ML19259C445

Motion by Intervenor Miami Valley Power Project to Amend Petition to Intervene.Seeks Addition of Contention 17 Re Evidence of Safety Problems.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19259C445
Person / Time
Site:	Zimmer
Issue date:	04/30/1979
From:	Kosik L KOSIK, L. S.
To:
Shared Package
ML19259C446	List: ML19259C445 ML19259C447
References
NUDOCS 7906220066
Download: ML19259C445 (5)

Text

. .

" ' ~

NRC PUBLIC DOCU..IEN1 h00,y

[ 9e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l' &

DE .

p '.

f NUCLEAR REGUIEORY GMiISSIG' j[

In the Matter of ) 4 ch The Cincinnati Gas & Electric )

Canpany, et al. ) Docket No. 50.-358 (Wm. H. Zinmer Nuclear Powr )

Staion) )

INIERVENOR MIAMI VALLEY POER PROJECI"S 1mION 'IO AMEND ITS PETITION FOR IIAVE 'ID IhTER\DT Miami Valley Pour Project (MVpP) hereby moves to Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board for pemission to amend its petition for leave to intervene pursuant to 10 C.F.R. section 2.714 (a) (3). Specifically, MVPP moves the Board for pemission to admit an additional contention, proposed contention 17.

MVPP contends that all requirenents as set out in 10 C.F.R. section 2.714 (a) (1) (i) through (v) are met.

On March 1,1J79 Applicants subnitted a report of a test perfomed on material used to insulate cable trays. This report is titled " Fire Protective Cable Tray Fire Tests, Septenber, 1978 through January, 1979 for William H. Zinmer Nuclear Station." The report is Revision 12 to the Fire Protection Evaluation Report. In mid-March, 1979 Mr. Edwin Hofstadter, fomer enployee of Husky Products, Inc. examined this report. Mr. Hofstadter, in the course of his enplo3 ment with Husky, had opportunity to observe the cable tray structure, installation design and cable load. Mr. Hofstadter's examination revealed that the tests were inadequately perfomed on the insulation material. Mr. Hofstadter thereafter confidentially secured 2281 238 79062200M 4

.a %

details of a test of the material by U. L. Laboratories and discovered that the test of the material was actually a failure. Mr. Hofstadter then conveyed his infomation to intervenor MVPP. MVPP, after investigating the evidence presented, determined that its petition should be amended to include an additional contention in cmder to raise this additional safety problem and is thus seeking leave to amend as soon as was possible. Thus the requirement of showing good cause for failure to timely file, as set out in 10 C.F.R. section 2.714 (a) (1) (i), is met by the fact that the evidence supporting proposed contention 17 only recently became available to 1RPP.

Because no contention regarding the adequacy of the insulation material is being considered, there is no other means available to protect SnPP's interest in seeing that all safety requirements are properly met. MVPP can only assume that the Board is considering the above-mentioned test report, submitted on March 1, 1979, as proof that the insulation material is adequate.

MVPP has evidence that it is not adequate in that it uns improperly tested and in that there is another test report not presented to the Board, which shows the material did not pass the test. In order to obtain a copy of this report, MVPP requires the right to discover evidence relevant to proposed contention 17. Thus the factor in 10 C.F.R. section 2.714 (a) (1) (ii) is balanced in MVPP's favor.

Once proposed contention 17 is admitted MVPP will begin i:: mediate dis-covery to obtain the evidence it has knowledge of so that it can assist in developing a sound record, as required in 10 C.F.R. section 2.714 (a) (1)

(ii).

MVPP is unaware that any other party has presented evidence of the inadequacy of the test performed or the existence of conflicting test results, therefore, MVPP's interest is not represented by any other party.

2281 239

s -

Thus the factor set out in 10 C.F.R. 2.714 (a) (1) (iv) is balanced in m'PP's favor.

While the admission of an additional contention may slightly delay the proceedings, EPP urges the Board to recognize the importance of not ignoring evidence of safety problens in order to expedite Applicants' private financial interest in beginning operation of Zinmer. Thus the factor in 10 C.F.R. section 2.714 (a) (1) (v) is also balanced in favor of m'PP.

E'PP has properly and adequately met the requirenents for amending its petition and thus urges the Board to grant it notion to amend.

Respectfully subnitted,

/

Leah S. Kosik Attorney for ETP Dated: April 30, 1979 2281 240

.