ML20101S931
| ML20101S931 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/01/1985 |
| From: | Twana Ellis HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#185-389 OL, NUDOCS 8502050720 | |
| Download: ML20101S931 (14) | |
Text
- %k f
' /
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0 % METED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION essgc
~
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board ES -4 A10:38 v>
c ~19 j'<
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY OF DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH AND GREGORY C. MINOR REGARDING SUFFOLK COUNTY'S EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR LOAD CONTENTION LILCO moves to strike portions of Suffolk County's die-sel generator load contention testimony on various grounds, including that (i) portions of the testimony are out-t side the scope of the contention, I
(ii) portions of the testimony are con-trary to the Board's Order of January 18, 1985; (iii) portions of the testimony amount t.o pure speculation without basis or foundation; (iv)-portions of the testimony consti-tute an impermissible attack on the NRC's regulations; or (v) portions of the testimony are ir-relevant.
Each of these grounds is discussed more fully below in-Moh0 hj2 D
0 PDR
\\
)
v y
- 1. s s~
connection with the specific portions of, testimony to which it applies._
I.
Beyond the Contention, Contrary to the Board's Order or Irrelevant The.following portions of the County's testimony should be stricken because they are beyond the scope of the conten-
. tion, contrary to the Board's January 18, 1985 Order or irrele-vant:
A.
Marcin at-Other Plants 1.
Page 8, answer 7, subparagraph (1), the phrase "are unprecedented."
2.
Page 11, answer 8, last two sentences including footnotes 9 and 10.
3.
Pages 15-16, answer 14, except first sentence but including footnote 14.
4.
Pages 16-17, answer 15, including footnote 15.
5.
Pages 20-21, answer 21, first three sentences.
6.
Exhibits 1, 3 and 4.
All of these portions reflect a surprising-attempt by-Suffolk County to reinject into this litigation the circum-stances and conditions at other plants around the country.
It
'3-
~is surprising'because the issue of the admissibility of facts and circumstances;at other plants-has?already been raised and argued by the-parties and resolved.by the Board.
The County, in:its; original diesel generator contention, sought to inject
-into'this litigation the circumstances and load margins at other plants.
LILCO-objected, noting that
[T]o the extent'the contention is based i
on the margin provided at other nuclear
_ lants, it is irrelevant-and invites--
p unnecessary litigation of facts and circumstances surrounding: diesel gen r-ators at other nuclear.-power plants.
l t
The Board agreed. -In its January 18,=1985 Order,.the.
Board ruled that
[T]o the extent admission'of this part:
[of the contention) would arguably in-clude consideration-of the margin at-other nuclear plants, such litigation' would be irrelevant or at least so re-
-motely collateral'to the material is-sues before us as to be-digressiv without'any redeeming usefulness.g/
.1/
LILCO's Response to Joint Motion to Admit Emergency! Diesel Generator Load Contention datedLDecember 27, 1984, at page 18.
Footnote 12.at page 18 also indicated that the margin data and information from other plants lhad been incorrectly calculated and-useo..The portions of the testimony here objected to, par-
-ticularly Exhibit 3, suffer.from precisely the same'in-
.firmities. - LILCO's~information indicates that much smaller margins exist'at most plants identified-inJExhibit-3 and in at least two-instances, there may be no margin:at all.
2/- January 18, 1985-Order at 8.
i
.r u
_....r.
.g er
6.-
By including testimony relating to margins and circum-stances a.t other plants, Suffolk County has chosen to ignore the Board's Or' der.
This testimony' deserves summary rejection;.
the portions listed above should be stricken consistent with the Board's ruling of January 18, 1985.
B.
Vaque Uncertainties 1.
Page.8, answer 7, paragraph (1), the term "uncer-tainties."
2.
Page 12, answer ll, the phrase "after allowing a i
minimal but reasonable degree of margin for uncertainties, mod-eling error, system' degradation, etc."
3.
Page 13, answer 11, the phrase "all of the uncer-tainties plus."
t 4.
Page 18, answer 17, third sentence.
5.
Page 21, answer 21, "and none to' provide for the modeling, calculational and other uncertainties inherent in the 4
accident scenario forecast."
