ML20077J517

Renewal of 830719 Motion to Compel Discovery from Util Re QA Documents.Documents within Scope of Suffolk County Contention on Cylinder Head Cracking.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20077J517
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/12/1983
From:	Dynner A KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8308160478
Download: ML20077J517 (10)

Text

._ _.

8/12/83 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DO(KE7ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UEEC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 83 AG 15 R2:51 Cir "'E c,..:r a.

r r a? , ;

E;n. '.

) Ed;.%;if In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0.L.

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

SUFFOLK COUNTY RENEWAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY On July 19, 1983, Suffolk County filed its " Motion to Compel Discovery." By Order of July 20, 1983, the Board deferred ruling on that Motion until after resolution of LILCO's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition, dated July 7, 1983, and until the parties made additional efforts to resolve their discovery disputes. During a conference call on July 25, 1983, the Board denied LILCO's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition, confirming that denial by the Board's Memorandum and Order, dated July 28, 1983.

Suffolk County and LILCO'took depositions during the.

period from July'27 through August 9, 1983. During this time namerous discussions were held regarding the County's document discovery requests, and the County narrowed and, to the extent possible, made its document requests more specific. Most of the County's document requests have been l

B308160478 830812 PDR ADOCK 05000322 Q PDR j

complied with by LILCO. However, LILCO has refused to comply with a number of the County's requests, on the grounds that such requests are overly broad or, as to documents relating to the quality assurance / quality control program at Delaval applicable to the production of cylinder heads, are outside the scope of the contention regarding the cracking of cylinder heads at Shoreham.

The documents requested by the County and refused by LILCO are listed on Attachment A to this renewed motion.

An examination of this list will confirm that the documents are specific to the extent reasonably possible. For example, items 1, 2, and 3 specifically identify constituent documents in the class of which the County is aware, and item 5 is a specific procedure. The County has no means to specify the documents requested by items 4 and 6.

The real thrust of LILCO's objection to the production of the quality assurance-related documents (items 1, 2, and 3 of Attachment A) is the allegation that they are outside the scope of the County's contention on the cracking of cylinder heads. This objection is without merit. The County's contention states that LILCO has failed to ensure rapid starting and reliable operation of the Shoreham emergency diesel generators . . .

[because] the diesels have suffered from cracking of [ cylinder heads].

The County and its consultants have taken the position that one of the causes for the cracking problems with the cylinder

heads, both old and new, is the inadequate and weakly implemented quality assurance program at Delaval applicable to the manufacture and testing of the cylinder heads.. See Affidavit of Marc W. Goldsmith, attached to the County's Answer and Opposition to LILCO's Motion for Partial Summary Disposition, dated July 22, 1983, at 11 12-14.

The nexus between the reliability required of the new-style heads to assure that they will not crack, and the Delaval QA program applicable to the production of those 4

heads, is illustrated in Mr. Goldsmith's deposition of August 8, 1983 (pp. 148-49):

Q. [By counsel for LILCO.] Mr. Goldsmith, you are aware, aren't you, that LILCO has committed to install the new type cylinder heads prior to fuel load, aren't you?

A. Yes, I am aware of that.

Q. Given that commitment, do you have any opinion or have you reached any conclusion with respect to what needs to be done or what should be done to demonstrate that there is reasonable assurance that cylinder heads will be reliable?

A. I have not formed a total opinion yet. I have a very strong opinion, at least on one report, which is that an Appendix B QA program needs to be strongly implemented i as opppsed to, as the staff consultant report says, as a weakly implemented QA j program, there needs to be a strongly l implemented QA program that provides documented and traceable, according to procedures, cylinder heads [so] that one can know that when Delaval says they did X or Y or Z, that that is documented according to those specific sets of standards and that one can trace both the head and the standards by which they

were manufactured. If there was -- there is at least one item that I have come to a conclusion about and that is that there needs to be an Appendix B program for the manufacture of cylinder heads and I don't believe that currently there is. The heads should meet those 18 criteria set out in Appendix B. That would be one area in the new heads that I would need to see the reliability about. Obviously, the further data that gives more specific details and information about the QA program and enough to make some judgments as to what specifically needs to be done to reach an Appendix B program would be helpful and appropriate.

