ML20101U243

Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue 8 Re Reliability of Tdi Diesel Generators for Emergency Onsite Power.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision

ML20101U243
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	02/05/1985
From:	Reggie Sullivan CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20101U246	List: ML20101U243 ML20101U262 ML20101U280 ML20101U306 ML20101U314 ML20101U328
References
CON-#185-418 OL, NUDOCS 8502070202
Download: ML20101U243 (16)

Text

--

c=- .

s

_j

. a 'e _

' "f February 5, 1985 00CKETED UitiRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '85 FEB -6 P4 51 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION terTcercrCFET!: n BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD:..,E':i_ ,

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' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF ISSUE 16 The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, et al.

(" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety;and Licensing Board, (the " Board") pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.749, for summary 1

h -disposition in Applicants'Lfavor of' Issue 16. As grounds for r .

\

Ltheir motion, Applicants state that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to Issue 16, and that' Applicants are entitled to a decision in their~ favor on'this contentionLas a matter of law.

This motion isLsupported by:

1 ~. ' Applicants' Statement ofEMaterial Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard on Issue'16;

2. ' Affidavit of John C. Kammeyer, dated January 28, 1985

("Kammeyer Affidavit");

3.- Affidavit of Edward'C. Christiansen, dated February 1, 1985-("Christiansen Affidavit");

9 NoMg 9

9())

ek n

,f >

l~ iE .

V ... , J g* ~ '

4. - Affidavit of Gary R. Leidich, dated February 1, 1985

^

("Leidich Affidavit");

-4 , ,

5.

~

Affidavit of Charles D. Wood III, dated January 31,

1985'.(" Wood-Affidavit").

. . c: ,

.c 4 ,

I. BACKGROUND o

[^ _ . < >

fIssue'16 was~ admitted as a contention in this proceeding in

'the Bo'ard's " Memorandum and Order (New Contention on Diesel l

~ ; Generators)," December 23, 1983 (" Memorandum and Order").

~

Ohio JCitizensifor' Responsible Energy ("OCRE") is the lead intervenor, Q~#1  ;,on thisE issue. As admitted by the Boardy , Issue 16 states:

~ '

1 Applicant has:not demonstrated that it can

_ reliably generate emergency on-site power by. relying on four Transamerica Delaval

' .?

- diesel-generators, two for each of its Perry units.

.~ Memorandum ~and Order'at 1. The Memorandum and Order indicate

- ~

that the bases for.the contention are:

\

+: j. l '. Cracks.in the crankshafts ~in the Transamerica

.Delaval,'Inc. ("TDI") diesel generators

^

-installed-at the'Shoreham NuclearcPower. Station;

- , ,  ;-;and -

7- , ,

i

'I 2. .. Deficiencies

reported via Deficiency Analysis

& }a[' .

. Reports ("DARs".)-in the Perry Nuclear Power

, f

-PlantJ("PNPP")'TDI-diesel generators, some-of' lN s

-['..

(

^

+ q' .,, i fy1 2 The: Board' simplified the original contention submitted _by-4- -

, 'OCRE concerning diesel:' generators. l Memorandum-and, Order at a,, .

1- '

44 w

i" lJ '. ~ 2' - .

i 1 '._

[-  ?

,,g j

-- j _ f4> ~ '

' ~

l 'I [ -[

j

g; , m g _,

.w- Y i ,

c r'iy .

3E. -

which' raised design, as well as manufacturing

)

sconcerns.

R=' ot

.' (Briefalon1NRC' Regulations and Guidance Applicable to

-Issue'16 were submitted.by OCRE-(January 1, 1984), the NRC

, . staff 1(January.20, 1984), and Applicants (January 27,

. , :x jl984). Reply Briefs were thereafter filed by OCRE

-(February

3,.1984) and Applicants (February 3, 1984).

