ML20083D924
| ML20083D924 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/23/1983 |
| From: | Dynner A KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083D926 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8312280358 | |
| Download: ML20083D924 (19) | |
Text
-
4 00LKETED USNRC 12/23/83 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 83 DEC 27 P1:47 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
';rFI N OF !EC M 't Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boardoptii%c.5!-
Enn N
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY'S ANSWER AND OPPOSITION TO LILCO'S MOTION TO SET SCHEDULE I.
Introduction By a motion styled "LILCO's Request to Set Schedule" dated December 14, 1983, LILCO unilaterally seeks to have this Board set a specified schedule for litigation of matters involving the emergency diesel generators at Shoreham.
LILCO notified Suffolk County by letter dated December 13, telecopied after the close of business and received on December 14, that it intended to file its motion.
Immediately on the morning of December 14 counsel for the County informed LILCO's counsel by telephone that the County wished to discuss the scheduling issue. but that the cognizant County counsel would be occupied in a meeting most of the day.
Notwithstanding the County's desire to discuss the issue, LILCO proceeded to file that same day without discussion or coordination with the County.
LILCO's action was thus not consistent with the Board's " Memorandum and Order Granting Requests of Parties to 8312280358 831223
{DRADOCK 05000322 2
,f{} }
PDR y:-
Continue Deferral of Litigation of Diesel Generator Contention" dated August 29, 1983, which stated:
The parties, jointly or individually but in any event on the commendable coor-dinated basis that has been followed in the past, shall in the future move the Board to establish a hearing schedule and to implement such other actions deemed appropriate by the parties.
Id. at 1 (emphasis added).
Suffolk County understands from counsel for the NRC Staff that LILCO also failed to discuss and coordinate its proposed schedule with the Staff.
Suffolk County opposes LILCO's motion for the following reasons:
A.
The NRC Staff has not reached any conclusions as to whether the diesels manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc.
("Delaval") are satisfactory.
The Staff's diesel evaluation for Shoreham is not expected to be completed and a supplementary SER is not expected to be issued until May 30, 1984, after which the Staff would be prepared to proceed with hearings.
The Staff is still waiting for technical information from LILCO and from Delaval.
This Board has determined not to issue a decision on any aspects of the diesel matters until the Staff's evaluation has been completed.
Diesel litigation should not start until after the supplementary SER is issued.
B.
LILCO has not supplied the County and the NRC Staff with reports and analyses of many diesel generator problems which LILCO committed to furnish, including such key reports as the Delaval failure analysis of the crankshafts, the Failure Analysis Associates ("FAA" or "FaAA") final report on connecting rod
p
~..
a.
bearings, and the FAA report on the cracking of 23 out of 24 pistons.
Without the promised reports on all matters, an analysis of those reports, and discussion of them among the parties, determinktions cannot be made as to the significance of the many Delaval diesel problems, their inter-relationship, and their bearing upon the reliability and capability of the diesel gen-erators.
Moreover, such a process could focus, narrow, and reduce or eliminate matters which might otherwise have to be litigated.
A meaningful litigation schedule cannot be established before the parties know what needs to be litigated.
C.
LILCO itself has not evaluated the Delaval diesels and therefore cannot have reached the conclusion that they constitute a reliable and capable onsite standby electric power system.
D.
Apart from the foregoing matters, LILCO's proposed schedule is unreasonable.
It would require a fragmented hearing, with insufficient discovery time.
E.
There is no legitimate reason for rushing forward with diesel litigation before the Staff, LILCO and the County have completed their investigations of the problems with the Delaval diesels.
LILCO itself has concluded that electricity from the i
Shoreham plant will not be needed for ten years; other estimates i
are even longer.
o
L
--~ -
. - ^ -
^
- ^ -
^
J II.
Discussion 4
A.
The NRC Staff Has Not Reached Conclusions Regarding the Delaval Diesels As this Board recognized in its August 29 Memorandum and 1
Order, the Staff is conducting "an evaluation of the Delaval
,i 1
diesel generators."
Id. at 2.
That evaluation has not yet been l
completed.
