ML20083A307

Answer Opposing NRC 831027 Supplemental Response to Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Motion for Admission of Proposed Contention 2.Board Notification 83-160 Does Not Show Addl Basis for QA Contention

ML20083A307
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	12/16/1983
From:	Silberg J CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20083A310	List: ML20083A307 ML20083A329
References
NUDOCS 8312200248
Download: ML20083A307 (6)

Text

-..

bw . iq Y u ,

,1.

December 16,.1983 f

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0 019 M.g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' Before the Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board In'the Matter of )

)

THE_ CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ) Docket Nos. 50-440 ILLUMINATING COMPANY, ET AL. ) 50-441

)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units-1 and.2) )-

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO "NRC STAFF SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE-(BASED UPON NEW INFORMATION IN BOARD NOTIFICATION BN-83-160)=TO OCRE MOTION FOR ADMISSION TO RESUEMIT PROPOSED CONTENTION 2" On October 27, 1983, the NRC Staff (" Staff") filed a "sup-plemental-response" to-Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy's.("OCRE's") motion to admit its late-filed resubmitted contention cohcerning the reliability of the diesel generators to be used at the Perr.y Nuclear Power Plant ("PNPP"). The Staff in its initial response.to OCRE's motion opposed the ad-mission of the proposed contention.1/ Now the Staff "moder-ately_ favors" the admission of the contention based upon "sig-

-nificant new information" concerning quality assurance ("QA")

problems at Transamerica Delaval, Inc. ("Delaval" or "TDI")

1/ See NRC Staff Response to OCRE Motion To Resubmit Rejected Proposed Contention 2, dated October 6, 1983.

83122Oggg8 00 0 PDR AD PDR Q

M

contained'in Board Notification.BN-83-160, dated October 21, 1983.2/ Supplemental Response at.3.

Pursuant to Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (Perry Nuclear. Power Plant, Units 1 & 2),-LBP-82-89, 16 N.R.C. 1355, 1357 (1982), Applicants file this Answer in response to the new material contained in the' Staff's supplemental response.

'CounselL for the. Staff and OCRE Representative Susan Hiatt have informed Applicants that they do not object to Applicants' fil-ing.

The Staff in Board Notification BN-83-160 cites -three sources of concern with respect to the reliability of diesel generators manufactured by Delaval. They are: the crankshaft cracking problem at Shoreham, the occurrence of a number of ad-ditional " minor problems" with Delaval diesel generators in nu-clear service, and potent'ial problems with the Delaval QA pro-

. gram. These problems and potential' problems have " reduced the Staff's level of confidence in the reliability of all TDI die-sel1 generators." Board Notification BN-83-160 at 2.

The-Staff in its' supplemental response asserts that "the just-discovered information concerning quality assurance problems potentially affecting all models of Delaval diesel generators would provide good cause to raise OCRE's Contention 2 at this late date." Supplemental Response at 3. The Staff l

'2/ Board Notification BN-83-160 was not served with the Staff's filing. Applicants were unable to obtain a copy of the Board Notification until on or about November 1, 1983.

L -

further asserts that "[h]ad OCRE been aware of this information lat the time.it raised its motion'to resubmit Contention 2, the

' Staff believes CCRE would have had an additional basis for its contention." Id. at 2-3. Applicants disagree that Board Noti-fication BN-83-160 provides either good cause for late filing

~

. of OCRE's resubmitted contention'or an additional. basis for

'that contention.

First, it is entirely inappropriate for the Staff to spec-

.ulate on the-use OCRE might have made of the information in Board' Notification BN-83-160. That is OCRE's responsibility and not the Staff's.

4 Second, .the Staff does not explain why Board Notification-BN-83-160 supports OCRE's contention that Applicants should install for each unit at PNPP "a 7000 kW generator from a manu-facturer other than Delaval which could act as a ' swing' gener-ator-supplying either Division 1 or Division 2 loads in the event that one or both of the dedicated diesel generators failed." Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy Motion to Resubmit its Contention #2, dated September 16, 1983, at 2.

