ML20023D944

Affidavit of MW Goldsmith Advocating Further Investigation Into Facility Diesel Generator Problems.Prof Qualifications & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20023D944
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/31/1983
From:	Goldsmith M ENERGY RESEARCH GROUP, INC., SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20023D940	List: ML20023D939 ML20023D944
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8306060188
Download: ML20023D944 (36)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

Attachment 1 UNITED STATES O? 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 MARC W. GOLDSMITH Marc W. Goldsmith, duly sworn, deposes and says as follows:

1. My name is Marc W. Goldsmith. I am employed by and President of Energy Research Group, Inc. (" ERG"). I am cur-rently one of the expert consultants for Suffolk County, New York. My professional qualifications are presented in the pro-ceedings of the hearings following the transcript at page 1113.

My professional qualifications as they relate to diesel genera-tors are in Attachment A. I have been providing services di-rectly to Suffolk County since 1979 on issucs and technology related to the design, construction and operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. I have worked for ERG for over eight years on a variety of utility electric generation projects. Prior to founding ERG, I was with United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., an architectural / engineering firm, de-signing and constructing large electric power stations. I worked as a licensing engineer on a variety of systems including balance-of ,' ant and emergency systems for several 8306060100 830531 PDR ADOCK 05000322 PDR O

different types of plants. This effort included setting the design parameters for emergency diesel generators (e.g., load and time to full load). Prior to that I served in the United States Merchant Marine as both a third and second assistant engineer on merchant vessels.

2. The purpose of this affidavit is to demonstrate that the issues raised in Suffolk County's proposed contention on the Shoreham diesel generators were raised in a timely manner and to present significant issues about the ability of the Shoreham diesel generators to perform their satecy functions.

A chronology of the development of the County's concerns is provided and the bases for my technical judgments regarding these concerns are set forth.

3. The County has been concerned about the design, con-struction and operation of the Shoreham emergency diesel gener-ators since 1977 when it filed a contention on the issue for discovery. During the 1979-1980 period, numerous discovery questions were asked and answered about both the offsite electric and emergency diesel systems. This process led to a focusing and a restatement of the contention. This contention focused on the issue of dirt in diesel generator relays. This was both a Staff (NUREG/CR-0660) and County concern. It was contended that dirt in the dicsel generator relays had the potential to cause failures of relays when the diesel might be called upon to operate. This contention was settled by a

l second stipulation agreement which included the resolving of Suffolk County Contention 2. This resolution can be found in the record following transcript page 1626. The settled conten-l- tion focused on an issue generic to all diesel generators.

This was done since the Shoreham diesels had little or no operating hours at the time. Without having operated at the time, there would have been no basis for the County to have alleged the kinds of design and operational deficiencies which have recently been revealed.

4. The three letters referenced by LILCO which reported emergency diesel generator deficiencies during 1981 and 1982, SNBC-549, dated March 27, 1981, SNRC-649, dated December 23, l 1981, and SNRC-777, dated October 15, 1982, appear to be unrelated to current concerns as discussed below. The issues raised in SNRC-649 and SNRC-777 could, in retrospect, be vibra-tion related. However, at the time they were issued (December 1981 and October 1982) both were assumed to be isolated occur-rences. In both cases, the letters provide insufficient data to determine whether the potential failures in the washers were due to an underestimate of stress, a design defect or a materials problem. Neither LILCO nor the Staff has produced  ;

any data to demonstrate that these problems were related to the concerns alleged in the proposed contention.

4

5. A chronology of the new diesel concerns, which form the basis for the proposed contention, started in February

, . - _ _ _.._m,. _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ , _ - . .

1983. On February 24, 1983, I&E Inspection Report 82-35 was issued. This Report, which my office received on March 8, 1983, transmitted inspection findings, including diesel genera-tor findings, that had occurred between November 30 and December 31, 1982. This I&E Report raised several questions about the diesel generator preoperational startup testing pro-gram. These questions included those that led to Enforcement Action 83-20. An enforcement conference was held on March 24, 1983, but a notice of the action did not actually occur until April 12, 1983. During this same period, on March 8, 1983, LILCO verbally transmitted to the NRC a potential design defi-ciency as required by 10 CFR 50.55(e) relating to the emergency diesel generators. The written report for this particular potential deficiency (SNRC-873) was not filed with the NRC

~

until on or about April 15, 1983. On March 30, 1983, a second

~

potential design deficiency of the emergency diesel generators was reported pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e). A written report was filed on May 4, 1983. During this end of March /beginning of April time period, Region 1 also issued I&E Report 83-07 (is-sued March 24, received April 4) which listed numerous design deficiencies and four major areas of concern related to the diesels. This Report indicated new concerns on the part of I&E.

6. During the months of March and April, 1983, I spoke to NRC I&E Staff about a half dozen times by telephone in order

\ . ,

to better understand the diesel situation. Each time, I received an update on testing status and Staff concerns rela-tive to diesel performance. Each time, the status changed.

Each time, I received another piece of the puzzle. I also at-tended an " exit" interview on Saturday, April 16, 1983. This interview was attended on less than 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />' notice and lasted only about 20 minutes. Mentioned in passing at that interview was that the hot restart had failed to occur. No cause was known at that time. The following Monday, April 18, during discussions with the Resident Inspector, I was told that the cause had been identified and the problem rectified (return of power to the logics). The Resident Inspector also stated that the 22-hour and the two-hour tests had been rerun and that he had witnessed the successful accomplishment of hot restart.

