ML20150A924

Applicant Objections to Prefiled Testimony.Testimony Attempts to re-raise Issues Already Dismissed & Raises New Issues Which Could Circumvent NRC Rules Designed to Define Issues for Hearing

ML20150A924
Person / Time
Site:	Black Fox
Issue date:	10/04/1978
From:	Gallo J, Murphy P, Nelson G ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE
To:
References
NUDOCS 7810190216
Download: ML20150A924 (11)

Text

e er b 0 EUBLIC 99

.', <l j 'N NT R 003f pmm 10/4/78

/

(J h'$ 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA b

1. k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD In the natter of the Application of )

Public Service Company of Oklahoma, )

Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. ) Docket Nos.

and ) STN 50-556 Western Farmers Electric Cooperative ) STN 50-557

)

(Black Fox Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' OBJECTIONS TO PREFILED TESTIMONY Pursuant to the Board's Order of August 28, 1978, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Western Farmers Electric Cooperative

(" Applicants") provide the following notice of objections to pref.iled Testimony, Witness Qualifications, Attachments to Testimony and proposed exhibits. Consistent with the pro-cedures set forth in a " Stipulation of Applicants, Inter-venors and NRC Staff For the Conduct of The Environmental and Site Suitability Hearings For the Black Fox Station,"

dated July 27, 1977, and the Board's endorsement of that procedure at the prehearing conference of June 29, 1978 (Tr.

1 l p. 4204), the stated objections are summary in form without supporting argument. The purpose of these objections is to preserve Applicants' right to object at the hearing. It is anticipated that more detailed review of the filed testimony and attachments and appropriate voir dire at the hearing may obviate some objections.

78/0/90 DM

pmm 10/4/78' Intervenors' Testimony'

.Both the Applicants and NRC Staff filed compre-hensive motions for summary disposition supported by affi-davits and other evidence. Intervenors opposed those motions i

and filed a supporting affidavit. In an " Order Ruling On Motions ' For Summary Disposition," this Board reviewed all of the evidence before it, considered in detail each'of Inter-venors' arguments and made rulings dismissing, in part, certain contentions. In many instances, Intervenors' pre-filed testimony attempts'to re-raise tha.se issues and, in some instances, raise new issues. If successful, the effect of'such attempts would be to circumvent those por-tions of the' Commission's Rules of Practice designed to define issues for hearing and to render meaningless'the efforts of the parties and the Board to employ those pro-cedures for their intended purpose. This accounts in large part.for the numerous objections made to Intervenors' testi-mony. Applicants' objections to specific sections of Inter-venors' testimony are as follows:

A. Testimony of Gregory C. Minor Regarding Contention 1, (Flow Induced Vibrations):

Section III 3.1 - Does not address Question 1-1 and is, there-fore, irrelevant and immaterial.

B. Testimony of Gregory C. Minor Regarding Contention 2, (ECCS):

i

)

l i

en og ., ,- ,,,,- ,--- ,c , , , - - m,-- -,e,,-~-~,.,,,n-,.~ ...--,-w, .-.,, - ~,.~--can,nw,,,n,,,.r-arm, ...s. .ca--.n,- a n, . , , - . - ---.-~,-s-~ -

pmm 10/4/78 3.1 - The first and last two paragraphs of this section do not address Questions 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3 and are, therefore, irrelevant and immaterial.

C. Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh Regarding Contention 5, (Earthquake Loads on RPV Skirt and Pedestal):

3. 2 - This section goes well beyond Question 5-1 and is, therefore, irrelevant and immateriaJ.

3. 3 - This entire section is irrelevant and imma-ter.ial to Question 5-1.

3.4 - This section assumes facts which Intervenors do not intend to put in evidence and consti-tutes impermissible hearsay.

D. Testimony of Richard B. Hubbard Regarding Contention 6, (Tornado Effects on Containment and Fuel Storage Facili-ties):

3.1, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 - These sections do not ad-dress Questions 6-1 and 6-2 and are, there-fore, irrelevant and immaterial.

