ML20107G741

Answer Opposing W Eddleman 850204 Proposed Contentions 178-AA & 179-AA Re Use of Tdi Diesel Generators.Contentions Do Not Withstand NRC Five Factors Test for Late Filing. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20107G741
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	02/22/1985
From:	Swiger M CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#185-724 OL, NUDOCS 8502260528
Download: ML20107G741 (25)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:_.. _ DOCKETEC USNRC February 22, 1985 15 RB 26 41 :12 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. II:t Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 'c. . :2,. ~ : r F. In the Matter of ) ) - ~..... CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) ) (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ) Plant) ) APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO WELLS EDDLEMAN'S " DIESEL GENERATOR CONTENTIONS AND INFORMATION" In a filing dated February 4, 1985, Intervenor Wells Eddleman asks the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Board") to admit two "new" contentions relating to the Transamerica Delaval, Inc. ("TDI") standby diesel generators to be used at the Harris Plant. Diesel Generators Contentions and Informa-tion, dated February 4, 1985 (" Contentions and Information"). Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency (" Applicants") oppose admission of each of these late-filed contentions. The historical back-ground of these contentions, and Applicants' rcssons for opposing the contentions, are set forth below. 8502260528 850222 gDR ADOCK 05000400 PDR 4 e ave *+ *

• 4N'W W
• N

~ '

• I.

BACKGROUND on January 17, 1984, Mr. Eddleman filed the following late-filed contentions: Contention 178: The SER p. 8-4 fails to show that the pattern of QA failures, violations and deficiencies, inadequate dynamic analysis (e.g. improper forcing functions), cracking of cylinder heads and/or of crankpins, and use of inadequate materials and work in Transamerica DeLaval Inc. diesel generators at Harris will not make the diesels unable to operate when needed for emergency power (e.g. after common-mode AC powerline failures caused by. ice, wind, tornado, earthquake), thus depriving the Harris plant of long-term emergency power, be-yond approx 5 hour battery life. No power, no safety injection or coolant pumping: risk of,se-vere accident without mitigation. Contention 179: Based on NRC's letter to-Transamerica Delaval (rec'd.12-19-83,-dated 12-01-83), TDI's record of QA failures, viola-tions and deficiencies, use of inadequate and defective materials and inadequate dynamic anal-ysis in and for its diesel generators, applies to the Harris diesels. GDC 17, 18, 33, 34, 35, 38 and GDC 1 and Appendix B of 10 CFR 50 require reliable operation of: emergency diesel genera-

tors, In light of TDI's massive failures and/or.

NRC's concerns about them, Harris' diesels aren't shown to comply with the above NRC regulations, needed to keep thel core ~ cooled, containment ~ sealed, and-meet 10 CFR App. B III, V, X,-XI and -XIV requirements. Wells.Eddleman's New ContentionsLand Amended-Deferred Conten. ~ tions in Response'to-Staff SER, dated January 17, 1984, at'7-8. The Board, in a March 8, 1984 telephone conference,:de-- s ferred ruling on the admissibility.of.Mr.'Eddleman's proposed Contentions 178 and 179. drr. 770-71. -.The Board.found that the! , y

4. '. t-e f

6 M-H -. M C ^'hif%. h. c' M' l x JY a 2't.' N: a

4 contentions raised " generic considerations, not facts which are unique to Shearon Harris diesels." Tr. 770. The Board noted that the NRC Staff (" Staff") has "an ongoing program to inves-tigate the problems associated with the TDI diesels," and stat-ed that it would defer its ruling "until further Board order" in light of " ongoing matters" with "the intention of reviewing it again as more light is shed on the situation." Tr. 771. By letter of July 31, 1984, Applicants provided informa-tion to the Board and the parties concerning Applicants' pro-gram to address the identified deficiencies with TDI diesel generators. In the letter, Applicants described the program plan of the TDI Diesel Generator Owners Group ("TDI Owners Group"), of which Applicants are a member, and indicated Appli-cants' anticipated schedule for inspection and testing of the two TDI diesel generators installed at Harris.1/ In addition, on August 21, 1984 Staff counsel filed with the Board and the parties the Staff's Safety Evaluation-Report concerning the TDI Owners Group program plan. During the hearing session on safety issue's.on November 14,~1984, Applicants moved the Board for an order requiring Mr. Eddleman'to propose specific contentions concernin'g Applicants' l 1/ . As stated in the letter,Jthe'TDI owners Group'progra$. plan-consists of three major. components: (1) resolution of signifi-cant potential generic problems- (2) design review of'important' engine components and quality revalidation of.important attributes for selected ~ engine components, and- (3) expanded i i .eng ne test ng and inspection. ' g g,_ .=c-