Nevertheless, this additional information increased my concerns with the diesel testing program.

7. As noted above, during March and April, 1983, I had numerous conversations with the NRC Chief Startup Inspector and with the NRC Resident Onsite Inspector relative to the diesel generators. These conversations were designed to obtain infor-mation relative to the filing of the 50.55(e) deficiencies, further details on I&E inspections (initially, particularly I&E Inspection 82-35) and later to get further information relative to the reasons for the increased concerns reported by I&E Report 83-07. This last I&E Report (83-07) forms an important part of the basis for the proposed diesel generator contention.

8. During my conversations in March, 1983, I was unable to obtain much specific information from the Staff. While helpful, the Staff stated that further detailed information was being developed and, accordingly, that the County should await this further information. I understood this further informa-tion to be the Staff decision to commence an enforcement action, which action was not taken until April 12, 1983.

9. During March and April, 1983, information concerning the diesels was received from a variety of sources (I&E Staff, County counsel reporting on conversations with I&E, and LILCO responses), in various formats (I&E reports, personal reports of te.cs, etc.). It was difficult to draw rapid conclusions.

Theref1re, it was not until sometime in mid-April that there were sutficient data available to me to advise the County that a contention should be drafted. Thereafter, I worked with County counsel to prepare the contention which was filed on May 2, 1983.

10. The data upon which this affidavit is based are pri-marily the I&E reports, responses by LILCO to the I&E reports, notably SNRC letters (859, dated March 16, 1983, and 844, dated May 12, 1983) and the 50.55(e) submittals by LILCO contained in SNRC letters 873 and 883. The affidavit also reflects numerous conversations with I&E personnel. It also discusses Mr.

Youngling's affidavit.

I. Proposed Contention Paragraph 1 --

Testing of Emergency Diesel Generators

11. Paragraph 1 on page 2 of the proposed SC contention states:

"LILCO has failed to test adequately the emergency diesel generators, and has failed to ensure adequate review and approval of test procedures and test results, as docu-mented in I&E Reports 82-35, 83-02, 83-07 and 83-08 and I&E Enforcement Action 83-20.

Without adequate testing, reliable operation cannot be assured."

Thus, this portion of the contention alleges that there was lack of care in the testing and in the review and approval of test procedures and results. The testing is an integral part of assuring that the emergency diesels can provide the neces-sary electrical power for emergency loads in both a timely and reliable manner.

12. Paragraph 1 on page 2 of the County's proposed con-tention is based primarily on I&E Report 82-35 and EA 83-20.

I&E Report 82-35 identified that a testing problem existed at Shoreham but did not highlight the severity of the problem. I understand that during March 1983, the Staff examined the 82-35 situation further and, based upon that review, determined to issue EA 83-20. Thus, it was not until EA 83-20 was issued that the seriousness of the testing ceficiencies could be ap-preciated.

13. I&E Report 82-35 lists several failures with respect to testing of the emergency diesel generators. One group of failures specifically relates to the emergency diesel generator I l

1 102 electric test. This test was performed in accordance with PT307.003. The Staff inspector reviewed this test and found that there was a failure of the test program. Testing was not performed in accordance with procedures and test requirements had not been satisfied. This failure in the test program led to I&E Enforcement Action 83-20. The failure and consequences have been addressed in detail in several LILCO/SNRC letters (specifically SNRC-859 and SNRC-884) and Staff responses.

14. Four other discrepancies in the test results were noted by the Staff inspector in Report 82-35. These

discrepancies were discussed in LILCO response letter SNRC-859, dated March 16, 1983. The first issue was cross-outs and write overs. This issue is not of specific concern relative to preoperational testing. The specific write overs, however, in-dicate a nomenclature problem with the diesel generator load instrumentation (e.g., the possibility to misread units on the instrument). The second issue raised is not of concern. The third issue is where engine parameters were required to be recorded every fifteen minutes versus every ten minutes. This is of some concern based on the startup procedure manual re-quirements that test engineers dryrun tests prior to the actual running of a test. Therefore, the data requirement timing was not identified and could have been. In any event, no justifi-cation for the deviations from procedures was provided as required by the startup manual and procedures. It appears that

the data requirements and readings were not walked through prior to the test. Moreover, while the absence of a test change notice or exception taken for the changing of the timing does not appear to be critical, it should not be treated cava-lierly. If the test engineer was not responsible for setting the data interval, then he may not know if there was a reason for setting the 10-minute interval. In the LILCO response there is no basis given for the reevaluation and post-facto ac-ceptance of the test engineer's opinion. No analysis is pro-vided for the time interval decisions. The last concern rela-tive to this particular test was related to the out-of-specification measurements on lube oil pressure and jacket water temperature. In both cases, lube oil pressure and jacket water temperature, no test exception was taken by the test engineer. Again, a post-facto justification was made after the Staff commented on the parameters being out-of-specification.

While it is important that Transamerica DeLaval, the manufac-turer of the diesels, concurred in the change, there are no data in the LILCO response backing up this decision. It is in-sufficient to say that it is covered, based on a review of field and factory data. The additional question occurs as to why a change to these parameters was made when other units appear to operate under more conservative ranges.

