ML20100J858
| ML20100J858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/06/1984 |
| From: | Dynner A KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100J851 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8412100483 | |
| Download: ML20100J858 (7) | |
Text
-
.:p 1
i,/
4 00CMEIED p~, m. r. v~.
.. ~,vn.,s.,,g SUFFOLK C66Wpf, 12/6/84 4
gy UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FFIC' Of SECRETARv E nsMERv4C i
Before the Atomic Safety and Licens wntsyTV T
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL l
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S REPLY TO LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL 1.
LILCO's characterization of the position of McCrone l
Associates (LILCO's Response at 3-4) is incorrect.
McCrone believes reliable results can be obtained, particularly if McCrone l
" shaves" the oxide from the crack sample and undertakes whatever i
tests it deems appropriate.
McCrone has informed the County that LILCO's inquiries limited McCrone to non-destructive testing of the crack sample.
l 2.
There is no reason why the McCrone testing must be non-l l
destructive.
LILCO has represented that the crack section from cam gallery No. 7 which was subjected to fractography is repre-sentative of all cam gallery cracks.
If LILCO wishes to preserve l
that particular section, for whatever reason, the County can be i
supplied with another section of the crack from cam saddle No. 7 (for example, the section shown in the photograph in the County's DYh Oh 9
P
i Y
Diesel Exhibit 81).1!
In fact, McCrone would prefer to itself fracture the crack sample for analysis, thereby ensuring that all proper procedures are followed.
3.
LILCO's proposed test protocol is unnecessary and unacceptable to the County, for the following reasons.
(a)
There is no reason to put limitations, as LILCO pro-poses, upon the tests which McCrone wishes to perform to ascertain the nature of the oxide layer.
Because McCrone is a recognized leading expert on x-ray diffraction testing and is totally inde-pendent, the County intends to request that McCrone, without input from the County or Dr. Anderson, determine what procedures are most appropriate to yield reliable results.
As noted in the County's Motion (at 3), if the Motion is granted we will invite LILCO's and the Staff's experts to discuss with McCrone the details of the tests McCrone may decide to perform.
(b)
There is no reason for LILCO to retain possession of the crack sample to be supplied to McCrone.
The County's Motion to Compel was necessitated by LILCO's refusal to supply a sample voluntarily.
The County has no objection to permitting repre-sentatives of the parties to witness the testing, if there is no interference with McCrone's procedures, and we will instruct McCrone to supply documentation and raw data from the tests to the parties.
(c)
LILCO's desire to have other laboratories test crack samples is irrelevant to the County's Motion.
LILCO has control 1/
The County's Motion to Compel was intentionally drawn to give LILCO this option.
I I
over all of the samples and can have whomever it selects perform whatever tests they want.
We would expect only that if LILCO has additional tests performed, all parties should receive test documentation.
(d)
LILCO's proposed " criteria" (LILCO's Response at 8-10) are a transparent attempt to control the test results and impose on the County consequences as to the cylinder block contentions.
The County has, pursuant to the Board's direction, stated how the County will alter its cylinder block contention if the tests demonstrate that the oxide is at least 15% magnetite or wustite (Motion at 3-4).
LILCO fails to propose any consequences at all i
to LILCO, such as the scrapping of the blocks, if 86% or more of the oxide layer is comprised of low temperature oxides, and thus the cracks are shown to be propagating.
This demonstrates LILCO's one-sided approach to the issue.
4.
In short, the County simply wants the opportunity to do what LILCO had and still has the opportunity to,do -- to have a
)
reknowned independent laboratory determine the nature of the oxide i
in the cam gallery crack.
It is clear from LILCO's vigorous objections to the County's requests and Motion that LILCO is frightened to have the x-ray diffraction test performed.
LILCO's l
attempt to impose unwarranted limitations on the procedures McCrone might decide to follow, if the Board grants the Motion, is j
further evidence of the desirability of having the tests performed as McCrone determines is best, after hearing from LILCO's and the Staff's consultants.
i
l T
5.
Finally, LILCO argues that the County's Motion should be denied because (i) the test is unnecessary, (ii) may not be defin-itive, and (iii) the County's Motion is untimely.
The County, in its Motion to compel, has shown the requisite relevancy and good cause under 10 C.F.R. $@ 2.740 and 2.741.
LILCO's arguments (i) and (ii) are not proper standards for denying a motion to compel under Section 2.740(f) or for granting a protective order under Section 2.740(c).
LILCO has not shown any conceivable way in which the granting of the Motion would annoy, embarrass, oppress, or be an undue burden or expense upon, or otherwise prejudice, LILCO.
For the reasons given in the Motion, it is clear that the Motion arose out of testimony by expert witnesses during cross-examination at the hearing in November, and was therefore timely.
LILCO's objection of untimeliness is unjustified and particularly inappropriate, given LILCO's own tardiness in disclosing any information about the cam gallery cracks until mid-way through the hearing.
LILCO should welcome an independent test that can prove definitively which party is right.
Respectfully submitted, Martin Bradley Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial liighway llauppauge, New York 11788 l
g-Alan Roy Dynner
/r Joseph J. Brig i
Douglas J. Sch idt KIRKPATRICK & LOCKilART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County December 6, 1984
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 SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REPLY TO LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL and SUFFOLK COUNTY'S REPLY TO LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO COMPEL, both dated December 6, 1984, have been served on the following this 7th day of December 1984 by U.S.
mail, first class, except as otherwise indicated.
Lawrence J.
Brenner, Esq.*
MHD Technical Associates Administrative Judge 1723 Hamilton Avenue Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Suite K U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission San Jose, California 95125 Washington, D.C.
20555 E. Milton Parley, III, Esq.*
Dr. George A.
Ferguson*
Hunton & Williams Administrative Judge P.O. Box 19230
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 2000 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.
School of Engineering Washington, D.C.
20036 Howard University 2300 6th Street, N.W.
Odes L.
Stroupe, Jr., Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20059 Hunton & Williams 333 Fayetteville Street Dr. Peter A. Morris
- Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Jay Dunkleberger U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20555 Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Albany, New York 12223 General Counsel Long Island Lighting Company James B. Dougherty, Esq.
250 Old Country Road 2045 Porter Street, N.W.
Mincola, New York 11501 Washington, D.C.
20008
Robert E. Smith, Esq.
Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
_Guggenheimer a Untermyer Twomey, Latham a Shea 80 Pine Street P.O. Box 398 New York, New York 10005_
33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Mr. Brian R. McCaffrey Long Island Lighting Company Mr. Frank R. Jones Shoreham~ Nuclear Power Station Deputy County Executive P.O. Box 618 H. Lee Dennison Building North Country Road Veterans Memorial Highway Wading River, New York 11792 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Joel Blau, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond New York Public Service Commission Business / Financial The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller NEW YORK TIMES Building New York, New York 10036 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
H. Lee Dennison Building Suffolk County Attorney Veterans Memorial Highway H. Lee Dennison Building "auppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Fabian Palomino, Esq.#
Special Counsel to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Governor Panel Executive Chamber U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Room 229 Washington, D.C.
20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board 1717 H Street, N.W.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.*
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Richard J. Goddard, Esq.
Staff Counsel Office of Exec. Legal Director New York State Public U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Service Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, New York 12223
~3-Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Agency 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York-10278 Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq.
Atomic Safety a Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555 d4,.x_s --
Alan Roy Dy p r,/ F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 DATE:
December 7, 1984 By Federal Express By lland Delivery L-
. ~
.