prcgram to assure reliability of the TDI diesel generators at Harris. Tr. 6848. See generally Tr. 6842-49. Applicants based their motion on the fact that there was, by then, "a vast body of information" available to Mr. Eddleman on the TDI die-sel generators, including those at Harris. Tr. 6849. That information included 26 TDI Owners Group Phase I reports, covering each of the 16 originally identified generic problem areas, which were provided to Mr. Eddleman at the hearing. Tr. 6844.2/ The Board granted Applicants' motion during a December 5, 1984 telephone conference, agreeing with Applicants that "there's now adequate information available to frame' specific contentions about the Harris diesels." Tr. 7400. The Board further stated: We think that if there's going to be an on-the-record hearing scrutiny of the TDI's at Shearon Harris, that it should focus on these diesels, and not on events that'have long been overtaken by other events. The allegations of contentions 179 and 178, as they now stand, are essentially irrelevant.in our. view. What we want to hear about is what's wrong, if anything, with the Shearon Harris i 2/ In addition, Applicants indicated that the Phase II' report concerning the design review / quality revalidation program for the Harris diesel generators would beLavailable around the be-- ginning of 1985. That report, consisting of'four volumes to-talling several hundred pages,~was submitted to.the Staff, with . copies to the Board and Mr. Eddleman, on December 20, 1984. Letter to Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor . Regulation, NRC, from'A. B. Cutter, Vice President, Nuclear,En-Jgineering & Licensing, Carolina Powe'r & Light Company (December 20, 1984). 4 - s..

-..a-...

:..,.=._

3,._ . w-m. = ..- /

.e._, .4.m. .~ _ -.,. ~ 4- --== - diesels. With that in mind, we're going to direct that Mr. Eddleman review the -presently available ma'terials on the Harris diesels, with a view toward filing more particularized conten-tions. Under these circumstances contentions 178 and 179 have been overtaken by events to the extent that they now fail to address the essen-tials of the applicants' proposal. Therefore they are. rejected. Tr. 7402. The Board established two additional prerequisitas for filing of contentions on the TDI diesel generators. The first prerequisite was that Mr. Eddleman meet with Applicants' ex-perts on the subject to discuss his concerns. Tr. 7402-03. The second requirement was that Mr. Eddleman identify an. expert witness committed to helping him pursue any contentions he might file, including testifying on his behalf at a hearing if one became necessary. Tr. 7404. Pursuant to.the Board's order, Applicants met with Mr. Eddleman on January 22, 1985 to discuss-his; concerns about the - TDI. diesel generators. Also in attendance.were technical ex-perts-from the Staff and the TDI Owners Group. Considerable - information was exchanged on specific concerns ~ identified by. Mr. Eddleman prior to the meeting. ~ On February 4, 1985, Mr. Eddleman filed his:"new" conten-tions on the TDI diesel generators, which read as-follows: .-178-AA. CP&L has not established.byfappro-priate operational testing,. and analysis of.the -results thereof (including results of inspec-tions after teardown afterTtesting,' analysis 1of tested engine. oil,'and'other. appropriate tests)- that the TDI: DSRV-16 Ldiesel' engines at-Shearon-Harris.have the capability toimeet'thefloads -5 e f N -99*"*M"** N M