6t.
Page 30, answer _.31, the clause "or for any inaccuracies which may exist in the predicted accident scenar-ios, modeling or loading conditions."
f
.~
~-
- e. '
s:
7.
- Page 15,; answer.14, "taking into account the mod-eling and.other. uncertainties inherent in predicting the acci-dent condition...
- In.its response to the' joint motion to admit the load contention,,LILCO objected to paragraphs.(a)(v) and (a)(vi) of i
i the' restated contention.
Those sections of the contention
~
dealt with degraded plant conditions, modeling errors and the like.
LILCO objected on a variety of grounds.
See LILCO's Re-sponse dated December 27, 1984, cat-pp. 12-17.
In essence, l
LILCO pointed out that these-portions of the contention had no adequate basis, were speculative.and, in the case of degraded I
l
. plant conditions, had nothing to do with the-implementation of t
a qualified. load.
i
-Again, the Board agreed with LILCO and in its January.
18, 1985 Order, ruled that (a)(v)-and (a)(vi) should not be ad-i mitted.
In reaching this conclusion, the Board-noted these portions ~of the contention relating to degraded plant condi-1 tions, modeling errors and vague references to inaccuracies suffered' 4
k l
fatally from a. lack of bases and an overabun-dance of speculation, and.that this'is exac-erbated by the fact conceded by the County's
' witnesses that they would not expect'such
. variations in load to be materially large.
i January-18, 1985' Order at'7.
4
-r
,-w
,.-es h
y c
J
,4 4
The Board's reasons remain valid and, indeed, the cor-rectness_of'the Board's ruling is underscored by the vagueness
-of the County's testimony.
Here again, the County should not be permitted to ig-nore the Board's existing order.
These portions of the testi-mony should be stricken as beyond the contention, contrary to the Board's Order, irrelevant and speculative.
C.
Overload Ratino 1.
Page 8, answer 7, the phrase "and the absence of any overload rating."
i 2.
Page 11, answer 8, the sentence "LILCO's proposal to operate the EDGs without a short-time rating is a departure from the general industry practice."
This testimony assumes and implies that the concept of a single qualified load is prohibited by regulation or attacked in the contention.
Both. implications'and assumptions are wrong.
No part of the admitted contention attacks the concept of a qualified load.
As the Board knows, this concept was es-tablished as an interim licensing basis by the NRC Staff in its TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group Safety Evaluation Report.
Thus, the County was on notice that the concept would be used and it failed to raise any objection to it.
Nor could it prop-erly do so, for there is no regulation that prohibits a
. 't qualified load or mandates use of both a continuous load rating and an overload rating.
Accordingly, this testimony is outside the scope of the contention, without regulatory basis and ir-relevant.
II.
Unfounded Speculation A.
Pages 18-19, answers 17 and 18.
These answers are, n their face, inadmissible specula-o tion.
For example, question 18 asks why LILCO followed a par-ticular course of action.
The answer begins with the phrase "we are not certain" and there it should end for the fact is
]
Suffolk County does not know the answer and the remainder of answer 18 is rank speculation.
Answer 17 is equally speculative.
It acknowledges on its face that "whether such ' locking'.has been made a permanent requirement is not known."
The answer should end with that ac-knowledgement.
What follows is mere conjecture.
Suffolk Coun-ty plainly has no basis for answers 17 and 18 and.these answers should accordingly be stricken.
III.
Witnesses Not Qualified, Unfounded A.
Pages 24-28, answer 28 including footnotes 19 and 20.
i
l.
In this testimony Messrs. Bridenbaugh and Minor summa-rize some. aspects' of various Shoreham procedures and purport to
. offer vague and general opinions concerning-the likelihood of '
oporator actions and errors.
Neither witness is qualified by training.or experience to offer these opinions. -Neither wit-ness, so far as this? record is concerned, has ever been quali-
'fied to operate a plant, ever been employed as an operator, or ever received simulator training relating to a nuclear power plant.
See, e.o. Tr. 2423-24, 2428-(low pwer proceeding).
That Messrs. Bridenbaugh and Minor are engineers with some ex-i perience in the nuclear industry.is not sufficient.