15. While post-facto changes in test acceptance criteria can and probably should be made based on test results, the

1

, Staff should receive a far more adequate basis to make an independent judgment of the validity of a change in acceptance criteria previously developed, reviewed, and approved. This becomes significantly more important where no test exceptions or test changes are made or required. Also, there does not appear to be analytical data provided to support the decision or judgment granting an exception. It appears that NRC Staff has accepted the justifications without sufficient verifica-tion.

16. I believe the allegations of testing deficiencies contained in Paragraph 1 of the contention are serious. They imply a lack of care in the test process and do not indicate a rigor one would associate with Class lE equipment. The test changes are undocumented to NRC Staff, reflecting a lack of concern and verification. These preoperational tests provide the bases for determining whether the diesels will perform at load for a continuous period. They verify that design is adequate and that procedures for operation are appropriate.

II. Proposed Contention Paragraph 2 --

Vibration

17. Paragraph 2 on page 2 of the proposed contention states:

"The diesels have been subject 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 any event, such vibration prevents the diesels from reliably performing their intended functions."

l .

Vibration is one of the primary causes of mechanical equipment failure and thus can directly affect the reliability of diesel operation. While vibration is unavoidable in certain equipment, excessive vibration in either amplitude or frequency can and has caused premature failure of equipment. The life-shortening aspects of excessive vibration have the ability to reduce the reliability of the diesel generators through a vari-ety of failures.

18. The primary basis for this portion of the contention is I&E Report 83-07. Paragraph 3.3 of that Report, entitled

" Diesel Generator Set Test Witnessing," lists four major concerns considered by the Staff inspector in observing and re-viewing LILCO's documents and reports. These concerns relate to apparent excessive vibration and are discussed as issues in i paragraph 2 of the proposed contention. The Staff inspector made the following finding:

"Although the 72 hour8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> electrical test runs of the diesel generators were preliminary in nature and no violations or discrepancies were noted by the inspector, the testing of the diesel generator sets was accompanied by problems similar to the many problems that have occurred relating to the diesel generator sets in the past year of testing."

l The Staff inspector then listed the tests completed to date, his concerns, and the LILCO deficiency reports reviewed during I the inspection. Based on the above, he reached the following l

conclusion:

! l

"The above findings constitute an immediate concern to the NRC and were presented to the licensee's representatives by the inspector at the exit meeting on March 4, 1983. The licensee acknowledged the inspector's findings and concerns and com-mitted to pursue them. This item is desig-nated Unresolved Item (50-322/83-07-02)."

This area is scheduled to be examined during subsequent Staff inspections so that these concerns and problems can be resolved prior to the performance of the integrated electrical test.

The concerns of the NRC startup inspector are echoed in this affidavit because no solutions have been presented.

19. Vibration is one of the more difficult stress phenom-enon that must be adequately designed for in terms of all equipment and its relationship to resonant frequencies that could cause fatigue nnd failure. Without firsthand observation of the analytical efforts evaluating vibration both in the short and long term on various components, it is difficult to determine the impact of vibration on the Shoreham diesels.

However, several factors are apparent based on I&E Report 83-07 and the 50.55(e) reports. First, several apparently unrelated failures could have vibration as a common cause. The analyses presented on vibration (e.g., the Youngling affidavit) are conclusory. Second, bolt cracking in a cyclic fatigue mode as indicated by SNRC-873 could have a vibration co:aponent. In-deed, cyclic loadings are usually a result of vibration-based ,

stress.

20. Mr. Youngling's affidavit is apparently based.on data never made available to the County. I do not have data which allow me critically to assess Mr. Youngling's conclusions. His data apparently show that the Shoreham diesel generators are comparable in levels of vibration with two other diesels stud-ied. The affidavit does not address, however, the important questions of resonance in particular locations, nor does it provide the methodology used to normalize differences in power levels and rpm. In addition, it is possible that the rapid loading requirements of nuclear emergency diesels make this type of diesel somewhat different than the average diesel in that the startup stress due to the rapid loading may be higher for the nuclear emergency diesel. Moreover, despite allegedly normal-levels of vibration, there have been several failures due to resonances between equipment. As discussed in Mr.

Youngling's affidavit, the cause of the failures were diesel design specific and based on the diesel firing rate (rpm) and the mass of the structure / component / fastening.

21. Mr. Youngling's affidavit alleges that there are over 97 diesels in operation that are essentially identical or similar to the Shoreham diesels. These diesels, according to j Mr. Youngling, have over 1200 years of operating experience.

Assuming the accuracy of Mr. Youngling's facts, it is unclear why there would be vibration problems or design deficiencies occurring with such a proven piece of equipment. The fact that

such failures have occurred, however, is additional reason for Concern.

III. Proposed Contention Paragraph 3 --

Component Cracking

22. Paragraph 3 of the proposed contention reads:

"The diesels have suffered from cracking of components, as documented by LILCO's verbal reports to NRC Region 1 on March 8 and 30, 1983, and LILCO's written report, SNRC-873, dated April 15, 1983.

These deficiencies have included water jacket leaks which have the potential to decrease power output and interfere with rapid startup of the diesels."

This contention concerns failures to specific components on what is supposed to be a proven design of the shoreham diesels in marine and other applications. Certainly, the potential for unanticipated component cracking represents a serious concern about the reliability of the diesels.

23. The cracking portion of the contention is based on the two recent 50.55(e) reports (SNRC-873 and SNRC-883). The verbal reports were made during March 1983; the written more detailed reports became available April 15 and May 4, 1983.