~. they will be called on to meet in emergencies. Without emergency power available on a reliable basis, the health and safety of the public against serious nuclear accidents resulting from loss of offsite power or other failures cannot be assured. (Harris diesels untested for opera-tion, see Attachment 1 of CP&L letter to NRC NLS 84-522,.1/15/85, item 2, p.1; requirement of ap-propriate testing to assure the diesels can meet required loads is the expert opinion of Dr. Robert N. Anderson.) 179-AA. CP&L's vendor (and other) inspec-tion and QA is inadequate to assure that the TDI DSRV-16 diesels at Shearon Harris have the req-uisite quality and operability characteristics to perform their required functions. This is because variability of individual castings and tolerances effectively makes each DSRV-16 a cus-tom unit. Any quality review or analysis based on other engines is therefore inadequate to as-sure the-quality and operability of the Harris DSRV-16s. For use of information basedion'other engines, see TDI Owner's Group submissions. The inadequacy of such analysis and.the variability of the DSRV 16s are opinion of Dr. Robert N. Anderson. . Contentions and Information at 1-2. Mr. Eddleman in his' filing ' also indicated-that he had enlisted the aid of the Dr. Anderson - mentioned in'the contentions, who-is a Professor of Materials - 1 ~ Engineering at San Jose State University, Land _who would. testify q for Mr. Eddleman "if necessary.and feasible-. Id.'at'.l. -II. ARGUMENT Applicants oppose Mr. Eddleman's late-filed; Contentions- ~~ 178-AA-and~179-AA forithe following reasons. First,- the pro = posed contentionsLare' overly broad and general. Mr.1Eddleman-failedito heed the Board's admonition to file " morel -6'- k . h_ 3 - 1r

(,y-~ ~ w,

-u ~ n ~ ~M g -- p y,.w & & n.,-

particularized contentions." Tr. 7402. Mr. Eddleman simply has ignored, or has identified no basis for a contentio'n in, the voluminous information on the Harris diesel generators which has been made available to him. Thus, the contentions fail to meet the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714. Second, the contentions do not withstand the Commission's five factors test for late-filed contentions. A balancing of those factors weighs heavily against admission of the conten-tions, particr.larly the factors concerning good cause for fail-ure to fil". on time, and-the ability of Mr. Eddleman to assist in developing a sound record. A. The Proposed Contentions Fail To State,a Basis with Reasonable Specificity. The Commission's Rule's of Practice', at~ 10 C.F.R. ' S 2.714(b), require that a petitioner set forth "the bases for. each contention.. . with reasonable specificity'." Mr. Eddleman1does not establish either the-requisite-basis or spe- . cificity for his proposed Contentions 178-AA :and 179-AA. 1. Basis - Eddleman proposed' Contention'178-AAEstatesLthat "CP&L has ~ - not established byfappropriate'operationaf testing,cand analy. sis of-the ' results thereof. thatJthe"TDI,DSRV-16 diesel. Jengines at Shearonl Harris'have1the' capability.to.meetEthe' loads 't r v _h.'. x C._

i. __,i 4

l they will be called on to meet in emergencies." Proposed Con-tention 179-AA states that "because variability of individual castings and tolerances effectively makes each DSRV-16 a custom unit. [a]ny quality review or analysis based on other en-gines is. inadequate to assure the quality and operability of the Harris DSRV-16s." In effect, Contention 179-AA provides the alleged basis for Contention 178-AA. The essence of Mr. Eddleman's argument is that "the reliability of one unit does not assure the reliability of another; testing is required in any case to establish the reliability-and operability of the emergency diesels and Applicants have not done that yet ."3/_ Contentions and Information at 3. As authority for this proposition, Mr. Eddleman simply-$ites~the " opinion of Dr. Robert N. Anderson." M. Mr.'Eddleman's-proferred basis is inadequate under the terms of the Board's order. requiring particularized diesel-gen-- ~ erator contentions.4/- In brief,=Mr. Eddleman fails to allege 3_/ Contention 179-AA read oncits own makes'no sense-because ~ itl confuses the_' design review and quality-revalidation compo-7 inents of the TDI Owners. Group program'-(Phases I and II)~withL athe_ testing and inspection component 1(Phase III). Applicants 1 do:not rely: solely on quality reviews orfanalyses'" based'on other; engines" to assure " operability"lof the Harris diesels;- Ethey also.are conducting a program of. extensive testing:and inspection of:the Harris: diesels. Applicants do' rely'on1the detailed design.-review performed.by the.TDIcOwners' Group,-Tand: ,the validation:of the design by analysis'and. testing.of " lead"'. DSRV-16fengines:at:othereplants,.-to verify th.e-adequacy'of.the design of the Harris dieselecomponents. Mr.;Eddleman-does not challenge the. design'of thejHarris' diesels. sThus,JContention. 179-AA,; standing alone, presents no litigabla issue. t 4/ On one particular point, Mr. Eddleman's; asserted; basis), 2, y also11s factually incorrect. : Proposed Contention '178-AA states-a -(Continued next page) ~ ". = j N .d ~ ~ ^, ^ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ . _._: ~ "what's wrong,-if anything, with the Shearon Harris diesels." Tr. 7402. Indeed, by omission, Mr. Eddleman implies that, after examining the extensive information both provided by Applicants and otherwise available, he has been unable to iden-tify any uncorrected deficiencies related to the Harris die-sels. Apparently because he has been able to find nothing wrong with the design of the Harris diesels, or with the program for extensive testing and inspection"of the diesels, Mr. Eddleman resorts to the claim that more information is needed, namely, a the results of Applicants testing and-inspection program. This assertion flies directly in the face of the Board's order. As the Board stated: 2 - We_are aware of'the fact,-obviously, that additional information on these engines will be-come available after the deadline date we're ~ setting. The Applicants' program runs _well into 1985 before all the tests are run and all inspection data is available. It's possible that information.may surface. But based on (Continued) that the Harris diesels are " untested 1for operation," citing item 2 of Attachment 1 to anletter to Harold R. Denton from A. B.-Cutt'er dated January.25, 1985 '(served:on the Board and the 1 parties). Item 2 contains an'NRC Staff question:and Appli-cants' response concerning the performance requirements _for the TDI diesel generators ~at Harris. Applicants noted-in}theircre-sponse that "[t]he diesel generators have not yet been operated) to verify performance at the Shearon Harris Nuclear' Power: Plant" (emphasis added). However, thetresponse to item 6 Eof ~ that same Attachment describes;inisome detail-performance, tests - conducted on the diesels'at the factory. Thus, it is not true- ~ -thatLthe TDI diesel generators-at Harrisfare."untestedifor operation." 4-E s + 9 -q ,Wv em eemeo w-wh *%dr wesy*e &W*=8 th r e

