ML20147D330
| ML20147D330 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cooper  |
| Issue date: | 09/29/1978 |
| From: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147D231 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-06962, TAC-6962, NUDOCS 7810140024 | |
| Download: ML20147D330 (22) | |
Text
- - _ _ - _ -
~ PUBT,TC DOCUSWE Rooir #
~% ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - g \Mp[2 ..,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR .f W %$ ~' ,
In the Matter of )
)
% .. h PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA, )
ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. ) Docket Nos. STN 50-556 AND ) STN 50-557 WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC.)
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY In accordance with the Licensing Board's Order of August 28, 1978, the Staff hereby submits its objections to written testimony and witnesses submitted in this docket on Septcmber 25, 1978 by this motion to strike. The objections and reasons are set out below.
The Staff wishes to reserve the right (and so moves) that the objections contained within this document on the contentions listed within are without prejudice to the Staff's conduct of voir dire of these and other witnesses on their qualifications as they would impact the weight .to be given
~
'their te'stimony in the Licensing Board's decision on radio 1'ogical health and safety matters. In other words, while moving to strike testimony here on reliance, materiality and witness qualification, the Staff wants _
to reserve the right to voir dite witnesses whom the Board has allowed to testify, in order to show that their testimony is to be given more or less weight by the Board, depending on the telative experience level of the witnesses involved.
~18 V) A p 2 A-
s 4
~
Contention 6 The NRC Staff moves to strike sections 3, 4, 3.5 and 3.6 of Mr.
Richard Hubbard's proffered September 25, 1978 testimony on Contention
- 6. Not only is the proffered testimony outside the scope of Board Questions 6-1 and 6-2 (which were the only issues remaining in Contention 6 following the Board's granting partial summary disposition), the testimony on common cause failure, d,eviations from the SER and back-fitting after Construction Permit issue are also outside the scope of Contention 6 as it was originally admitted.
Contentions 7-8-9 The Staff objects to and moves to strike any and all opinions stated in the testimony of Intervenors' witness, Gregory C. Minor, because Mr. Minor has no qualifications as a fire protection expert.
Mr. Minor's testimony states he is an electrical engineer by formal education (Minor written testinony, p. 7/8/9-1). In a deposition taken on June 2,1978, (which deposition is part of the record in the proceeding), Mr. Minor states that his sole experience in fire protection m
t g .64,9- , ,,,q gy.,
P "
A@
s <'
was as part of a group working at General Electric Company in 1970-71 which developed the power generation control complex (PGCC), and later in a managerial position supervising the development group. (Minor deposition pp.19-20). Mr. Minor had no other responsibility for fire protection matters during his employment at G.E. (Minor deposition, p. 29).
Mr. Minor has had no further engineering experience since leaving General Electric Company in 1976 (Minor deposition, p. 34). Therefore, Mr. Minor is not qualified to testify as an expert in the area of fire protection systems.
The Staff moves to strike the following testimony of Mr. Minor as l
l inadmissible opinion:
1 Line 3, p. 7/8/9-4 "Howeve r. . . . appli cabl e" Last line, p. 7/8/9-4 continued on p. 5:
"This may. . . . .s ati s factory" Line 3, p. 7/8/9-5 "The abili ty. . . .NRC. "
All of second paragraph, p. 7/8/9-5:
"In essence . . . Criterion 3."
The last paragraph, p. 7/8/9-6 continued on p. 7:
"Since.... safety."
Line 10, past paragraph, pp. 7/8/9-7 and 8:
" Des pi te. . . .expl osions . "
l
.q.
p
. ?
E
.- o [
j e
Line 1, p. 7/8/9 the entire remaining portion of the paragraph:
"The test.... tested."
Additionally, the Staff moves to strike the following: .
Third paragraph, p. 7/8/9-5, entirely:
"Further evidence. . . .fi re" Because the witness refers to a document inadequately described which is not in evidence nor proposed as an Intervenors' evhibit.
On page 7/8/9-7, the Staff objects to the statement in line 6 beginning:
"However, . . . . di vi si on . "
because it is irrelevant and immaterial. To comply with regulations, Applicants rieed not describe tests performed by contract for the Commission.
Staff moves to strike the last paragraph, p. 7/8/9-11 as a legal conclusion proper only for the Board's decision.