This Board has determined that (W]e will not issue a decision on any aspects of the diesel generator con-tention until the Staff's regional investigation as well as its Division of Licensing evaluation of Delaval diesel generators have been completed.
Accord-ingly, the Staff should factor this, along with LILCO's schedule for its crankshaft failure analysis, into the Staff's schedule determinations.
Id. at 4-5 (emphasis added).
By the same token, LILCO should factor into its schedule motion the Staff's schedule for its evaluation of the Delaval diesels.
Only about three weeks before LILCO filed its motion, the Staff's counsel, by letter to LILCO's counsel dated November i
22, 1983 (Attachment 1 hereto), noted a conflict in LILCO's fuel l
l load projections and asked LILCO to provide the Staff with
[T]he basis upon which LILCO believes all matters involving the diesels are ripe for litigation.
It is noted that LILCO has not provided a precise state-ment of the scope or schedule of its review of the basic design of the diesels and its quality assurance of their manu-facture by Transamerica Delaval, Inc.'
(TDI).
The letter quoted from the Staff's Board notification of October 21, 1983, and urged LILCO to continue to issue status reports regarding the diesels.
To our knowledge, LILCO has not yet
o.
responded to this letter (the County requested LILCO to send it copies of any replies).
In a letter from NRR to Delaval dated December 1, 1983 (Attachment 2 hereto),1! the Staff called for a public meeting with Delaval and attached a list of questions for discussion.
Those questions relate specifically to problems experienced at Shoreham.
Tha Staff requested information on Delaval's crankshafts, connecting rod bearings, and pistons, and asks for Delaval's conclusions as to the causes of the Shoreham crankshaft failures.
Clearly the information sought by the Staff from LILCO and Delaval is extremely pertinent to any potential new diesel contentions and to the anticipated litigation.
That information should be received and reviewed before contentions are required to be filed and a litigation schedule agreed upon.
On December 20, 1983, the Staff sent to LILCO and the County (with copies to this Board) a memorandum from the NRC's Executive Director for Operations to Ccmmissioner Gilinsky, transmitting a draft NRR Program Plan, Emergency Diesel Generators Manufactured by Transamerica Delaval, Inc. (the " Draft Staff Delaval Diesel Program Plan") (Attachment 3 hereto).2/
That Plan makes it clear i
that substantial information must be obtained and evaluated before the Staff reaches conclusions on the adequacy of the Shoreham diesels.
The Staff's schedule targets April 30, 1984 for a technical evaluation report on Delaval's design and quality and 1/
Omits notice list.
l 2/
Omits LILCO's diesel evaluation plan documents.
i May 30, 1984, for issuance of a supplementary SER, with the diesel hearings to follow.
The supplementary SER is, of course, required to be offered into evidence by the Staff at the hearing.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.743(g).
The County should be given an opportunity to consider the supplementary SER before proceeding to litigate diesel generator matters.
Indeed, the supplementary'SER could eliminate the need for litigation.
In addition, as noted in the Board notification of October 21, 1983 and in the Draft Staff Delaval Diesel Program Plan, Delaval is currently under investigation by the NRR Office of Investigations for possible violations of 10 C.F.R Part 50, Appendix B concerning quality assurance.
Further information regarding this investigation has not been released.
The results of the investigation could have a significant bearing upon the prospective diesel litigation.
Accordingly, to begin the litigation process before the completion of the Staff's evaluation of Delaval diesels and of its investigation of Delaval's quality arsurance program would be premature, unfair, wasteful, and inefficient.
This Board came to the same conclusion in its August 29 Order, determining not to issue a decision on any aspects of the diesel litigation until after the Staff evaluation and investigation are complete.
LILCO's Motion ignores completely the Staff's evaluation schedule and this Board's August 29 Order and for these reasons should be denied.
t
L ~.i L. -
-. i. 0 s
B.
The County Has Not Received Important i
Reports Which LILCO Committed to Supply When this Board issued its Memorandum and Order of August 29, 1983, the only new problems (aside from cylinder head cracking and excessive vibration) known to exist with the Delaval diesels were the cracks in two crankshafts and the shearing in half of the third crankshaft.