Discovery on this-issue was closed on June 1, 1984.2/

LI't' incl 0ded OCRE's Tenth Set of Interrogatories to

~

z LApplican's,. t January 6, 1984, to which Applicants responded (on February 8, 1984;3] OCRE's Eleventh Set of LInterrogatories to Applicants, dated February 17, 1984

-(served February 18, 1984), to which Applicants responded on March.8,-1984; Applicants' Interrogatories and Request

'for' Production L of Documents to OCRE - (Fifth Set), dated.

? March 9, 1984, to which OCRE responded on May 14, 1984 (served May;15,' 1984); ~ and OCRE's'. Twelfth. Set of

~

Interrogatories.to Applicants, dated May 14,11984 (served

. .Mayjl5;-!1984) toiwhich-Applicants responded'on June,11,

'~M * -1984. . Applicants filed supplemental ~. responses to the.

'

• g; I C  ; .. '

;ts *

~

' aforementioned interrogatories'on Jan,uaryf25, 1985.

. x g . ,

m <2/. ~ Discovery was extended beyond.the original. cut-off;date of i- ,

. April 6,1 1984 byl" Board Memorandum and' Order (Discovery.

~About'Transamerica Delaval Diesels)," May 8,.1984..

]/: Applicants'; response:to.OCRE Interrogatory No. 10-2 was y subsequently updated b letter of March 9, 1984 from Michael' Yr . .A.'Swiger, Applicants'ycounsel,'to' Susan:Hiatt,JOCRE

)

representative.

.K i . r

>< 1

.[% *

. . - , . . _ . . . . . _ _ . _ . _ _ . . . . _ . ~ . . _ _ _ _ _ __.___ _ __. _

~

.?

t ~

28-

, On. January 7,-1985, OCRE filed a Motion to Reopen i

, . Discovery on Issue 16 along with its Fourteenth Set of 4

+ -  ; Interrogatories to Applicants. Applicants voluntarily agreed to respond to the.new set of interrogatories and *

agreed to_' provide the majority of the documents requested.

See:" Applicants' Answer to OCRE's Motion to Roopen  ;

LDiscovery on Issue No. 16,"~ January 17, 1985. Applicants t respondeto d these interrogatories on January 22, 1985.

5 II. ARGUMENT i

>A. Standards for Summary Disposition The admission of a contention for adjudication, under i

the standards.of 10 C.F.R. I 2.714, is not an-appraisal of

~

the merits of a contention,.but merely a determination that.it meets the criteria of specificity,j asserted basis  ;

, and relevance.. A' hearing on an admitted contention, however; is- not inevitable. -Licensing boards are ,

authorized to decide an admitted contention on its-merits l fin advance of; trial on the basis'of-pleadings filed. Any

. party to :a proceeding may move, .with or: without supporting '

affidavits, for a. decision by the presiding officer /in the

-party's favor as to all or any part of the. matters.

l involved;intheproceeding."' 10 C.F.R. l'2.749(a). .The bd's E

I e

P 1

p.

~

-i standard embodied in the regulation is that:

[t]he presiding officer shall render the decision sought if the filings in the e proceeding, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a L decision as a matter of law.

10 C.F.R. 5'2.749(d).

The Commission and its adjudicatory boards have encouraged

~-

the use of the summary disposition process so that evidentiary hearing time is not unnecessarily devoted to issues where the proponent of a contentien cannot establish that a genuine issue exists. Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 N.R.C. 452, 457 (1981); see airo Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Huclear Generating Station,. Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C. 542, 550

-(1980) ("[T]he Section 2.749 summary disposition procedures provide in reality as well as in theory, an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possible time-consuming hearings on demonstrably insubstantial-issues.")

The standards governing summary disposition motions in an LNRC proceeding are quite similar to the standards applied under-Rule 56 c" the Federal Rules of' Civil Procedure.- Alabama Power

. Company-(Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),

- ALAB-182, 7'A.E.C. 210, 217 (1974);. Tennessee Valley Authority

.(Hartsville Nuclear. Plant, Units 1A, 2A, 18 and 28), ALAB-554,

, , 10 N.R.C. 15, 20 n. 17.(1979). Where, as here, a motion for 8; -5=

w ,

_4 <

C summary disposition is properly supported pursuant to the

. Commission s Rules of Practice, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its answers.