Contention 3 and 16
~
The Staff moves to strike the following portions of the written test- ;
imony of Intervenors' witness, Dale G. Bridenbaugh, for the reasons herein stated:
Section 3.1 on pages 3/16-4,5, and 6 and the first paragraph of page 3'/16 7. ,
In the above portion of testimony, Mr. Bridenbaugh refers' to two documents and offers comments on them, as well as making geraral state-ments about economic considerations of General Electric Company. None s
wsv * % ** ys ;~ :
- r , wp.
s~ -
s <-
of this testimony is relevant to Contention 3/16, and is outside the scope of the issues raised therein. Neither NUREG-0474 nor the nuclear safety document is in issue nor offered as evidence in this contention nor are the economic considerations of General Electric.
On page 3/16-5, Mr. Bridenbaugh makes several objections to the reliability of NUREG-9474, yet refers to this document as evidence throughout his testimony. The Staff moves to strike all references to and excerpts of NUREG-0474 on the grounds that the witness has objected to the document and by continual reference to it, makes issue of the document itself. This document is not part of Staff's evidence in this case. The portions to be stricken are:
- 1. Line 2, paragraph 3, page 3/16-7 "and as summarized in NUREG-0474".
- 2. All of page 3/16-8 which consists entirely of references and excerpts from NUREG-0474.
- 3. Line 1, page 3/16-9 the following:
"As reported. . . .LOCA."
- 4. Line 3, p. 3/16-11
~
"Schedul e . . . .NUREG-0474. "
- 5. Line 3, paragraph 2, p. 3/16-12 ,
"As indicated. . . . Con tainments. " -
- 6. Line 2, paragraph 3, p. 3/16-12 continued on p. 3/16-13.
" Rega rdl es s . . . . i mpo rtance . "
=p,....+,.,.wg.r-..y. p ,
,,, m i .
s r ,.
The Staff moves to strike the two sentences on page 3/16-9, line 9:
"In 1972. . . . wall" as irrelevant and outside the scope of this proceeding. The witness attempts to compare a foreign reactor to those under regulation by the U. S., whereas it is unknown as to what requirements foreign reactors are designed and built.
Paragraph one, page 3/16-10 should be stricken as it raises new issues not previously raised in Contention 3/16 nor in Intervenors' Responses to Staff Interrogatories concerning these contentions.
In paragraph 2, line 9, the sentence beginning and ending:
"As was. . . . quanti fi cation" should be stricken at it again refers to events in a foreign reactor and is irrelevant for the reason stated before and, furthermore the witness' concluding phrase is mere speculation.
On page 3/16-1.2, the remaining part of paragraph 2 beginning and ending:
"It is disconcerting. .. . review."
- should be stricken as it is merely a criticism of the method of categori-zing review in the SER and is, therefore, irrelevant to the issues raised in Contention 3/16.
, . .,m;
~
t.
(
~
b n
On page 3/16-13, line 1, the sentence beginning and ending:
"Addi tional . . . .tes ts . "
should be stricken as it raises' issues outsido the scope of this contention, i.e., procedures in utilization of test data from foreign-reactors.
The last' paragraph, page 3/16-15 should be stricken because it is a legal conclusion which is proper only for the Board to decide.
Contention 5-1 The Staff moves to strike the following portions of Intervenors' witness, Dale G. Bridenbaugh, testimony for the reasons set out below:
Staff objects to the quotation on page 5-4 from SRP 3.7.2 beginning "where . . . . reviewed."
as an incorrect application of this SRP.
On page 5-5 beginning at paragraph 53.2, through and including pages 5/6,5/7,5/8,5/9, and the first paragraph on page 5-10, should be- 1 stricken as irrelevant to the narrow issue remaining as Contention 5-1 l
. after .the. Board's Order granting Summary Disposition in part. The above described portions of this testimony far exceed th'e scope of the issue in 5-1 and raise numerous issues not covered in assessment of effects of vertical motion in an earthquake on the pressure vessel supports and pedestals. !