Apparently LILCO recognized that the crankshaft failures could result in additional contentions ano that frag-i mented litigation of diesel issues would be extremely inefficient, if possible at all; LILCO stated LILCO respectfully requests that litigation of diesel generator con-tentions be held in abeyance pending issuance of the FAA final report LILCO respectfully suggests that the Board and parties review and consider the matter of scheduling litigation of the diesel generator contenticns after the
-issuance of the FAA final report.
" Status Report on Diesel Generator Crankshaft Matters," August 25, 1983, at 6 (emphasis added).
However, when LILCO and its consultants began to disassemble the diesels, a large number of cracked parts and problems not revealed in the testing of the diesels was disclosed.
Accord-ingly, LILCO reported that its consultant, FAA would issue "a comprehensive report on the disassembly" of the diesels.
LILCO's
" Diesel Generator Status Report" ("DGSR"), September 21, 1983, at 7.
It was therefore clear to all parties that the FAA final report would go well beyond the crankshaft failures.
The problems found by LILCO and its consultants include:
Cracked pistons (23 of 24 inspected)
Cracked connecting rod bearings Low megger reading on rotor
. ~ _, _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - -... _ _ _ - _ -. _ _.
l 0 Cracks on bed plates Fretting of main journal bearing surfaces Pitting on lobes of camshaft Pitting and grooving of cylinder liners Damage to governor Jacket water pump shaft wear Fretting of jacket tTter pump drive gears Cracked and fractured cylinder head nuts Missing dowel pins on lube oil drive support Broken bolts at turbo exhaust inlet adaption Gouged piston rings Cracked flywheel bolts In an effort to speed up the investigation and potential l
litigation, LILCO decided to dispense with the FAA final I
comprehensive report, and instead have FAA issue a series of reports on specific subjects.
DGSR, October 20, 1983, at 5.
I Oo date, there are reports on nine (9) subjects promised by LILCO and not yet received by the County.
Reports promised by LILCO on five subjects will, notwithstanding those commitments, not now be produced.
The status of these reports is shown in the following table.
STATUS OF CERTAIN REPORTS TO BE FURNISHED ON DIESEL GENERATOR PROBLEMS Subject Matter of Report Where Promised Status j
Crankshaft failure analysis Earley 9/29 letter (filed Not received by Transamerica Delaval with Board with Dynner (apparently not yet 9/30 letter) prepared)
Disassenbly of EDG, by LIICO's Diesel Generator Will not be produced FaAA Status Report ("DGSR")
(Earley 12/8 letter) 9/21, p. 7 Damage to generator on Earley 9/29 letter Apparently will not EI)G 102 be produced e-
~
.g.
Entire jacket water punp DGSR 10/20, p. 3 Limited to memo on for EDG 102, by FaAA shaft wear (Earley 12/8 letter). Not received Jacket water punp drive DGSR 10/20, p. 3 Not received gears on all EDGs, by FaAA Connecting rod bearings -
DGSR 11/3, p. 2 Not received final FaAA report Pitting on lobes of EDG DGSR 10/20, p. 1 Will not be produced 101 camshaft, by FaAA (Earley 12/8 letter)
Pitting of cylinder liners DGSR 10/20, p. 1 Will not be produced of all EDGs, by FaAA (Earley 12/8 letter)
Cracks in base plates of DGSR 9/21, pp. 2-3
.Will not be produced EDGs 102 and 103, by FaAA DGSR 10/20, p. 2 by 'IDI. Limited to FaAA and by 'IDI meno (Earley 12/8 letter)
Not received EDG 102 cylinder heads, by DGSR 10/7, p. 2 Not received FaAA
'Ibrsional stress test on DGSR 10/7, p. 3 Not received EDG 103 with replacement EDG Master Plan, p. 5 crankshaft Cracked pistons DGSR 11/17, p. 2 Not received
^
Cracked and fractured NRC Inspection Report Received 11/25 Swanger cylinder head nuts, 83-35, p. 8 memo. Final FaAA by FaAA report not received In its motion LILCO lists seventeen documents which it has furnished the County and refers to onsite visits ordered by this Board, which allowed a County consultant to look at parts of some of the disassembled diesels.