Rather, an opposing party must set forth specific facts showing

- that there is a genuine issue of fact. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(b).

A party cannot avoid summary disposition on the basis of guesses or suspicions, or on the hope that at the hearing the movant's evidence may be discredited or that "something may turn up." Culf States Utilities Company (River Bend Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 N.R.C. 246, 248 (1975).

B. There is No Genuine Issue of Material Fact With Respect to OCRE Issue 16 Applying the aforementioned standards to the facts of this case, it is clear that this motion for summary disposition of Issue 16 should be' granted.

OCRE has stated that the basis for its belief in the unreliability of the PNPP diesel generators is the fact that thsy were manufactured by TDI. "OCRE Response to Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (Fifth Set),"

May 14, 1984, Interrogatory No. 5. It further asserts that "the inherent unreliability of the TDI [diosel generators is)

.due to poor design and manufacturing quality", id. No. 9 at 5, and that " quality assurance at TDI is severely deficient." Id.

No.- 5 at 3. OCRE cites failures experienced by TDI engines in

( ' ,-

e:

c m ,. .s.

a+'

.y l' ~ marine, stationary, and nuclear service to support its icontention. ,I_d. No. 6. It also raises the deficiencies Y reported under 10 C.F.R. Parts 21 and 50.55(e) as well as the .-

h "horortotallylackingQAdescribedintheNRs[PNPP L

l 1

L Non-conformance Reports), audit reports, and surveillance l- ..

p . repo"rts of Applicants." M. at 4.

It was to address operational and regulatory issues

.rel'atingtoTDIdieselsthattheTD(DieselGeneratorOwners

< ^

-Group was formed by Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company

-("CEI") and elevan other U.S. utilities. Kammeyer Affidavit,

't L4. The Program Plan established by this owners Group e

provides an in-depth assessment of the adequacy of the TDI diesel generators to perform their intended safety-related function through a combination of design reviews, quality

.revalidations; engine tests, component insp ctions'and'the ,.

w establishment of maintenance' requirements. M ., 11 6, 9. It is' unprecedented in its approach and analytical detail, in many, o

instances incorporating analyses beyond the detailed

\ ,

- engine'ering effort which-originally.went into the design of the diesel' generator. components. M.,11 31. It is likewise

\ unprecedented in its scope,, spanning.over,a year's time and

'. drawing,upon the' input from.-a variety.of high. quality technical'

~ consultants and involving more than a hundred engineers and

technicians . , ( M. , .11 6, 13.

y The Owners Group Program providad'an. independent design

~ verification of important diesel engine components' attributes.

.i. ,. .

3 a

-- 3 4

4

r---

1 11.

Id., All technical evaluations were performed independent of TDI. Id. The Owners Group program of component r inspections and testing of diesel generator equipment at each plant assured that independence from TDI's Quality Assurance program was also achieved. Id., 1 12.

The NRC staff has evaluated the Owners Group Program and concluded that it incorporates the essential elements needed to rasolve the outstanding concerns relating to the reliability of the TDI diesel generators for nuclear service, and to ensure that the TDI' diesel generators comply with GDC 1 and GDC 17.

See " Safety Evaluation Report-Transamerica Delaval, Inc. Diesel Generator Owners Group Prdgram Plan," August 13, 1984; Kammeyer Affidavit, 1 7. These essential elements include: (1) resolu-tion of known generic problems (Phase I); (2) systematic design review and quality revalidation of all components important to reliability and operability of the engines (Phase II);

(3) appropriate engine inspections and testing as identified by the results of Phase I and II; and (4) appropriate maintenance and surveillance programs as indicated by the results of Phase I and II. Id.

The Phase I effort has already been completed. Sixteen components with problems potentially generic to TDI diesel generators have been reviewed and the specific design and/or manufacturing concerns identified have been resolved through analyses, testing, documentation reviews, and recommendations to the owners regarding preventative maintenance. Kammeyer

.a.

