ML20054F874
| ML20054F874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1982 |
| From: | Rawson R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206180066 | |
| Download: ML20054F874 (9) | |
Text
_ _.
06/14/82 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COP 911SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of 1
I LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ll Docket No. 50-322 0.L.
I li (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) l NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF LILCO CONTENTION 7B TESTIMONY I.
INTRODUCTION Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) filed its testimony relating to Contention 78 on May 25, 1982.
Intervenor Suffolk County (joined by the Shoreham Opponents Coalition) has moved to strike certain portions of LILC0's testimony relating to probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) as well as two attachments to the testimony. Specifically, Suffolk County argues that testimony relating to the details of the Shoreham draft PRA (as opposed to PRA methodology in general) should be struck because that testimony goes beyond the scope of the contention. "As to the two attach-l ments cited, Suffolk County's position appears to be that these documents j
are not relevant to the contention and are not sufficiently reliable to warrant their admission in evidence given their hearsay nature.
For the reasons discussed below, the Staff takes no position with reepect to Suffolk County's motion to strike the specified portions of LILCO'sprefiledtestimony.1/ Consistent with its position on LILC0's i
-1/
The Staff files this written response to Suffolk County's motion on the schedule permitted by the Licensing Board. SeeTr.3612e_t,segrq t
l LISIGNATE "'~'N
}
8206180066 820614 m
PDR ADOCK 05000322 Certified By,
M#Df O
' ~ 1, _i. _...Z1__Z l...... _
(,
April 30, 1982 motion to strike certain portions of Intervenors' testimony as unreliable hearsay,2.f the Staff opposes Suffolk. County's motion to strike Attachments 2 and 4 to the LILCO testimony.
II. DISCUSSION The Staff's decision not to take a position in support of or in opposition to the motion to strike those portions of LILCO's testimony which allegedly relate to the details of the Shoreham draft PRA has not been made lightly and should not be taken by the Licensing Board or the parties as an indication that the Staff believes the issue is unimportant.
It reflects instead the Staff position that it has not addressed, and has no intention of addressing, the substance of the Shoreham draft PRA in this proceeding beyond the explanation in its testimony of the use to which the final Shoreham PRA will be put by the Staff.
As the Board is aware, probabilistic risk assessment has not been a specific part of the Staff's review of the Shoreham license application.
A facility-specific PRA is not required by the Comission's regulations generally nor has one been requested by the Staff in the case of the Shoreham license application.3_/ When Intervenors sought to raise PRA as an issue in this proceeding, the Staff opposed that attempt. See NRC 2/
See Tr.1066-67.
-3/
Shoreham is distinguishable in this respect from Limerick, for example, where the Staff did request the applicant involved there to submit a facility-specific PRA. No such request has been made of LILCO for Shoreham. See also " Proposed Policy Statement on Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants," 1 IV, 47 Fed. Reg. 7023 (February 17,1982).
Staff Opposition to Intervenor SOC's Proposed Contention 78, dated December 16, 1981. The Licensing Board, however, has admitted the subject of PRA into this proceeding insofar as it relates to the safety classification and analysis issues involved in Contention 78. See Memorandum and Order..., dated March 15, 1987.. During discovery on Contention 78, Intervenors requested a copy of the draft PRA which LILCO had voluntarily undertaken for its own use for the Shoreham facility.
LILC0's refusal to produce that document resulted in a motion by Intervenors to compel its production. The Staff took no position on the motion.
After hearing argument through a conference call, the Licensing Board ordered LILCO to produce the draft PRA but attempted to make clear that it was placing limits on the use to which the PRA could be put in litigating Contention 7B. During the conference call, the Board emphasized that the focus of the contention is not PRA and the Board would not sit for lengthy testimony on the PRA. This was affirmed in the Board's Confirmatory Order of March 30, 1982:
"We are not permitting an inquiry on discovery or in testimony directly into the PRA, as contrasted with possibly using the deposition... and the draft PRA to prove that the methodology used to analyze the reliability of Shoreham's system is inadequate unless it uses the draft PRA methodology. Therefore, discovery which the Board is permitting into the draft PRA is not for the purpose of preparing to litigate the correctness of either the application of the methodology in the draft Shoreham PRA or the draft PRA results of probabilities and consequences of accidents.
Order, p. 2.
In the Staff's view, portions of the testimony of LILC0 witnesses Vojin Joksimovich and Edward T. Burns do cross over the line apparently intended to be drawn by the Board in its March 30, 1982 Order in regard to the relevance of testimony on the Shoreham draft PRA to Contention 7B.
i
^
. : T. J.