While these documents and visits have added to the County's understanding of the diesel problems, they are not a substitute for promised reports which the County has not yet received, some of which are of critical importance.
t The County (and the Staff) are anxious to receive Delaval's failure analysis of the crankshafts.
The FAA report on the cracked pistons, constituting a 96% failure rate, is impprtant not only to attempting to solve that particular problem, but also to the overall impact on the diesel engines.
In this regard it is t
unfortunate that.LILCO now does not intend to have FAA publish a comprehensive report on the disassembly inspection, which might have given some insights into the interrelationship of the many cracked parts.
The final FAA report on the connecting rod bearings could be significant.
By its motion LILCO seeks to force the establishment of a litigation schedule before the County and the Staff receive the series of reports which were to ba the equivalent of the com-prehensive FAA final report.
This is a material change from LILCO's original position that, to avoid fragmenting the liti-gation, a schedule should only be discussed after issuance of the final FAA report.
The discovery of the multitude of problems with diesel parts and components calls for investigation in greater depth and a more cautious approach, instead of triggering a motion to commence 1
litigation even more quickly than LILCO originally proposed.
In order to understand the significance of the many di,esel problems, their interrelationship, and their bearing upon the reliability and capability of the Delaval diesels, all of Delaval's and FAA's reports should be received and reviewed by the County and the Staff.
The reports should then be discussed among the parties.
Such a process will enable the parties to focus the issues, narrow
~
. 2.w.=.. ~ ~
z-
.r.. -._
.2. -.= :==
- n.
L a
any differences they may have, and reduce or even eliminate matters which need to be litigated.
The County has urged LILCO to accept this process.
Unfortunately LILCO's response, by its motion, attempts to force the parties to establish a litigation j
schedule before they know what needs to be litigated, and to d
3 litigate the diesel matters in a fragmented and inefficient manner.
(See discussion infra).
C.
LILCO Has Not Completed Its Own Evaluation of the Diesels LILCO states in its motion (at 5) that only three major features of the recovery effort remain to be completed: (1) the preoperational test-program, (2) the confirmatory torsional stress tests to be done on diesel generator 103, and (3) the diesel generator design review and quality revalidation program.
The County suggests that this list is incomplete.
It should include a report on why 23 of 24 pistons were cracked and what must be done to remedy the piston problem, the Delaval failure analysis of the crankshafts and of the pistons, and a report on the interrelationship of all the diesel problems and what their bearing is on the Delaval diesel generators.
But even aside from those key omissions, LILCO admits that it has not completed its own " design review and quality revalidation program."
As explained by LILCO at a public meeting with the Staff on I
November 3, 1983, the objectives of that program are to ensure L
that the diesels at Shoreham meet their design and fabrication l
requirements and will perform their intended function.
To accomplish these objectives, LILCO, with the assistance of FAA and 1
_ _ - _ - ~ - _ _. - - _ _. -. _ - - -. _.. - _ _. - _, -.
-Stone & Webster, has committed to identify certain diesel com-ponents, verify the design attributes and quality attributes of those components, evaluate the results, take appropriate corrective action, and publish a final report.
The report is currently scheduled to be completed by the end of February 1983, but LILCO has not yet notified the County of the components to be reviewed or of the procedures to be followed.
Assuming that there will be no slippage in the date LILCO estimates the report will be ready (and past performance suggests there may be significant delay), LILCO's motion would require that discc>very be completed, testimony be filed, and the hearing begin even before the report is issued.
Unless the LILCO diesel design and quality assurance program is merely a public relations stunt assured to rubber stamp LILCO's preconceptions about the diesels, 1
its results deserve to be reviewed and considered by all parties before litigation commences.
The report might even contain information which would cause LILCO to have grave concerns about the capability of the diesels and could vitiate the need for litigation.
In any case, if the County is forced to file diesel conten-tions prematurely, how can LILCO in good faith contest those 4
contentions when it will not yet have reached its own conclusions about the adequacy of the diesels?