24. The intermediate and intake rocker arm assembly holddown capscrew which broke causing a replacement of 96  ;

l capscrews in use at Shoreham indicates a high stress cycle fa-l tigue. Rocker arms are not new components nor are holddown l capscrews. Yet 46 capscrews showed indications of cracking out of the 96 capscrews. Replacement of the capscrews may be an appropriate solution to this specific problem of the capscrew l

failure. This solution, however, does not seem to acknowledge that there is a larger problem that could be causing the fail-ures. If this is a standard Transamerica DeLaval capscrew found on the other diesels, then why did it fail here and not on other units? No recommendations (e.g., bulletin or notice) were made.

25. The failure in the cooling water jackets in the cyl-inder heads is of little consequence in operation (e.g., locs of some power). The failure that allows water into the cylin-der, however, does have significance if undetected, prior to a rapid start. Then, the piston, rather than compressing air and fuel, a compressible mixture, forces the incompressible water

]

to a high pressure with the potential for something to fail in the process. This situation is exacerbated in a nuclear diesel because of its automatic quick start response while unmanned.

This potential could decrease the reliability of a quick start or cause a failure to start with damage to the valves, pistons, or gaskets.

I

26. It is significant that, while these " latent casting i

i defects occur only in a small percentage of the heads manufactured,"l/ three of these heads have been on 24 Shoreham diesel cylinders. That is a 12.5% defect rate in units that are supposed to have significantly greater quality assurance 1/ See Youngling affidavit at 17.

r than the commercial standard diesel. This does not provide the outside observer with confidence in either the quality assur-ance for the diesels or in the long-term reliability of the diesels.

IV. Proposed Contention Paragraph 4 --

Hot Restart

27. 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."

The County is here concerned about deficiencies in LILCO's operations and procedures. The key deficiency was a failure by LILCO to follow startup manual procedures that require a walk through to assure that equipment necessary for a success-ful test is available. I learned of this deficiency through my brief discussions with Staff on April 16 (exit interview) and April 18, 1983 (telephone conversation with J. Higgins, NRC).

The Shoreham startup manual provides the procedures and methods to be followed prior to initiating a test.

28. The key problem is taat while it appeared that startup had responsibility for the nystem operation, plant operations and maintenance could lock out the power supplies for the diesel generator restart logic without startup's knowledge. According to the Shoreham startup manual and proce-dures, those ems that could prevent the test from reaching a successful conclusion are to be checked by the test engineer I

prior to the test. This situation is clearly outlined in revision 16, dated January 28, 1982, to the preoperational phase of the startup manual which states that:

I

" appropriate instructions may be given per-taining to system configuration the compo-nents which should or should not be operating and other pertinent conditions that might affect the operation of the system under the test. System boundaries would be clearly defined and tagging will be specifically detailed."

Therefore, even though this issue does not specifically speak to the reliability of the diesels themselves, it does speak di-rectly to the reliability of the personnel performing the testing.2/ Considering the number of restarts that have been attempted on the Shoreham diesel generators, it does not appear that LILCO followed its own procedures for the April test.

This again gives the outside observer cause for concern.

V. Proposed Contention Paragraph 5 --

Trends

29. Paragraph 5 of the proposed contention reads as follows:

"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

-2/ I&E Information Notice 83-17, however, reported that contrcl interlocks, preventing fuel from reaching the die-sels after operation, have been found at a minimum of two plants. This Notice reveals a potential generic probl+5.

with the ability of the diesels to perform a hot restart.

Based on the limited data thus far made available to the County, I have been unable to determine whether such interlocks exist at Shoreham.

l 1

i l

been adequately analyzed to ensure reliable performance of required functions."

The County contends that the occurrences that have led to the

. LILCO deficiency reports, when tabulated, could have indicated a trend in the failures. LILCO has presented in Mr.

Youngling's affidavit a trend analysis that looks at the gross trending of failures in the diesels. The charts presented in Mr. Youngling's affidavit show a precipitous drop in the last few weeks in identified problems. Based on this, LILCO has de-cided that the diesel generator problems have decreased. While this may in fact be the case, it is clearly too soon to tell.

It appears that no attempt has been made to determine whether the failures found and corrected have a common source.

Analyses evaluating metalurgy, vibration, design and manufacturing processes could be performed either to confirm or eliminate potential ccmmon causes.

30. Much of what is said in Mr. Youngling's affidavit is in direct contradiction to the Staff's findings. This is par-ticularly true with respect to the correctness of LILCO's re-sponse in running the electrical test on emergency diesel gen-erator 102. The County, as both an interested party and an in-dependent observer (independent of both Staff and LILCO), has had several concerns raised by NRC Staff either not responded to by LILCO or inadequately responded to so as to make an inde-pendent judgment impossible.

31. Currently, the County has no means by which to ascertain the validity of either the LILCO or Staff positions.

The inability to get these data has impacted on the ability to write a more specific contention or to write one on an even more timely basis. It was my judgment that neither the single design deficiency reported verbally to Region 1 on March 8, 1983, nor the violation identified in Report 82-35, standing alone, was adequate to make a technical case for concerns rela-tive to the reliability of the emergency diesel generators.

