ML20100A041

Response Opposing Applicant Motion Re Diesel Generator Contentions 178 & 179.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20100A041
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	11/27/1984
From:	Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W.
To:	Bright G, Carpenter J, Kelley J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-387 82-468-01-OL, 82-468-1-OL, ASLBP-82-468-1, OL, NUDOCS 8412030433
Download: ML20100A041 (5)

Text

- _ _ ,

3{

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1 November 27,-1984 NUCLEAR REGULATOBY COMMISSION UR BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 Glenn O. Bright 30 D2:pj Dr. James H. Carpenter 4

James L. Kelley, Chairman s

{ '4 In the Matter of

) Docket 50 400 OL CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT CO. et al. )

S ar Harris Nuclear Power Plant,

) ASLBP No. 82-h68-01

) OL Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants ' Motion Concerning Diesel Generator Contentions 178/179 The Board on March 8, 1984, deferred " timely" contentions 178 and 179, noting that they were " generic in the sense" that they allege " problems in quality assurance at TDI(s) manufacturing place * ...

and " operating problems that TDI generators at other plants have been experiencing" (Tr. 770). The Board deferred the contention in light of ongoing matters, including the Staff's program to investigate the problems associated with TDI diesels. (Tr. 771) i In line with this ruling, I have repeatedly made efforts to get Harris- specific test or inspection information on the diesel ,

l generators. I have asked for it in informal discussions with Applicants.

I have used the results of Freedom of Information Act requests.

This information has still not been supplied as far as I am aware.

At transcript 6845-46 (Nov. 14, 1984) Applicants' counsel O'Neill l

l stated that the design review quality revalidation (DR/QR) had slipped I

• about a month", i.e. to late November, and will not be submitted to l 8412030433 841127 i PDR ADOCK 05000400 l 124-hourSextension or time PDR un'a oy Applicants' counsel Baxter and by Judge Bright in Judge Kelley's absence 11-26-84 2s0_3 ,

the Staff until carly 1985. Actual tx t data, ha cnid, will probably not be available until tha second quarter of 1985 for Harris diesels

)

(See Tr. 6854). Thus, there is no more site-specific dataavailable to j me now, for all practical purposes, than when the contentions were filed.

(Let me also note here that contention 179, contrary to Applicants 8 counsel's argument, does not depend on the SER -- see 1-17-84 filing at 8)

POIA request 84-666 of August'.6,1984, seeking am11 " schedules" for review of site-specific and other diesel data of the Harris plant, yielded a response 9/11/84 that DR/QR inspection should be done by 10/19/84, j TDI Owner's Group issuing DR/QR by 10/26/84, the TER by Pacific Northwest Labs on 1/11/85, and the Diesel SER 2/28/85, with fuel load 6/28/85.

. Obviously this schedule has begun to slip, but specific information should be available in early 1985. That seems to me the anpropriate time to try to specify these contentions to actual conditions at the Harris plant, should the Board require that.

i But this has not been my only FOIA effort. FOIA 84-275 of 4/10/84

! sought all information the NRC had related to *1. The TDI Diesel Generators at the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant"... NRC made at least 3 res-ponses to this FOIA including a " final" one on . saying action had been completed, with nothing Harris-specific loucated. Followup to this led to a memo of 9-07-84 from Hazel Smith, NRC, to NINa Toms, NRC, stating "In regard to our telephone conversation of 9-06-84, Melanie Miller has jogged my the deneral response to . . . emoryas)towhywesubmittedrequest e) FOIA CW1953.

Mel stated the information su mitted relates to all the plants involved with the TDI issuem . .. we do not have anything specific to Harris ..."

Still further followup on this FOIA on my behalf got a 10-30-84 response identifying 16 documents, 12 not previously released, and 4 in the PDR. Review of the documents indicates that #1,3,5,6,7,8 and 10 of the first group and all of the second group do not contain Harris-specific test or inspection information as far as I and those helping me on the FOIA are aware. #2 of the first grouo relates to Grand Gulf;

1 i

1. 9 is Ocneric Lettcr 84-15 datsd July 2,1984; cnd h.11 ond 12 cra inspection reports, #11 stating in relevant nart that the inspector

" met with the (TDI) Owners Group representative; #12 stating in relevant part that "The inspector observed the obgoing activities associated with the disassembly and inspection on the TDI Diesel engines." (That's all)

This is all the information I've been able to get that is Harris-specific.

I believe I have carried my burden as an intervenor in timely filing contentions 178 and 179 and using available information. It seems to me that Applicants ' extensive information provided to me shows ex-l tensive basis for these contentions, and on that grounds both contentions i could be admitted soon, so that discovery and hearing, if required, can be promptly completed. On the basis of preliminary discussions, I believe qualified experts (e.g. some who testified at Shoreham) will be available to assist me and/or testify on these contentions. In the alternative, the contentions should remain deferred until site-specific 1

information is available to specify the c ontentions further should that be necessary. There may be additional (presently unknown or formserly glossed over) Harris-specific problems that come to light in inspection and testing of the Harris diesels, which is another reason for continued l deferral.

