Text

Response Opposing Suffolk County 830502 Motion to Add Emergency Diesel Generator Contention.County Fails to Meet Stds for Reopening Record,For late-filed Contentions & for Particularity of Contentions
	ML20023D211
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/16/1983
From:	Earley A; HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20023D208	List: ML20023D207; ML20023D211;
References
	NUDOCS 8305190382
	Download: ML20023D211 (34)
	v • d • e

a

. LILCO, May 16, 1983

/vf '5" UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~~

d" le#88g , '

NUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSIONd~\< y % a r . .)

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing \bbar N '

_, , i \

\ .$,

m_-

[ In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

LILCO'S OPPOSITION TO SUFFOLK COUNTY'S MOTION TO ADD AN EMERGENCY DIESEL GENERATOR CONTENTION I.

, Preliminary Statement on May 2, 1983, almost a month after the closing of the I

record on all issues in this case except Phase II Emergency Planning, the County requested leave to file a contention con-cerning Shoreham's Emergency Diesel Generators.1_/ The motion is predicated upon allegedly new information about design and testing problems associated with the diesels. The information l

l 1/ This motion was supplemented by an Addendum dated May 10, t

1983. Although a response to the Addendum is not due until May 23, 1983, to expedite and facilitate resolution of these issues, LILCO has chosen to include its response to the Adden-dum in this opposition.

8305190302 830516 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR

. O O

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

+

relied upon, however, does not warrant reopening an already voluminous record.2/ This is not an instance where a party has raised in timely fashion significant new matters likely to

' change the result. Rather, this is an instance where a party, the County, is improperly attempting to insert itself in the NRC I&E process for Shoreham. The asserted new facts consist entirely of matters reported by LILCO to the NRC or raised in I&E's review of the diesel generator preoperational test pro-gram for Shoreham.

. Moreover, as this opposition and the attached Affidavit demonstrate, the County's motion and proposed contention fall far short of meeting the heavy burden imposed by the reopening standard or the 5 2.714 standard. The matters raised in the proposed contention are either unfounded in fact, insubstantial in nature, remedied or in the process of remedy, and they are in any event under the watchful eye of I&E. Further, there is no basis for alleging and the proposed contention does not allege inadequate pursuit of these matters by either LILCO or I&E. Thus, the proposed contention is a transparent effort to duplicate I&E's role in reviewing the diesel generator 2/ To date, there have been 109 hearing days, 207 exhibits, 7,453 pages of prefiled testimony, 21,178 transcript pages, 37 depositions and 26 settlement agreements.

J

N preoperational test program in order to delay its completion and to obstruct or delay the issuance of the Board's Partial Initial Decision.

SC's true motivation also seems discouragingly clear.

- In recent months, County spokesmen have repeatedly asserted that their goal is to block the licensing of Shoreham and prevent its operation. To this end, the County has refused to cooperate in the emergency planning context.3/ Similarly, the County's attempt to reopen the record at this time is aimed less at ensuring the safe operation of Shoreham than at ob-structing and delaying of a Partial Initial Decision and fuel load. Therefore, this attempt to prolong an already prolonged proceeding richly deserves prompt rejection.

More specifically, the County's motion to admit a new contention must fail for three reasonst

1. The County has failed to demonstrate that the motion meets the heavy burden required of parties seeking reopening of the record.

2. On balance, the five factors governing the admission of late-filed contentions weigh against admission of the County's new contention.

3/ The County Executive has ordered all County agencies to take no actions inconsistent with his determination that emer-gency planning for Shoreham is " impossible."

, ..g- , - -

3. The County has failed to state the pro-posed contention with adequate basis and specificity as required by 10 CFR S 2.714(b).

Any one of the above reasons would be sufficient to deny the County's motion. In this instance, the County motion fails on all.

II.

Reopening the Record A. The Reopening Standard Must be Applied On April 8, 1983, the Board closed the record on all issues except Phase II Emergency Planning. The Board recognized the potential for reopening on certain issues (e.g.,

OQA, Teledyne), but a diesel generator contention was not among them. Tr. 21,176 (Brenner, J.). Thus, as a prerequisite for litigation of a diesel generator contention, the County must meet the standard for reopening the record. As the Commission has made clear, submission of a new contention is not, by itself, a sufficient reason for reopening a record. Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units l

l 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 363 (1981).

l Other reasons require the reopening standard in this instance. The County, in styling the diesel generator issue as I

k

a new contention, seeks to avoid the unmistakable fact that it seeks further litigation of issues already pursued in this li-censing proceeding. In particular, the County is plainly at-

' tempting to reopen the already voluminous quality assurance litigation. Evidence of this is that the proposed contention alleges, on vague grounds, violation of GDC l and of Criteria III, V, X, XI and XIV of Appendix B. No fair-minded person could dispute that during months of QA litigation in this pro-ceeding the County was given more than ample opportunity to explore exhaustively whether LILCO complied with these regula-tory requirements. In fact, the LILCO Startup Manager and other witnesses in this proceeding testified, inter alia, on aspects of the preoperational test program. See, e.g., LILCO Ex. 21 at 197-99; Tr. 10,090-92 (Youngling), 16,281-83, 17,378-82 (Higgins). By any standard the County had more than ample opportunity to address issues concerning all aspects of quality-assurance, including preoperational testing. And, at the County's insistence, the parties spent several weeks litigating the Torrey Pines Technology independent verifica-tion, which included a substantial review of preoperational test results.

Equally important, the specific subject of the diesel generators was also raised and resolved earlier in this

proceeding. In 1977, the County proposed the following contention on the diesel generators:

4(a) Intervenors contend that the Appli-cant and Regulatory Staff have not adequately considered individually a number of Generic Light Water Safety Issues raised by NRC Staff members and applicable to Shoreham in accor-dance with the backfitting require-ments of 10 CFR, Part 50, Appendix A. This contention includes, but is not limited to, the following design features for structures, systems and components:

(viii) onsite and offsite emergency power County of Suffolk's Amended Petition to Intervene, dated September 16, 1977, at 4; see also id. at 6 (original proposed contention covers test results and test records).

This contention was admitted by the Board for discovery purposes. Board Order of March 8, 1978. In further filings, the County indicated that this contention challenged the abili-ty of onsite emergency power systems to meet the requirements of GDC 17 and 18. See Suffolk County's Response to Applicant's Second Interrogatories, dated January 31, 1978, at 1. After informal discovery and negotiations, including discussion of diesel generator reliability, the County and LILCO agreed to

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

combine SC Contention 4(a)(viii) with a related contention and to restate the remaining concerns as SC Contention 2 dealing with diesel generator relays. Second Stipulation Regarding

'Certain Suffolk County Contentions, dated November 2, 1979, at

3. This contention was accepted by the Board (Order of January 7, 1980) and was ultimately settled by the parties. Resolution of Suffolk County Contention 2, ff. Tr. 1626. As explained above, the County has had more than ample opportunity to liti-gate quality assurance and diesel generator issues. If there is to be further litigation on these issues, the County must meet the standard for reopening the record.

B. The Reopening Standard In a Diablo Canyon decision, the Commission succinctly characterized the reopening standard in the following terms:

(W]here the evidentiary record on safety issues has been closed, the record should not be reopened on TMI-1 related issues relating to either low or full power absent a showing, by the moving party, of "significant new evidence not included in the record, that materially affects the

decisien."

l i

Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 362 (1981); see also Kansas Gas

& Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1),

o ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 328 (1978); Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. (Vermont Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 52'3 (1973).

While this decision specifically involved the standard for reopening under the Commission's TMI policy statement, that opinion made unmistakably clear the Commission's view that this standard was consistent with long-standing Commission practice.

Pacific Gas & Electric, 13 NRC at 362-63. More specifically, the reopening standard has been characterized in the following terms:

1. The proponent of a motion to. reopen has a heavy burden, Kansas Gas and Electric Co.

(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1),

ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320, 338 (1978);

2. The motion must be timely, id.;

3. There must be newly discovered evidence having a material bearing upon the result

~

in the proceeding, Duke Power Co.

(William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-669, 15 NRC 453, 465 (1982);4/

4. There must be a showing that the outcome might affect the result of the proceed-ing, Southern California Edison Co. (San l Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-46, 15 NRC 1531, 1535 (1982); and l

l 4/ As the Appeal Board implied in another case, there must be some new circumstances, trend or fact discovered. See Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-359, 4 NRC 619, 620 (1976).

4

5. The issue must be one of major signifi-cance, Southern California Edison Co., 15 NRC at 1535; Kansas Gas & Electric, 7 NRC at 338.5/

Each of these elements must be satisfied to warrant re-opening the record; they are additive, not alternative. It is clear from all the cases that they are regarded as additive, I

not alternative: all, not just one, of them must be satisifed

[

to justify a party in reopening a record. Pacific Gas &

Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5. 13 NRC 361 (1981); Kansas Gas & Electric Co.