Attachments A, B, C and D to the testimony are ir-relevant and immaterial to any issue before 1

the Board and constitute impermissible hearsay.

E. Testimony of Gregory C. Minor Regarding Contentions 7, 8 and 9, (Fire Protection):

3.2.3 - This section is irrelevant and immaterial.

F. Testimony of Richard B. Hubberd Regarding Contention 10,

' (Quality Assurance) :

'pmm 10/4/78 1

3.1 - This section does not address Questions 10-1, 10-2, 10-3 or 10-4 and is, therefore, irrele- l vant and immaterial.

1 3.2 - Tha'; portion of this section beginning with' l the last paragraph on page 10-12 and continu-ing to the end of the section is relevant, if at all, only to a contention not admitted in controversy, assumes facts Intervenors do not intend to place in evidence and consti-tutes impermissible hearsay.

3.3 - With the exception of the first paragraph'in this section, the information provided is irrelevant and immaterial to Questions 10-1, 10-2, 10-3 and 10-4.

3.4 - This section is irrelevant and immaterial.

Attachments A, B, F, G and H are irrelevant and immaterial. ,

G. Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh Regarding Contention 12, .

(Spent Fuel Pool) :

)

3.2 -

i Subsection 3 - The last three sentences in i I

this subsection are irrelevant and im-material.

Subsection 4 - Except for the first three sen-tences, this subsection is irrelevant and immaterial.

1 1

1 1

l l

4

pmm 10/4/78 4

H.. Testimony ~of Gregory C. Minor Regarding Contention 13, (Emergency Plan) :

3.3 - This section is entirely irrelevant and im material to Question 13-1.

I. Testimony of Dale G. Bridenbaugh Regarding Contention 15, (IGSS Cracking) :

3.1 - This section is immaterial to Question 15-1.

3.2 -

Subsections 2, 3 and 4 - These sections are irrelevant and immaterial to Question 15-1.

J. Testimony of Dale'G. Bridenbaugh Regarding Contentions 3 and 10, (Containment):

3.1 - This section iu irrelevant and immaterial.

Attachment A is a copy of the testimony on Conten-tion 5 and is e.hiectionable because it is re-P petitive in addition to all of the grounds stated under heading C above.

K. Testimony of Richard B. Hubbard Regarding Questions 19-1, 19-2 and 19-3:

3.1 - This section is immaterial to Question 19-1.

Mcreover, Mr. Hubbard is not competent to testify to the legal conclusions contained therein.

3.2 - Mr. Hubbard is not competent to testi.;f to the legal conclusions contained therein.

3.4 - This section is irrelevant and immaterial.

t pmm 10/4/78 I

3.5 - This section is irrelevant and immaterial.

I

.3.6 - This section is immaterial to puestion 19-1.

Moreover, Mr. Hubbard is not competent to testify to the legal conclusions contained therein.

L. Testimony of Gregory C. Minor Regarding Contention 65,

[ sic. - this is Contention 67) (ATWS):

No objections M. Testimony of Richard B. Hubbard Regarding Contention 66:

With the exception of the first paragraph and F

last sentence of the second paragraph of Sec-tion 3.2 of this testimony on page 66-6, the entire testimony is irrelevant and immaterial to Question 66-1. In addition, with respect to Sections 3.2 and 3-5, Mr. Habbard is incompetent to testify regarding the legal conclusion con-tained therein.

N. Testimony'of Dale G. Bridenbaugh Regarding Contention A-1, (Prevention of Off-Gas Explosions):

No objections F

iw ew --~w-- a..w- +,.-r, e #- ,

pmm 10/4/78 l

NRC , Staff Testimony Applicants' r.bjections to specific pcrtions of NRC tescimony are as follows:

1 I

A. 'iastimony of Brian W. Sheron, Ronald K. Frahm, and/or l

Denwood F. Ross and Thomas M. Novak on Board Ques- l tions 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3:

Question 2 All of the material under this heading, except for the first paragraph on page 2-3, is irrelevant and immaterial.

