 3, Interrogatory.28(a) asked:
With respect to each of the following techniques, state the degree of accuracy to which the technique
-is able to measure fuel cladding temperature :
a.
Measurement of water level in the reactor vessel.
o 3-LILCO responded that:
28a. Measurement of water level in the reactor vessel is discussed in the attached documents regarding SER Open Item #44.
Interrogatory No. 29 requested how the degree of accuracy was determined for each item in Interrogatory No. 28.
LILCO's response to Interrogatory No. 29 merely refers back to its responses to Interrogatory No. 28.
However, nowhere in its response to Interrogatory 28 (a) does it reveal how the degree of accuracy for measurement of water level in the reactor vessel was determined.
While it refers to documents regarding SER Open Item
- 44, they do not describe how the degree of accuracy was determined, nor do they of fer a degree of accuracy for water level in the reactor vessel under normal operating conditions.
This information was plainly requested by Interrogatory No. 29 and should be provided.
Contention 4, Interrogatory 35 Does LILCO intend to evaluate, or has LILCO in fact evaluated, any problems identified at other General Electric BWR Mark II plants (U.S. or Caorso) to determine their relevance to Shoreham and to determine whether Shoreham's pre-operational test-ing program for water hammer should be modified?
If yes, identify all documents which evidence or concern this matter.
LILCO's Response:
GE is responsible for test procedures on ECCS systems and NSSS equipment.
These procedures take into account information from previous testing and are basically the same for all plants, varying only to account for plant specific features.
Procedures for non-NSSS safety related systems are Shoreham specific and cannot be related to the procedures at other plants.
o
9.
=
. LILCO's response is clearly evasive.
The question asks whether LILCO has evaluated, or intends to evaluate, the problems at issue.
LILCO has responded with reference to GE's respon-sibilities, which shed no light on LILCO's evaluations or inten-tions to evaluate problems relevant to water hammer at other plants.
Furthermore, it has failed to identify any documents evidencing or concerning the matter, as requested.
Contentions 13-15, Interrogatory 11 State how many LILCO QA/QC personnel will be present during each operating shift at Shoreham when the plant is in operation.
Explain the basis for LILCO's selection of this number and outline their respective duties.
LILCO's Response:
LILCO Operational, Quality Assurance will be staffed with an Operating QA Engineer, QA Engineer, QC Engineer and 5 QC Inspectors during the regular work day.
As work-load requires (i.e., during scheduled, major maintenance overhauls or scheduled refueling outages) OQA personnel will work scheduled over-time as necessary.
During any emergency work at the station, OQA personnel will be on-call to provide QA/QC coverage.
It is expected that during station refueling outages, OQA may require outside QA/QC contractor assistance.
Outside QA/
QC contractor personnel will be qualified and certified to the LILCO QA program.
LILCO has failed to completely answer the above question in two ways.
First, it has not explained the basis (its reasons) for selecting the number of QA/QC personnel to be present during each operating shift.
Second, it has not outlined the duties of the personnel it has identified.
Brth items of.information are relevant to the QA/QC issues prese-t in Contentions 13-15 and therefore should be provided.
. Contentions 13-15, Interrogatory 12 12.
Describe the QA/QC support to Shoreham operations which is now being provided,or will be provided in the future, by general office personnel employed by LILCO.
Respon'se.
The LILCO QA department, located off-site, will be available to provide QA/QC support to the Shoreham operations.
The current authorized personnel strength of this department includes 17 professional personnel and 3 technical /
clerical personnel.
LILCO's answer is unresponsive and incomplete.
It does not include with sufficient particularity the nature of the QA/QC support functions that LILCO's general office personnel are or will be, providing.
Nor does it offer an indication of how such support is provided.
In this respect LILCO has failed to adequately " describe" the QA/QC support functions of LILCO general office personnel.
The information sought is of obvious relevance to Suffolk County's QA/QC contentions and therefore should be provided.
Contentions 13-15, Interrogatory 22 Please identify "those applicable elements of the QA Program in which quality-based related activities are more intensive and impacting upon daily operation" (FSAR Section 17.2) which shall be audited at least annually (i.e., what are the
" applicable elements" and what are the " quality-related activities" referred to).
Response.
The activities considered to be "more intensive and impacting upon daily operation" are those described in 21(a), (b) and (c) above.
The interrogatory seeks an explanation of LILCO's own FSAR, Section 17.2.
Rather than describe-the " applicable elements" and " quality-related activities" referred to therein, LILCO guides the
. reader to its responses to Interrogatory 21 which it states describe the " activities considered to be 'more intensive and impacting upon daily operation.'"
LILCO's answer is evasive in that it does not serve to identify " applicable elements" and
" quality-related activities" as the interrogatory unambiguously requests.
Nowhere in its response to Interrogatory No. 21 are these elements identified.
Therefore, their production should be compelled.
Conclusion In the preceding instances, LILCO has failed to answer Suffolk County's interrogatories completely and responsively.
In light of the deficiencies noted above, the motion to compel more complete and responsive answers to those interrogatories should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, DAVID J. GILMARTIN Suffolk County Attorney PATRICIA A.
DEMPSEY Assistant Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788
,f'
- YCln. w ef u & ' a s. r 7 c Herbert H. Brown Lawrence Coe Lanpher Karla J.Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, NW, 8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 452-7000 Attorneys for Suffolk County April 1, 1982
5.
.j<
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the "SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING LILCO TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS," and the "SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO CO51PEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES,"
dated April 1, 1982, have been served to the following by U.S.
Mail, first class, except as otherwise noted:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
(*)
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D.C.
20555 Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Dr. James L. Carpenter
(*)
217 Newbridge Road Administrative Judge Hicksville, New York 11801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W.
Taylor Reveley III, Esq. (#)
Washington, D.C.
20555 Hunton & Williams P.O.
Box 1535 Dr. Peter A. Morris
.(*)
Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Deputy Commissioner &. Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Empire State Plaza General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Stephen B. Latham, Esq. (#)
Mineola, New York-11501 Twomey, Latham & Shea Attorneys at Law Mr. Brian McCaffrey-P.O. Box 398 Long Island Lighting-Company 33 West Second Street 175-East Old Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Hicksville, New York 11801 I
1 a
c
. Marc W. Gcidsmith Mr. Jef f Smith Energy Research Group, Inc.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 400-1 Totten Pond Road P.O. Box 618 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq.
New York Public Service Commission MHB Technical Associates The Governor Nelson A.
Rockefeller 1723 Hamilton Avenue Building Suite K Empire State Plaza San Jose, California 95125 Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Attorney County Executive / Legislative County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Building Veteran's Memorial Highway Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Atomic Safety and Licensing Ezra I.
Bialik, Esq.
Board Panel Assistant Attorney General U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmental Protection Bureau Washington, D.C.
20555 New York State Department of Law Docketing and Service Section 2 World Trade Center Office of the Secretary New York, New York 10047 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic. Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
(*)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory David A.
Repka, Esq.
Commission U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
/,f
.r Q:., g
..s e
J ' s ~ Ab' Lawrence Coe Lanpher KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor Washington, D.C.
20555 April 1, 1982
(*) By Hand
(#) By Federal Express
<