ML20070R290
| ML20070R290 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/24/1983 |
| From: | Letsche K KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8301270396 | |
| Download: ML20070R290 (7) | |
Text
..
1/24/83 NND%cs 0
59 UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Jh/pg
-~Before'thelAtomic Safety and' Licensing-Board m.
h.
khh[
In-the: Matter of-
~
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 0.L..
-(Shoreham Nuclear Power: Station, 4
Unit 1)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY OPPOSITION TO LILCO MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 8/ SOC CONTENTION 19(h)
ENVIRONMENTAL ~ QUALIFICATION On January 20, 1983, LILCO moved-for summary disposition of_subpart (d) of Suffolk County Contention 8 and correspond-ingisubpart (4) of SOC Contention 19 (h).
That portion of each contention.as.to which the summary disposition motion is a'ddressed-is as follows:
There has.been an inadequate-demonstration that all. safety-related equipment has been
. properly qualified to meet aging and other life requirements.
Suffolk 'ounty opposes LILCO's summary disposition C
motiSn for-the following reason.
It-is impossible to separate the-issues of " aging" and
" qualified life," from tae broader issue of the adequacy of iLILCO's' Environmental. Qualification ("EQ") program.
The
' broader issue.is succinctly expressed in subpart (e) of SC
~ Contention 8.
F301270396 830124
' PDR ADOCK 05000322 0-PDR
~,
In pursuing'ita concerns relating to the overall adequacy of LILCO's EQ program and the adequacy of its documentation relating.to equipment qualification, the County intends to-pursue the adequacy of LILCO's methodology and documentation relating to the aging and determination of qualified life for equipment in the EQ program.
For instance, the County believes that the LILCO justifications for interim operation prior.to qualification,are in many cases, insufficient and/or incomplete because they fail to demonstrate that equipment is capable of surviving for the necessary amount of time in an environment to which it may be exposed.
These concerns are encompassed in both subparts (d) and (e) of the contention, and the County intends to pursue them.- In addition, the concerns relating to aging and qualified life also come into play in evaluating LILCO's EQ program as applied to replacement and spare parts.
As LILCO notes in its motion, there is no requirement for an intervenor to file direct testimony as a prerequisite to litigating l
an issue.
Moreover, in this instance, Suffolk County has filed direct testimony that directly takes issue with the adequacy of LILCO's EQ program and its documentation of that program.
As noted'above, the demonstration of proper aging and satisfaction l
l of other life requirements is an integral part cf the EQ 1
l program.
Thus, there are material facts in dispute and there is no basis for the LILCO motion.
I:
i Finally, some of the statements in LILCO's motion require l
additional response.
First, Suffolk County finds it unacceptable that private discussions in the context of negotiations for possible. settlement between LILCO and the County on this (or any) issue have suddenly become information that LILCO chooses 1/
'to set forth in a summary disposition motion.~
In settlement discussions, as LILCO should know, parties t,ake.many positions in order to attempt to narrow issues and to find a means to resolution.
Those are not necessarily indicative of parties' final positions and are intended to remain private.
- However, LILCO has totally ignored these facts in parading a litany of " alleged" facts concerning the Suffolk County concerns.
If LILCO believed that there was no material dispute on this issue, LILCO simply should have moved for summary' disposition in the manner provided for under the rules -- namely, by setting forth a clear, concise statement of material facts as to which there is allegedly no dispute.
LILCO failed to
-1/
The County does not object to providing status summaries of discussions to the Board to inform it of the status of issues.
This has been done on many occasions.
The County does object strongly to statements made about positions the County allegedly took or did not take regarding the details of these discussions.
See e.g.,
LILCO motion, pp. 4-5.
. do that in this instance, which alone constitutes grounds to 2/
disregard LILCO's motion.~
In view of the fact, however, that LILCO has chosen on 3/
this occasion to set forth its " understanding" of the facts,-
Suffolk County will respond in one respect.
The basic thrust of'LILCO's motion is that the County has never informed'LILCO of any concerns relating to subpart (d) of SC 8.
That is not correct.
On several occasions, the Suffolk County consultants have in fact expressed concerns about the aging and qualified life problem and have detailed those concerns to LILCO.
For instance, on October 21, 1982, the County's consultant, Mr. Minor, explained in some detail to technical personnel from LILCO, General Electric, Stone & Webster, and the Staff his concerns about the importance of aging in determining qualified life c
-2/
Section 2.749 makes it mandatory for LILCO to have included a statement of material facts as to which there allegedly is no dispute as part of its motion.
There shall be annexed to the motion a separate, l
short-and concise statement of the material facts as to which the moving party contends that there is no genuine issue to be heard.
10 C.F.R.
S 2.749 (emphasis supplied).
3/
In the future, the County will have to consider carefully
~
what to discuss with LILCO unless LILCO confirms the private nature of these discussions.
o and the methods employed and/or approved to demonstrate equipment qualification after aging.
It was clear during that and subsequent discussions, that the parties disagreed on the matter on a technical basis.
In addition, at every technical. meeting on this issue, the parties discussed at
' length the County's belief that improper or inadequate assumptions were included in LILCO's justifications for incomplete qualification.
Accordingly, LILCO's claim of ignorance of the County's concerns is simply untrue.
Respectfully submitted, David J..Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 4
1
_ l W
HerberkH. Brown / V Lawrenpe Coe La%her Karla J. Letsche KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20025 January 24, 1983 Attorneys for Suffolk County l
l' l
l l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
BEFORE THEiATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING' BOARD
)
4 d'
In the Matter of
)
)
i LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
Docket No. 50-322 (0.L.)
-(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY OPPOSITION TO LILCO MOTION.FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 8/ SOC CONTENTION 19 (h) -- ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIFICATION have been served'to the following by U.S. Mail, g
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 c
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.(*)
Washington, D.C.
20555 Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main St.
Dr, Peter A. Morris (*)
Richmond, Virginia 23212 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S..' Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, D.C.
20555.
New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Edward M.-Barrett, Esq.
Empire State Plaza l General Counsel-Albany, New York 12223 Long Island Lighting Company L
250 Old Country Road i
Mineola, New York 11501 Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea l
Mr. Brian McCaffrey Attorneys at Law Long' Island Lighting Company P.O.
Box 398 175 East Old Country Road 33 West Second Street Hicksville, New York 11801 Riverhead, New York 11901 9
=.-
,e---
---r-m
--~,..,.n..
m,--,,-..-..---..----m-----.
,~
ww
-+ve-,-w----.w=3-v
i 4
4 Marc W._ Goldsmith Mr. Jeff 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.
MHB Technical Associates New-York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller
. Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza
- Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive David J. Gilmartin, Esq.-
County Executive / Legislative l
Suffolk County Attorney Building County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Hauppauge, New York 11788 j
Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Department of Washington, D.C.
20555 Law 2 World Trade Center Docketing and Service Section New York, New York 10047
. Office of'the Secratary i
U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regula*.ory L
Bernard M. Bordanick, Esq. (*)
Commission
- David A. Repka, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20355 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D.C.
20555
.hatthew J.
Kelly, Esq.
Staff Counsel, New York Stuart Diamond State Public Service Comm.
Environment / Energy Writer 3 Rockefeller Plaza NEWSDAY Albany, New York 12223 y~
Long Island, New York 11747 Daniel F. Brown, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
~
~'
Kada J. Let(She KIRKPATRICKV LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS
. DATE: January 24, 1983 1900 M Street, N.W.,
8th Floor Washing ton, D.C.
20036
(*) By. Hand e.
O i
__