(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-462, 7 NRC 320 l

l (1978). As the following sections demonstrate, the County's proposed contention does not meet any of these requirements.

l l While various of the cases cited above were based on 5/

motions to reopen following the issuance of a partial initial decision, those cases and their rationale are also apposite here. See Louisiana Power & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), No. 50-382-OL, Slip Op. at 6-7 (ASLB Oct. 18, 1982) (new contentions filed after close of record but prior to an initial decision). The significant event is

closing of the record, not the issuance of a decision. More-l over, the cases cited are all the more applicable where, as here, proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on all issues have already been submitted with one exception not rele-vant here: 7B supplemental reply findings which are due in one week.

l

C. The County Has Failed to Meet the Reopening Standard Either inadvertently or because the County sought to

' avoid the issue, its initial motion failed to address the standard-for reopening. At the suggestion of counsel for the NRC, the County attempted to remedy this fatal defect in an ad-dendum to the motion. But even taking the addendum into account, the County's motion falls short.

1. Untimeliness It is settled that the test for timeliness is whether the issues could have been raised earlier. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.l(Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-138, 6 AEC 520, 523 (1973). The County's pro-

. posed contention fails this test. The evidence indicates that the County was aware of most of the circumstances cited in its proposed contention several months prior to its filing.

1 The County places substantial reliance on diesel generator testing matters raised in I&E Report 82-35. That report noted an apparent violation in the conduct of the 24 i

hour load test of Emergency Diesel Generator 102. The County disingenuously claims that it "first learned of problems with LILCO's testing of the diesel generators sometime after

1 l

l February 24, 1983, the date Inspection Report 82-35 was issued )

by the Staff." SC' Motion.at 6 (footnote omitted). The County l does, however, acknowledge in a footnote that this apparent vi-l

'olation had been discussed in conjunction with arguments on the l

scope of litigation on the RAT Inspection Report. In fact, the !

references to the record in SC's footnote clearly demonstrate that the County was well aware of the details of the apparent violation in January 1983. In oral argument on January 26, i counsel for the County specifically referred to the preoperational test results now documented in I&E Report 82-35 and Enforcement Action 83-20.s/

We have received word from a repre-l sentative, an associate of mine in my law firm, who attended the exit meeting on f

Tuesday, that at that meeting another issue came to light concerning the pre-op testing for one of the diesel generators.

I think it ties in very closely to the County's previous points about missed in-spection opportunities and over-reliance on final inspection.

l Essentially, at the exit meeting the l Staff discussed that at this pre-op test, which was to involve one of the diesel generators running at 110 percent for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months . It turned out that the diesel L generator did not run at that level for 1/2 of the 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months of the test.

p/ I&E Report 83-08 also mentions matters related to this diesel generator testing violation.

There was a five-stage review process in LILCO to review the test results. The fact that the diesel generator did not run for 1/2 of the 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months , or 1/2 hour of the 2 hours2.314815e-5 days 5.555556e-4 hours 3.306878e-6 weeks 7.61e-7 months , was undetected by the first three stages of the LILCO review process. They had not gotten to the stage of the OQA review or the Review of Operations Committee review. Before it got to those latter two stages, the NRC Staff detected the discrepancy in the test procedure.

LILCO's response, I think, was some-what predictable, which was: It would have been caught in any event by either the Review of Operations Committee or OQA. We would like to go into that some-what at the hearing on this inspection report as well. With that one exception, however, we understand the Board's desire that the hearing be limited to the viola-tions and the housekeeping discrepancies.

Tr. 19,422-23 (Miller).2/ Thus, contrary to the statement in the motion,- the County was well aware of the violation concern-ing the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months load test of Diesel Generator 102 in January 1983, more than three months prior to the filing of the motion.

As a result, the County's use of this violation as a basis for a new contention is untimely.

2/ It is interesting to note that the Board, after hearing the above description, concluded that "[n]othing we have heard leads us to believe that the matter is of such significance and materiality to the result of what we have before us that we should examine it, although we have not closed the record on QA matters for a number of reasons." Tr. 19,533 (Brenner, J.).

Thus, even prior to the closing of the record, the Board con-cluded that the violation described in I&E 82-35 and further discussed in I&E 83-08 and EA 83-20 did not merit further ex-tending the QA litigation.

Moreover, almost six weeks prior to the filing of the contention, County counsel expressly acknowledged awareness of the types of occurrences relied on in support of the new

' contention. Attachment 1, a letter from Lawrence C. Lanpher to W. Taylor Reveley, III, dated March 23, states that Suffolk County has heard reports of con-tinuing problems with emergency diesel generators at the Shoreham plant. These include a recent revelation of cracks in the heads of each of the three emergency diesel generators. This situation with such crucial safety equipment raises a new, serious safety question of concern to Suffolk County and, indeed, of consequence to the public at large.

LILCO's response declined to agree voluntarily to discovery absent County cooperation on emergency planning mat-ters. See Attachment 2. Had the County wished to pursue the sv.L3ect on anything approaching a timely basis, it should have promptly sought to raise a new contention. Instead, (a) the County did not mention the diesels prior to the closing of the record on April 8, and (b) no contention was forthcoming for over a month.

Finally, as noted in I&E Report 83-07, a document relied upon in SC's contention, occurrences involving diesel generator testing have been documented in accordance with LILCO's program on LILCO Deficiency Reports (LDR's). Although

much of the information was not available to the County, it was

. aware of the more significant occurrences. For example, SNRC-777 dated October 15, 1982 reported diesel generator jack-

'et water pump failures. This letter was sent to the County.

At least'two otllter reports made by LILCO to the NRC under 10 CFR $ 50.55(e) involve diesel generator problems, SNRC-649 dated December 23, 1981 (involving defects in spherical wash-i ers) and SNRC-549 dated March 27, 1981 (involving the lubricating oil system for turbochargers). LILCO believes both of these documents were made available to the County during discovery. Moreover, the Ccanty also had access to all LILCO Deficiency Reports through March 1982,.a number of which in-volved the items referred to in I&E Report 83-07.

In summary, some of of the data relied upon by the County, including the information concerning the violation noted I&E 82-35, had been available for more than three months and most of it had been available more than a month prior to the filing of the contention. Under other circumstances a delay of one to three months might be considered timely action; I

l here it is not. The County was fully aware of the massive hearings that had been completed and certainly knew of the im-pending close of the record. Under these circumstances, the County had a duty to act as expeditiously as possible to bring

any new issues to the attention of the Board and parties, but chose not to do so.

5

2. No Significant New Facts or Circumstances For the reasons stated above, the County's new con-tention, in addition to its untimeliness, is not ba:ed on sig-nificant new facts and circumstances. While some of the particular occurrences relied upon are new facts and circumstances, the gravamen of the new contention is substan-tially based on information which was in the County's hands

~

three months ago. If, despite SC's failure to carry its heavy burden in other respects, the Board does decide to admit a die-sel generator contention, this requirement of significant new facts and circumstances dictates that any new contention be limited to those facts and circumstances that are truly new, For example, paragraph (1) of the contention is not adequately limited to the new facts asserted and thus is an impermissibly broad attack on the diesel generator test program. Indeed, the

! details concerning the type of testing to be applied to the l diesels have long been available. See, e.g., FSAR Chapter 14.

l l

r l

3. It is Unlikely That the Information Relied Upon by the County Will Have any Bearing on the Outcome w

As already noted, the County's motion incorrectly

' ignores the reopening standard. Even the County's Addendum, while belatedly recognizing the relevance of the standard, mis-states it and then wholly fails to make any showing that the information relied upon in the proposed contention is likely to change or alter the outcome of the proceeding. This is no accident; the County can make no such showing. As the Affida-vit' of Mr. Youngling (Attachment 3) demonstrates, the matters raised in the proposed contention are not significant new mat-ters likely to change the outcome of the proceeding. To the contrary, the matters or allegation raised (paragraphs (1) through (5) of the proposed contention) are either without basis in fact, insubstantial in nature, remedied or in the process of remedy. Moreover, to the extent that the matters raised in the proposed contention have a basis in fact, they are already under I&E's watchful scrutiny.

For example, as Mr. Youngling's Affidavit reflects, there is simply no basis in fact for the County's contention that the diesel generator hot restart capability is unreliable

. or lacking or that LILCO has violated any regulatory require-ments in this connection. The facts show the contrary; the hot s

} Qf_ -l.[g'T . ;j !: h - ;y :' ~ L, , .~ 1.

'L ' ; fJ , .': _ j r.;p , - ' );'.; ~

[ y _ '_ L b ' -

A restart capability of the diesel generators has been successfully demonstrated in nine of ten attempts. Therefore the County's contention on hot restart is wholly spurious and

'without basis in fact.8/

The remaining matters in the proposed contention, paragraphs (1), (2), (4) and (5), are equally unworthy candi-dates for reopening the record. Two of these, the components cracking and vibration,'were discovered and reported to the NRC by LILCO and then remedied by LILCO. Moreover, the NRC is con-tinuing its review and scrutiny of these items. See Attachment 3, Affidavit of< Edward J. Youngling, paragraphs 12-25, 34.

