ML20070P444
| ML20070P444 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/20/1983 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8301260345 | |
| Download: ML20070P444 (10) | |
Text
Er. LATED COPJ1ESPONDENCE 4
000KETED U9E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
,83 JAll 24 P1 :05 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atom $: Safety and Licensing Board In.the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF SC C:ONTENTION 8/ SOC CONTENTION 19(h)
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) hereby moves, pur-suant to 10 CFR S 2.749, for summary disposition of subpart (d) of Suffolk County Content 5on 8 and of the corresponding subpart (4) of SOC Contention 19([i) -- Environmental Qualification, on the ground that there are'no genuine issues of material fact to be heard on this issue.1/
BACKGROUND
,,_,,___t 8*
l 1.
This motion is being filed late in the
- -j'03 prelitigation process -- later than LILCO would have preferreil.
L i
Not until the filing of direct testimony, however, on January I
18 did it become clear that no material issues of fact within # '.
1/
LILCO has ben informed this morning that SUffolk County is __
prepared to execute this agreement tendered to it by LILCO resolving subparts (a) and (b) of the contention.
l 8301260345 830120 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C
%SOq a
the scope of subpart (d) of the Environmental Qualification (EQ) contentions had been raised in any direct testimony filed by either of their proponents.
I-2.
SC Contention 8 and SOC Contention 19(h), which are substantially identical, raise the following five specific issues:
(a)
The limited test conditions posed in the Shoreham envircamental qualifi-cation peogram are not sufficiently conservative; (b)
Equipment has been qualified by grandfathering to older, less strin-gent standards; (c)
The list of emergency equipment to be qualified is inadequate; (d)
There has be.en an inadequate demon-stration that all safety-related equipment has been properly quali-fled tc meet aging and other life requirements; and (e)
There is insufficient information to evaluate the overall adequacy of Shoreham's satisfaction of environ-mental qualification requirements for safety-related equipment.
3.
The filing of testimony on EQ issues follows a long and ultimately unsucce'ssful attempt at settlement.
It is not LILCO's intent here to rehash the substance of the settlement proposals, but an understanding of this process is important in understanding both the timing of this motion and the posture of.
A
---.i.
4 the issues it addresses.
Pursuant to the Board's direction, settlement negotiations were undertaken beginning in October mmong L:LCO, Suffolk County and the Staff to resolve the EQ contentions.
SOC did not participate actively in those discus-sions.
Meetings were held on October 21, December 8 and December 17, 1982.
LILCO sent at least three, and on occasion as many as five, technical experts to each meeting.
LILCO also prepared and sent to Suffolk County a special submittal, dated December 10, in response to various information requests made by Suffolk County at the December 8 meeting.
LILCO requested Suffolk County, at this meeting, to specify its concerns.
Suffolk County took the position at the October 21 meeting that it could not specify its contentions until it had been provided with further factual information beyond that already in its possession.
4.
At the end of the December 17 meeting, Suffolk County tendered to LILCO a proposal for settlement of the entire contention, which it put into writing by letter dated December 23, 1982.
That proposal was discussed in a series of letters and telephone calls between December 23, 1982 and January 10, 1983.
On or about January 10, the parties conclud-ed that a comprehensive settlement could not be reached and that no portions of the proposal would partially resolve the EQ contentions. '
I l
i
5.
SOC at no time participated actively, or stated any interest in participating actively, in the settlement negotia-tions.
Counsel for SOC discussed the status of settlement ne-gotiations once with counsel for LILCO by telephone and indi-cated that SOC was permitting SC to take the lead in the nego-tiation process.
SUBPART(d):
AGING 1.
The topic of aging as a component of environmental qualification is raised by subpart (d) of the EQ contention.
2.
Information was provided by LILCO on the topic of aging in its Environmental Qualification Report for Class IE
- n Equipment (EQ Report).
An updated copy of this report has been provided to SC.
In the settlement discussions between LILCO and SC, the question of aging was discussed, but Suffolk County never detailed any objection to LILCO's program for determining qualified lives of equipment within the EQ program.
In the settlement proposal filed after the December 17 meeting, Suffolk County proposed to resolve its unspecified concern by series of audits which would include reviewing LILCO procedures for controlling the use of parts qualified for lives shorter l
than 40 years, and for procurement of replacement or spare parts.
4-i f
l
3.
LILCO has submitted to the Staff in its Environmental Qualification Report for Class IE Components (EQR) : technical justification for control of aging of Class IE components.
The NRC Staff has reviewed that program and found that it complier with all applicable requirements.
SER Report, November 23, 1982, Attachment 3. LILCO further addressed the question of aging in its prefiled direc$ testimo-ny on this issue (Q&A 14-21, pp. 11-16), as did the NRC Staff in its prefiled direct testimony (p. 5).