B. Testimcny on Contention 2, Report on NRC Inspection of Safety Analysis Computer Code Development by R. H. Erickley:

This entire piece of testimony is !..;elevant and immaterial.

C. Testimony of Mr. A. C. Thadoni and/or D. F. Ross, T. M.

Novak on Contention 65, [ sic. - this is Contention 67],

Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS):

The material under headings number Sa, Conten-tion 8, Contention 9, Contention 11 and Conten-tion 14 on pages 65-7, 65-8 are irrelevant and immaterial.

D. In addition, Applicants object to all Regulatory Guides, T

Task Action Plans and Branch Technical Positions at-tached to or filed with the NRC Staff testimony or identified as potential exhibits as irrelevant and immaterial unless and until an appropriate offer of proof is made.

l .

pmm 10/4/78.

As indicated with respect to Applicants' objections to Intervenors' testimony, voir d:'re, adequate offers of

- proof or Applicants' more detailed review of the NRC Staff's materials may obviate some of the above objections.

DATED: October 4, 1978 <

Respectfully submitted, 3bseph Gallo

-- -, g i /g K Glenn E. Nelson

/ , , ,

'I

j/ < ? v l ' ? . rl1, ,

iL 9. //{'

t u,/.<. ; . '.

r Paul M. Murphy Attorneys for Applicants ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE One First National Plaza Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312)786-7500 F

T 1

~. _,-...m._ _ . . . . . . . , . _ . _, . - . . . _ - , . . . _ - . - . , _ . -

b-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,

t In the Matter of.the Application of ) ,

Public Service Company of Oklahoma, )

Associated Electric-Cooperative, Inc. ) Docket Nos.

and ) STN 50-556 Western Farmers Electric Cooperative } STN 50-557

)

(Black Fox Units 1 and 2) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE r I, Paul M. Murphy, one of the attorneys for Public Service Company of Oklahoma, certify that copies of "Appli-cants' Objections To Prefiled Testimony" have been served in the above-captioned matter.on the following by United States mail, postage prepaid, this 4th day of October, 1978.  ;

Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq.

Atomic Safety and L3 ? asing Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-Mr. Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Paul W. Purdom Director, Environmental Studies Group Drexel University 32nd and Chestnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 L. Dow Davis, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~

Washington, D.C. 20555 Andrew T. Dalton, Esq.

1437 South Main Street Room 302 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 ,

Mrs. Ilene Younghein .

3900 Cashion Place Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112

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

. - - .- .- - ~_

c ;.7

'Mrs.'Carrie Dickenson

• Citizens Action for Safe Energy, Inc.

P.O. Box 924 Claremore, Oklahoma 74104 Chief Hearing Co'asel Office of-the Ex*cutive Legal Director United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section  :

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

~

Washington,-D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel ,

Attention: Chief, Docketing and Service Section United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Secretary Attention: Chief, Docketing'and Service Section United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Joseph Gallo Isham, Lincoln & Beale

' 1050 17th' Street, N.W. i Washington, D.C. 20036 Mr. Maynard Human General Manager Western Farmers Electric Cooperative P. O. Box 429 l Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005  !

I Mr. Gerald F. Diddle 'l General Manager Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.

P.O. Box 754 Springfield, Missouri 65801 Mr. Lawrence Burrell Rt. 1, Box 197 Fairview, Oklahoma 73737 Dr. M. J. Robinson Black & Veatch i P.O. Box 8405 j Kansas City, Missouri 64114 Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad Public Service. Company of Oklahoms l P.O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 l

l

• , o. ,

Mr. T. N. Ewing Public Service Company of Oklahoma P.O. Box 201 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Joseph R. Farris, Esq.

Green, Feldman, Hall & Woodard suite 816 Enterprise Building Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 DATED: October 4, 1978 .

o i I

! ll, [']

~

ill lll ~ t f '. /

Paul M. Murphy f'