4 what's available now, we think the time for par-ticularization is here. Tr. 7403. Thus, Mr. Eddleman provides no cognizable basis for his proposed Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA.5/ 2. Specificity Mr. Eddleman's proposed Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA are as general as, if not more general than, his original proposed Contentions 178 and 179. See supra p. 2. Even Mr. Eddleman characterizes the contentions as only "somewhat narrower" than the original contentions. Contentions and Information at 2. However, Mr. Eddleman asserts that "[a]t this point no'more de-tail can be advanced because the requisite information has not been developed.by CP&L by-testing of the diesels." Id. at 3. As discussed supra, the Board in its order concerning par-ticularization of diesel generator contentions required that contentions be filed on the basis of information currently available. Mr. Eddleman in his proposed Contentions 178-AA and-179-AA makes no effort to address the.information which pres-ently is available to him regarding Applicants' preoperational-testing and inspection program for the TDI diesel generators'. For example,.Section 14.2.7 k) of the Shearon Harris Nuclear 5/ Mr. Eddleman's generalized Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA - may, in' fact, be'more appropriately read, not'as proposed con-tentions,'but.as arguments why contentions on the-TDI; diesel-generators should-once again be deferred. -Either way, Mr. Eddleman's. filing contradicts:the Board's order. I _- + .- L. 'Nw. .- O em.' 6 And .no..-~+4 ~

:: 7.

T :~: :%

2:.:; :::-:r.::-lT.-.::

:::::::= ::::r

L r:: -

1 Power Plant Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") states that !~ Applicants will follow the Staff's guidance'in Regulatory Guide s l 1.108, Rev. 1 (which includes preoperational testing) for testing of the diesel generators.6/ FSAR 5 14.2.12.1.16 dis-cusses in detail the preoperational testing program, including t 1 test objectives, method, and acceptance criteria.7/. In addi-i tion,.Section D of Attachment A to the December 20, 1984 letter ~ from Applicants to the Staff (supra n. 2) includes details of !-[ the inspections to be conducted following the initial preoperational testing scheoule'd for May and June 1985. ~The Staff,has stated that it will continue to issue i-l . plant-specific SERs regarding the reliability of the TDI die-4 sels (including testing and inspections deemed necessary :to as-sure reliability).8_/ This Board has made clear that where, as- .here, Applicants provide sufficient.informationito indicate how - I and when they-intend _to. carry out a commitment and the Staff A plan's to review the-implementation,.-there_is no basis for.. 6/.. Regulatory Guide 1-108,?Rev. 1, Periodic Testing of Diesel . Generator Units Used!as On-site Electric' Power Systems at P Nuclear Power Plants..(August 1977).- i ' 7f L The TDIf owners Group testing arid inspection program is in- " addition to Applicants'? Regulatory:Guidecl'.108. testing program (- and does not.-supersede that program'.' c8f,.-Letter from Darrell IG'. : Eisenhut,.' Director, Divisionl of Li- , censing, NRC, to ' J. L B. : Ginorge, Chairman, ' TDI. 0wners ' Group _.