Similarly, the final two matters, trending and the diesel gen-erator test violation, have also been remedied and are being followed by I&E. See Attachment 3, Affidavit of Edward J.

Youngling, paragraphs 7-11, 34; see also SNRC-884, 885. Under 8/ LILCO believes the County included paragraph (4) of the proposed contention tolely on the basis of a failure to understand information received by the County's consultant at an exit conferenc'e concerning an attempt to restart a diesel on April 15, 1982. As noted by Mr. Youngling, that was an in-stance where the diesel generator did not restart for reasons having nothing to do with the engine itself. Rather, that was an instance where the start signal was not sent or received be-cause the normal r.nd redundant power supplies to the instrument l logic generating the start signal were temporarily out of l service for maintenance. Significantly, Mr. Youngling notes, l

the engine was restarted, run for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months and the hot restart test successfully completed. See Attachment 3, Affidavit of Edward J. Yeungling at 20, n.2.

l 1

- - , _ - , - , n ---

similar circumstances of continuing NPC Staff review, the Licensing Board in Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-46, 15 NRC

'1531 (1982), denied the intervenor party's request to reopen the record for further hearings on the adequacy of the siren warning system. The Board's decision was based on the fact that the NRC Staff was analyzing the results of the siren tests against objective criteria; that, if deficiencies were found, tho' Staff would require that they be fixed or that adequate in-terim arrangements be made; and that an opportunity for cross-examination on the siren adequacy determination was not necessary. There is, in short, nothing to litigate. The Coun-ty has wholly failed to make any showing that any of these five matters is likely to change the outcome of this proceeding with respect to diesel generators or any other matter. Absent such a showing, reopening is inappropriate.

l~ III.

l The County Also Fails to Meet the Section 2.714 Standard I

Contrary to the County's view that it is exeet. Crom the requirements for late filed contentions under 5 2.714, the Licensing Board in this proceeding has already ruled that those requirements must be met. Memorandum and Order of March 15, l

1982, at 23. Thus, we turn now to the $ 2.714 balancing test.9/

-9/ -In addition, Diablo Canyon made it clear that a party raising a new contention after the close of the record must (fo tnote cont'd)

i t

Under 10 CFR $ 2.714(a), the Board is required to bal- '

ance the following factors to determine whether a new conten- i i

tion should be admitted:

1. good cause, if any, for failure to file on time;

2. the availability of other means whereby the petitioner's interest will be

protected;

3. the extent to which the peti-

tioner's participation may reasonably be

expected to assist in developing a sound record;

4. the extent to which the peti-tioner's interest will be represented by existing parties; and

5. the extent to which the peti-tioner's participation will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding.

10 CFR S 2.714(a)(1). .

i

1. Good Cause Not Shown t-The County asserts that there is good cause for a 1 late-filed diesel generator contention because it relies on new information. As a result, the County claims that the l

, (footnote cont'd) i meet both the reopening standard and 5 2.714 requirements.

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 364-65.

f l

contention could not have been filed earlier. As discussed in conjunction with-the reopening standard, however, much of the information that allegedly supports the new contention was in

'the County's possession for one to three months before the County finally filed a new contention. Under the circumstances described on page 2, note 2 and on pages 9-l3 above, the County har failed to act in a timely manner.

The County asserts that this case is analogous to Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-79-22, 10 NRC 213 (1979), in which the licensing board found good cause for the admission of a tardy contention based on previously unavailable test results. Closely examined, however, Cincinnati Gas is distinguishable. This case is only facially similar to Cincinnati Gas. The interve-nor in Cincinnati Gas filed its contention two months before hearings were to begin. In contrast, Suffolk County's conten- ,

tion was filed after the massive hearing record had been closed; what might have been timely action prior to the com-mencement of hearings in Cincinnati Gas should not be consid-l

! ered timely action by a party who was well aware of the impend-ing close of the record. Moreover, at least as early as l

January 26, over three months before the contention was filed, I and again in March, Suffolk County was aware of what the County i

l

considered to be problems with the diesel generators. Yet the County did not act until after the Staff announced an enforce-ment action on April 12. See SC Motion at 6-7.

Indeed, under the NRC's rules of practice, a new inter-venor must react to a Federal Register notice within 30 days of ;

its publication in order to be considered timely. 10 CFR $

2.105. Certainly the Board should apply at least as stringent timeliness standard when, as here, a party has actively partic-ipated in all aspects of the proceeding for years, was accutely aware of its long and tortured history, and knew full well that the record was about to close on all issues except emergency planning. Indeed, the County waited over three weeks after the close of the record to act. The County has not established good cause for late filing of its contention.

4

2. Other Means are Available to Protect the County's Interest

, As explained above, the County totally relies on matters concerning the diesel generators that have been identi-fied by I&E as part of its normal preoperational inspection program-or reported to I&E by LILCO. In either event, these matters will be actively pursued by I&E until satisfactorily clos 9d out. See Attachment 3, Affidavit of Edward J.

Youngling, paragraph 34. Although the County alleges no

inadequacies in I&E's handling of these matters, the County does have a means of pursuing them if it so desires. The Coun-ty may ask the Director of the Office of Inspection and En-

'forcement-to institute a show cause proceeding "to modify, sus-pend or revoke a license or for such other action as may be proper." 10 CFR $ 2.206(a). Thus, the Stadf is, in fact, ac-tively dealing with the issues raised by the County and SC does have another means to seek relief if it believes any such issue is not being properly resolved by the Staff.

3. No Demonstration that the County's Participation Will Aid the Development of the Record The County argues that this factor weighs in favor of admission because one of the County's consultants has expe-l rience in diesel generators. SC Motion at 10. While Mr. Gold-l smith's background apparently does include familiarity with diesel generators, nothing in his resume (ff. Tr. 1113) or the l County's motion indicates any dealings with them since Mr.

l Goldsmith left the Merchant Marine 13 years.ago. In short, Mr.

Goldsmith is not a diesel generator expert.

With respect to this factor, the County also asserts that it "has demonstrated in this proceeding that it l responsibly assists in developing a sound record, and it will do so in this instance." SC Motion at 11. First, the County

wholly fails to provide any details on how it might aid the record. Though evidence need not be presented at this stage, some showing concerning how a party will contribute to the de-

'velopment of a sound record on the particular issues in question is necessary. See Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.

(William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-80-24, 12 NRC 231 (1980); Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood Energy Center, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-476,7 NRC 759, 764 (1978). Second, as already noted, the County has publicly proclaimed that Shoreham should never be allowed to operate. To this end, the County's active obstruction of emergency planning strongly suggests that, rath-er than endeavoring to develop a sound record on this issue, the County would seek to use a diesel generator contention, if admitted, to delay and obstruct the proceeding.

4. The County's Interest is Being Protected by a Party in the Proceeding The County's contention relies exclusively on mat-ters raised by I&E or reported to I&E by LILCO. I&E follows these issues as part of its normal program and will ensure they are properly closed out prior to Shoreham's operation. Thus,

there is a commonality of interest between the Staff and County on the matters raised in the contention. Although Licensing Boards have generally concluded that the Staff is not an r

i l

l I

adequate substitute for intervenors in weighing this factor, this case seems distinguishable. Here, the County raises no independent issues; all are being pursued by.the NRC Staff.

'Moreover, the County has alleged no deficiency in the Staff's handling of diesel generator matters.10/ Hence, this factor does not weigh in favor of admitting the contention.

5. The County's Contention Broadens the Issues and Will Delay the Proceeding The record is closed on all issues except Phase II Emergency Planning; thus a new non-emergency planning conten-tion would unquestionably broaden the issues. The litigation of the proposed contention would also cause substantial delay detrimental to LILCO. The final round of reply findings in this case is due in one week. The Board will then have all the information it needs to issue a Partial Initial Decision on all 10/ At least one licensing board performing the balancing test of 5 2.714 has found that the Staff adequately protects the in-terests of an intervenor where the Staff has either expressed an interest in or is normally required to examine the issue.

l Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (William H. Zimmer Nuclear i

Station), LBP-80-24, 12 NRC 231, 238 (1980). Likewise, in the

. context of the reopening standard, the Licensing Board in Southern California Edison Co. (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-46, 15 NRC 1531, 1535-36 (1982), found that new siren tests did not necessitate the re-opening of the record on the adequacy of the siren warning system because the tests and the adequacy of the system were l already being analyzed and evaluated by the NRC Staff.

l L

l l ___ ._. _ _ . _ , _ . . . _ _ . _ _

issues except Phase II Emergency Planning. The Board has indicated that a Partial Initial Decision will be issued in July. If this contention is admitted, however, it is unlikely

'that a decision on the merits could be reached in July. This conclusion follows inescapably from a consideration of the time required for the Board to rule on the motion, for the parties to prepare and file written testimony, for the conduct of the hearings and for the submission of findings of fact by all parties. Thus, admission of this contention would delay the issuance of a Partial Initial Decision on all issues except Phase II Emergency Planning.