\

\ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - -

m_ -gj _

Q < ;p k' Affidavit, l'13; and see Affidavit of Charles D. Wood III ip.-. l(" Wood Affidavit"), 11 12-182. The crankshaft problem,

, .. iidentified by1the Board as a basis for this contention, was

,e

'among the components subjected to a detailed design review.

LKammeyer Affidavit,' 1 10. The Owners Group concluded that the crankshafts on the DSRV-16-4 engines (the model used at PNPP)

.are adequate'for their intended service and meet applicable 4 standards. Id.; Wood Affidavit, 11 161-172.

.It is important to note the wide array of experience, as

.well as basic-technical data, which went into the database

governing selection of the sixteen components which received a detailed. design review in the Phase I effort. TDI engine / component operational experiences were documented using input from.both nuclear-(i.e., 10 C.F.R. Part 21 Reports, Licensing-Event Reports,'etc.) and non-nuclear sources (both marine and stationary diesel engines), as well as information obtained as a result of feedback from the utilitiesown inspection and testing conducted as part of the Owners Group Program.- Kammeyer. Affidavit,. 11 8,.15.4/. While TDI: drawings and certain-TDI information were.used as input to the Phase I design: review, the actual technical' evaluations were performed independent'of TDI. Id., 1 11. The methodology ^for

' 4/J LThis same-comprehensive database was utilized in the selection of-components for Phase II (Design Review / Quality Revalidation ("DR/QR") of Selected Engine Components) of the' owners Group-Program. Kammeyer Affidavit, 11 14-27.

4

)

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

. c .

)

l

. verification of the critical attributes was established and the o sixteen components were evaluated by analyses performed by the Owners Group, not by a review of the TDI analysis. Id. The

Phase I effort, therefore, provided an independent verification of all critical design aspects of each of the sixteen components. Id. The Owners Group Program achieved independence from TDI's Quality Assurance program by inspection and; testing of the diesel generator equipment installed at each plant, including PNPP. . Ijd . , 1 12. The inspections recommended by the Owners Group provided-a specific means of verifying d

. critical aspects of each component. Id. Results and conclusions of the Owners Group evaluation of the sixteen. Phase

-I components arec contained in thirty-six reports which have been submitted.to the NRC staff for review.5/ Id., 1 13.- All

?

but three of these reports were submitted by August, 1984.

Christiansen Affidavit, 1 4. Two were submitted in November.of a

1984,'and the;last one in December of 1984. Id.

CEI employed an independent engineering consultant, Southwest Research; Institute ("SwRI"), to verify the ,

~'

applicability of each Owners Group report to the specific' ,

component'in place at'PNPP. Christiansen Affidav"it:1 6. 'SWRI

. . 'l<'

reviewed, evaluated,Jand' independently verified tho; analysis, results, and conclusions of each of the Phase I studies. Wood r .

1 ((

5/ Two components, the ' cylinder- block and ' cylinder liner,E were .

combined in one report. Kammeyer Affidavit, 1.13.

$10-  :

(

r. _..o..__

c Affidavit, 11-7, 9. SwRI's overall conclusion with regard to othe Phase I effort was that the Owners Group reports were accurate in their evaluation of the potentially generic fproblems. See Wood Affidavit, 11 12-182. It concluded that each of the-sixteen Phase'I components in place at PNPP is acceptable for nuclear service if the applicable Owners Group a.

' maintenance and inspection recommendations, as well as those of c-

-SwRI,.are followed. Id., 11 181-182.

Phase II of the Owners Group Program, the DR/QR effort, e examined from the standpoint of both design and quality attributes 1the components of each owner's engine which were not reviewed in Phase I. Kammeyer Affidavit, 11 14-27. The Phase

'II components had no history of potentially generic problems.

+ ' p,,' u < .

Christiansen Affidavit, 1 7. Components.were selected for

t.

desi'gn! review and/or quality revalidation on the. basis of past

- D .