Of course, LILCO would
{
probably respond that the program is designed to confirm and give i
added confidence in the adequacy of the diesels.
The problem with i
this response is that the defects in the diesels disclosed to date
-- from broken crankshafts and cracked cylinder heads to failed i
i
,v
,,,-e
,,.e
,,n-.,
r-e-,
r-n.
- _T _..
_... ~ ^ _ ~
e bearings and cracked pistons -- suggest no confidence can be had in the adequacy of the diesels.
LILCO's program cannot merely confirm a preconceived notion; it must dispell significant doubts raised by the multitude of serious diesel deficiencies.
Good sense dictates that litigation not commence until the diesel design and quality report has been completed and reviewed by all parties.
D.
The Schedule Proposed by LILCO Is Unreasonable As discussed above, Suffolk County believes that litigation of the diesel generator matters is premature.
The Staff has not completed its evaluation of the Delaval diesels and does not a
expect to issue a supplementary SER until May 30, 1984.
Neither the County, LILCO nor the Staff has obtained sufficient inform-ation to reach conclusions about the diesel problems and their interrelationship.
Accordingly, there is insufficient information upon which to develop complete and inter-related contentions, and neither the County nor the other parties can know what matters will have to be litigated.
Without that knowledge, no realistic plans can be developed for depositions and other discovery, and no party can estimate how long discovery will take or what testimony will have to be filed.
In addition to the foregoing, LILCO's proposed schedule is inherently unrealistic.
First, it calls for a fragmented hearing.
While it requires the County to move to supplement existing con-tentions and file any new contentions within a matter of a few
days from now, the schedule envisions holding a series of hearings on those contentions.
It distinguishes between " ripe" contentions and those not " ripe" for hearings, but gives no definition of these terms and it is anyone's guess on what bases " ripeness" would be determined.
Under LILCO's schedule, a hearing would begin on " ripe" contentions on February 21, 1984.
While liti-gating ripe contentions, the County and the other parties would presumably be conducting discovery and preparing testimony on each other contention which was not yet ripe.
This is not clear, how-ever, because the schedule requires that discovery be completed on new contentions by January 31, whether ripe or not.
Apparently, as contentions ripened, they would be litigated in a series, perhaps with a break during which the parties would await the ripening of unripe contentiens.
Aside from the ab-surdity and ambiguity of LILCO's proposed cchedule, it would fragment the litigation of issues which are likely to be closely related.
Moreove'r, such a fragmented hearing would be extremely inefficient.
County and Staff attorneys and consultants would have to be in at least two places at once -- at the hearing of
" ripe" contentions, while obtaining and reviewing evidence and preparing testimony on unripe contentions.
The real reason for LILCO's absurd proposal to fragment the diesel hearing is that LILCO recognizes that diesel matters are not ready to be litigated.
Second, LILCO's schedule allows only until January 31 for discovery.
Although the County cannot estimate at this time how long discovery will take, a month is clearly too short for dis-I r
, -,,. - ~, - -,,..,.
,--,,,.,,a n.--
s-
-r--,,
ya-,,,,-r,-e, n--n - -,,
,e,.
,,,,e en,,-----
ww-.,e
^
covery into the multitude of Delaval diesel problems, involving many separate organizations and consultants, whose representatives the County will want to depose.
A further consideration involves the difficulties the County has experienced in obtaining inform-ation regarding Delaval, including documents which this Board ordered to be produced in its " Memorandum and Order Granting Suffolk County's Renewal of Motion to Compel Discovery" dated August 25, 1983.
For four (4) months the County has sought from LILCO production of documents covered by this Board's August 25 Order; in addition the County requested on August 23 Delaval documents specifically referred to in NRC Region I inspection report 83-25.
The County's understanding with LILCO was that, as in the past, all discovery of Delaval documents should be made only through LILCO, although LILCO requested that copies of pleadings and correspondence concerning diesel matters should be sent to 4
Delaval's attorneys.
LILCO never refused to supply the documents ordered and requested to be produced; instead, LILCO attributed the continuing delays to Delaval's attorneys.
