ML20055A357

Motion to Strike Portions of DG Bridenbaugh & Gc Minor Testimony on Behalf of Suffolk County Re Safety Relief Valve Test Program.Testimony Attempts to Alter Relevant Concepts. Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20055A357
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	07/13/1982
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8207160205
Download: ML20055A357 (7)

Text

'-

u  ?* l I.o '#: . , *'

, , RELiTED CORBESPONDENG .;

.g ** I

. M.tc . !l- nj

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERIC '

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO%2' JL 15 #0:19 i Before the Atomic Safety and Licensin'h' Board Jyfg/ l

'0FT'CE OF SECRETAH 00CF.EilNG & SERV!CC In the Matter of ) ERANCH

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322(OL)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,) '"' ~~"~^

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTION 22 -- SRV TEST PROGRAM Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) hereby moves to ctrike certain portions of the prepared direct testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gregory C. Minor on Behalf of Suffolk County regarding Suffolk County Contention 22,-- SRV Test Program. These portions do not meet the standards set out in the pertinent provision of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 CFR S 2.733(c), which states:

Only relevant, material and reliable evi-dence which is not unduly repetitious will be admitted. Immaterial or irrelevant parts of an admissible document will be segregated and excluded so far as practicable.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards have the, power to

~

implement this provision, both through their general power to a

regulate the conduct of a hearing,10 CFR S 2.718, and through the specific authority under 10 CFR S 2.757(b) to strike argu-mentative, repetitious, cumulative or irrelevant evidence.

8207160205 820713 PDR ADOCK 05000322

• O PDR hS63

l. Reliability v. Operability /Functionability: The Suf folk County testimony uses the terms " reliable" and " relia-bilit'y" frequently in characterizing the requirements for Safety Relief Valve (SRV) testing set out in NUREG-0737.1! The term " reliability" is not used, however, in connection with SRV testing in NUREG-0737, Item II.D.l. Rather, the term used -

there is "functionability" (NUREG-0737, p.II.D.1-1, ,

Clarification Item A(1)). ! The test of "functionability" is "that the valves will open and reclose under the expected

[ operating and- accident (non-ATWS)] conditions." (Id.); the term " reliability" is nowhere mentioned. Nor does Suffolk County's Contention 22 refer to the term " reliability". The possibility that Suffolk County could have intended to use the term " reliability" synonymously with "functionability" is belied by the allusion (Testimony page 6, line 28) to "func-tionability and reliability".

The difference between the concepts of " reliability and "functionability" is significant in this context.

"Functionability" raises the question whether, when a component like an SRV is subjected gto given test conditions, it performs 1/ E.g . , pag e 2, lines 10,17; page 6, line 28; page 7, lines 4,10.

2/ See also Clarification Item A(2), using "functionability" as the test for application of generic tests to individual reactors.

industry, has a longer-term, more probabilistic connotation:

when subjected to a given member of tests over a given time period, in what percentage of those situations will a component function? Both concepts are used in nuclear analysis, but they are not the same. Nor are they appropriate for the same types of circumstances. When a sample is large and a probablistic evaluation can be readily made, a probabilistic look at relia-bility is feasible. Where, by contrast, a test program is set up to verify the design of a infrequently called-upon component such as an SRV under postulated conditions, then actual opera-bility under those conditions - "functionability" -- is the appropriate test.

That is the test under NUREG-0737 and in Contention 22.

Thus, those portions of the Suffolk County testimony which attempt to alter the relevant concept of " operability" to one of " reliability" should be struck as beyond the contention and irrelevant.

The pertinent lines are:

page 2 line 10 l

page 2 line 17 page 2 line 21 page 6 line 1 page 6 line 28

! page 7 line 4 l page 7 line 10 i

t i a

2. ATWS: The testimony attempts to fault LILCO for not having conducted an ATWS review of SRVs (or justified the absence to date of such ATWS tests). There are two reasons why this portion of the testimony should be struck. Within the actual text of the NUREG-0737, there is no requirement for any commitment to perform ATWS testing during the pendency of the proposed ATWS rulemaking. Indeed, NUREG-0737 specifically refers to testing under " expected operating and accident (non-ATWS) conditions." Second, this Board ruled in relation to the Suf folk County' ATWS contention, SC 16, that since Shoreham will be governed by the final ATWS rule in any event, the only rel-evant question was the adequacy of interim measures taken or to be taken by LILCO. The Board also set SC Contention 16 as the appropriate forum for litigation of interim ATWS issues. That contention, not this one, is the appropriate place for litiga-tion of any relevant matters relating to ATWS matters.

The areas of testimony concerning ATWS are the following:

page 5 line 21-22 page 6 line 20-23 page'7 line 1 page 7 line 14-15

3. Discussion of GE Generic Test Program (page 5 line 17

- page 6 line .10 ) : This is a nonprobative discussion which merely states, in essence, that the witnesses do not.know the

results of the GE test program since their version of its reported results (NEDO-24988) omits proprietary data. The wit-nesses' statement on this point does not add to the information in the record. The witnesses received the non-proprietary ver-sion of the report by letter dated March 5, 1982, fully two and a half months before filing their testimony. Suffolk County has not hesitated in other aspects of this proceeding either to seek compulsory production of documents or to enter into pro-prietary agreements when its interests so indicated. They neither sought production of the proprietary version of the GE report, nor offered to enter into a proprietary agreeement to obtain it. This portion of this testimony, which is of immaterial value as the result of the witnesses' own failure to seek information in timely fashion, should be stricken.

Respectfully submitted,

/-

t jh D'ONALD P. IRWIN

~

Counsel for i Long Island Lighting Company Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 1 804/788-8357 1

DATED: July 13, 1982 l

l l

L

o 1 1

i LILCO, July l'. ,IP'19 8 2 "

NsW 12 JL 15 N0:19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE g/[yP 0FFiCE OF SLch!Aw!

00CKETitJG & SERVfCE BRANCR In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

I hereby certify that copies of LILCO's Motion to Strike Portions of Suffolk County Testimony on Suffolk County Contention 22 -- SRV Test Program were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by hand (as indicated by an asterisk), on July 13, 1982.

Lawrence Brenner, Esq.* Atomic Satety and Licensing Administrative Judge Appeal Board Panel .

Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washing ton , D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Peter A. Morris

• U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Administrative Judge Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washing ton , D.C. 20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*

Commission David A. Repka, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. James H. Carpenter

• Washing ton , D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Gilmartin, Esq.

Board Panel Attn: Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory County Attorney ,

Commission Suffolk County Department of Law l

Washington, D.C. 20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 i

e

', .o I Secretary of the Commission Stephen B. Latham, Esq. l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Twomey, Latham & Shea l Commission 33 West Second Street l Washing ton , D.C. 20555 P. O. Box 398 Riverhead, New York 11901 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.* Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Cammer and Shapiro, P.C.

Karla J. Letsche, Esq. 9 East 40th Street Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, New York, New York 11901 Christopher & Phillips Albany, New York 12223 8th Floor 1900 M Street, N.W. Howard L. Blau, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20036 217 Newbridge Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Mr. Mark W. Goldsmith Energy Research Group Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

400-1 Totten Pond Road State of New York Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Department of Public Service Three Empire State Plaza MHB Technical Associates Albany, New York 12223 1723 Hamilton Avenue Suite K Mr. Jay Dunkleberger San Jose, California 95125 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Respectfully submitted, LO G ISL ND IG ING COMPANY

,i#

Donald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212

~

DATED: July 13, 1982 l

i 1