ML20077J487

Opposes Inclusion in Partial Initial Decision,Of Matl Transmitted in NRC Re Differing Prof Opinion of Jh Conran Addressed in Board Notification 83-105 on Unresolved Safety Issue A-17, Sys Interaction Program

ML20077J487
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/11/1983
From:	Lanpher L KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Brenner L, Ferguson G, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
REF-GTECI-A-17, REF-GTECI-SY, TASK-A-17, TASK-OR NUDOCS 8308160449
Download: ML20077J487 (3)

Text

.

[

,.6,,,

DOCKETED EIRK1% TRICK, LOCKIIART, llILL, CIIRISTOPIIER Sc I LLIPS A PARTNSEsNIP INCLUDEmo A PuoPasesonAL CoEFORATIT3 AUG 1900 M SrnunT, N. W.

WAMHMOTOx, D. C. e0006 OfflCE Of SECHt -

00CKETING & SEPvir.

TOLMPHONS (909) 443 *F000 IN FITTEBURGB CA BLE: HIPHI EIEEFATSIG.IdXIMART. JOHNSON & EC1TILESOM TRLEX 440909 MIFH UI 1600 OLIYBE BUILDINO w=Ir . . m cr mil. .tm. . August 11, 1983 ,irr..cmou. ,=Nw.rtviNia ...

202/452-7011  % ass enoo Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq.

Dr. Peter A. Morris

' Administrative Judges Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. George A. Ferguson Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board School of Engineering Howard University 2300 6th Street, N.W.

Wushington, D.C. 20059 Re: Long Island Lighting Company; Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1; Docket No. 50-322'O.L.

Gentlemen:

On July 14, 1983, NRC Staff counsel transmitted to the Board a July 11, 1983 Memorandum from Harold R. Denton to James H. Conran, which purports to resolve the Differing Professional Opinion ("DPO") of Mr. Conran. In the last week, County counsel has received Board Notification 83-105,

" Resolution of Differing Professional Opinion Concerning USI A Systems Interaction Program." Notwithstanding the title, Board Notification 83-105 addresses safety

-classification matters as well as matters concerning the A-17 program. The Board Notification contains the documents which are referenced in the enclosures to Staff counsel's July 14 letter.

Mr. Conran's views on the USI A-17 program and on safety classification matters have, of_ course, been an important issue in connection with Contention 7B. Indeed, the DPO was marked as Suffolk. County Exhibit 117 for identification.

o m' 603

T

.Nb KinuPATRICK, LOCMHART, HILL, CunisToPuzH & PHILLIPS Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq.

Dr. Peter A. Morris Dr. George A. F.erguson August 11, 1983 Page 2 The County, of course, does not know whether the Board intends to consider in its Partial Initial Decision ("PID")

any of the materials transmitted by Staff counsel in the July 14 lett,er or the materials in Board Notification 83-105.

The County is writing in advance of that PID to advise the Board that it would be improper for the Board to consider these materials unless all parties are provided a full and fair opportunity to address the matter. Briefly, the reasons for the County's position are as follows:

(1) These materials are not part of the evidence of record. Thus, absent an opportunity now to address the substantive portions of the materials, it would be improper to rely upon these materials as part of the basis for any decision on Contention 7B.

(2) The County does not believe these materials constitute a resolution of the issues relating to the Shoreham plant addressed by Mr. Conran (and by other persons as well) in this proceeding. For example, in Mr. Russell's June 22, 1983 Memorandum to Mr. Denton,.which Mr. Denton expressly relies upon in his July 11 Memorandum, Mr. Russell defines Mr. Conran's concerns in a manner which, in the County's view, fails to address the A-17 and safety classification issues, and the related concerns of Mr. Conran, which have been litigated before this ASLB. Similarly, the proposed " resolutions" for these issues also do not address the matters specifically relating to Shoreham which have been raised in-this proceeding.

(For example, on safety - classification matters , the apparent

" resolution" is the issuance of a. generic letter to licensees; this " resolution," in the County's view, does not at all resolve _the classification issue presented in the Shoreham proceeding, which has been raised in at least 3 different, although related, contexts (Contention 7B, 'QA/QC, and environmental qualification) and most recently'and directly in the. reopened 7B hearing).

(3). The County _ disagrees with the suggested " resolutions" of the A-17 and' safety classification issues. .If these resolutions are to be considered in any way in the ASLB's PID, then the County must have an opportunity to:

.(a) Contest-the substance of the resolutions

.as they may be alleged to pertain to=Shoreham. This

would involve,-at a minimum, an opportunity to question d , l_ ? + -m v n v e r - + 4

45 KtRuPATRICK, LocxHART, HILL, C11HISTOPHER Sc PirILLres Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq.

Dr. Peter A. Morris Dr. George A. Ferguson August 11, 1983 Page 3 Mr. Conran and key Staff persons involved in the DPO " resolution";

(b) Present evidence by County witnesses regarding why the " resolutions" are not s'olutions for the Shoreham issues; and (c) Obtain the view of Mr. Conran regarding

.his concurrence or nonconcurrence in the alleged DPO resolution. (Mr. Russell's Memorandum implies that Mr. Conran concurs in at least some aspects of the DPO resolution. However, in view of Mr. Conran's' apparent agreement with many of the County's proposed supplemental 7B findings (see enclosures 1, 2 and 12 to Mr. Conran's May.25, 1983 Memorandum to Mr. Russell, which are included in Board Notification 83-105], it would be important to obtain Mr. Conran's views on these matters.)

The County does not believe it would be appropriate at this time to address in further detail its views on the DPO matter since it is unclear whether the Board intends to rely on any of the materials in Board Notification 83-105.

The County's~ view as set forth herein (and which we can present in greater detail if the Board so desires), is that the alleged "DPO resolution" materials cannot be considered by the Board in its PID unless-a full and fair opportunity is provided for all parties to address the matters surrounding this alleged resolution.

Sincerely yours, M

Lawrence Coe Lanpher Attorney for suffolk County LCL/dk cc: Service List l

- = .

._ _ _ ___ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _______________u