IV.

The County's Proposed Contention Lacks Adequate Basis and Particularity Late-filed contentions must also meet all requirements for the admission of timely contentions. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), slip op. at 2-4 (April 12, 1983); Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 364 i

(1981). Therefore, the contention must have an adequate basis and'be stated with particularity. Maine Yankee Atomic Power l

Co. (Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station), LBP-82-4, 15'NRC 199, 206 (1982); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic l Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-216, 8 AEC 13, 20-21 i

1 l

(1974). Despite the lateness of the hour and the need to focus precisely on the issues to be litigated, the County has filed a broad contention that fails to state the issues with the requi-site particularity.

1 At the outset, the contention does not indicate whether the five items listed on pages 2-3 are the particular items to be litigated or whether they merely represent some of the sup-porting evidence the County intends to use. If the latter is true, the contention is hopelessly vague and broad. Thus, the Board must assume that the five items constitute the particulars of the contention. These five items, in turn, are either inadequately particularized or without sufficient basis.

1. Diesel Generator Testing i

This unparticularized paragraph alleges that LILCO has failed adequately to test the diesels and failed to review and approve test procedures and results. Four I&E Reports (82-35, 83-02, 83-07 and 83-08) and one enforcement action (EA l

83-20) are cited in support of it. The County, however, makes no effort to tie the broad allegations to the I&E reports cited. For example, since I&E Report 83-02 makes no mention of l

diesel generator testing,11/ it is impossible to determine what l

l i

11/ The cover letter to the report does mention that an appar-l ent diesel generator violation noted in I&E 82-35 was to be (footnote cont'd)

is to be litigated from that report. I&E Report 83-07 concludes that the preoperational testing program for Shoreham is being properly conducted but that discrepancies have been

' documented by LILCO. The County provides no explanation of what this report has to do with its allegations in this part of the contention. Similarly, it is not possible to determine from the contention what parts of I&E 82-35 and 83-08 the Coun-ty wants to litigate. Only the citation to EA 83-20 is .

reasonably particularized without more explanation. But this single violation does not provide adequate basis for a broad attack on the diesel generator preoperational test program.

2. Vibration This paragraph relies on I&E 83-07 to support a l contention that the diesels exhibit excessive vibration.12/

l But the County states no basis for the conclusion that l

I excessive vibration prevents the diesels from reliably l

(footnote cont'd) discussed at the exit conference for 83-02, but there is no substantive ~ discussion of the apparent violation.

12/ Although this conclusion is incorrect (see Attachment 3, Affidavit of Edward J. Youngling, at paragraphs 12-20), LILCO recognizes that the factual accuracy of a contention is not l

considered in determining whether it has been adequately particularized.

l l

1 1

performing their intended function. As a result, there is inadequate basis for the contention. ;

3. Cracking of components This paragraph of the contention alleges that the i diesel generators have experienced cracking in certain compo-(

l nents, citing various reports by LILCO to the NRC. The para- l 1

graph is inadequately particularized for two reasons. First, it fails to indicate precisely which occurrences of cracking it wants to litigate. This Board has already ruled that use of "such as," " including" and the like are not appropriate in con-tentions. Board Order, June 26, 1980, at 2. Thus the County must do more than list one example of cracking, unless, of course, that is all it desires to litigate. Second, the County l

l fails to specify why the. cracking incidents reflect a failure by LILCO to meet an NRC requirement. For example, an l

appropriately specified contention might allege that the l

l incidents reflect some specific quality assurance failure, cit-I ing an appropriate basis. Such a particularized contention would give the parties notice of what is to be litigated; the present SC contention does not.

i l

l i

l

- , , . _ . . m. _, __m , . ,

4. Diesel Generators " Locked Out" Paragraph (4) of SC's contention b'aldly states that one of the diesel generators failed to restart when a hot restart was attempted. The County offers no basis for this contention and makes no attempt to state with particularity why a single failure to restart reflects any unreliability in the operation of the Shoreham diesels. Thus, this proposed conten-i tion must fail because it has no stated basis.13/

i 5. Trend Analysis The absence of a basis for this paragraph of the contention is manifest. The County correctly notes that diesel generator trend analysis was mentioned in I&E 83-07.14/ But the suggestion by an I&E inspector that further trend analysis

, is needed is insufficient to support a.new contention. The I&E inspector did not cite LILCO fo. any violation in this regard nor did he indicate that LILCO was not pursuing the incidents identified in the Report. To the contrary, the inspector noted 13/_ LILCO believes the incident SC is relying on here is that referred to in footnote 8 above and described in Mr.

Youngling's Affidavit, Attachment 3, at 20, n.2. As the facts make clear, that incident provides no basis for doubting the reliability of the engines' hot restart capability.

14/ SC cites no regulation or regulatory guidance that requires trend analysis for the diesel generators.

l

that LILCO committed to pursue all of the matters raised by the inspector.

~

V.

Conclusion In raising a new contention after the record has closed, the County must meet the heavy burden placed upon parties seeking to reopen the record. But the County's motion, even as supplemented by an addendum, fails to address the' appropriate reopening standard. Thus, on its face, the motion is deficient. Moreover, applying the proper reopening standard to the information included in the motion demonstrates that the County has not met the heavy burden placed upon movants in these circumstances.

The County also has not met the requirements of 10 CFR S 2.714 for late-filed contentions. Each of the five factors that must be considered weighs against admission of the conten-tion.

Finally, the County has failed to state its new conten-tion and the bases for it with the reasonable particularity required by.5 2.714(c). In this regard, if the Board does decide.to admit any portion of SC's contention, further partic-

! ularization should be required. To focus any add.itional

litigation narrowly on those issues that justify reopening of the record, the County chould be directed to accompany its re-vised contention with an affidavit that clearly sets forth its

' basis. This safeguard ensures that only highly focused conten-tions are admitted for litigation at this late stage of the proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

. D

/%JuU +;

W. gn G, _ Ch -

T. S. Ellis,/III " //'

Anthony F. Earley, Jr. .

/

Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: May 16, 1983 l

l t

{

ATTACHMENT 1 a

L EYuwpATnL3 ocxInnT, HILL, CHRISTOPHER Sc PnILLIPs A PA.. _ Inotenano A W== ConsesLATBON 2000 M Srnmar, N. W.

WAsuzwoTow, D. C. 20006 2ELarmours (SOS) 458-7000 W FETTSBL W CABLE: NIFRI' IIERPMS35,'d**8Ea8',dOEBe05 & ETEXISON 3000 CEJ,ER BUILDDFO T3&BX - NTFXUI wan . - mI. ====== rrT=.e.0=. , mvint Em March 23, 1983 w =.

(202) 452-7011 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212

Dear Taylor:

j Suffolk County has heard reports of continuing problems with the emergency diesel generators at the Shoreham plant. These include the recent revelation of cracks in the heads of each of the three emergency diesel generators. This situation with such crucial safety equipment raises a new, serious safety question of concern to Suffolk County and, indeed, of consequence to the public at large.

As you know, Suffolk County does not have access to the raw data relating to the problems associated with the diesel l

generators. Accordingly, the County requests:

l l (1) That LILCO provide the County with the raw data and all descriptions, analyses, reports, and other writt'en materials concerning the problems which have arisen with the diesel l generators since the beginning of May 1982 (this date is important I

since I&E Report 82-35 identified diesel problems on that date);

l and (2) That LILCO permit the County access to the diesel generators so that the County's consultants can inspect such

generators and obtain firsthand information concerning whether a 1 design flaw or some other type of flaw is involved. The County

, would prefer to carry out such a site visit during the latter part of the week of April 11.

1 r

k i

l l

(

, l EsaurArmacs, loc =maur, Harz, Camrstorumm & Puzzarre W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

March 23, 1983 Page 2

.So that the County's consultants can prepare for the inspection, please provide the requested data and other documents no later than April 1, 1983. If this date is a problem, please let me know.

We look forward to your cooperation on this important matter.

Sincerely yours, Lawrence Coe Lanpher LCL/dk

(

ATTACHMENT 2 Huwrow & WILLIAwo 7o7 East MAsu StartT R O. sox 1535 It3CEE380ND, VIRGINIA S3919 , pan .,g ,a aygnus, , w, f o o a f .an6.ew. m o..ons...o j e s. a e ==*aa**a.*******

c..'*."..".".,."*^""a" Tats. o=c eo4 - 7ee - eaoo ..'...'....

n ,v. . .

l a" "*-

l "3 O*". . "'*"****'"~ >

-e.o' March 28, 1983 l

l Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esquire Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Larry:

Diesels You ask LILCO's " cooperation" in certain discovery the County wants to conduct regarding Shoreham's diesel generators.