. '.C :J^ : L.. '
.~
The Staff views the testimony of Robert M. Kascak (on the use to which LILCO intends to put the PRA), on the other hand, as addressing directly the inquiry made by the Board on May 7,1981 (see Tr.1831-32) and therefore not beyond the scope of the contention.
The Staff recognizes Suffolk County's position that a dental of its motion might result in the need for additional analysis by Intervenors' experts and potentially lengthy examination of LILCO's witnesses. See Tr. 4102. The Staff also recognizes that the Board has indicated it could decide to reconsider the bounds placed on this type of testimony by its March 30, 1982 Order and to expand the scope of Contention 7B.
See, e.g., Tr. 4055, 4073, 4114.
In the Staff's view, an expansion of this contention now to address the correctness of the Shoreham draft PRA would be contrary to the intent of the Comission's " Statement of Policy on Licensing Proceedings" CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981), where the Comission urged expedition in operating licensing proceedings consistent with due process. The Commission there statd:
Each board must decide which device or devices would be most fruitful in managing or expediting its proceedings by limiting unnecessary direct oral examination or cross-examination.
13 NRC at 457.
Testimony relating to the correctness of the Shoreham PRA does not appear f
necessary and would certainly expand the scope and length of this proceeding.
The March 30, 1982 Order should not be reconsidered by the Board of its volition so as to expand the issues in this proceeding. See also Texas Utilities Generating Co., et al. (Commanche Peak Steam Electric
]
Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-36, 14 NRC 1111, 1113-14
v (1981).O Neither should Suffolk County be pennitted so to expand the proceeding through its cross-examination.
The Staff thinks it important to note that it has no reason to expect that its position in any such expanded litigation on Contention 7B would vary from the position taken in the Staff's prefiled testimony. The Staff has neither required a probabilistic risk assessment for Shoreham as part of the regulatory review process for issuing an operating license nor does the Staff have specific criteria for evaluating such an assessment for Shoreham.
l.: wever, since the Applicant is preparing a PRA, the Staff will review it when it is completed to gain added insight into potential safety improvements that may subsequently be made, in a fashion similar to that done in connection with other PRA programs involving operating reactors. The Staff will also review any actions taken by LILCO as a result of the Shoreham PRA. Although the Staff's objective is to review PRA's faster, experience to date with the PRA's submitted for Zion and Indian Point indicates that review of a PRA takes about one year from the time of its submittal in final fonn. Thus, it is not contemplated that this effort could be completed in the time frame of this adjudicatory proceeding.
With respect to Intervenors' attempt to strike Attachments 2 and 4 of LILCO's testimony, the Staff opposes their motion. The documents cited are clearly relevant to the central issue of Contention 7B -- the
-4/
The Staff notes that no prior affirmative finding has.been made under 10 CFR $ 2.760a and transmitted to the Commission that "a serious safety, environmental, or common defense and security matter exists" in relation to the correctness of the Shoreham PRA methodology. See also Memorandum of June 30, 1981, from Samuel J. Chilk to Messrs.
Rosenthal, Cotter and Bickwit on " Raising of Issues Sua Sponte in Adjudicatory Proceedings" (attached).
i
w...........
- ~...
adequacy of the methodologies used in safety classification of structures, systems and components. Attachment 2 provides a detailed background of the development of certain industry group standards relating to the NRC's General Design Criteria. Attachment 4 relates to industry reaction to the classification memorandum of Harold Denton of NRR. While the Staff, for its part, may disagree with LILCO as to the conclusions to be drawn from these documents or the weight to be given them, their relevance seems apparent. The Staff also finds no reason to question the reliability of these admittedly hearsay pieces of evidence.
In any case, these documents appear to be facts or data of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in forming opinions on the subjects involved here, See Fed. R. Ev. 703. For these reasons, the Staff opposes that portion of Suffolk County's motion which seeks to strike Attachments 2 and 4 of LILC0's testimony.
III. CONCLUSION The Staff takes no position with respect to Suffolk County's motion to strike the specified portions of LILCO's prefiled testimony.
Consistent with its position on LILC0's April 30, 1982 motion to strike certain portions of Intervenors' testimony as unreliable hearsay, the Staff opposes Suffolk County's motion to strike attachments 2 and 4 to the LILC0 testimony.