(Augusti13,'1984), enclosing.the. Staff's SER.on'the'TDI'ownersi

. Groups program plan ~ attached to the Staff's-letter to the. Board. i dated: August 21,: 11984.- e i 7

-11 1 m

,j, s N

• ~

r x ) ~ 1-p Y .g ~ ~

~' ^^ ~. - -. -..... ^..- - - ~T ~ admitting a broad, vague contention such as Mr. Eddleman's pro-posed Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA. See Memorandum and Order (Ruling on Wells Eddleman's Proposed Contentions Concerning De-tailed Control Room Design Review (DCRDR), Richard Wilson's Mo-tion to Withdraw Contentions, and the Conservation Council of North Carolina's Motion to Withdraw Contentions) (October 6, 1983), at 11. The Commission's Rules do not afford to an in-tervenor the opportunity to assume the role of a surrogate Staff reviewer.. Especially in light of the Board's specific order to Mr. Eddleman that any diesel generator contentions he wished to file must be particularized contentions, Mr. Eddleman has ut-terly failed to meet his burden of stating the basis for his contentions with_ reasonable specificity. B. The Five Factors Test Does Not Favor Admission of the Contentions. Not only must a petitioner proposing a late-filed conten-tion satisfy the basis and specificity requirements of 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b), he also must establish'that a balancing of the following five factors. favors admission.of:the-late-filed contention: (i) Good cause, if any, for failure to file on time. (ii) The availability of other means whereby the petitioner s interest will be protected.. [pg g M-- -] s s

~..: :. -. =. :: =. - - = -- m = - c -- = = = -. 1 l l (iii) The extent to which the petitioner's participation may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record. i .(iv) The extent to which the petitioner's 1 interest will be represented by existing parties. i '(v) The extent to which the petitioner's l participation:will broaden the issues or delay the proceeding. ] 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(1). The balance of these five factors as applied to Mr. Eddleman's proposed Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA weighs heavi-ly against admission-of the contentions..First, the conten-i. tions are not timely filed. Second, Mr. Eddleman has failed to i. obtain the expert-assistance required by the Board which would1 j enable him to contribute.to the development of-a sound record ~ Lon-the' complex, technical issues associated with:the diesel' ~ l ' generators;xand those' issues are-being fully' addressed by:the. i -Staff. Third,-. Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA clearlytwould' broaden the issues already being; litigated in this proceeding, leading to. delay of~the proceeding. I.. The Contentions ~~Are'Not Timely Filed.

The'~information'.that the standby diesel; generators:would

~ be included:in Applicants' preoperati'onal test program-has been; 3 lavailable.in-the Shearon Harris'FSAR since the FSAR'was~origi, y 7 _ nally submitSed on: June 26,,1980. Further,EMr. Eddleman'wasb aware !at-least as early as August -1984 thath the Harris [ diesels. ~ i ' 4 ,p N a s 4 y x, t h ,-{'f T 3 y 7g ^ b E L h - * ' I ~ - ~

= - = - would be subjected to an enhanced preoperational testing and inspection program as part of the TDI Owners Group's program ) plan. See Applicants' letter to the Board dated July 31, 1984. Because Mr. Eddleman's proposed Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA are general contentions which do not address any of the de-tailed information Applicants and Staff have more recently made available concerning testing and inspection of the TDI diesel generators, the contentions could easily have been filed months ago. -The contentions are not based on new information; and Mr. Eddleman lacks good cause for their admission at this point'in the proceeding.9/ 2. Mr. Eddleman Has Failed To. Establish His Ability To Contribute to the Development of a Sound Record on His Proposed Contentions. The Board in its order granting Applicants' motion for ' particularization of the diesel generator _ contentions empha- ~ sized that [wje did not have'from Mr. Ed' leman-a very. d -detailed showing of his ability to contrib-- ute to the record on this issue. We-raised the same' point c few minutes ago on the subject of his harassment and intimidation. contention,~but'our: operating assumption. 'therelis you don't have to be a technical expert..to look into intimidation and ha - rassment; if you have the time-and will to do so, you can do it. 9/ - While the Board established February 1, 1985'as theJdead-line for filing new contentions'on diesel generators, that l deadline' clearly was' established'in the contextfof? allowing Mr. Eddleman to review the information that mosttrocently had been; made available and to state with particularity what he.foundy wanting-in Applicants'fprogram. LSee-Tr.17402. - -14 J 1