You are by now familiar with my strong view that cooperation is the rational course in proceedings such as the present. Coop-eration, however, requires a willingness by both sides to ex-change information and seek a middle ground acceptable to each.

Your client's refusal to pursue this course regarding matters that are, in fact, "of consequence to the public at large,"

emergency planning in particular, makes cooperation very diffi-cult.

You may confidently assume that, as before, LILCO will cooperate with the County if it, in turn, cooperates with the Company. I hope that such will again prove feasible. Until it does, we will not voluntarily agree to the intrusive discovery that you seek on diesel generators.

Very truly yours, i

W. Ta or veley, III 79/382 l

ATTACHMENT 3 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) )

AFFIDAVIT OF EDWARD J. YOUNGLING Edward J. Youngling, duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. My name is Edward J. Youngling and I am employed by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) as Startup Manager for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. My professional qualifica- l l

tions are presented in Attachment A. As Startup Nanager, I am responsible for all preoperational test activities. I also co- j ordinate Checkout and Initial Operation (C&IO) testing and l

preoperational testing. In this role I have been directly in-i volved in the testing of Shoreham's diesel generators and in resolving related issues that develop during testing. Specifi-cally, I am familiar with the five areas discussed in the Coun-ty's proposed contention on diesel generators.

i

2. I testified previously in this proceeding as a member of the LILCO panel on the Quality Assurance / Quality t

Control issues. In that connection, I participated in the p D" l

s v

preparation and review of those portions of the pre-filed testimony on the Quality Assurance contentions relating to the LILCO Preoperational Testing and Startup program. In addition, I responded to cross-examination questions from lawyers for SC relating to the LILCO Preoperational Testing and Startup pro-gram.

l

3. The purpose of this affidavit is to demonstrate that.the matters in numbered paragraphs 1 through 5 of Suffolk County's proposed contention on the diesel generators are unsupported by the facts, insubstantial in nature, or remedied.

Each of the five paragraphs is separately addressed. Before doing so, however, I will describe briefly the Shoreham Emer-gency Diesel Generators and the status of the preoperational testing of the generators.

4. There are three identical diesel generators at Shoreham designated as DG-101, DG-102 and DG-103. These diesel generators are eight (8) cylinder in-line engines manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. and rated at 3500 KW at 450 RPM.

As a result of the C&IO program and the Preoperational Test program, the engines to date have accumulated 1906 hours0.0221 days 0.529 hours 0.00315 weeks 7.25233e-4 months of operating time distributed among the three engines as follows:

DG-101-564 hours, DG-102-644 hours, and DG-103-698 hours.

n ,.- -- -

5. The vendor has advised LILCO that the basic diesel engine in the Shoreham diesel generators has been in production since the early 1950's. There are 97 diesel engines in this

. country that are essentially iden?.ical or very similar to the Shoreham diesels. Most <>f ti ese er.gines are still in service and collectively have accusulated - total of 1,267 years of operation.

6. In addition to Checkout & Initial Operation testing of components and supporting systems and system flushes, to date the following preoperational teste of the Shoreham diesel generators have been successfully performed:

PT.307.001(A-1)(B-1)(C-1) Emergency Diesel Generator (101)(102)(103) Mechanical Preoperational Test PT.307.003(A-1)(B-1)(C-1) Emergency Diesel Generator (101)(102)(103) Electrical Preoperational Test (includes electrical trips and 72 hour8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months reliability test)

PT.307.005(A)(B)(C) Emergency Diesel Generator l (101)(102)(103) Electrical

! Preoperational Test (includes electrical transients and 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months reliability test)

The results of these tests are currently being reviewed for ap-proval. The only preoperational tests remaining to be performed for the Shoreham diesel generators are I

l l l

. = . -----__e- , - - , . . . - - . . , ,.-,*__% . --_>gr.,- _ --_ ,._ ,__ ,..- + ., - -

PT.307.004(A)(B)(C) Emergency Diesel Generator Reliability Qualification Preoperational Test PT.307.002 Plant Integrated Electrical Test I.

Proposed Contention Paragraph (1)

(Testing) -

7. Paragraph (1) of the SC proposed contention states:

LILCO has failed to test adequately the emergency diesel generators, and has fail:d to ensure adequate review and ap-proval of test procedures and test ,

results, as documented in I&E Reports 82-35, 83-02, 83-07 and 83-08 and I&E En-forcement Action 83-20. Without adequate testing, reliable operation cannot be as-sured.

This section of the contention alleges two deficiencies: (1) failure to test the diesel generators adequately,and (2) fail-ure to ensure adequate review and approval of test procedures and test results. Neither allegation is valid.

8. The County cites I&E Reports 82-35, 83-02, 83-07, 83-08 and I&E Enforcement Action 83-20. Three of these documents, I&E 82-35, 83-08 and I&E Enforcement Action 83-20, all relate to the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months load test of Diesel Generator 102.

LILCO's response (SNRC-884) to the Notice of Violation in EA 83-20 makes it clear that the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months test was properly l

conducted and the results of the test demonstrated that this diesel generator did meet its design capabilities. The test in question required, pursuant to' Regulatory Guide 1.108, Revision 1, a demonstration of the full load carrying capability of the diesel generator for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months , of which two hours are required to be at a " load equivalent to the two hour rating of the die-sel generator." The two hour rating was 3900 KW. The viola-tion concerned the data taken during this two hour period.

i While data recorded in the control room at 15 minute intervals i

for the two hour period indicated a range of load values from 3500 KW to 3850 KW, additional data recorded on a high speed chart recorder (Honeywell Visirecorder) showed that the inte-grated load profile for the two hour period represented a " load equivalent" of more than 99% of the total load that would l result from running the diesel generator for two, hours at ex-actly 3900 KW. The Test Engineer properly believed the chart l recorder was a more precise indication of the diesel generator load. The Test Engineer's judgment on this point has been confirmed by the fact that the strip chart recorder has now been designated as the primary instrument to be used in all fu-ture load tests of the diesel. Thus, as set forth in SNRC-884, LILCO believes that the two hour portion of the test was prop-erly conducted and that the results of this test in fact demon-l strated that this diesel generator did meet its design

capabilities. Also, the entire 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months reliability test, including the two hour 3900 KW test, has been successfully reperformed, demonstrating again that Diesel Generator 102 can and does perform its functions as required.

9. As reported in LILCO's response to the Notice of Violation, the facts and circumstances described in the notice represent a failure to document judgments made by the Test Engineer in the test report. In addition, the lack of documen-tation had not been noted in LILCO's review process, which was still in progress at the time the violation was reported. The two additional reviews that had not yet, occurred were the OQA final audit and the review by the Review of Operations Commit-tee, including its Preoperational Test Results Review Subcom-mittee. Significantly, the review by this Subcommittee is designed to focus on the kinds of discrepancies n'oted by the l I&E inspector. The htmbers of the Subcommittee are independent of the preoperational test program and are technically quali-fied and experienced. The failure to note the lack of documen-tation does not indicate inadequate review and approval of test procedures and results because the full review required by the LILCO program had not been completed. In addition, the NRC has conducted a review of more than 93% of the completed test pro-cedures and has not noted any similar deficiancies.

- 6-W7v- ---w -- g e- - - - - -

-c-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

t

10. I&E Report 83-02, the Readiness Assessment Team Inspection, does not support the County's allegation that there has been inadequate testing of the diesel generators or inade-l

! quate review of test procedures and test results. In fact, the overall assessment in the report stated that the preoperational J

test program " appeared to be working as designed except as noted by previously identi'fied items and by one violation iden-tified during this inspection." The violation referred to in-

! volved review posting of E&DCR's on multi-sheet drawings reviewed by the I&E inspector as part of his review of RCIC tests. LILCO witnesses testified on this violation during hearings on the RAT Inspection Report. As they indicated, the E&DCR's in question were controlled in accordance with LILCO's

, program. The observation in I&E 83-02 does not relate to the i adequacy of testing or the review of test procedures and results. I&E 83-02 noted a violation relating to the control l of rework associated with the diesel generators. This viola-

-tion, also discussed by LILCO's RAT Inspection witnesses, does not relate to the adequacy of diesel generator testing or the review of test results.

