ML20063M279
| ML20063M279 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/31/1982 |
| From: | Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8209100201 | |
| Download: ML20063M279 (15) | |
Text
1<
RELATED COHitFSHWlumt.
00CMETED USNRC LILCO, August 31, 1982 12 SB)-3 R2:51 U FICC U U (;iW ;.
(.: Y %!S>
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)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTIONS 12, 13, 14 & 15 -- QUALITY ASSURANCE Preliminary Statement Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) moves to strike certain portions of the prepared direct testimony of Richard B.
Ilubbard, regarding Suffolk County Contentions 12, 13, 14 &
15 -- Quality Assurance because:
1) by addressing QA for non-safety related structures, systems and components, the testimony falls outside the scope of SC Contentions 12 through 15; 2) by addressing the issues of systems classification and of non-safety rela-ted/important to safety QA, which have already been litigated as part of SC/ SOC 7B, the testimony is unduly repetitious; w
3 I ) C'.
/T 9209100201 820031
~' v'l' u-PDR ADOCK 05000322 O
l -
1 l
3) by seeking to impose 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B on non-safety related structures, systems and components, the testimony impermissibly seeks to expand i
Appendix B; and 4) by discussing QA problems and the I&E Program at other plants without describing them or showing a link to i
Shoreham, the testimony includes irrelevant matter with no probative value.
It is well established in this and prior proceedings' that Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards have the power to strike irrelevant, argumentative, repetitious and cumulative t
evidence.
See 10 CFR 55 2.718, 2.743(c) and 2.757(b).
I.
TESTIMONY REFERENCES TO NON-SAFETY RELATED QA ARE OUTSIDE I
TiiE SCOPE OF TiiE CONTENTIONS LILCO's position on this point can be summarized in the
{
following syllogism:
A.
SC Contentions 12-15 focus solely on 1
compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B.
B.
10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, is exclu-sively concerned with the quality assurance requirements for safety relat-ed structures, systets and components.
Appendix B is not applicable to non-safety related structures, systems l
and components.
l l
l i
(,. -
, ~. -
- 1 r
1 1
I i
C.
Therefore, the testimony on SC 12-15 must be limited to quality assurance for safety related structures, systems and i
components.-
Each element of this syllogism is separately treated below.
A.
Contentions 12-15 Relate Solely to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B Each of the QA contentions, by its terms, is based I
solely on noncompliance with Appendix B.
In particular, l
(a)
SC 12 alleges that "LILCO has failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B as particu-larized in Appendix 1 attached hereto";1/
(b)
SC 13 alleges that "Shoreham.
. does not comply with 10 CFR 50.34(b)(6)(ii)2/ and 10 CFR Appendix B, Sections I to XVIII, with j
regard to.
(c)
SC 14 alleges that "the NRC Staff's Inspection and Enforcement (I&E) Program has not adequately verified that LILCO's 1/
Appendix 1 to the County's testimony purports to be a list of specific instances which the County contends illustrates that LILCO "has failed to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B."
2/
Section 50.34(b)(6)(ii) sets out the requirements for the description of the Appendix B QA program in an FSAR.
i l
{
.~-
- s 4
quality assurance program for Shoreham has been implemented in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR $ 50.34(a) paragraph 73/ and 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix B, Sections I through XVIII, in that
"; and (d)
SC 15 alleges that "there is no assurance that LILCO has complied with 10 CFR $ 50.55(e)4/ and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Sections XVII and XVIII."
Unmistakably, therefore, SC 12 through 15 focus solely on Appendix B.
While SC 12 also references GDC 1, it does so only in the context of Appendix B.
Accordingly, the reference to GDC 1 in SC 12 is limited by the subsequent particulari-1 zation to Appendix B.
Put another way, the scope of GDC 1 in i
i SC 12 is explicitly limited to the scope of Appendix B.
j Further confirmation of this is found in the remainder of the 1
contention which alleges non-compliance with Appendix B, Criteria II, III, and V-XVIII and then further refines SC 12 by attaching as Appendix 1 a long list of alleged failures to com-ply with Appendix B.
3/
Section 50.34(a)(7) sets out the requirements for the description of the Appendix B QA program in a PSAR.
4/
Section 50.55(o) concerns the reporting of deficiencies Huring construction of a nuclear power plant.
i
-S-J s
B.
Appendix B Applies Only to Safety Related Structures, Systems and Components The proposition that Appendix B applies only to safety related structures, systems and components has long been well established.
It is expressly indicated in the regulations and indeed, in a rare demonstration of unanimity, it has been con-ceded by all the active parties in this proceeding.
Appendix B criteria apply to "all activities affecting the safety-related functions" of " structures, systems and com-ponents that prevent or mitigate the consequences of postulated accidents that could cause undue risk to the health and safety of the public."