We have asked for some of that data.

There is no question that the issue of the quality assurance program at Delaval, applicable to the production of the cylinder heads, has been an implicit part of the County's contention fully recognized by LILCO and the Board.

For example, this Board noted in its " Memorandum and Order Ruling on Suffolk County's Motion to Admit New Contention,"

LBP-83-30, 17 NRC , slip op. 36 (June 22, 1983):

LILCO stresses that the big advantage of the new heads is the improved casting technique and other changes in manu-facturing, testing, and quality control of the processes by the vendor.

Tr. 21,297-305 (Youngling, Kammayer) ; Youngling Af f; d

at 16-19.

Clearly, the quality control of Delaval is at issue in this contention, and as noted by the Board's observation' quoted above, is one of the important factors put forth by LILCO. Suffolk County is not attempting to expand its

contention into a general quality assurance contention as to Delaval; rather, the County seeks production of documents that go to the contested issue as to whether, under the quality assurance program at Delaval applicable to the 4 production of the new cylinder heads, the casting techniques and manufacturing and testing processes are being performed in a' manner to ensure that the heads will be reliable in that they will not experience cracking problems.

The documents requested in Attachment A are particularly relevant to the County's contention on cylinder head cracking, recognizing that before fuel load LILCO will replace the "old-style" heads with "new-style" ones. Item 1, QA documents applicable to the new-style heads, are relevant to the County i s position that the Delaval QA program does not ensure that the new-style heads will not continue to experience cracking problems. Item 2, QA documents applicable to the old-style heads, will permit a comparison of the old and new Delaval QA programs applicable to the production of cylinder heads, to determine if, in fact, Delaval has improved its quality control in a manner to reduce the likelihood of cracking defects. Item 3, LILCO's audits of the old QA programs, show defects in the Delaval QA program applicable to cylinder head production, and will permit an analysis to determine to what extent Delaval has corrected deficiencies.

Item 4 will assist the County to ascertain the details of the changes in casting techniques which LILCO asserts are

improvements; in this way the changes can be better evaluated.

Item 5 is clearly relevant and has been relied upon by LILCO as one of the tests which will detect cylinder head defects.

Item 6, documents showing casting defects in new-style heads and disclosing the number of such heads manufactured, is relevant to confirm or contradict data alleged by Delaval and LILCO as to the operating history of the new-style heads.

Suffolk County respectfully requests that the Board compel LILCO to produce copies of the documents listed in Attachment A as soon as possible. If they are not supplied in time for analysis and possible inclusion in the County's testimony scheduled to be filed by August 17, the County may seek to file supplementary testimony if warranted by the documents.

Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A. Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 L 1 -- . -

Herbert H. Kowh/

Lawrence CWe Lanpher Alan Roy Dynner KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County August 12, 1983

ATTACIIMENT A TO SUFFOLK COUNTY RENEWAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Suffolk County requests the Board to compel LILCO to supply copies of the following documents at the earliest possible time: I 1

1. Documents comprising the Delaval Quality Assurance  !

program in effect at the time the "new-style" cylinder heads for LILCO were manufactured and which were applicable to the production of such cylinder heads, including QA Manual (Division); QA Manual (Department) ; I.P. 100; I.P. 200; I.P. 400; I.P. 500; and I.P. 600.-1/

2. Documents comprising the Delaval QA program in effect at the time the original "old-style" cylinder heads for Shoreham were manufactured and which were applicable to the production of such cylinder heads, including QA Manual (Division); QA Manual (Department); and I.P. 100 through 2/

~

600.

-1/ Requested by item 26 of Appendix A to the County's Request for Production of Documents dated July 8, 1983 (the " July Request," attached as Attachment 1 to Suffolk County's Motion to Compel Discovery, dated July 19, 1983 ("SC Motion to Compel")), and agreed by LILCO (see Attachment 2 to SC Motion to Compel, at 7);

requested again during the deposition of Mr. Kropf of Delaval. During the visit by County representatives to Delaval on July 13-14, one current QA Manual and I.P. 500 were shown to the County, and a copy of I.P.