Those without experience as plant operators, like Messrs. Bridenbaugh and Minor, cannot speak as expert witnesses concerning op-erating procedures or the reactions of operators during an ac-cident.
Accordingly, this testimony should be stricken as unfounded opinions of persons who are not experts on the mat-ters in issue.
VI.
Irrelevant, Unresponsive A.
Pages 5-7, answer 7 from the beginning to subparagraph (c).
i Question 7 asks for the basis of the contentions and-a summary of the witnesses' concerns.
Yet the' answer, for-the most-part, consists of a selective (and.not wholly accurate) statement of some history leading up to the determination of i
e' the qualified load.
Pages 6 and 7 (subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c)) cons _ist of nothing more than a partial, selective summary of'LILCO's Revision 34 to the FSAR.
This is plainly inappro-priate, unresponsive ~and unnecessary; Revision 34 is a lengthy document which speaks for itself and can be offered into evi-dence if the County chooses.
Not until page 8 does the County respond to the question by listing concerns.
All of the testi-many in Answer 7 prior to this should be stricken as unresponsive and irrelevant.
V.
Challenge to Regulation (Single Failure Criterion), Beyond the Contention A.
Page 29, answer 30.
B.
Page 29, answer 29, last two sentences.
Answer 30 begins by postulating a LOOP /LOCA plus the failure of one diesel generator.
This-is a situation the plant must be, and is designed to tolerate under the single failure criterion.
But the answer goes on to postulate an additional failure beyond the single failure of a diesel already postu-lated.
This failure is said to result from an operator error that loads one of the two remaining diesels beyond the quali-fled load.
SC, in this answer, argues, contrary to regulation, that LILCO must include within the qualified load those loads-which could be applied due to operator error.
In other words, the County claims that LILCO must desion the plant to
accommodate random failure of one diesel (the single failure) along with erroneous loading of the remaining diesels by the operator (additional failures).
This is a direct challenge to the single' failure criterion regulation which requires that a
plant be desianed to withstand a single failure, but not multi-ple,. independent failures.1/
It is one thing to argue that procedures should be im-plemented to provide reasonable _ assurance that the operator error beyond the single failure will not occur.
This might well be a permissible subject of litigation.
But it is quite another matter, an entirely impermissible one, to argue, as SC does here, that the plant must be desianed to withstand multi-pie failures, namely an operator error in addition to some other single failure of another diesel.1/
3/ _
In its order of January 18, 1985, at page 5, the Board l.
notes that its preliminary view on this-issue is based, in part, on its view that single failure criterion analysis in-volves' consideration of design and automatic operation of
?
equipment, rather than consideration of operator errors.
LILCO respectfully disagrees.
Operator errors are and must be con-sidered in single failure analysis.
See, for example, Single Failure Criteria for Light Water Reactor Safety-Related Fluid Systems, ANSI /ANS-58-9-1981, which states at 5 s.7:
The designer shall consider an operator as a potential single active failure.
1/
In its January 18, 1985 Order at page 6, the Board states that LILCO's position is subject to a reductio ad absurdum criticism because it would suggest that the original EDG 103 block.need not lut replaced.
The fallacy in the Board's reason--
1 (footnote continued)
I -
7
. ~.
g.4 4
- i s.
f.
The objectionable portion of answer 29 hypothesizes an-
~
i accident scenario:that begins with'one EDG out of service,.as
~ llowed-by technical. specifications for.72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br />.
This is, in a
essence, fan; argument that~the plant.must be designed to meet 4
- the single ? f ailure criterion and beyond '(see above) when the
- limiting conditions for operation are' not met.
Such anzargu-
+1 j.
i
'mentcis unfounded and. contrary to'the regulations concerning
- I'
. technical specifications.
The: limiting conditions for op-l eration'are themselves the lowest' functional capability or per-4 formance levels of equipment; required for safe operation of the l
facility.-.There is no. regulatory requirement.that a plant.must 2
be designed to meet the single failure criterion when the lim-fo'th'in.the_. technical spec-j.
iting conditions for operation set r
l ifications are met. -The opposite is the case.. The technical i
specifications themselves set forth the remedial actions.per-1.
mitted and required in such situations.E/.10 CFR 4
L S 50.36(c)(2).