.. (, ,, [,

h - nuclear and non-nuclear engine experience, site-specific 0 I '

- experience, etc.,[as?enteredintothe-comprehensivedatabase

.c ,. >

y[ 'J discussedfsupra. , as well as other. factors. .Kammeyer T  ! ..

' -a .5 ,<L #'

• Affidavit,' 11 14,17. The" critical nature of the component,

.~

3 3s ,

. based upon the effect its failure would have on engine i

. performance,.was also analyzed.- Id., 1 16. Design review iW f /

y/ 1 j ff _ and/or quality revalidation requirements.for each component

' . were, reflected'in[specifictaskdescriptionswhichwerethen. 'i

)e 4 ; ; 1, W . - t '

t '

di~ implemented by the. Owners Group technical staff'and site-if r e ,,, personnel.- Id,.1 22; Christiansen Afffidavit, 11 8-10.

ni. ,

y(p! '

^ ' '

a. b: *

.f l ,

j g( '

ph 3-( 11

, i t. .

i 1 5 ? W (, s 4,

6 Y u .b

'b 4

., r

=< -

-m - m

't

~

- s. - ,

1. e i k, Ml - .-

, *f"

^.:ge The Phase II DR/QR effort has been completed for the E y components identified.at PNPP.6f The PNPP DR/QR Report was b

transmitted to the NRC on January 17, 1985. Christiansen e ,

8.-

' Affidavit,-1 Disassembly, inspe Stion, rdpp'ir and reassembly y .

. ts ofithediesalgeneratorswasconductedbya's' pee.Elltaskforce 9f /PNPPipersonnel under the supervision of PNPP Site Quality r\

' Control'._7f:'M., 11 10-11. Only two notable problems were

. encountered during this revalidation effort;fland both have been

s.

' corrected. Id., 11 14, 15.

34 ,

'Thd third' element of.the Owners Group Program involves an M -enhanced engine testing program coupled with specific component

~ #

' inspections. , KammeyerAffidavit, 1 28. Prior to plant

, e

~

. J h 1

m

.l'icensin'g and operation, the Unit 1 TDI diesel generators will

? undergo a-[ful'1. pre-operational tiaat program in accordance. with u .

• NRCJ Reg., , Guide 1.108, . -Rev. :1, "Esriodic Tes' ting of Diesel GeneratormUnits Used as O'nsith Electrical' Power'SystemsLat -

.n Nuclear Power Plants," AugustU J'1977, :(as ' described in the PNPP

,  ;%v

~ ~

'.' FSAR, / Table} 1. 8 ) , 'and' IEEE-3 87-1977, " Criteria.for Diesel" 4 x ,. . , .

. +v ;L Generator UnitsLApplied'as Standby? Power Supplies for Nuclear" 4

L-

" ' i- Powet*(Generating ' Stations . " Leidich Affidavit, 1<8. The tests'

e. ~

q. ac

+ :6 %. _.. ..? (

y g-' $:linclude c.t diesel generator auxiliary systems-%tests!y-f y electrical !?' Q f w h,^ ,  ! s. .

Q .,'; ;f Q l * ^ ,.p. N.'"L 0' J +

\;~.c i 1. ' . ,- . E 'pfi

!j.T YMu -

16f IA2 select group of ; components wilNbe' re-ins;iect'ed, per.

2 Owners Group ; recommendatiors, . af ter'Jone-hundred ' hours u of '

gi e

s f ,", &

o

~

fidavit of Gary R.TLeidich~

((pLeidichfAffidavit"),,1?21.

ration'of eacK engine.- Af (p

M.

j

[ ^ ;7f; _

iApprox_imately2 forty. individuals;are5asiigned full-time.to the(diesel generatorirevalidation, effort. M . , . 1 10 . . -

g-g 4 t j

\ .,,.4

_w.-

l@

,12-c 4'

' - * , e

e. p _ '

_r I

~ b '. - , . - ' . .

', w

'3'  :..s: - .