Why can't this matter be lef t to the Staff (or to a generic specifica-tion of problems in the Staff's or Applicants' programs addressing TDI diesel problems), as Applicants propose? First, the Staff is only another party here, with the same rights as I have. If all safety-significant problems were lef t to the Staff and Applicants to work out, there could never be litigation at the op. rating license stage, which would clearly violate the Atomic Energy Act. Moreover, the Staff, per FOIA 84-275 cited above, possesses no Harris site-specific information yet.

I believe the issuance of the Harris diesel SER is now, again, unscheduled, but I couldn't locate the transcript cite where Janice Monre addressed this point.

4 . .

1!be problora at Harris may b3 diffOront, cr worso, than thoos alrendy identified with other TDI V-16 diesels, and in any ease the adequacy of " fixes", approved by the staff or not, can be litigated as in Shoreham.

Finally, leaving the resolution to the Staff is contrary to NRC/AEC

[

! case law, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act.

i The Appeal Board (ALAB-655 (1979), quoting Douglas Point) stated

" 'In the absence of rulemaking on a generic issue, the Commission's regulations . . . contemplate exuloration of those hensric] issues, (absent some specific direction to do otherwise)" in individual licensing hearings." ALAB-655,14 NRC 799 at 816 (1981), quoting -# fE ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79 at 84-85 (1974). The Commission itself stated T $50 4

in two 1974 cases that, as a general proposition, " post-hearing M i {}fplaadS resolution must not be employed to obviate the basic findings gg

prerequisite to" a license, including " assurance the plant can be N

\ E M yet j operated without endangering the health and safety of the public";

and that under the AEA and APA "all parties have a right to participate in the resolution of contested issues" (CLI 73-4, 6AEC 6 at 7; CLI 74-23 7 AEC 947 at 951-52). Since the diesels are the only long-term source of emergency power for the plant in a power failure, they are clearly vital to protecting the public health and safety, and an intervenor 1

l like myself who timely raises such an issue, with adequate basis (as i

now confirmed by Applicants admitting large numbers of " generic" problems apply to Harris) and specificity, should be allowed to litigate those contentions. Neither Applicants nor Staff is the ultimate judge of nuclear safety issues.

For the above reasons, the Applicants ' motion should be denied, and the contentiors remain deferred until Harris site-specific information becomes available (or be admitted if the Board agrees sufficient informat-ion to admit them is now available). The generic issues obviously apply in many cases to Harris, and Applicants ar: protected by the su 7 dispositionprocessfromirrelevantmattersreachinghearing.h,{1sEddleman

. o UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLIAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of CAROLIKA POWER k LIGHT CO. Et al. ) Docket 50-h00 Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant. Unit 1- ) 0.L. I CERTIFICATE 0F SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of WE Response _to Applicants' Motion Concerning Diesel Generator Contentions 178/179 HAVE been served this 27 day of November 1981,bydeposit$n the US W il, first-class postage prepaid, upon all parties whose nanes are listed below, except those whose nanes are marked with

, an asterisk, for whom service was acconplished by Judges Ja tes Kelley, Glenn Bright and James Carpenter (1 copy each)

Atonic Safety and Licensing Board US Nuclear 9egulatory Comission Washington DC 20555 GeorEe F. Trowbridge (attorney for Applicants)

Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge IL uthanne G. Miller 1600 M St. W ASLB Panel WashinEton, DC 20036 USNRC Washington DC 2C55 5 Office of the Executive Legal Director f Spence W Perry Attn Dacke ts 50-400/kO10.L. Ping FEMA Room 840 USNRC Washington DC 20555 CA1500 0 St. SW Washington DC 20740 Dan Read Docketing and Service Section (3x) CEATI/FLP Attn Docke ts 50-h00/h01 0.L. .

Office of the Secretary Waleigh,$707 NC Waveross 27606 a Dr. Linda W. Little neton DC 20555 Governor's Waste Mst. Bd.

John Runkle .

513 Albenarle B3 dg,

! 325 N. Salisbury St.

Granville Rd Raleigh, NC 27611 ,

Chapel Hill Ne 2751k Bradley W. Jones Tlobert Gruber USNRC Region II

~Travi s Payne Exec. Director 101 Marietta St.

Edelstein & Payne Public Staff Atlanta GA 30303 1Mex 12601 Box 991 Raleigh NC 27605 Raleigh NC 27602 Richard Wilson, M.D. Certified by _/4%

729 Hunter St.

Apex NC 27502 1

- -. - - . .- -