Thus, it is wholly 1 inappropriate to permit SC l
(footnote continued)
{
ing is'the assumption that the single failure-analysis is ap-plied to equipment ~ likely'to fail.
Not so; if a failureLis 4
I likely to occur or if therelis no reasonable assurance that'it
-will not occur, then its occurrencetis not part'of single fail-
~
ure analysis -- it must'be' assumed to occur.
Single _ failure
]L analysis _ applies to equipment as.to which!there is reasonable
~
' assurance of' reliable operation.
This.was arguably not the
[-
casejvith the original EDG 103 block.
p i:
1/
For example,-when one diesel is'out of: service, additional-l~
surveillance must-be performed 1on the remaining diesels toLen-t
.sure:their operability. ; Technical. Specification S~3.8.1;1.
1 I'
- ~
i I-4 m.
to litigate on the basis of a scenario that begins with a lim-iting condition for operation not being met.
To do otherwise constitutes a challenge to regulations concerning technical specifications, and an attack on the basis of the technical specifications, both of which are impermissible and beyond the scope of the contention.
Accordingly, this testimony should be stricken.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY L
T.)S llis I
lj Ant nr P
, Jr.
T. S. Ellis, III j
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 John Jay Range Hunton & Williams 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Odes L. Stroupe, Jr.
Hunton & Williams 333 Fayetteville Street Mall BB & T Building Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 DATED:
February 1, 1985 4
e n
5 LILCO, February 1, 1985 1s:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE s
4 ~
In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
'(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,-Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL) i
.I hereby certify th t copies of LILCO'S MOTION TO STRIKE
~
TESTIMONY OF DALE G. BRIDENBAUGH AND GREGORY C. MINOR REGARDING SUFFOLK COUNTY'S EMERGENCY DIESEL ~ GENERATOR LOAD CONTENTION were served this date upon the following.by hand, as indicated
[
by an asterisk, or.by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
Judge Lawrence Brenner, Csq.*
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairman Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Board, United. States Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,.D.C.
20555 i
4350 East-West Highway i
East West Towers (West Tower) l Fourth Floor Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.
1 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Attn:
Patricia A. Dempsey, Esq.
County Attorney i-
)
Dr. Peter A. Morris
- Suffolk County Department of Law l
Administrative Judge Veterans Memorial Highway Atomic' Safety and~ Licensing Hauppauge, New York 11787
. Board, United States i
Nuclear Regulatory-Commission _
Edwin J. Reis,'Esq.*
i 4350 East-West Highway Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
East West Towers (West Tower)
Office.of the Executive Legal i
Fourth Floor Director Bethesda, Maryland 20814 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. George A. Ferguson*
- Maryland National Bank Building l
Administrative Judge 7735 Old Georgetown Road i
Atomic Safety.and Licensing Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Board Panel Attn:- NRC lst Floor Mail Room 3
School of Engineering Howard University Herbert H.-Brown, Esq.*
2300 6th Street, N.W.
Kirkpatrick 4 Lockhart
. Washington, D.C.
20059 1900 M Street, N.W.
8th Floor Secretary of the Commission Washington, D.C.
20036.
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith-Washington,.D.C.
20555 Energy Research Group 4001 Totten Pond. Road
+
Atomic Safety and Licensing Waltham, Masschusetts 02154 Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory:
MHB Technical Associates Commission 1723 Hamilton' Avenue Washington, D.C.
l20555 Suite K i
San Jose, California 95125 ny
-_,a,...
y-,,
,,n..
. -o Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Special Counsel to the Agency Building 2 Governor Empire State Plaza Executive Chamber, Room 229 Albany, New York 12223 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
New York State Twomey, Latham & Shea Department of Public Service 33 West Second Street Three Empire State Plaza P. O. Box 398 Albany, New York 12223 Riverhead, New York 11901 Robert E. Smith, Esq.
James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Guggenheimer & Untermyer 3045 Porter Street 80 Pine Street Washington, D.C.
20008 New Y k, New York 10005 o
I'
- s An h:
1
, Jr.
j Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 DATED:
February 1, 1985
. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..