,Q

_ :f :fi y, -_ :,,. ,

&&r? n . ::q ,-

>it : ky 3y^ .

MM ~

C and pneumatic controls, diesel generator control circuit

'.... r, .

-functional-and start' tests, diesel generator load tests, diesel 7 ' generator-load-acceptance tests, and diesel generator

' reliability. tests. M., 11 13-19. PNPP will perform twenty

' additional start-and-load tests, in addition to the minimum of r

'l ' sixty-nine required by Reg.~ Guide 1.108. M., 1 18.

~ Additional' tests, including those recommended by the

', Owners Group, will also be performed. M., 11.8, 12. Among th'ese will'be a.torsiograph test to confirm the adequacy of the a.

,i crankshaft,8/ and an engine vibration survey of both engines at 1

.ful1~ load. Id., 1 20.

PNPP is implementing all. applicable recommendations e -- - , - .

fresultingfrom Phases I and-II of the-Owners Group' Program and

~

Jis-'. currently incorporating the recommendations obtained from-s-

^fi ' thel independentireview' conducted by SwRI into its engine 9 ,

m - program.as well. Christiansen-Affidavit. 11,16-17. " Ongoing" p(C . maintenance' recommendations obtained from'the Owners ~ Group and f-19

' 9*'

lSwRI'.willJsupplement,those of TDI_as well as standard PNPP.'

procedures onia" day-to-day basis. Id . - PNPP'has worked withi'n

, is

-the7 guidelines established by the Owners Group to ensure'that.

Leach;important' diesel' engine component is, and ' will contiinue . to i

M- ,

j8/g .This will. provide'the " independent'Lverification" which.OCRE-m -

Eg . seeks'of the maximum torsional stress on the PNPP standby.

yv . pcN diesel ge'nerator? crankshafts. , ; See OCRE Response to :

Applicants'yInterrogatories~and. Request for Production'of-S/ A (Documentsoto-Intervenor' Ohio-CitizensLFor Responsible Energy  ;'

$ ' We t

" < f(Fifth Set),Jdated May:14, 1984, Interrogatory No'. 17(a) fat-9,'

9 . ,

~

N ~- J

$gl%

< g- A.:., m

~

p %df

~

{gg il J s

+

3:

4:m. r _

w  : -

~

~

i be,' adequate throughout the life of the TDI diesel generators.

' Ijd . , 1 19 . PNPP will continue to procure parts for the TDI diesels by procurement methods which mandate that all NRC

. quality assurance ("QA") requirements be met during their fabrication. Id. 1 22. Surveillance programs presently in place;at PNPP will continue to monitor any problems with

.TDI-supplied equipment. Id., 11 23-24. These programs include

i. those established pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 21 and 10 C.F.R.

Part-50.55(e). Id., 1 23. Other methods of feedback such as INPO reporting and TDI Service Information Memos will also

. continue to be used to supplement PNPP's own surveillance 1 24.

program. Id.,

One of-the bases for OCRE's contention was the number of DAR's written against TDI equipment at PNPP which raised design

'or manufacturing problems. Memorandum and Order at 3-5. ,

. Twenty-eight DAR's'were written with respect to the TDI diesels (of which three related to non-TDI items). Twenty-two of these-

'were deemedireportable~to the NRC. Except for the most recent o n e ,- corrective workion all of the DAR's has been. completed and i =most1 have already been: closed out by the NRC. staff. Id., 1 26.

/The factLthat these deficiencies were discovered and corrected shows thatfApplicants' surveillance program 11s; working. As-

~

'this Board has'atated, "A-good, working quality assurance

program identifies' deficiencies.for correction. If

-deficiencies are; reported ~the system is working." -Cleveland LElectric" Illuminating Company-(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units-

1 and 2),.LBP-24, 15.N.R.C. 175,-211 (1981).