However, two design deficiencies in a short time frame, the large number of failures and concerns enumerated in I&E Report 83-07, and the violation identified in Report 82-35, as elabo-rated by EA 83-20, do make a strong case for further investiga-tion. Apparently, the Staff agrees with this assessment. In my opinion, the significance of the diesel problems recently experienced by LILCO is underscored by the actions taken by the Staff during the last two months. Those actions include the Staff's issuance of EA 83-20 (citing LILCO for a Level III vio-lation) and its retention of an expert consultant to review ongoing diesel testing and the physical condition and operation of the diesels. The Staff's frequent review and witnessing of l

' diesel testing during April and May, 1983, and its request that LILCO establish a Task Force to review the diesel problems are also significant measures that emphasize the Staff's concerns regarding the diesel situation. I therefore believe that

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

l 1

further investigation into the diesel problems at the Shoreham

plant is warranted.

i p

Marc W. Goldsmith Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of June, 1983.

Notary Public 1

l I

i t

I l

l r

4 i

l' i

f I

l I

e Attachment A

. . .e 4 PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS OF MARC W. GOLDSMITH, i ENERGY RESEARCH GROUP, INC.,

RELATIVE TO DIESEL GENERATORS

! My name is Marc W. Goldsmith. My business address is En-ergy Research Group, Inc., 400-1 Totten Pond Road, Waltham, Massachusetts 02154. Since 1979, I have been a consultant for Suffolk County, New York, on issues and technology related to the design, construction and operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. During this period of time, I have evaluated several technical issues on behalf of the County, including the County's proposed contention on the emergency diesel genera-tors. Prior to co-founding Energy Research Group, Inc. in 1975, I worked for United Engineers and Constructors, Inc. For two years, while at United Engineers, I was responsible for li-censing activities related to nuclear and fossil plants. For I nuclear plants, I had responsibility not only for nuclear safe-ty licensing but for balance-of-plant and equipment. I was part of the group that selected emergency electric equipment, l including diesels, and set the requirements for the specifica-

tion.

From June 1968 through 1971, I sailed as both a third as-sistant engineer and a second assistant engineer in the U.S.

Merchant Marine while attending graduate school during off periods. During that period of time, I successfully completed a naval correspondence course in diesel engines. I worked for

l. . -

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

8

. .P

several marine engineering firms as the engineer in a

charge-of-a-watch operating marine fossil power plants. This included responsibility for both operation and maintenance of k emergency diesel generators. My duties as a marine engineer included maintaining both the diesel engine and generator, including auxiliary systems, and operating the diesels for both tests and under actual emergency conditions.

I graduated from the State University of New York Maritime College in 1968 with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Marine Nu-

clear Science. Upon graduation and after passing U.S. Coast 1

' Guard examinations, I received U.S. Coast Guard licenses for j both diesel and steam engines. I was awarded two advance de-grees in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1972 and I am a licensed professional engineer in the State of California.

l

[

l

(

i

,' ' Attachment 2 KIRK. PATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER Se PnILLIPs A PAsrTNEmefrFF IFCLCDurO A PSOrgsalbsAJ. CORPO4.ATION 1900 M Srazzr, N. W.

WASH.INGTON, D. C. 2 cod 6 nr rrrramunas t.zz.tracara (sos) 4ss.rooo ,

xxarrenscr.t r=i=t,aounsor a urwxzsow cAmtsi arrrma sooo otrvr.m scrimero

, rutex 44omoe arrn trz arrrssumon,remesrtva n ssana waztsde traser arAz. mrncman aun a...un March 23, 1983 (202) 452-7011 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Hunton & Willidms P.O. Box 1535

• 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 .

Dear Taylor:

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 e'ergency m 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 prcblems associated with the diesel generators. Accordingly, the County requests: ,

(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 generators since,the beginning of May 1982 (this date is important since IaE Report 82-35 identified diesel problems on that date);

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 design flaw or some other type of flaw is involved. The County 1 would prefer to carry out such a site visit during the latter part of the week of April 11.

i l

l 1

• / \f  %)

/

j/, ' ,

EIREPATRICK, LOCKHART, HII.I., CnRzstoruzR & Part.r.rrs W. Taylor Eeveley, III, Esq.

March 23, 1983 '

Page 2 So that the County's consulta,nts can prepare for the inspectior., 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.

Sincere 1.y yours, Lawrence Coe Lanpher LCL/dk ,

. s.

m ,

S 9

e W O e

4

^'** h"*"t 3 Hux rox & WILLInts 7o7 EAST MAIN Stact? P. o. Box 1535 e e a f evetosmo Ricmroso, VInoryt.A 23212 , s e . . . . s ,tv. . .. .. . c. . . . .

p. o. eos esaso A O soa eos takseen, monta camoussa ataca TELtpwoNC 804-788 8[00 wasmeacto=, a c. a cose aca aas.seso ess.ca s. e are rimst wesosseen sama rowse ,

rest wo.

0. 6. Den se e e ,

weses6a, vimosana assee pem ect peal No. So* 7ee.

68*.saa.ssos g gg g 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 r'egarding 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

, Co.np any. 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,

/

W. Ta or veley, III J

s u o Attachment 4 ELRKPATRICK, I.,0CKHA.RT, Hrr.r.. CunrsTorurR & .P11rLLIrs A Pa m amen:P bcLi:Ot.*o A Peors*ero.waL Coa maurrow 1900 M STR.EIT, N. W.

%szuxorox, D. C. eooc6 tzterrors (non es.'

