ML20054F354

Motion to Strike Portions of Gc Minor,Of Shoreham Opponents Coalition,Direct Testimony on Contention 9 Re Notification of Disabled Safety Sys.Testimony Would Broaden Contention Re Applicability of Reg Guide 1.47.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20054F354
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/14/1982
From:	Repka D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206160127
Download: ML20054F354 (6)

Text

. . - - . .

06/14/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322(0L)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF GREGORY C. MINOR ON S0C CONTENTION 9 On May 25, 1982, Shoreham Opponent's Coalition (SOC) filed the direct testimony of Gregory C. Minor on SOC Contention 9 - notification of disabled safety systems. S0C Contention 9 was admitted by the Board as follows (emphasis added):

As evidenced by the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2, accident conditions can be aggravated by the operation of the plant while one or more safety systems are inoperable. At Three Mile Island, two auxiliary feedwater system valves were closed when they should have been open. As specified below, SOC contends that Shoreham does not contain an adequate system to inform the reactor operator when a safety system has been deliberately disabled because the plant does not meet the specifications of Regulatory Guide 1.47 or its equivalent.

Therefore, it does not adequately protect the public health and safety and does not comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, Criteria 20, 21 and 22.

Specifically, the plant does not meet Regulatory Guide 1.47 in the following respects:

(a) the system inoperative alarms for the screenwell pumphouse vent system relay, the emergency switch-gear room exhaust air system, the battery room vent system, the RBSWS chiller equipment room vent system and the diesel rooms DESIGNATEL ORIGINAL 8206160127 820614 Certified Br_ /y '-

PDR ADOCK 05000322 '

O PDR )) SO ~7

emergency vent system cannot be manually activated in the control room; (b) the portion of the compressed air system servicing the SRV's does not have a unique system inoperative alarm; and (c) There is inadequate indication of the status (including bypass conditions) of systems and power sources on the Remote Shutdown Panel.

S0C Contention 9 states that the Shoreham plant does not meet Regulatory Guide 1.47, or its equivalent, in three specific respects.

The bulk of Mr. Minor's testimony is addressed to the third respect, part (c) of the contention, alleging that there is no evidence of bypass indication at the remote shutdown panel. However, the narrow focus of the testimony is altered in the final Q & A on page 4:

Q. Are there other areas in which LILC0's application of Reg. Guide 1.47 is insufficient?

A. Yes. The FSAR Table 7.1.1-2 shows several examples where a safety system or their supporting systems (per definition on Attachment 3, page A3-1) do not show Reg. Guide 1.47 as applicable.

This testimony would expand the contention to include all systems for which FSAR Table 7.1.1-2 does not show Regulatory Guide 1.47 to be applicable.

This would include many systems not related to the remote shutdown panel and not specified in either part (a) or (b) of the contention. Therefore, through this testimony, Mr. Minor is attempting to expand the scope of the litigation far beyond the three specific aspects listed in the contention. For this reason the NRC Staff movts to strike the above language from the testimony of Mr. Minor.

Throughout the course of this proceeding one of the difficulties faced by the Staff has been testimony and subsequent cross-examination which exceeds the scope of the written contentions. The purpose of a contention is to put all parties on notice of the subject matters to be litigated so that appropriate witnesses may be selected and that the issues may be adequately addressed in the prefiled testimony. Where one party unilaterially seeks to broaden the issues through its prefiled testimony, an inherently unequal situation is created for the hearing.

For this reason the Commission's regulations provide that testimony beyond the scope of the contention is properly the subject of a motion to strike. See 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Appendix A, V(d)(7). The Commission has also encouraged adjudicatory boards to select the "most fruitful" manage-ment devices for limiting unnecessary testimony and cross-examination and to ens'ure fair and expeditious hearings. See Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452, 457 (1981).

In sum, the testimony of Mr. Minor on 50C Contention 9 would place into issue the applicability of Regulatory Guide 1.47 to many safety systems which were not specified in the contention. In the interest of fair and meaningful litigation, the above stated portion of that testimony should be struck.

Respectfully submitted, QY A G David A. Repka Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 14th day of June,1982.

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

) (0L)

(ShorehamNuclearPowerStation, )

Unit 1) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF THE TESTIMONY OF GREGORY C. MINOR ON S0C CONTENTION 9" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as 'iadicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 14th day of June, 1982:

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, NY 10016 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. James L. Carpenter

• Administrative Judge Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hicksville, NY 11801 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris

• W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.

Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Board P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, VA 23212 Washington, DC 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

Staff Counsel New York Public Service Commission 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12223

l l

Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

John F. Shea, III, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq.

Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Attorneys at Law Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

P.O. Box 398 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 33 West Second Street Christopher & Phillips Riverhead, NY 11901 1900 M Street, N.W.

8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel

• Docketing and Service Section*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel

• U.S. N iclear Regulatory Ccmmission Washington, DC 20555 nN A oNYS _ s David A. Repka T Counsel for NRC Staff l

COURTESY COPY LIST Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Mr. Jeff Smith General Counsel Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Long Island Lighting Company P.O. Box 618 250 Old County Road North Country Road Mineola, NY 11501 Wading River, NY 11792 Mr. Brian McCaffrey MHB Technical Associates Long Island Lighting Company 1723 Hamilton Avenue 175 East Old Country Road Suite K HiCKsville, New York 11801 San Jose, CA 95125 Marc W. Goldsmith Hon. Peter Cohalan Energy Research Group, Inc. Suffolk County Executive 400-1 Totten Pond Road County Executive / Legislative Bldg Waltham, MA 02154 Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 David H. Gilmartin, Esq.

Suffolk County Attorney Mr. Jay Dunkleberger County Executive / Legislative Bldg. New York State Energy Office Seteran's Memorial Highway Agency Building 2 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223