's-W

%$'. ; w

Clearly, the Owners Group Program, and Applicants' active participation therein, establishes "that OCRE's concerns have been resolved by appropriate action, in compliance with 10 C.F.R., Part 50, Appendix B, [and] General Design Criterion 17." Memorandum and Order at 2. The program has addressed all of the' critical component problems / failures identified by OCRE iniits answers to Applicants' interrogatories, including the crankshaft, OCRE Response to Applicants' Interrogazories and Request for Production'of Documents to Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy (Fifth Set), dated May 14, 198'4, Interrogatory Nos. 8, 14, 16, 19; cylinder heads, id.,

Interrogatory Nos. 13, 23; connecting rod bearing shells, id.,

Interrogatory Nos. 14, 18, 19; turbocharger, id., Interrogatory No. 14; piston skirts, id., Interrogatory Nos. 14, 20, 21, 22; cylinder liners,-id., Interrogatory No. 24; and the cylinder block, id., Interrogatory No. 25. See Kammeyer Affidavit, 1 8; i

- Wood-Affidavit, 11 46-59, 67-79,1119-152.

The Owners Group effort: incorporated a review of data on

- problems 1experienend with TDI diesels in both nuclear-and

. non-nuclear service. -Kammeyer Affidavit,.11 8,-14, 17. Thus,:

problems such as those experien,ced in marine' service, OCRE-E Response to Interrogatories, Interrogatory Nos. 6, 14, 24, 25 and 38,-have been considered and are reflected in the components chosen for design review and/or quality

' revalidation. Id.

p L l

!g ' '

In the. Owners Group Program, an independent design / review quality revalidation of the engines / components was conducted.

Id., 1.11. The Program did not rely on TDI's QA program or soley on its technical input. Id., 11 11-12. Contrary to OCRE's assertion, there was no " uncritical reliance on TDI supplied information."- OCRE Response to Interrogatories, Interrogatory No. 38(a) at 18 (emphasis added). The Owners Group conducted an independent evaluation of components, not a

review of TDI analyses. Id., 1 11. Neither did "[ulse of the

-lead engine concept ... [ ignore] ... QA deficiencies ... by assuming.that all V-16 engines are equivalent to (and use the same parts as) Grand Gulf." OCRE Response to Interrogatories, Interrogatory No. 38(a) at 18. The component inspections and testing of the diesel generators at each site, performed by

. Owners' Group representatives and site-personnel, assure

. independence from TDI's QA program and provide a means of verifying-critical aspects of components actually installed in E fthe' diesels at PNPP.and-other plants. . Iji . , 1 12.

The TDI Diesel! Generator Owners Group Program provides assurance of the reliability of the TDI diesel' generators in

~ place at PNPP to. perform their intended safety-related

~ functions. Id., 1 6. -Applicants-have been active participants in this program and are implementing each of the applicable recommendations generated by this extensive effort.as well as .

those-resulting.from the. evaluations-conducted by SwRI.

M Christiansen Affidavit,711.4-5,E7-19. 'The extensive ~

E C

E i s

r: .

P

• ' pre-operational testing which has already been conducted on the LTDI'.DSRV-16-4 engines at Comanche Peak (in excess of 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br />) and Catawba (which alone has over 1,600 hours0.00694 days <br />0.167 hours <br />9.920635e-4 weeks <br />2.283e-4 months <br /> of operation), as

.well as that to be conducted at PNPP, provides additional assurance of-the capabilities of the TDI DSRV-16-4 engines in place at-PNPP. Leidich Affidavit, 11 7-21.

III. CONCLUSION Because there.is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard onlIssue.16, and because Applicants have demonstrated that the bases of OCRE's contention concerning the reliability oof the TDI diesel generators in place at PNPP.are insub-n stantial,-Applicants respectfully request that their Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue 16-be granted.

Respectfully submitted,-

SHAW, PITTMAN POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By: ^^=

• MS ' d^

Jay E. Silberg,.P.C.

Rose Ann Sullivan Counsel for Applicants

-1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington,-D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000:

~

n ' DATED: ! February 5,.1985.

w 7+

e

.l

, 4

, l p__