ML19262C573

Opposition to Shoreham Opponents Coalition 800124 Request to Suspend CP & Renotice Hearing.No Credible Testimony Indicates Existence of Defects.Ie Is Investigating Facility & Will Halt Const That Would Imperil Safety

ML19262C573
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/08/1980
From:	Reveley W LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML19262C574	List: ML19262C573 ML19262C576 ML19262C577 ML19262C579
References
NUDOCS 8002140533
Download: ML19262C573 (5)

Text

, - _ - _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . . _ _ . _ ._. _ . . _ . . _ . . . . . _.

,

..

.

2/8/80 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO SOC'S REQUEST THAT THE SHOREHAM CONSTRUCTION PERMIT BE SUSPENDED I.

On January 24, 1980, the so-called "Shoreham Opponents Coalition" (SOC) filed a 55-page document entitled " Petition of

. . . SOC to Suspend Construction Permit for the . . . Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (Unit 1) and to Renotice Hearings in Docket No. 50-322, or in the Alternative, to Permit Late Inter-vention of SOC Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 2, Section 2.714." This document was sent to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board con-ducting Shoreham's operating licensing proceeding and to the Commission itself. Presumably, SOC's petition has now been forwarded to you, pursuant to your authority under 10 CFR S 2.206 (a).

For reasons noted below, the Applicant opposes SOC's attempt "to suspend [the] construction permit for . . . Shore- g ham." The Applicant also opposes SOC'c requests that the h Shoreham operating license proceeding be renoticed or that 8 v - n w @%V

. _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _. _ .

,

.

-

.

• pe~itioner's late intervention in the OL proceeding be accepted.

Our opposition to these requests is set out in an attached, separate filing to the ASLB.

II.

SOC's arguments why Shoreham's CP should be suspended appear on pages 29-30 of its Petition. These arguments are specious.

SOC claims, first, that "[t]estimony by construction workers from the plant have (sic] revealed shoddy construction practices, defects in reactor safety systems and the possibility that these defects are being concealed prior to NRC inspection."

Petition at 30. But SOC offers no detail at all to support its naked allegations. In our judgment, there has been no credible testimony indicating either the existence of defects or the pos-sibility that the construction activities yet to occur have the physical potential to conceal alleged defects.

SOC then acknowledges that the NRC's I&E Office "is inves-tigating . . . and has promised to investigate every allegation of improper construction" at Shoreham. Id. But SOC repeats its claim that continued construction runs "a risk that defects will be concealed or . . . expenditures made . . . (that] may have to be redone at a future date." Id. Again, SOC offers no factual basis for its speculation. In particular, SOC fails as before even to attempt to link subsequent construction activ-ities with the physical covering of purported defects. Equally ,

g .. . . , _ _ - . . _ . . . . . . _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ ___ ,-

4

-

.

important, I&E is investigating Shoreham and will have no hesitancy to stop any aspect of its construction that might con-tribute to a lack of plant safety, as recent events at Marble Hill indicate.

SOC further claims that action by the NRC is in order to protect LILCO's ratepayers against " unnecessary expenditures that might be incurred if modifications or retrofits are re-quired." (1) The NRC lacks jurisdiction to do anything for rate reasons. (2) SOC once more provides no detail concerning the nature of any " unnecessary expenditures" that are even arguably threatened. (3) By any rational measure, the greatest risk to LILCO's ratepayers is pointless delay in the completion and operation of Shoreham. The longer it takes to bring the station on line, the greater the impact on the ratepayers of inflation and carrying charges. More important, the longer Shoreham arts without generating electricity, the more the rate-payers will spend on fore'.gn oil. Thus, SOC's utterly unsub-stantiated speculation about the possible costs of continued construction has little weight when compared to the certain costs that would result if construction were suspended for no good safety reason.

Finally, SOC falls back on a desire to lessen sunk costs.

But given the one and a quarter billion dollars already committed to Shoreham, the likelihood that the sums still to be spent on the plant could tip its cost-benefit balance is vanishingly small. In any event, so far as the overall public good is

.

.._ . ._ __ .__ _ . _ _ _

,

.

-

.

concerned, the certain costs of pointless delay far outweigh any speculative costs of continued construction.

III.

SOC has not raised the sort of " substantial health or safety issues" required to sustain a show cause order. See Consolidated Edison Co. (Indian Point, Units 1-3), CLI-75-8, 2 NRC 173, 176 (1975). Moreover, if it so desires, SOC may take its speculation about. safety defects at Shoreham to the NRC's I&E Office and press that office to proceed with whatever vigor SOC thinks appropriate. As the Commission has noted, proceed-ings under 5 2.206 are not "a vehicle . . . for avoiding an existing forum in which (issues] more logically should be pre-sented." Id. at 177.

IV.

SOC has presented no factual basis for its request that Shoreham's construction permit be suspended. Moreover, SOC has an available. forum to which it may take its allegations for whatever review they merit. Under the circumstances , no justi-fication exists for suspending'Shoreham's CP. SOC's request should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND IIGHTING COMPANY

1. ,

,/

W. Taylor Revelcy, III -

- . , _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . . - - __ _ _

. .

W. Taylor Reveley, III Anthony F. Earley, Jr.

Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Edward J. Walsh, Jr.

Jeffrey L. Futter Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Dated: February 8, 1980

.