1. .no [,

sg , e-% i ah ,a \\

• ff l-

. We do not apply that assumption to the P integrity of diesel generators. That is a j subject we think requires expert assis-j tance. There's case law in the NRC applied i most recently in Catawba that I know of to the effect that on a subject that requires expert assistance, very simply.you've got to have an expert if it's a late conten-3 tion, as these would be. Therefore, when. -you file any revised contentions, Mr. l-Eddleman, if and when you do, it will be incumbent upon you to make.a pretty clear showing that you've got somebody who is in - } deed ~an expert on the subject and-that he will be, he or she will be actively in-volved in-helping you present~your case. r The mere statement that you might get'- that somebody-from Shoreham is not enough. What we need is a statement that says, I've got Joe Smith, an expert, who's going to-la help me~on this contention, resume attached. I talked to Mr. Smith. He's . agreed to do-such and such and such for me,4 2 and he will-be'available-to testify'at the hearing. That's what we want to hear. And: if we: don't hear,.if we don't see'a' clear. 1 4 commitment of expert resources to pursueL_ / this contention,'then the contention-will. be rejected because we don';t feel anything useful will come out'of it, so.do bear that- [ - in mind and give us a:more5specifictlayout-i . than'1we had in - supportt of: Contentions 178-and:179. f _ Tr. J 7403-04. ( emphases added). 3 Mr. Eddleman fails to makenthe': showing required byfthe -. Board. ~ First, the~" expert"[witnesswhoseassistanceMr. ~ ~ I Eddleman says:he has obtained', Dr.: Roberti - Anderson,' Khas de D f z scribed.himself as;"an-expert' witness in metallurgy.'" $Jointf ~ ~ DirectITestimony(ofLDr Q Robert'NL-I nderson,yet %,i tacheditoj A SE !4 ' ' -Mr. Eddlem'n's Contentionscandl nformation,JatL2f 2In dhoreham,N o_ a I ~ 4, .,.. Dr. _ Anderson ? sponsored "all? of.: the f te, stiimony ipartiaining [toj {'l ~ i n 1 b$ g* Ww ' x ' y5 [ p ^ r-

• E

~ t J l'. f w g 7 7 ? A ( j c-g..*' 4 3w. r g, 4 -a ci ~ s e J* i . NY s. [ i h, h _m a, g j g

• --~r

[ d- ~%

metallurgical science," but stated that "I have not provided testimony regarding the functions or NRC regulatory require-ments for emergency diesel generators." Id. at 3 (emphasis added). By his own account, Dr. Anderson is not an expert with respect to the functioning, or operability, of diesel-genera-tors. Nor-is he generally familiar with diesel generators and their design.10/ It is evident that Dr. Anderson does not have the expertise to review the test results from, and analyses of, functional testing of the Harris diesel generators, which is the role which Mr. Eddleman envisions for him based on the con-tentions. See Contentions and Information at 1, 3. Second, Mr. Eddleman does not state that Dr. Anderson'will be available tol testify at the hearing. Rather, Mr. Eddleman says that he will be available as a_ witness "if. feasi-ble." ' Contentions'and Information at:1. This equivocation ~ hardly qualifies as the " clear commitment of expert resources" . called for by'the~ Board. ;The=possible unavailability-of Dr. Anderson by itself is1 sufficient:to-justify. rejection.of the 1 late-filed contentions. Tr. '.7404. See Duke Power Company!(Ca-. tawba Nuclear' Station,_ Units 11-and 2),sALAB-768, 19EN.R.C.-988,. 991. at _ n.17f(1984). (implicitlyf endorsing :l'icensing lboard',s con = ~ ditionfor' admission!of_otherwise:admissiblejcontentionsthat . l0/ - See Long Isiand Lighting Company 1(Shoreham" Nuclear' Power E Station,s. Unit 1), Docket No. 150-322-OL,1Tr. 256471(attached ~ hereto as Exhibit'A). g -16 / i L 4 ill is ~ ( . w.. s_,m g y As 1