300 was supplied to the County.

2/

~

Requested at July 13-14 visit. See Attachment 3 to SC Motion to Compel, at 5.

3. Any and all documentation regarding LILCO's inspection and audit of the Delaval manufacturing process for the diesel cylinder heads, including LILCO's audits and reaudits of Delaval's QA program conducted in October 1975, February 1976, and June 1976.-3/

4. Documents showing the gating, risers and chills for j the "old-style" cylinder head molds and for the "new-style" head

-4/

molds.-

5/

5. Written procedure for liquid penetrant testing.-

6. Warranty orders or other documentation which would disclose all casting defects in Delaval cylinder heads manufactured since late 1978, and documents which disclose l the number of cylinder heads manufactured by Delaval between l -6/

late 1978 and September 1980.

{

3/

Requested by item 13 of Appendix A to the July Request, and agreed by LILCO (see Attachment 2 to SC Motion to Compel, at 5; see also Attachment 3 to SC Motion to '

compel, at 3).

-4/ Requested by item 20 of Appendix A to the July Request, and during deposition of Mr. Pratt. .

5,/ Requested during deposition of Mr. Pratt.

-6/ Requested by paragraph 12 of the July Request and during deposition of Mr. Pratt. Some documents dis-closing defects have been supplied.

ms -

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 (0.L.)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVIC E I hereby certify that copies o( SUFFOLK COUNTY RENEWAL OF MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, dated August 12, 1983, have been served to the following this 12th day of August, 1983, by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.

• 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. George A. Ferguson 217 Newbridge Road '

Administrative Judge Hicksville, New Y ork 11801 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board School of Engineering ** W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.

Howard University Hunton & Williams 2300 6th Street, N. W. P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D. C. 20059 707 East Main St.

Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge. '

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l' 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

r. General Counsel Albany, New Yo rk 12223 Long Island Lighting Company.

250 Old Country Road l Mineola, .New York 11501 Stephen B. Latham, Esq.

l Twomey, Latham & Shea l Mr. Brian McCaffrey P.O. Box 3 98 l Long Island Lighting Company 33 West Second Street l 175 East Old Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 l Hicksville, New York 11801 1

1

.:n .. , , - -- : . , -, - , .

1 Marc W. Goldsmith Mr . Je f f Smith I

Energy Research Group, Inc. Shoreham Nuclear Power Stetion 400-1 Totten Pond Road P.O. Box 618 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 North Country Road )

11792

~

Wading River, New York f Joel Blau; Esq. MHM Technical Associates New York Public Service Canmission 1723 Hamilton Avenue The Governor Nelson A. Rocke fe) ler Suite K Building San Jose, California 95125 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Hon. Peter Cohalan

, Suffolk County Executive David J. Gil martin, Esq. H. Lee Dennison Suf folk County Attorney Building H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge- New York 11788

.l Hauppauge; New York 11788 i

Ezra I. Bialik; Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Assistant Attorney General Board Panel Environmental Protection Bureau U. S. N' u clear Regulatory Canmission 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 Canmission 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 Canmission Washington, D. C. 20555 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

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

Environment / Energy Writer 3 Rockefeller Plaza NEWSDAY Albany, New York 12223 Long Island, New Y ork 11747 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.

Daniel F. Brown, Esq. Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Federal Emergency Management Licensing Board Panel Agency U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission 26 Federal Plaza ,

Washington, D.C. 20555 New York; New York 10278 L James-B. Dougherty, Esq.

-3045 Porter Street, N. W.

-Washington, D.C. '20008 w_ - -

j- Alan Roy Dyg er /'

i KIRKPATRICK, LOCKR ART, HILL, l ,

CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS DATE . August 12, 1983 .

.1900 M Street, N. W. , ' 8th Floor

'# _ :By Messenger Washington, D. C. 20036

• • By Telecopier

_ _ _ ._ __ _ _ 1