ML20084J099

Requests Explanation for Crude Reversal in NRC Position at 840404 Prehearing on Whether Low Power Operations Could Be Permitted W/O Reliable Safety Grade Diesel Generators

ML20084J099
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/10/1984
From:	Jones F SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20084J095	List: ML20084J099
References
OL-4, NUDOCS 8405080320
Download: ML20084J099 (3)

Text

--

3.* '

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK v

PUER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE FR ANK R. JONES DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE April 10, 1984 l

Mr. William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814

Dear Mr. Dircks:

On January 26, 1984, at a meeting between the NRC Staff and the Transamerica Delaval, Inc. ("TDI") diesel generator "0wners' Group," the Staff presented substantial evidence of " serious problems" with TDI diesels, particularly those at the Shoreham nuclear plant. Harold Denton stated:

We view this as a 'very serious problem for the industry...... You wouldn't think that diesel generators would get on~the critical path of-the nuclear power reactors, but that's very likely what has happened. -And just so there is no doubt about where the Staff stands on these issues, we are not prepared to go forth and recommend the issuance of new licenses on any plant that has Delaval diesels until the issues that are raised _here today are adequately addressed.

At the same meeting, Darrell Eisenhut emphasized the' Staff's position that'the known defects in-the TDI diesels must be solved and the diesels determined to be adequate for nuclear service

" prior to licensing 2_even a low-power license -. . . . . - . . .

cont'd

)UN!Ubh!0$0bO322 '

O PDR to t s0 os =% som s arcutive omca ou Lomo vete n4== uswon.at w.one Av M4WPPAUGE,94Y.107eG 19 ISIS 4 4843'

.J

r .-

. "i Mr. William J. Dircks April 10, 1984 Six weeks later, on April 3, Mr. Denton again reiterated the Staff's. position in a letter to the County's counsel and quoted his January 26th statement.

Despite the consistency of Staff's position from January 26th to April 3rd, on March 30 --- four days before Mr. Denton repeated the. Staff's position that no license, including a low-power license, >

should be issued until the TDI diesel problems are resolved -- the 3taff filed a pleading with the Licensing Board supporting LILC0's motion to obtain a-low power license for Shoreham. The Staff did this with full knowledge that on February 22, the Licensing Board had admitted three of Suffolk County's contentions challenging the adequacy of the TDI diesels at Shoreham. The Licensing Board there stated:

(W)e don't have any confidence that any of these (TDI) diesels will operate at any power unless we have litigated (Suffolk County) Contentions 1, 2 and 3 on the merits.

Significantly, the Staff itself had supported admission of those three contentions in a lengthy pleading of its own.

At the April 4 " oral argument" before the Licensing Board, the Staff attorney -- in a shocking flip-flop -- argued that Shoreham could be granted a low power-license without any diesel generators and without any onsite emergency power at all.

In totally rejecting the relevance of the repeated statements of-Messrs. Denton and-Eisenhut to the contrary..the Staff attorney announced that his position "...was cleared by Mr. Denton, and Mr. Denton'was sitting here earlier tnday listening to the Staff's position and certainly approved the Staff's position."

This -crude reversal of the Staff's position on a low power-license for-Shoreham cannot be explained by anything in the public record. The Staff's reversal to support licensing of Shoreham without any onsite emergency power system came as a complete surprise to Suffolk-County. I request an_immediate explanation.

-- What happened between April-3 and April 4, or for that matter between January 26:and April 4. to cause the Staff to completely reverse its position?

-- What legal authority does the Staff have to ignore its own regulation -- GDC 17 -- which requires an.onsite emergency power system?

= 1

r +

{

?  ; * ;' . s .

',* . c Mr. William J. Dircks April 10, 1984

--_What benefit does the Staff perceive for a quick low-power license for Shoreham that justifies licensing the plant with no onsite emergency power system?

-- Never has the NRC licensed a nuclear plant with no onsite emergency power system. Why has the staff decided to do so at Shoreham?

I would appreciate your prompt response to these questions.

, Sincerely yours, F ank R. Jkn eputy Coun y xecutive FRJ/ec cc: Governor Cuomo Chairman Palladino -

Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal liarold Denton

_ s

,,'^