Nb1NlN%@NEM.MO ' O ;' w g C P '
r s-i As to the issue of load combinations raised by t,he Staff in a letter to the Board dated J~ e 27, 1978, the testimony of Mr. Bridenbaugh is totally irrelevant except for the paragraph numbered 5 on p. 5-7 continuing on page 5-8. The letter to the Board mentioned above notified the Board that the Staff would issue a generic resolution of load combination methodology. This resolution has been issued as NUREG-0484 submitted to the parties and Board along with written testimony.
s .
Other than the paragraph above indicated, (#5), the witness' testimony raises issues unrelated to and outside the scope of the load combination methodology and should be stricken as inadmissible.
Summary: Staff recommends that only pages 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 (excluding the SRP quotation) and paragraph #5 on 5-7 and 5-8; and paragraph IV on page 5-10 be deemed admissible for Contention 5-1 and load combination nethod questions concerning the vessel supports and pedestal.
O
+
9 n ss o.n ew-.ee re mer.. , yr -
.w. ~
~ , - - - -
r y*uwg
u
( S s 4 k g
Contention 10 The Staff moves to strike Intervenor's proposed testimony-submitted in connection with contention 10 for the reasons stated:
Proposed' testimony on pages 10-5 through the middle of 10-6 is not responsive-to any Board question.
The paragraph comprising the last six lines on page 10-6 and the first -
six lines on page 10-7 concerns the availability of General Electric topical report NED0-11209-04A. It has no relevance to any question asked by the Board.
The paragraph on lines 7 through 17 on psge 10-7 concerning 10 CFR Part 21 was addressed by the Board in its " Order Ruling on Motions for Sunsaary Disposition" dated September 8,1978 (see page 31).
The last paragraph on page 10-7 is a complaint that the Staff's Safety Evaluation. Report does not include references to the sections' of the Standard Revlew Plan which formed a criteria for the Staff review of quality assurance. The information is irrelevant' to any question posed by the Board.
r The proposed testimony on page 10-8 th'ough the middle of 10-9 concerns comments made by the General Accounting Office concerning the NRC's QA program and does not appear to be even remotely relevant to any question posed by the Board.
l m~~py-~..~,-e..r, . .<. .. . . . . . , , .,..,7.. ,
.,.g..
, , _ , . _ , , . , l
- 1-
y w <>
i.
The proposed testimony beginning seven lines from the '.ottom of page 10-12 through the middle of page 10-15 concern a GE internal document apparently known as the " Reed Report" which according to the proposed testimony the NRC has read but has never required to be submitted.
Intervenors failed to make even a minimal attempt at showing the relevance of that document to any issue now before this Board.
Intervenors discuss from the middle of pages 10-15 through the middle of pages 10-17 the status of WASH-1309, " Guidance on Quality Assurance Requirements During the Construction Phase of Nuclear Power Plants" dated May 10, 1974, and indicate that the Applicant has failed to -
describe how the relevant regulatory guides on QA will be implemented. '
This is merely a restatement of the matter that was addressed by this Board on page 29 of its September 8,1978 " Order Ruling on Motions for Summary ' Disposition." This Board indicated that it saw no triable issue of fact (Board Order, page 30).
Irtarvenor's proposed testimony on the last nine lines of page 10-17
' t1 rough the end of that paragraph on page 10.-18 concludes that "an in depth assessnent of how the Black Fox QA program commitments 'will be implemented appears beneficial to assure public health and safety" l involves matters previously ruled on by the Board and is not relevant -
yf,.-.__ m .~,,, - -
1 . . . n- -
n e o ]
~
h l
to issues now pending before this Board. 'See pa.ges 30 and 31 of this -
1 Board's " Order Ruling on Motions for Summary Disposition." -
The paragraph beginning on the last seven lines of 10-18 and continuing through the first four lines on 10-19 is not responsive to the Board question 10-3.
The sentence on lines 5 through 8 of page 10-20 is not responsive to any Board question.
?
The conclusion stated by Intervenors on page 10-20 is not responsive to any Board question.
Contention 19 -
The Staff moves to stri!.a Intervenor's proposed testimony submitted in connection with Contenti N 19 for the reasons stated:
Ihe 5-line paragraph that begins 7 lines from the bottom of page 19-5 concerning the Staff reference of the SRP in the SER is not relevant to any. issue before this Board. , ,
The paragraph that begins on the last line of 19-5 and continues through
~
the top 9 lines of 19-6 states Intervenor's legal conclusion and is t i
not relevant to any issue before this Board, 4
i The paragraph on page 19-7 entitled " Dual Plant Orientation" does not relate to any issue before this Board.
l
. . _ . . - . _ _ _ _ _ . , . . . . , . ,. u _ _ _ _ . _ ._ _ , _
.- -- = _.