The " safety-related functions" are defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100 as those that involve:
1) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; 2) the capability to shut down the reactor,
~
maintaining it in a safe shutdown condition; or 3) the capability to prevent or mitigate the conse-quences of accidents which could result in potential offsite exposures comparable to the guideline exposures of Part 100.
Thus, the structures, systems and components to which Appendix B applies are those that perform the safety related functions defined in 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, and this is the safety related set of structures, systems and components.
Appendix B, then, by its own terms, applies only to the safety related set.
i
- _ =.,
l 1
So well settled is this conclusion that the parties all j
agree.
NRC Staff 7B testimony, for example, states that 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B applies exclusively to safety related i
structures, systems and components, and that the Staff has developed no QA requirements analogous to Appendix B for non-safety related structures, systems and components.b!
The NRC's published regulatory agenda confirms this fact by noting that the Commission has under consideration a rulemaking which would extend Appendix B to some non-safety related items.b!
The County's consultants agree, as they must, that Appendix B applies only to safety related structures, systems and components.
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 1342-43, 1353 (Hubbard).
Indeed, Mr. Hubbard said that QA standards for non-safety related equipment are still under development.
Tr. 1454-1457 (Hubbard). And, in a recent deposition, Gregory C. Minor also concluded that there are no specific QA requirements for l
structures, systems and components important to safety:
5/
Prepared direct testimony of Themis P. Speis et al. for the NRC Staff, ff. Tr. 6356, at 8-9, and hearing testimony of Walter P. Haass for the NRC Staff on July 21, 1982, Tr. 7480, line 13.
6/
See 46 Fed. Reg. 53618 (1981).
i l
l l
i i
e i
o O.
Well, the non-safety related but impor-l tant to safety category in your scheme
-- you will agree with me, won't you, i
that there is no defined or specified set of quality standards or quality assurance to be applied to that cate-l gory?
A.
Yes, I believe that is true -- that there's no specified QA requirements, j
let's say, such as 10 CFR 50 Appendix B.
l It isn't as though there were an Appendix C or some other designator that applies to the important of safety cate-gory but not necessarily to the safety related or visa versa.
There is no defined requirement for this lesser category of important to safety.
}
Deposition of Gregory C. Minor on August 18, 1982, at 109-10.
Thus, under the accepted interpretation of NRC regula-tions, 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B applies only to safety relat-ed structures, systems and components as defined by 10 CFR Part j
100, Appendix A.
C.
Therefore, SC 12 through 15 Address Only Safety l
Related Structures, Systems and Components The conclusion that SC 12 through 15 address only safety related QA follows inescapably from the facts demonstra-ted above.
SC Contention 12 through 15 are concerned i
exclusively with compliance with Appendix B.
And Appendix B applies only to safety related structures, systems and i
. =. _ -
J l
4 components.
As a result, the testimony on SC 12 through 15 must be limited to OA for safety related structures, systems and components, and the following portions pertaining to non-safety related QA should be stricken:
i page lii lines 12-16 page iv lines 5-14 page v lines 3-5, 19-20 page 9 line 23 page 53 lines 19-23 page 58 lines 10-end page 59 entire page page 72 lines 31 & 32 page 73 lines 1-8 page 74 lines 6-9, 19-24 page 75 lines 1-16 page 80 lines 1 & 19 page 82 line 23 page 83 lines 15-20 page 84 last line page 85 lines 1-4 page 96 lines 22-25 page 97 lines 21-23
-g-1 page 98 lines 12-13 l
II.
]
]
NON-SAFETY RELATED QA WAS FULLY LITIGATED IN SC/ SOC 73 SC/ SOC Contention 7B addressed systems classification,
{
including, among other things, the definition of systems,
^
structures and components "important to safety."
To illustrate the alleged significance of the definition, the County's direct I
testimony addressed GDC 1 and quality assurance for equipment "important to safety."1/ Similarly, LILCO and the NRC Staff covered the subject of quality assurance for non-safety related equipment in their direct testimony.
Moreover, the issue was thoroughly explored during the cross-examination of all par-ties.2/ So detailed was the direct and cross-examination, the Staf f concluded that they knew more about Shoreham's non-safety l
5 l
7/
See prepared direct testimony of Marc W. Goldsmith et al.
l l
for Suffolk County, ff. Tr. 1114, at 3, 19-22.
8/
See prepared direct testimony of Edward T.
Burns et al.
for LILCO, ff. Tr. 4356, at 41-55, 140-49, 159-61; ThemTs P.
Speis et al. for the NRC Staff, ff. Tr. 6356, at 8-15.
9/
- See, e.g.,
Tr. 1342-64; 1454-57; 1481-1500; 1564-67; 4424-30; 4442-46; 4457-58; 4771-72; 4866-70; 4918-36; 4948-52; 4958-79; 5425-49; 5512-19; 6536; 6958-59; 6966-84; 6988-7007; 7055-83; 7101-03; 7477-88; 7494-96; 7709-28; 7814-30; 7833-37; 7856-63.