C.AB LE KIFPtX March 23 f 1983 """*'

. TEL*31 6M'aO6 KIYR tl* cmIFArt2cx,L m P. JOE"h3T & EMSON WEITER S DI.R2CT DI.AL NITM3ER 1600 Or.;vz2 3Cscro FITTsaCAOPt FESNSTUAs'h as22e 202/452-7011 (4 2) 354 % O0 Bernard'M. Bordenick, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7735 Old Georgetown Road Maryland National Bank Building Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Daar Bernie:

As you know, there have been recent reports of continuing problems with the emergency diesel generators at Shoreham. Thus, cracks have been discovered in the heads of each of the Shoreham diesels, crucial' safety raising the possibility of a serious design flaw in this equipment. The dis'covery of the cracks follows data of nearly a year ago that is' contained in I&E Report 50-322/82-35, which identified inconsistencies within the test requirements and test data for Emergency Diesel Generator 102. That testing, con-ducted on May 26, 1982, has raised additional concerns regarding the operational capabilities of the diesel generators.

The foregoing situation raises serious safety questions of concern at large.to Suffolk County and, indeed, of consequence to the public We appreciate the fact that NRC Region 1 personnel have spoken with our consultant

~

concerning some of our questions. We have also requested LILCO's cooperation in providing data regarding this diesels the matter and in arranging in early April. for the County's consultants to inspect Looking to the immediate future, it is imperative that the County have access to data and information essential to evaluation of the diesel generator problem. Accordingly, the County requests of the NRC Staff:

a) Advance notice of any meeting between the Staff and LILCO concerning the diesel generators. The notice should be sufficiently in advance so that the County's consultants can attend. We also want to be involved in any phone discussions '

between the Staff and LILCO on these matters.

l l

/ *

/

Kraxrarazcx, LOCKMART. Bir.I., CuntsToenza & Purt.t.rrs

. i Bernard M. Bordenick, Escuire  !

March 23, 1983 ,.

Page Two ,

b) Advance notice of any site visits or inspections by the ,

Staff of the Shoreham diesels, including any Staff visits to Shoreham  ;

to observe testing or other activities concerning the diesels. The County wants its consultants to accompany the Staff.on such inspec-tions or visits in a manner similar to the procedure followed during the OQA inspection in December, 1982. By using this proven pro-cedure,.the County can obtain necessary data so that it can evaluate the significance of the diesel problems. Again, the notice to us should be suf ficiently in advance of the inspection or visit so that the County's consultants can arrange their schedules to attend.

The County looks forward to the Staff's cooperation in this in.cortant matter.

Sincere - yours, i

Lawrence.Coe Lanpher IC/b '-

4 1

l I

i 9

/

i

[9"4 jog 9 UNITED STATES Attachment 5 o

Ph 0

n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 y..... .

April 13,1983 Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.

Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 In the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

Docket No. 50-322 (OL)

Dear Mr. Lanpher:

Thank you for your letter of March 23, 1983, concerning "recent reports of continuing problems with the emergency diesel generators at Shoreham."

This will confirm that on April 12, 1983, I sent Alan Dynner, by telecopier, a copy of a letter dated April 12, 1983 from NRC Region I to Long Island Lighting Company. Attached to the letter was a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty. The violation involved the performance of a preoperational test of a generator in which the test results indicated that'one of the test requirements was not satisfied.

As a follow up to several recent phone conversations with you and Alan Dynner, I cm state the following with respect to the two specific requests contained in your letter.

a) The County will continue to receive, as in the past, advance notice of any licensing meetings as opposed to enforcement meetings between Staff and

.the Applicant.

b) As to any " site visits or inspections by the Staff on the Shoreham diesels, including any Staff visits to Shoreham to observe testing or other activities concerning the diesels", I or Region I will advise you when such

" visits and inspections" are being made by Staff. In this regard the County has been invited to attend an exit meeting with the Applicant regarding a current ongoing inspection which is presently expected to conclude at the end of next week. I understand entry on site has already been arranged through Applicant's counsel. As previously explained to you, inspections of the diesel gen.erators are being made in the absence of all parties in order to facilitate and expedite such inspections. The County will of course recieve copies of any inspection reports. I will attempt to expedite your

l * -

. .,e k -

2-t receipt of these reports. I would note'in this regard that the 00A inspec-tion in December,1982 which you referenced in,your letter was a unique situation involving expedition of the litigation of portions of Suffolk

. County Contention 13. To my knowledge, the diesel generator problems to which you made reference in your letter do not relate to any pending or litigated contention in this proteeding. Nor does your letter identify any such contention.

Sincerely,

<. i l

Bernard M. Bordenick -1 Counsel for NRC Staff  ;

l Enclosure cc: w/ Enclosure i T. S. Ellis, Esq.

e

-~ ,w-- -- - .~6-- -~'- --t r-Tw- w-' - - -

T**w r - r'--'

=-=M---

• 8 0 Attachment 6 EIRKPATRICK,1,0CKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PnILLIPs I

A PAarramener Incs.conwo A Paoraseroxat Consomarion 1900 }i Srizzr, N. W.

I WAsursorox, D. C. 20o06 -

mnemoxa (mos) 4se.rooo  : rrrresumon i.

' c.anz.mi mrm samarArmia,7-=t.sosweos a mercuzson rzr.nz 4 caos m en m isoo assera actr.oxxo warram . w..cr mar. ,wxm== April 19, 1983 ,,r,. .c,on, ,,,n,m, ,n. ...