11. Finally, the County' refers to I&E Report 83-07.

This inspection notes four concerns based on the inspector's review of LILCO's documents and reports and based on the 7-e

, e- vm ..- , , _.-.,---p-,m-r--w-- -

- . - . . -- -- . -- - . _ __~ _- -- -. _ _ _ . . _ . -. --

inspector's observations and witnessing. The report also lists a number of occurrences during the past year based on a review of LILCO deficiency reports. A number of these concerns and occurrences are addressed in this affidavit. It is important to note, however, that this report also reflects that the test In paragraph 3.1, the inspector noted as 4

program is working.

follows

4 As a result of these discussions [with

! members of the Startup Group and licensee representatives] review of references, review of documents relative to test pro-gram status and implementation, observations, tours through tl}c plant, and witnessing of tests in progress, no i discrepancies were noted. The inspector's concerns and findings in specific areas are discussed below:

The 34 completed test procedures listed in Attachment A were reviewed to verify that adequate testing was planned in-order to satisfy regulatory guidance and licensee commitments and to ascertain whether uniform criteria are being ap-plied for evaluating completed preoperational tests in order to assure their technical and administrative ade-quacy.

The inspector reviewed the test results l and verified the licensee's evaluation of test results by review of test changes, test exceptions, test deficiencies, "As-Run" copy of test procedure, accep-l l

tance criteria, performance verification,

! recording conduct of test, QC inspection records, restoration of system to normal l after test, independent verification of l

l

9_N.

critical steps or parameters,

identification of personnel conducting -

and evaluating test data, and verifica- -

-s tion that the test results have been --~

approved.

Findings: s No discrepancies were noted in the review of these procedures. -

I&E Inspection Report 83-07 at 4-5. The inspector thereafter listed a number of unresolved test exceptions which, he stated, would be examined on subsequent inspections for resolution by LILCO and this was made an unresolved item. In addition, the inspector noted no violations or discrepancies as a result of witnessing portions of the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days 0.02 hours 1.190476e-4 weeks 2.7396e-5 months preliminary electrical test runs of Emergency Diesel Generator sets 101, 102 and 103. Fi-nally, the inspector noted "the excellent care being given the diesel generator rooms and battery rooms including security for

' ~

these areas." I&E Inspection Report 83-07 at 8. -

~

II. ' ~

Proposed Contention Paragraph (2) _

(Vibration) -

12. Paragraph 2 of the SC proposed contention on die-sel generators reads:

N The diesels have been subjected to ?~

excessive vibration, as documented in I&E Report 83-07. Such vibration may reflect a design defect or a fabrication / erection deficiency or a combination thereof. In l

' '. ';:= ;

any event, such vibration prevents the

- diesels from reliably performing their

, intended functions.

s This allegation is incorrect in two respects. First,

'Shoreham's diesels have only the expected and normal vibration and are not subjected to any excessive vibration. Second, this normal, expected vibration does not prevent the diesels from reliably performing their functions.

13. In a study conducted by Stone & Webster Engineer-

~ ~ing Corporation, the vibratory characteristics of the three ,

Shoreham diesel generators were compared with two other diesel generators of the same R-4 straight eight cylinder model but

~ with a greater number of operating hours. One diesel generator

? - was located in San Antonio, Texas and had 5,800 hours0.00926 days 0.222 hours 0.00132 weeks 3.044e-4 months of operating time and the other was in Lincoln, Kansas and had ap-proximately 50,000 hours0 days 0 hours 0 weeks 0 months of operating time. The selection for comparison of the diesel generators in San Antonio, Texas and Lincoln, Kansas is appropriate because they are the'same model

- s l as the Shoreham diesel generators and because they'have exten-l I

sive operating histories demonstrating their proven' reliability. The fact that the San Antonio, Texas and Linco'n, s

Kansas diesel generr. tors are not installed in nuclear plangs

\

l i has no effect on the-validity of the comparison of the vibra-l tion characteristics oflthe^ engines. Vibrations were measured 5

-lo- ;x

for major components of the diesel generators, the foundation and surrounding floor area. Representative data from the study,-normalized to reflect differences in power level and RPM, are presented in Attachment B. Attachments C and D shou in more detail the points where the vibration measurements were 4

taken.

14. The data in Attachments B, C and D demonstrate that vibration of Shoreham's diesel generators is comparable to and consistent with the vibration of the other two diesel genrators that were studied. The amplitudes of the vibratory motions of Shoreham's diesel generators are within expected limits and are

- e ,**v.s et t M:ww M x%ee%%ew '. dry >%w AWWO h * ** SJfsf. 'de.%">Pv.4AFse.w wMM acceptable under the industry experience. In short, the gener-ators do not experience excessive vibrations.

15. The County offers I&E Report 83-07 (March 24, 1983) for support of its allegation that the diesel generators are subject to excessive vibration. The NRC inspector's conclusion regarding vibration was apparently based on some of the various categories of the incidents and failures of the diesel genera-l l '

tors, which are listed on page 7 of the Report. Only four of then categories involve occurrences due to vibration. In the first, group are occurrences in the engine exhaust area. The category includes two types of events: (1) sc$e bolts on the cylinder exhaust pipes and manifold brackets failed, and (2) t .!

.p I

,1

-. , ,--~,-.._m . ~ . , - , . - .

some leaks developed in mgchanical couplings in the jacket water piping. As a result of its review of conditions (1) and (2) above, LILCO concluded that additional pipe guide clearance in the exhaust manifold would eliminate the situation. LILCO modified the pipe guide to provide greater clearances and there have been no further occurrences observed in the approximately 700 hours0.0081 days 0.194 hours 0.00116 weeks 2.6635e-4 months of engine operation following the completion of this work.

16. The second grouping listed occurrences in the engine barring device area. This situation was vibra, tion-irctcad and caused air tubing and supports for the

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

engine barring device to break. This situation did not have an

impact on safety. The barring device is not required for engine operation or for engine starting. Rather, it is a pneu-matic device used to rotate the engine during var'ious mainte-nance and checkout activities. Nevertheless, LILCO corrected this situation by rerouting tubing and by adding additional supports and flexible hoses. Although vibration induced, this situation does not reflect excessive vibration; rather it reflects the effects of normal, expected vibration on a particular component. No similar conditions in this area have been noted in the approximately 250 hours0.00289 days 0.0694 hours 4.133598e-4 weeks 9.5125e-5 months of full power engine i operation following the preventive actions described above.

l

17. The third group consists of occurrences in the i

engine turbocharger area. These incidents involved movement of

-the engine's turbocharcer which was causing capscrews on the

. turbocharger supports and connecting flanges to break. This movement was due to a resonance at 30 Hz. which was excited by the firing frequency of the engine. This phenomenon was I

remedied by installing supports for each engine to eliminate the resonance. No further incidents have occurre'd in approxi-mately-900 hours of engine operation since the supports were installed.

18. The fourth item was a vibration-induced break of the jacket water chemical addition pipe. This situation, how-ever, does not reflect excessive vibration, but the effects of normal, expected vibration on a particular component. This situation would not have impacted safety even if it had occurred while diesel operation was required. The chemical addition funnel and pipe have no function in the starting or operation of the diesel engine. They are maintenance items used for periodic addition of jacket water treatment chemicals.

LILCO corrected this situation by adding supports for the chem-ical addition pipe. No recurrence has been observed in the ensuing 1200 hours0.0139 days 0.333 hours 0.00198 weeks 4.566e-4 months of operation.

19. A fifth group which could be constrtted as vibra-i tion related but which was not listed in I&E Report 83-07 in-volved movement of the exhaust expansion joint. Although this

. movement was detected visually, it had no effect on the operation or capability of the diesel generators. Measurements were taken and it was determined that the movement was caused by a resonance effect. By replacing these expansion joints with ones that do not resonate sympathetically with the engine firing rate, LILCO eliminated the movement phenomenon which has not been observed in the approximately 1500 hours0.0174 days 0.417 hours 0.00248 weeks 5.7075e-4 months .of engine operation following the replacement of expansion joints.

20. Contrary to the allegations in paragraph (2) in SO's proposed contention, the diesels exhibit normal and ex-pected vibration, not excessive vibration, and this normal vi-bration does not reflect a design or fabrication' defect. This normal vibration does not prevent the diesels from performing their intended functions, as' the successful testing to date confirms.

III.

Proposed Contention Paragraph (3)

(Component Cracking)

21. Paragraph (3) of the proposed SC contention on diesel generators reads:

The diesels have suffered from cracking of components, as documented by LILCO's verbal report to NRC Region I on March 8 and 30, 1983, and LILCO's written report, SNRC-873, dated April 15, 1982.* These deficiencies have included water jacket leaks which have the potential to de-crease power output and interfere with rapid startup of the diesels. [ Footnote omitted.] -

These allegations are unfounded and refer to specific models of components either no longer in use or to be replaced at Shoreham. The March 30, 1983 report to the NRC dealt with in-termediate and intake rocker arm assembly hold-down capscrews.

This oral report was formalized in SNRC-883 (May 4, 1983). The March 8 report and SNRC-873 (April 15, 1983) are concerned with

cylinder heads. I will discuss the capscrews first.