-10_
i I
L related QA program than they knew about non-safety related QA programs for most, if not all, other plants.
Tr. 7709 (Conran and Haass).
As a result, the sections of the County's testi-mony dealing with QA for non-safety related equipment are redundant to testimony already received in litigating SC/ SOC 7B.
Thus the County is attempting, through these sections of
+
its OA testimony, to take a second bite at the apple.
Its admission would unnecessarily burden the litigation in an area already aptly described as a " trackless morass."1S! Therefore, i
the sections of the County's testimony dealing with non-safety l
related QA should be stricken.
These portions are identified in Part II above.
III.
(
l THE COUNTY SEEKS TO EXPAND IMPERMISSIBLY THE SCOPE OF APPENDIX B As stated above, LILCO believes that the County's experts, including Mr. Hubbard, have stated that there is no regulatory requirement to apply Appendix B to equipment impor-to safety.11! I f, however, the County socks to repudiate tant 10/
Tr. 9142.
l 11/
Although LILCO believes the terms important to safety" and " safety related" are synonymous and refer to the i
structures, systems and components that fulfill the safety footnote continued l
i
-wy--
m
.ep--n m.-,
"vr those statements and argue that non-safety related structures, systems and components are subject to Appendix B, then it seeks to expand the NRC's regulations, and the appropriate forum is i
the rulemaking to expand the scope of Appendix B now under con-sideration by the NRC.
Since the County has not met the requirements of 10 CFR $ 2.758, the County's testimony that LILCO's Appendix B OA program must include non-safety related (i.e. important to safety) structures, systems and components l
is an impermissible challenge to the NRC's regulations.
Consequently, it should be stricken.
The pertinent portions of i
the testimony are:
page lii lines 12-16 i
page iv lines 5-14 page 96 lines 22-25 i
1 footnote continued i'
functions listed in 10 CFR Part 100, Appendix A, Mr. Hubbard's testimony makes clear that he has something else in mind.
He includes non-safety related structures, systems and components in his definition of "important to safety." See, e.g.,
prepared direct testimony of Richard B.
Hubbard for 'Suffolk County on SC 12, 13, 14 & 15 at page iv, lines 3rl4,.and page 96, lines t 20-25.
^
w a
e r
s 4
i IV.
PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY'S TESTIMONY ARE IRRELEVANT TO SHOREHAM N.
Several portions of the County's testimony discuss, in general terms, alleged breakdowns at the North Anna, Browns Ferry, DiabloCanyon,-Zimmeh,.SouthTexas, Midland, Marble Hill, and TMI-2 plants.
W iAe SC 15 mentions some of these plants, the testimony is inadmissible because the Coun,ty has failed to demonstrate its materiality to Shoreham.
Absent from,,p.
e the County's testimony is any,showit}g of a link between the instances at other plants and Shoreham.
It is the County's
)
responsibility to make this initial showing of relevejce lest
- s
/
the parties litigate OA issues at otiter plants,without f,nowing g jq whether, ultimately, any applicability to Shorehb'm exists.
+-
Accordingly, the references totalleged problems at other plants
~
have no probative value in this proceeding.
These portions, e
ib should be stricken asg ~releyant and immaterial.
therefore, The pertinent material is:
3.
page 7 lines 18-end,
~
page 8 entire pagy 1\\'
i page 54
' lines 3-end' I
N page 55 1ines,Y & 2 1
l l
~.
/
?
s 3
v-
?
t s
t V.
i For the ruasons utated above, the indicated portions of Suffolk County's testimony on SC 12, 13, 14 and 15 should be
~ struck.
s Respectfully submitted, j
/
LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY
! " /,.
s
""_ j '
T.
S.
Ellis, IIIf f,,'
Anthony F.
Earify, Jr.
y'-
t IIunton & Williams P.
O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
!'l DATED:
August 31, 1982 f
(
A 9
\\
W i
se a
Y L
_e,.
--n..y.7-en e-
,,u w.
i LILCO, August 31, 1982 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1)
DOCKET NO. 50-322 (OL)
I certify that on August 31, 1982, LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY TESTIMONY ON SUFFOLK COUNTY CONTENTIONS 12, 13, 14 & 15 -- QUALITY ASSURANCE was served both by hand and first-class mail, postage prepaid, on those people noted with astericks below, and by mail on all others noted below:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Administrative Judge Appeal Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Board Panel Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, 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 Washington, 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
- Washington, D.C.
20555 i
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 Washington, D.C.
20555 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 a
,.m.
a 9
- Secretary of the Commission Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Twomey, Latham & Shea Commission 33 West Second Street Washington, 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 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
(
lA1&
W. fa IpY eveley, III Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 l
DATED:
August 31, 1982 l
l 8
(
_ _ _. _,