202/452-7044 m ** aaa l

Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director Division of Project and Resident Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406

^ le: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Diesel Generators i

Dear Mr. Starostecki:

I am writing on behalf of our client, Suffolk County, to request formally that you permit the County's consultant, Mr. Marc Goldsmith, or such other professional consultant l as the County may appoint, to accompany the NRC inspector during the inspection and witnessing of the various testing

! of,the diesel generators at Shoreham. This request has been made repeatedly orally to Region 1 through Mr. Edward Greenman of your office with whom I have had numerous conversations. I understand that Mr. Greenman consulted with you concerning these prior requests and he notified me that such requests were rejected. I believe that recent developments now require Region 1, as a matter of fairness and openness in the regulatory process, to consent to the County's modest request.

l on March 23, 1983, having become aware of a variety l of problems with the diesel generators at Shoreham, the l . County's counsel requested the NRC Staff (1) to provide the

- County with advance notice of any meetings between the Staff and LILCO concerning the generators, so that the County's consultants might attend such meetings; (2) to involve the County's consultants in any telephone conversations regarding.

l discussions of the die.sel generators; and (3) to provide i

l l

f ETRKPATRICK LOCKHART, HII.I., CHRISTOPHER & PHII.I.rP3 Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director April 19, 1983 Page 2 O

advance notice.of any site visits or inspections by the Staff of.the Shoreham diesels and permit the County's consultants to. observe the testing or any other activities concerning the' diesels. Subsequently, I had numerous discussions with i Mr. Greenman during which I requested that Mr. Goldsmith be permitted to observe the NRC inspection and witnessing of a diesel generator test at Shoreham. 1Hr. Greenman agreed that Mr. Goldsmith could attend the exit meetings with regard to this test, but he declined, after consultation

~

with the NRC inspector, Mr. Hercules Nicholas, and later with yourself, to permit Mr. Goldsmith to observe the testing.

Mr. Greenman informed me that the primary reason for your rejection of the County's request was that Mr.. Nicholas i objected to such observation. Mr. Greenman stated that Mr.' Nicholas intended.to carry on the witnessing at odd hours throughout the-night and did.not want to. contact Mr. Goldsmith every time he wanted to witness the testing.

He also said that Mr. Nicholas had a " good rapport" with the ,

LILCO personnel which he did not want to jeopardize by having an observer present. I took strong issue with these positions, stating that Mr. Goldsmith could be available at any. time or times, and that the presence of a technical observer could not possibly have an adverse impact on an NRC inspector who was properly carrying out his responsibilities. The last conver-sation I had.with Mr. Greenman concernine this matter was on Friday afternoon, April 15, and our discussion ended with Mr. Greenman agreeing ~to reconsider his position con'erning c the observer..

Late Friday afternoon Mr. Greenman telephoned me stating, in fact, that the inrpection of the 24-hour testing of the diesels at Shoreham had begun Thursday evening and was almost completed for one of the diesels. He stated that he was calling in order to ensure that Mr. Goldsmith had an opportunity

.to attend the exit meeting which was scheduled to take place on Saturday morning. Mr. Greenman said that he had not known about this when he spoke with me earlier on Friday.

4 With Mr. Greenman's full cooperation, Mr. Goldsmith managed on very short notice to attend the exit meeting on Saturday, morning. According to Mr. Goldsmith, the meeting took only about 20 minutes during which time Mr. Nicholas read a couple of paragraphs which.he had written out by hand. There l

l l

i

s 0 5

MIREPATRICK, LOCKHAftT HIu CanzsTornza & Patures Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director April 19, 1983 Page 3

'O was no exchange between the Staff and LILCO during this meeting and no indication that problems had been encountered during the testing. Mr. Nicholas had mentioned as an aside that there would have to be follow up on the hot restart portion of the testing.

Later on Saturday Mr. Greenman, who had attempted to reach me by telephone at home during the day, had a telephone conversation with me in which he stated that during the testing of diesel No. 101, the diesel had " locked-out" when an attempt was made for hot restart. He said that this occurred late Friday night and that the 24-hour testing might have to be repeated. Mr. Greenman indicated that additional

~

testing might take place on Monday or Tuesday, April 18 or 19.

Under these circumstances, I reiterated:myrequest that Mr. Goldsmith be allowed to observe this testing. Mr. Greenman replied that you did not want to permit an observer because of the time it might take Mr. Nicholas to make the appropriate arrangements. I told Mr. Greenman that I had grave concerns about the manner in which the inspection was being carried out, including the lack of content and interchange during the exit meeting that Mr. Goldsmith had attended. Mr. Greenman stated that the meeting on Saturday had not been the post-generator testing debriefing. He assured me that he would keep me informed at all times regarding further testing of the diesels, and would advise me in advance of such testing.

On Monday afternoon, April 18, the County's consultant, Mr. Goldsmith, telephoned me to relate a conversation that he had with Mr. Jim Higgins, the NRC resident inspector at Shoreham. According to Mr. Higgins, the problem of the hot restart on diesel No. 101 had been solved during the weekend

.and the 24-hour testing of that diesel was rerun commencing

. late Saturday evening and ending Sunday evening, April 17.

This testing was witnessed in part by Mr. Higgins and was apparently successfully completed. Neither I nor any other representative of Suffolk County had been notified that this test was being rerun over the weekend. I hasten to add that I believe Mr. Greenman to be a totally honest and honorable public servant, and I have no doubt that he was unaware of

8 8 D

KIRKPATRICK, $OCKICART, Hiu, CunrsrorxzR & Pururra Mr. Richard W. Starostecki, Director April 19, 1983 -

~

Page 4 this test or he would have notified me. However, the fact that the County was not notified of this test until after-wards points out one of the issues of concern that the County has discussed with the Staff. I understand that the testing and the NRC Staff witnessing on the remaining two diesels may take place as early as this week.