Counsel for Suffolk County agreed with counsel for LILCO not to take the delayed discovery matters to this Board for resolution, so long as LILCO continued its assurances that LILCO and Delaval were acting in good faith and that the Delaval documents would be produced as soon as possible.
Copies of this discovery correspondence are attached hereto as Attachment 4.
By letter of November 21 LILCO's counsel suggested for the first time that the County directly contact Delaval's attorney;
. ~. -.
-. ~.
- _ _ _ _ _ _ -. -. - ~, - -
the County's counsel, by letter of November 29, asked LILCO to reconfirm the County's understanding that LILCO and Delaval were cooperating closely, that discovery of Delaval documents should be handled only by LILCO's counsel, and that the sole reason for the discovery delays was to allow Delaval's counsel to become familiar with matters (these two letters are attached as Attachment 5).
LILCO has not yet responded to the November 29 letter.
Given this history, it is patently unreasonable for LILCO to 1
i suggest that all discovery of diesel matters should be completed in a month.
Indeed, if Delaval and LILCO are.ru) longer coop-erating, LILCO should promptly notify the parties of that fact, since non-cooperation by Delaval in the diesel discovery and litigation will impact upon any proposed schedule.
E.
There is No Legitimate Reason to Eush Into Diesel Litigation Before the Parties Are Prepared As shown above, neither the Staff, the County nor LILCO has sufficient information to reach conclusions evaluating the Delaval diesel generators at Shoreham.
The serious diesel problems found i
at Shoreham and elsewhere call for a cautious, well planned investigation of all of the evidence, and an evaluation of each i
defect and its relationship with other diesel problems.
Forcing the parties into premature litigation based on incomplete information and tentative conclusions would not benefit the purpose of the litigation or serve the public interest.
m Indeed, there is no legitimate reason to do so.
Electricity to be generated by the Shoreham plant will not be needed for ten (10) years, according to LILCO's own projections.
According to the Report of the New York State Fact Finding Panel on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Facility, December 1963, at 33 (Attachment 6 hereto), LILCO projected that if Shoreham were abandoned, no new electric generating facility would be needed until 1994; the Panel's staff projected that there would be no need until 1998.
In view of these projections, there is no reason to cut corners in an effort to license Shoreham.
III.
Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, LILCO's motion should be denied.
However, as indicated earlier, the fact that it is premature to set a litigation schedule for diesel generators does not preclude action by the parties to expedite possible future litigation.
Accordingly, the County proposes that the parties proceed as follows:
1.
After the FAA final reports on the connecting rod bearings and on the cracked pistons are issued and reviewed by the County and the Staff, all parties and their consultants should 1
meet to clarify questions raised by the reports and discuss them.
The County has already requested LILCO to have such a meeting.
As a result, issues having the potential for litigation can be nar-rowed or eliminated.
Subsequent meetinqs and discussions among the parties regarding technical matters shoul6 be encouraged.
2.
Document discovery should immediately be expanded beyond the limited scope of the resolution of the County-LILCO discovery dispute (filed by letter to the Board on September 30, 1983).
To start, LILCO should send the County ccpies of all documents which are requested by the Staff or its consultants in connection with the Staff's Delaval diesel generator evaluation program.
The County will shortly make additional requests for document discovery to LILCO.
Proceeding with additional document discovery now will be efficient, save time, and permit all parties access to relevant data.
3.
The parties should exchange significant information relevant to the diesel problems, without waiting for the other parties to request specific material.
An example would be data regarding Delaval diesel problems at other facilities or in other uses, such as the report and documents on the problems with and derating of the Delaval diesel on the ship M.V. Columbia which the County sent to LILCO and the Staff, or the problems with Delaval diesels experienced at the Kuosheng (Taiwan) nuclear plant (referred to in the Staff's Draft Delaval Diesel Program Plan, at 6).
1 9
-+~ -
g
.-3
....,.c.
Respectfully submitted, David J. Gilmartin Patricia A.
Dempsey Suffolk County Department of Law Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 2 ; --
Herbert H. frow 6 Laurence p e Langher Alan Roy Dynner KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M Street, N.W.,
Suite 800 Washington, D.C.
20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County December 23, 1983