22. During testing of Diesel Generator Engine 103, it i

l was discovered that a single intermediate and intake rocker arm assembly hold-down capscrew had broken. There are 96 such capscrews in use at Shoreham. The broken capscrew (or rocker arm shaft bolt) was subject to a detailed analysis to determine

[

On the basis of metallurgical exami-the cause of the failure.

nation, it was determined that the failure resulted from high stress cycle fatigue. To preclude similar failures in the fu-ture, all 96 such capscrews at Shoreham have been replaced with i

a modified-capscrew. As explained in SNRC-883, the redesign of the capscrew is to:

l-l l

reduce fatigue sensitivity in the bolt by transferring the regions of highest stress away from the stress concentra-tions in the root of the threads and re-I ducing the cyclic loading on the bolt.

The reduction in cyclic loading is achieved by decreasing the diameter of the shank, thereby increasing the elonga-tion / stress relationship of the bolt.

This effectively transfers moce of the cyclic load to the stiffer rocker arm shaft, which is loaded in compression.

l SNRC-883 at 2. All 96 capscrews have been replaced. Since this replacement, the capscrews have logged approximately 270 hours0.00313 days 0.075 hours 4.464286e-4 weeks 1.02735e-4 months of high load operation and there have been no additional failures.

23. LILCO's oral report to the NRC on March 8, 1983 as well as SNRC-873 deal.with the cracking of the cylinder heads (which is the second set of components referred to by Part 3 of the County's proposed contention). The particular model of cylinder head used on the Shoreham diesel engines does not give 4

rise to a serious threat to the operability of the diesel gen-r erators. However, these heads will be replaced with an improved model even though the indications found are not detri-mental to engine operation.

l

24. The following additional facts are pertinent to the diesel generator cylinder heads. Relatively early in the testing program, a leakage rate of 9.25 gallons per hour was P

y, , - , , , e. . , .

,3 g., - - . -. , . . - -

,,.-4. -

i observed in the jacket water standpipe level for DG-101.

During subsequent operation of che diesel engines, small

-amounts of water were also discovered in two of the remaining 23 cylinders. Failure. analyses were performed by the vendor.

I The analyses revealed that in two cylinder heads a_ leak existed in the exhaust passage near the flange, and in the third head, a leak existed in the fire deck. The observed cracks in the three cylinder heads were attributable to latent casting defects during the manufacturing process. According to the vendor, these latent casting defects occur only in a small per-centage of the heads manufactured. Manufacturing techniques have been improved so that such cracks are either prevented in the fabrication process or detected. The vendor reported that improvements in cylinder head casting techniques, and the ap-plication of stress-relief techniques have eliminated the 1

[ condition. Moreover, improved inspection techniques now in use, such as a higher pressure hydro-test and ultrasonic ,

testing now ensure that a crack, in the unlikely event that one does occur, will be detected. The analyses also indicated that l the cracks were caused by operating stresses and were self-relieving and non-propagating, indicating that they were not of a serious nature. The analysis also showed that the cracks were of such a nature that they would not have affected the ability of the engines to operate and to carry the required l

load because the mechanical strength of the head was not affected. The small amount of water that could enter the com-bustion chambers would be expelled via the exhaust system along with other combustion byproducts. The harmless nature of these cracks is demonstrated by the fact that marine engineers oper-ate engines with known similar cracks for extended periods until it is convenient to repair the head. Moreover, in more i

than 700 additional hours of operation no additional cracking

, of the cylinder heads has been discovered.

25. Nevertheless, even though the cracks'do not give rise to serious concern regarding the operability and func-tioning of the diesel generators, LILCO, to further enhance reliability, has taken, or will take, the following actions.

First, the heads exhibiting these small cracks were replaced.

l Second, as reported in SNRC-873, LILCO will replace all cylin-I der heads with those of recent manufacture to take advantage of the present prevention and detection capabilities of the ven-dor. A replacement schedule is being developed, and 'oecause of the nonserious nature of the cracks, the replacement work will ,

be on a schedule that will not impact or otherwise interfere with fuel load. In all probability some replacements will occur following fuel load. Third, in addition to the replace-ment of cylinder heads, LILCO committed in April 1983 to an

inspection program,. recommended by the vendor, to detect cylinder head leaks should they occur. This inspection proce-dure is set forth in SNRC-873.

IV.

Proposed Contention Paragraph (4)

(Hot Restart) -

26. Paragraph (4) of the proposed contention states as follows:

One of the diesels " locked out" (i.e.,

would not restart when hot restart was attempted during testing). [ Footnote omitted.]

This, the County contends, is a deficiency that shows LILCO has failed to comply with regulatory requirements as they pertain to the diesel generators. The County's allegation on hot restarts is unsupported by the facts.

.27. The hot restart capability 1/ of Shoreham's three j diesel generators has been fully tested'in accordance with Reg-

~

ulatory Guide 1.108 and all three diesel generators success-l fully completed these tests. The hot restart capability tests 1/ Hot restart is the automatic starting of a diesel at operating temperatures. Hot restart capability is demonstrated by subjecting a diesel to the starting sequence following a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months full load run.

_19 I

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

4 '

of diesel generators 101, 102 and 103 were successfully i

performed on April 17, April 24, and May 6 of 1983 respective-ly, and those test results are now in the LILCO review process.

28. A total of 10 hot restarts have been attempted on the Shoreham diesel generators.2/ Of this number, the engines t

successfully restarted nine times within ten seconds of receipt l

of a start signal. On only one occasion did a restart attempt

fail for a reason related to the engine. On November 19, 1982, on its first restart attempt, Diesel Generator 101 did not hot restart when hot because a shuttle valve was stuck. This valve was repaired and Diesel Generator 101 successfully passed not one, but two subsequent hot restart tests. In summary, then, 9 of 10 attempted hot restarts were successful. This record confirms that there is no substance to the County's allegation 2/ This means that on 10 occasions simulated start signals

, were sent and received by the diesel generators following a 24 l hour full load carrying capability run. In two additional in-

! stances (November 12, 1982 and April 15, 1983), the start signal was not received by the diesel generator for reasons unrelated to the diesel generators or their reliability. In one of these instances, a test jumper to simulate a start signal was inadvertently ~not installed. This was the first of all the attempted hot restarts and it is worth noting that the jumper was promptly installed and a hot restart was attempted and successfully completed. In the second instance, both the normal and redundant power supplies to the instrument logic generating the start signal for the engine were temporarily out of service for maintenance. The engine was restarted, run for another 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months and the hot restart test successfully complet-ed.

l i

b l

4 that the hot restart capability of Shoreham's diesel generators is a deficiency that shows LILCO has failed to comply with ap-plicable regulatory requirements. The opposite is in fact the case, as confirmed by the tests.

V.

Proposed Contention Paragraph (S)

(Trends)

29. Paragraph (5) of the proposed SC contention on diesel generators reads:

LILCO has failed to prepare an adequate trend analysis of the diesel problems and occurrences as documented by I&E Report 83-07. Such failure means that there can be no assurance that these diesels have been adequately analyzed to ensure reli-able performance of required functions.

The County's allegation is mistaken. LILCO has prepared a l trend analysis and this analysis demonstrates that the number of items identified are declining even as the diesel generators are accumulating more operating hours. This is an appropriate and favorable trend.

30. To develop the trend analysis, all work on the diesel generators was classified in accordance with one of five categories. The first category is work involving routine main-tenance and construction, e.g., changing oil filters,

- 21-e - ,- +w -

p.w*s 9y,w-+,- ,- --,.-,---c y .-, . -g, _-,_w

installing temporary modifications for system flushes and routine inspections. This category was not included in the trend analysis because it represents routine conditions. All of the remaining categories of work required engineering evalu-ation and disposition and, therefore, have been included in the trend analysis. The second category is industry reported items and includes those items of generic applicability that were reported by either the vendor or by LILCO. The third category consists of work to remedy Shoreham-specific items that were not of generic applicability. The fourth category relates to ancillary equipment which supports the diesel generators, such as fuel oil transferring equipment, compressed air equipment and motor controls. Included as a fifth category of items for the trend analysis were those items related to product improve-ment which would further enhance the diesel generator maintainability and margin of reliability. Examples in this category include (1) replacement of air start filters with ones of improved design to decrease maintenance intervals, and (2) relocation of lube oil strainers to provide more accessibility to enhance maintenance.

31. Attachments E and F are two graphs that show the currently declining trends of the diesel generator items to be resolved at Shoreham. Attachment E entitled " Engine Hours and

,.,y

9 Items / Month vs. Calendar Date" illustrates that beginning March, 1983, although the testing.of the diesels continued and hours were being accumulated rapidly, the number of items iden-tified was sharply declining. Attachment F entitled " Items Re-solved Per Month vs. Total Engine Hours" is similar to the first. It shows, even more dramatically, that the number of items identified by preoperational testing is sharply declining even though engine hours are accumulating. It is important to recognize that the initial operation of the diesel generators and the preoperational testing of the diesel generators are ex-pected to identify items requiring resolution. The Shoreham data coincide with the expected trend. As the Attachments show, prior to and just after the initial operation of the die-sels, a number of items were identified, with fewer being iden-tified as operating hours accumulated. The start of ,

preoperational testing in September 1982, as expected, identi-fied a number of additional items. Again, the number of items l

identified declined substantially as the testing progressed and engine hours accumulated.