The Staff in Board Notification BN-83-160 indicates that it may ask some applicants to answer a series of questions concerning the " design, fabrication, operation, and maintenance" of their Delaval diesel generators with respect to the crankshaft fail-ure at Shoreham. Board Notification BN-83-160 at 2. As shown infra, .the crankshaft failure at Shoreham was caused by a design defect which does not apply to PNPP. The Staff in Board I. - ,

Notification BN-83-160 also states that it will require, "on a case by case basis," a demonstration that Delaval QA concerns "are not applicable to specific diesel generators because of subsequent inspections or testing performed specifically to address" those concerns. Id.3/ The Staff in its supplemental response does not say why such a demonstration, in the event that it is required of Applicants, would not be sufficient to allay its concerns.

Third, the Staff does not establish any nexus between the problems and potential problems addressed in Board Notification BN-83-160 and PNPP. The Staff states only that the concerns raised in Board. Notification BN-83-160 "may" apply to the PNPP' diesel generators, and that QA problems at Delaval "poten-tially" affect all models of Delaval diesel generators, including those at PNPP. Supplemental Response at 2-3.

As shown'in the attached Affidavit of Edward J. Turk and Thomas G. Swansiger in Support of Applicants' Answer to "NRC Staff Supplemental Response (Based upon New Information in Board Notification BN-83-160) to OCRE Motion for Admission To Resubmit Proposed Contention 2," dated December 13, 1983

(" Turk /Sws..ciger Affidavit"), none of the concerns raised in Board Notification BN-83-160 affects adversely the reliability of the PNPP diesel generators.

3/ Board Notification BN-83-160A, dated November 17, 1983, at 2, states that the Staff "will prepare safety evaluation reports for all plants with TDI diesel generators."

4 m e

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

r

=

First, the cause of the crankshaft cracking problem at Shoreham has now been determined to be a faulty crankshaft design. Turk /Swansiger Affidavit at V 5-6. The faulty crank-shaft design problem at Shoreham does not apply to PNPP. Id.

Second, as stated in the Turk /Swansiger Affidavit at V 7, none of the " minor problems" summarized in Enclosure 2 to Board Notification BN-83-160 affects adversely the reliability of the PNPP diesel generators. Many of the items in Enclosure 2 do not apply- to the PNPP diesel generators. Id. Each of the items which does apply or may potentially apply either has been corrected, is in the process of being corrected, or is planned to be included in the PNPP surveillance and maintenance pro-gram. Id.

Third, none of the potential QA problems identified in IE Inspection Report No. 99900334/83-01, dated October 3, 1983, in Enclosure 5 to Board Notification BN-83-160, affects adversely the reliability of the PNPP diesel generators. Turk /Swansiger Affidavit at V 25. The Inspection Report itself- does not even identify PNPP in its list of those plants potentially affected by the Inspection Report's findings. Id. That PNPP is not listed in the Inspection Report is not surprising in view of the fact that almost all of the potential problems identified in the Inspection Report have to do with Delaval's imple-mentation of its QA program in the last one to two years, whereas the major components of the PNPP diesel generators were manufactured between December 1977 and September 1978. Id. at 1 26. Finally, CEI's QA program has consistently provided effective overview and control of Delaval to assure that the PNPP diesel generators are reliable. Id. at 11 27-31. Board Notification BN-83-160 thus provides no nexus between potential QA problems at Delaval and the reliability of the PNPP diesel generators.4/

For all of the above reasons, Applicants respectfully re-quest that OCRE's late-filed resubmitted contention on the reliability of the PNPP diesel generators not be admitted as an issue in this proceeding. .

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE D

By: / A P JAY S: LBERG, P.C.

()p MIC Lp.SWIGER Counsel for Applicants 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822'-1000 DATED: December 16, 1983 4/ Board Notification BN-83-160 also refers to an investiga-tion of QA problems at Delaval currently being conducted by the Office of Investigations. No details of this investigation are provided. -In the= absence of any information concerning the in-vestigation, it would be sheer speculation to assume that it provides a nexus to the PNPP diesel generators.

,