Respectfully submitted, Richard J. f. f =
Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at ethesda, Maryland this /
day of June, 1982.
f*** "*%
b gesiTED staTSS
';' w.
d T,.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f,g*[ [...
waswe.otow.ss. asses
- A. -'l, June 30,1981
~
,.T'-
' k.:
coresorsne
- ~ 4 5,, -
,= +.*r w
seconssas
... n Alan 8. Rosenthal, Chairman, ASLAP -
- 2.MoRANDL"4 FOR:
- 3. Paul Cotter, J..
Chairman, ASLSP
.s-2 Leonard Bickwit, Jr., General Counsel.W i
p] h 4 w : h p;,
- -t
,,7,j,,
Samuel J. Chilk, secyeta TROM:
RAISING OF ISSUES g g S IN ANUDICkTORE 9, a
suaJECT:
'.'..~, W. F /2
-i.'f**
PROCEEDINGS
... : -u -
.r a.-
--Y ; '
- i!f[ s'M--9 f ~4%Q.'i, ig.3.y A j
on June 2,1981, the Consnission requested that benoeferth: 1; fi,. ; },']
When a Licensing Board or an Appeal Board M. lees'W 9F'1
....., -.,. ~
i (1)
I l
an issue sua sponte in an operating License proceeding, '"~~ !
}
it shall issue a separate order making the req &isite
,r-findings, briefly state its reasons for raising ~~
i the issuerand it shall forward a copy of that Y
1 order to the Office of the General Counsel and to
" ~l I
the Consaission and
~.~ p.,1.
- p. :,.- i y,,
.w g
p....
)
when a Licensing Board or an Appeal Board has lit. ( ~-
j (2) raised an issue sua spoete, the Office of the.?
..",9 General Counsel s7 Ell, as part of its regular
.I' monitoring of adjudicatory proceedings, make a 1
~,.
l prompt report on the matter to the Coeusission.
The Commission made clear that in 30 requesting, it was not i
j j
altering in any way the provisions of the Cosmaission's rulee
,e-i regarding the raising and consideration of issoas sua sposta.
l Accordingly the Boards shall continue to make the liEtial...
s.
_..a,',
J. <
determination of whether a Board questien is an esercise of
_5 ;' _. ' ' ".h i
sua sponte authority or a question asked to ensure the 4
. 'i l
completeness of the record on an admitted contention.
?
~'
Furthermore, the fact that an issue has been raised sua and that the Conunission will be advised of tET
.I j
- sponte, action by the office of the General Counsel through its*
.i nenitoring of adjudicatory proceedings, would not provide a i
i j
basis for any party to f ail to meet its obligation to respond i
j expeditiously to the Board's questions.
l' t
l This completes action on SECY-81-3043.
gb cc:
Chairman Hendrie
[
J *I I CottTACT:
Comissioner Gilinsky
Comissioner Bradford E
, a 0 51M*,
A. sates (Sect) 41410 Commissioner Ahearne..
.m Dr. Palladino m eanen ommiasion St f Offic 1acontit actn e
/.
eteatrosse-a
.m ptu PDR N19C
.__;._.-__.n__.__________
i i
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 NRC STAF'F RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF LILC0 CONTENTION 7B TESTIMONY in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 14th day of June, 1982.
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, NY 10016 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. James L. Carpenter
- Administrative Judge Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, NY 11801 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris
- W. Teylor Reveley III, Esq.
Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, VA 23212 Washington, DC 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.
Staff Counsel New York Public Service Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12223
~
..... ~. : :: -...
O Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
John F. Shea, III, Esq.
Hertert H. Brown, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.
P.O. Box 398 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart Hill, 33 West Second Street Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, NY 11901 1900 M Street, N.W.
8th Floor Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Docketing and Service Section*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
'! l0$=
Richard J. Rawson Counsel for NRC Staff
COURTESY COPY LIST Mr. Jeff Smith Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station General Counsel P.O. Box 618 Long Island Lighting Company North Country Road 250 Old County Road Mineola, NY 11501 Wading River, NY 11792 MHB Technical Associates Mr. Brian McCaffrey 1723 Hamilton Avenue l
Long Island Lighting Company Suite K 175 East Old Country Road i
Hicksville. New York 11801 San Jose, CA 95125 Hon. Peter Cohalan Marc W. Goldsmith Suffolk County Executive Energy Research Group, Inc.
County Executive / Legislative Bldg 400-1 Totten Pond Road Veteran's Memorial Highway Waltham, MA 02154 Hauppauge, NY 11788 David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Suffolk County Attorney New York State Energy Office County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Veteran's Memorial Highway Agency Building 2 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223