Given the critical importance of the diesel generator problems at Shoreham and the problems referred to above, it is now imperative that the County's consultant be permitted to observe the conduct of the witnessing of the testing of

, these diesels. The principal purpose of such observation is i to give the County's consultant greater familiarity with the 2

operation of the diesels and the problems they have encountered.

Mr. Goldsmith is known to Mr. Greenman and to Mr. Higgins; Mr. Greenman stated to me that Mr. Goldsmith is a thoroughly professional technical expert and he has no doubt that Mr.

Goldsmith would not in any way interfere with the conduct of the testing and witnessing.

We note that LILCO was to file two separate reports i under Section 50.55 (e) concerning cracking of diesel heads and cracking of bolts during the testing at Shoreham. We have not received copies of these reports and do not know whether they have been filed, even though they were due ea'rlier this month. This only underscores the potential l significance of the testing now being conducted. I hope you will be able to immediately reconsider the County's request and grant it so that matt'ers of great importance to suffolk County and its population can be thoroughly brought to light.

Very truly yours, l

Alan Roy Dy er ARD/dk cc: Edward G. Greenman William Dircks

A g t .

Attachment 7 H U NT ON & WILLIAM S 707 East P4 AIM Stattf . P. o. Box 1535 RICFD40FD,VDtODrIA eOsie ,,, , , g . , ,,,,, i A an a. w t m . =s .

0 0 0 ? suskelne a o.sesestas A S.cca see anssism, eseep CAeouma stees T E L E P M O es E 804. = 785 = 5200 ***".'memw,

.0,. .......

o c. co o s e

~'

g

' "l',. 70',"O "" " mt. 24566.3 py,;l*,'" " May 16, 1983 ,,, ,,, ,,,, ,,,, , , ,'

• 8 3 6 1 Alan Roy Dynner, Esq.

Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Alan:

Today you called to request access to the Shoreham site for your consultant, Marc Goldsmith, to observe an I&E inspection of the diesel generaters scheduled for Thursday.

As we discussed, there is currently no admitted contention concerning the diesel generators and today, LILCO filed its

opposition to the admission of the County's proposed conten-tion. Therefore, until the Board rules on these' matters,

.the County has no right to discovery on the diesels. Moreov'er, given your admitted lack of knowledge concerning the focus of this I&E inspection, the County's request is plainly no more than a fishing expedition.

l The Company is always willing to cooperate with the l

County in resolving issues concerning Shoreham. But the County's lamentable lack of cooperation in the important area of emergency planning leads LILCO to conclude that no useful purpose would be served by volunttrily permitting the access you requested. On the contrary, in light of the County's avowed intention to prevent the licensing of Shoreham, LILCO reasonably believes the County's request is directed towards delay and obstruction.

Sincerely yours, Anthony . Earley, Jr.

! ATE /403 t

l

fE 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). )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Suffolk County Response to the LILCO and Staff Oppositions to Motion for Leave to File a New Contention Concerning the Shoreham Emergency Diesel Generators, dated May 31, 1983, have been served upon the following this 31st day of May, 1983, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, unless otherwise indicated.

• Lawrence J. Brenner, Esq. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.

Administrative Judge Cammer and Shapiro Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 9 East 40th Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York, New York 10016 Washington, D.C. 20555 Howard L. Blau, Esq.

• Dr. James L. Carpenter 217 Newbridge Road Administrative Judge Hicksville, New York 11801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission **W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 707 East Main St.

l *Dr. Peter A. Morris Richmond, Virginia 23212 l Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Washington, D.C. 20555 New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Edward M. Barrett, Esq. Empire State Plaza General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road I Mineola, New York 11501 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

i Twomey, Latham & Shea l Mr. Brian McCaffrey P.O. Box 398 Long Island Lighting Company 33 West Second Street 175 East Old Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 l Hicksville, New York 11801 l

l

j ,

Marc W. Goldsmith Mr. Jeff Smith Energy Research Group, Inc. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 400-1 Totten Pond Road P.O. Box 618 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road Wading River, New York 11792 Joel Blau, Esq. MHB Technical Associates New York Public Service Commission 1723 Hamilton Avenue e The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan Suffolk County Executive David J. Gilmartin, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Suffolk County Attorney Building H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Ezra I. Bialik, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission New York State Department of

_ Washington, D.C. 20555 Law 2 World Trade Center Docketing and Service Section New York, New York 10047 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

• Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. Commission David A. Repka, Esq. Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Matthew J. Kelly, Esq.

. Staff Counsel, New York Stuart Diamond State Public Service Comm.

Environment / Energy Writer 3 nockefeller Plaza NEWSDAY Albany, New York 12223 l Long Island, New York 11747 i Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Daniel F. Brown, Esq. Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Federal Emergency Management Licensing Board Panel Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 26 Federal Plaza l Washington, D.C. 20055 New York, New York 10278 I

James B. Dougherty, Esq.

3045 Porter Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008 a

Michael S. Miller l KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, l CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS DATE: May 31, 1983 1900 M Street, N.W., 8th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036 l

• By Hand l

• • By Federal Express l