- 4. 4-
-12 '
The discussion in Intervenor's proposed testimony on pages 19-8 through the middle of 19-9 is not relevant to any issue before this Board. .It is a vague complaint about some generalized inadequacies in the Safety Evaluation Report. .l l
The section of Intervenor's proposed testimony on pages.19-9 through the top four lines of 19-10 entitigd "Backfitting After Construction Permit Issue" is not relevant to any issue pending before this Board.
The conclusions stated by Intervenors on page 19-10 are not responsive to any Board question.
Contention 66 i
The NRC Staff moves to strike the September 25, 1978 testimony of Richard B. Hubbard on Plant Security (Contention 66). The resume of Mr. Hubbard (including the description of his duties with GE at the beginning of his testimony) shows no prior experience in security matters sufficient to qualify him to testify on Contention 66. In addition, the deposition of Mr. Hubbard on June 1, 1978 revealed no further qualifications than set forth in the Hubbard resume and testimony. See Tr. 16-24, 114-115, 127.
Respectfully submitted, A
hoc -
Colleen P. Woodhead Dated at Bethesda, Maryland Counsel for NRC Staff this 4th day of October, 1978 j
-..._,y,
. . v 4 v: ,
)
f r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
. In the Matter of ,
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA, ASSOCIATED ELEC C COOPERATIVE, INC. ;
Docket Nos. STN 50-556
) STN 50-557
WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,'INC.)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF MOTION TO STRIKE TESTIMONY",
dated October 4,1978, in the above-captioned proceeding, have been served on the following, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 4th day of October, 1978:
4
.. Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esq. Mrs. Carrie Iickerson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Citizens Action for Safe U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Energy, Inc. '
Washington, D. C. 20555 P. O. Box 924
. Claremore, Oklahoma 74107 Mr. Frederick J. Shon, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Mr. Clyde Wisner U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC Region 4 Washington, D. C. 20555 Public Affairs Officer 611 Ryan Plaza Drive Dr. Paul W. Purdom Suite 1000 Director, Environmental Studies Group Arlington, Texas 76011 Drexel University 32nd and Chestnut Street Andrew T. Dalton, Jr. , Esq.
l Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104 Attorney at Law
^
1437 S Joseph Gallo Es Tulsa,outh Main. 74119 Oklahoma Street, Room 302 Isham, Lincoln & Beale 1050 17th Street, N.W. -
Washington, D. C. 20036 Mrs. Ilene H. Younghein 3900 Cashion Place Michael I. Miller, Esq. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112
! Isham, Lincoln & Beale One 1st National Plaza Paul M. Murohy Suite 2400 Isham, Lincoln & Beale Chicago, Illinois 60606 One First National Plaza, Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 I
- N @*-
- NFf *WF O486TW 'N 4 %ed$. t89W ' 9 4 a^d. "#
,m .
g s[ c I
s Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.~ C. 20555 Washington,'D. C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Mr. Maynard Human Office of the Secretary of the General Manager Commission .
Western Farmers Coop. , Inc.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ?. O. Box 429 Washington, D. C. 20555 Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005 Lawrence Burrell -
Mr. T. H. Ewing Route 1, Box 197 Acting Director Fairview, Oklahoma 73737 Black Fox Station "uclear Project Public 5 rvice' Company of Oklahoma Mr. Gerald F. Diddle P. O. Box 201 General Manager Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc.
P. O. Box 754 Dr. M. J. Robinson Springfield, Missouri 65801 Black & Veatch P.O. Box 8405 -
Mr. Vaughn L. Conrad Kansas City, Missouri. 64114 Public Service Company of Oklahoma P.O. Box 201 :
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74102 Joseph R. Faris, Esq. ,
Robert Franden, Esq.
Green, Feldman, Hall & Woodard 816 Enterprise Building Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 /
(j/
e Colleen P. Woodhead f m /-
4 I
Counsel for NRC Staff nee
-+ ._ - n _ . . .
_ . , , ._ ,_. . _ . . _ , , , , _ , , . !