LILCO's testimony did not contain any material not already substantially set ferth in its Environmental Program.
SC did not address the question of aging, directly or oy reference, in its prefiled testimony.
There is no absolute requirement that an intervenor file direct testimony as a prerequisite to litigation of an issue in an NRC proceeding.
Nor, however, is there automatic license for a party to sit on its hands on an issue, on the mere hope that at trial he will be able to discredit the testi-mva.nt mony of a previous re/ r:nt for summary disposition, or on the vague supposition that something may turn up.
Louisiana Power
& Light Company (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
LBP-81-45 (October 20, 1981), 14 NRC 877, 883 (1981).
The context of summary disposition in the Waterford case was rela-tively preliminary:
that of pretrial discovery to which.
intervenors had not provided substantive answers, followed by a motion for summary disposition which went unanswered.
Here the process of information exhenage has taken a procedurally more advanced, but no more informative, form.
The subpart of the contention at issue is broad and nonspecific.2/ In the two-month-long negotiation process on Environmental Qualification issues, despite LILCO's requests, SC never stated specific objections with respect to LILCO's program for con-trolling aging.
While its written settlement proposal would have enabled SC to review LILCO's proposal procedures for aging, SC neither proposed different substantive standards than LILCO's for dealing with aging nor alleged any specific deficiencies with LILCO's program.
Finally, SC did not address the matter of aging at all in its direct testimony.
There comes a time when the accretion of events and j
circumstancer makes it incumbent on a party to go forward if it
[
has any genuine issues of material fact to propose.
That time has come.
However, SC, by failing to file any testimony on l
this issue, has simply defaulted on its obligation to allege material facts in support of its bare contention, despite f
l 2/
The contention asserts, at subpart (d), simply that "there l
has been an inadequate demonstration that all safety related equipment has been properly qualified to meet aging and other life requirements."
l w a
w r---
m
possession of the description of LILCO's EQ program in the EQ Report, the Staff's approval of that program in the SER, and three lengthy meetings with multiple LILCO and Staff experts to discuss these matters.
On the record now, consisting of LILCO's EQR and the Staff's review of it in the SER, there are no genuine issues of material fact respecting the adequacy of LILCO's program for dealing with aging of components within its EQ program.
There were none at the time for filing of testimony.
It was incum-bent on SC, against this background of provision to it of a wealth of documentation and direct informal discovery, to have asserted the existence and posture of such issues in its direct testimony.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board recently n...
stated, in the context of a motion for summary disposition:
As the Appeal Board recently observed [in l
Philadelphia Electric Company (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
1 ALAB-654, 14 NRC 532, 634 (1981)], a hearing on each contention "is not inevitable," but whether one "will.be necessary wholly depends l
on the ability of*the intervenors to demon-strate the existence of a genuine issue of material fact respecting any of the issues they previously raised."
i Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Station,
- =
i Units 1 and 2), LPB-82-17 15 NRC 593, 596 (1982).
The time to have raised any such issues, in the context i
and circumstances of this issue and of this proceeding, was not l
~
4 later than the date for filing direct testimony.
SC has failed to raise them.
Summary dismissal should be granted with respect to subpart (d) of the contention.
Respectfully submitted, Ass Donald P.
Irwin
/
Attorney for Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
January 20, 1983 G
9 -
LILCO, Janucry 20, 1983 0
r MM.UET pe CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
'83 JM 24 P1 :05 In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
..._...,32 :ERVin (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
M' Mk'H Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
I hereby certify that copies of MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF SC CONTENTION 8/ SOC CONTENTION 19(h)
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION were served this date upon the following by hand (*) or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
- Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
Secretary of the Commission Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Panel Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safet ;nd Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
- Dr. Peter A.
Morris Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C.
20555 atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
- Dr. James H.
Carpenter Administrative Judge
- Daniel F. Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
4
- Bernard M.
Bordenick, Esq.
David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
David A.
Repka, Esq.
Attn:
Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory County Attorney Commission Suffolk County Department of Law Washington, D.C.
20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787
- Herbert H.
Brown, Esq.
Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea Karla J.
Letsche, Esq.
33 West Second Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, P.
O.
Box 398 Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, New York 11901 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W.
Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.
9 East 40th Street Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith New York, New York 10016 Energy Research Group 4001 Totten Pond Road Howard L.
Blau, Esq.
Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 217 Newbridge Road I
Hicksville, New York 11801 MHB Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue Matthew J.
Kelly, Esq.
Suite K State of New York San Jose, California 95125 Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Albany, New York 12223 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 h~ Lee iGT
~1ugin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
January 20, 1983