1 l 32. In addition to the foregoing trend analyses, i

LILCO, with the assistance of Stone & Webster and the vendor l (Delaval), will continue to review all available data relating to the Shoreham diesel generators to ensure that causes of l

conditions are understood and properly corrected and that the potential for recurrence has been minimized or eliminated. In addition, the available data is being systematically analyzed to ascertain the types of conditions, potential common causes, the direction of any discernible trends, and whether any gener-

~

I ic implications in the data should be pursued.

t i 33. In summary, contrary to the County's allegations, trend analyses have been performed for Shoreham's diesel gener-ators and these trend analyses provide assurance that items to be resolved on the generators have been identified'and corrected and that in the future, the generators will perform safely, reliably and efficiently.

34. NRC I&E is aware of all of the matters referred to i in paragraphs (1) through (5) of the SC proposed < contention and l

l each of these matters will be followed (i) in connection with

. I&E's normal inspection of the Shoreham preoperational test l

program, (ii) as part of the closure of unresolved items iden-tified in I&E inspection reports, or (iii) as part of the clo-sure of items reported to I&E pursuant to regulatory reporting requirements.

I Edward J. Youngling

, Subscribed and sworn to

! before me this day l of May, 1983.

l Notary Public _ ,

i l

i

Attachmnnt A PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS Edward J. Youngling Startup Manager - Shoreham Nuclear Power Station LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY My name is Edward J. Youngling. My business address is Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, P. O. Box 628, Wading River, New York 11792. Since 1981 I have been Startup Manager for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station where I am responsible for all Preoperational Test activities.

I report to the Shoreham Plant Manager. I set initial con-l struction priorities by system / subsystem, and monitor construc-tion progress as it relates to the startup schedule. 1 have the authority to modify construction schedules as,. conditions demand. I chair construction release meetings at which the status of construction related to systems scheduled to be released is discussed. I coordinate all checkout and initial Operations and Preoperational Testing.

I graduated from Lehigh University in 1966 with a Bach-elor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering. From June 1966 to March 1968, I attended Union College and a'chieved credits towards a Masters of Science Degree in Nuclear Engi-nearing.

i

I have received a Senior Operator ~ Certification from the General Electric Company on the Duane Arnold Energy Center Boiling Water Reactor.

Before assuming my present position, I was a Nuclear i

Services Supervisor in the Nuclear Operations Support Division-from May 1979 to March 1981. I was responsible for the manage-i.

ment and coordination of support services for LILCO's Nuclear Power Stations. These support services included coordination of major station modifications; performance of operational design reviews; coordination of the resources of other LILCO Departments and outside consultants; coordination of long-range planning activities associated with plant maintenance, fuel cycle strategy, and budget and cost control; and monitoring of

' overall plant and individual equipment performance.

l j

From February 1975 to May 1979, I was Chief Technical i

Engineer of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station-Unit 1. I was responsible for the activities of the Instrumentation and Control, Health Physics, Radiochemistry and Reactor Engineering Sections of the plant staff. My duties included the develop-ment of administrative and technical programs and procedures to meet regulatory, company, and industry requirements, and the training of professional personnel and technicians to satisfy qualification standards.

l l

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

s From August 1974 to January 1975, I was assigned to the plant staff as the Instrumentation and Control Engineer, and then as Acting Chief Engineer-techn'i cal. I was responsible for manpower planning and the development of the technical training programs for subordinate personnel. I prepared portions of the Shoreham Safety Analysis Report, and participated in the review and approval of plant operating procedures, lesson plans and system descriptions.

From July 1973 to July 1974, I was the Instrumentation and Control Engineer for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station and was assigned to the General Electric Company Startup, Test and Operations (STP) organization at the Duane Arnold Energy Center in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I participated in the preoperational test program in the areas of nuclear instrumentation, process radiation and reactor vessel instrumentation. I acted as G.E.

! shift engineer during fuel loading operations and as assistant to the G.E. shift engineer during startup testing and power as-cension program.

From August 1972 to June 1973, I was assigned to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Program as the Assistant Project Engineer, and then as the Project Engineer. I was responsible for overall plant design control. I coordinated design efforts between LILCO, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, General l

w- -v ,---~e -row-,m-- -<-m.n ,-.----,,.,,,,vn,-oe- --m e- g g,-,,m--g-www--c,-- --,wg--- -----e-- ~v we w,--w *-w -----

Electric Company-Nuclear Energy Division, various major equipment suppliers, and regulatory agencies.

From November 1971 to July 1972, I.was directly respon-i sible for the startup of the boiler for the Northport Unit No.

'3 (a 380 MW unit), which included the fuel safety system, the l combustion control system and associated mechanical equipment.

f From November 1969 to October 1971, I was assigned to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Project in the Nuclear Engi-neering Department. I participated in the engineering review of the Shoreham plant design in the following areas: plant j

equipment layout, equipment specifications, equipment selec-tion, main control board design, plant computers.

From April 1968 to October 1969, I was employed by the LILCO and assigned to the Northport Power Station. During this period, I assisted in the startup of Northport Unit 2, and as-sisted the station me.intenance section, supervising routing and shutdown maintenance activities.

From June 1966 to March 1968, I was employed by the General Electric Company at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory. I was stationed at the West Milton Site as a Mechanical Test ,

Engineer on the S3G Prototype "USS Triton" submarine.

- * = e'+-*--e -, - - - - - - , + - ,c- . _.-, . ._.

e-l

- i l

I am a member of the American Nuclear Society. I hold ;

l a Guest Associate Engineer appointment in the Reactor Division i

at Brookhaven National Laboratory. I am a member of Pi Tau '

I Sigma. I hold an Engineer-in-Training Certificate - State of l

Pennsylvania (State Registration Board for Professional Engineers).

I i

l l

EBDTIONLEVELS.

AT FIRING FREMIENCY OF tR CYLINDERS AT 7511.000

(. UNITS' NLs PEA % 1h 9EAQ V . _11 1.26 3.45 0.67 (S0IL) 0.12 101 .

0.55 0.70 1.59 1.39 (S0ll)

'102 1.46 0.57 '

0.28 4.67 1.65 (S0IL) 103 1.70 1.52 0.44 6 02 1.21 (R(TJO 1.03 5.73 0.51 0.63 SAN .

0.63 2.67 1.89 (SOIL) 1.89 1,55 1.03 IM1 E

o EL. [

24 ,

, . n rst = , , 3_

3C SAN & lR1 M0ilES ADJUSTED FOR POWER LINEL L-- - - ---- -- -- _I KN FOlIfERullSTED F0R ENGINE SPEED

1

" i

, Attachment C !

c - - . ,

~) (

~ !l l l l

1 g-=,

(

I I L i 3,

$[W '@

o

- D s_R O 3 I CN l$

ea 3=l CX i

4ll ch V !IlI!- '

ccC ,

e. ._

c- C^et o

s

=

- v O a g: ;

/ >

s: ,

e a

l e

v=

5 5 5 0 U)

\v l e < == < ._

v3 l

\ - _ _ . __

Attachment D l

m .1 . l O -

'O' : '

O O

== E unmann -

1 5

i J.

E5 iN

$ $. k $, a c s :,. 2 O g

u a1-l

\

Iel g: '

k N 5 C O .

N O O N 1

l i i r- .

I .

/ \

l I l

6

( ..

,+

e' b

Attachment E 1

(

Mah094/tveut

8. Y .W .T .T .Y . T iY . ,,

_ tan 'Whi.

kY

)3 w

W Y

gg y

s y g c, ---! -- -

gg-8 he 7, it$ I r g

l g h e- q .

g v p, . . . . -

^

u $s- it E .$

e i I$ D. .___ _ _ _ _

g 5 .,

N

a. ='

y ki 5 x, gWm $1 64 1

$8$$$$$$$s.188$$3$IA'"

anon ww. m t e

e a y ,

6

"' ' ' * ~ ' ' ' ,w , - - - , , _ _ _ _ _

F s-t

Attachment F l .

=

p g meme AM N s .

M' -t g

_i a 2 -&l a G -

_i g9e g -h.

a

,g E

Ex O d.1 -t I

2 3 -5 M -

g w : @4- '

g s=@t B 9

~ I

~},,

r i i i , , ,

1 I i i i u

8 3

$ t S . 4 N MpeeM/6tep ,

. .

ML20023D211

Text

Dear Taylor:

Dear Larry:

Navigation menu

Search