4

intervenors submit names of expert witnesses, a statement of their qualifications and a summary of their proposed testi-mony). See also Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 3), ALAB-747, 18 N.R.C. 1167, 1177 (1983) (petitioner for admission of late-filed contentions should identify his prospective witnesses and summarize their proposed testimony). Third, Mr. Eddleman has not demonstrated that he is pre-pared, or able, to contribute to the development of a sound record in the event that expert assistance is not forthcoming. As the' Board has indicated, the diesel generator issues which have been raised are highly technical. The very generality of his proposed Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA argues against Mr. Eddleman's ability to contribute on the issues. Further, given= Mr. Eddleman's recurring health problems, and his statement that-he intends-to devote most'of his time and effort to Con-tention 41-G,11/- Mr. Eddleman's participationJon diesel gen-erator' contentions cannot reasonably be expected to aid in developing'a-sound record.12/ In light'ofathe Staff's-11/ -Motion:for Reconsideration of Order-Served 1-15-85 (41G),' ' dated-February.4, 1985,' at-4. Mr.LEddleman1also~is_the. sponsor- -of. numerous emergency planning! contentions, for'which' responses to motions.'for summary disposition are due: in -March 1985, twith - (theLhearing scheduled ~to commence'in June.1985.: 1_2/ -Applicants. submit that Mr'.LEddleman's performance during; + ' hearings on other technical-issues,?particularly-the safety- - + -contentions that were heard-in Octoberil984,;is further reason ^ (Continued.-next'page), '~ ~ I

r.

s rj: .-m e-- pm.~~-~%,.,,,-o.eg.%#.m..-.~,-.+-,.-...,~.y%-m w- .m. a=- --,., i l =d.< -/. __ag ~ -q. m. jg (.k y_

i A econtinuing oversight of the Owners Group's program for de- "monstrating the reliability of the TDI diesels, the Board rea-sonably can conclude that Mr. Eddleman's interests will be pro-tected without his participation. See 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(1)(ii)". 3. Admission of the Contentions Will Broaden the Issues and Delay the Proceeding. The admission of Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA would sig-nificantly broaden the issues in this proceeding, with a corre-S sponding increase in proceeding time to-resolve all outstanding issues. The Board would be admitting broad contentions unrelated to any. issues which already have been litigated, and concerning which a' vast body of information is available for reviewandanalhsis. TO Moreover, the schedule for litigating the contentions pro- . posed by Mr. Eddleman'is completely unrealistic, if not face-t'ious.~jMr.Eddlemansuggeststhat'discoverycouldbecompleted by around the first of-May, with motions for summary disposi-tion filed in May and~ hearings, if necessary,. held b~y August.- (Continued) to doubt-his ability-to. contribute to a sound-record on the" proposed diesel' generator 1 contentions..See' Memorandum and ~ Order-(Ruling on1Certain Safety Contentions and Other' Matters) .(January 14,,1985), at 3 ("[T]he _ hearings on Mr.; Eddleman's: ~ lseveral safety. contentions 1sometimes left us with.the-feeling that he had~ spread himself.too thin.")f ~ a$. f-i Y".jk "1r I ~ - - - - -....,. - .e--..r.--ap--~.,~~.%-~.. + A 1. h.,. .S". a ': ~e

l As stated in Section D to Attachment A to Applicants' December 20, 1984 letter to the Staff, initial preoperational testing of the diesels is planned for May and June 1985, with inspections to be conducted from June to October 1985. Since Mr. Eddleman anticipates litigating the results of the testing and inspec-tion program, his proposed contentions would extend.the pro-ceeding at least into late 1985, and cohld conceivably affect fuel load, scheduled for March 1986. In sumr.ary, although the issue-of TDI diesel generators is not being pursued by any other intervenor in the proceeding (see 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(a)(1)(iv)) - and that one factor weighs in favor of Mr. Eddleman13/ - a balancing of the five factors for-determining whether to admit late-filed contentions weighs decisively against Eddleman proposed Contentions 178-AA and 179-AA. W. Factor - (iv) 'is probably.the ' least :important ' of Lthe. five slate intervention ~ criteria. Detroit Edison CompanyJ(Enrico-Fermi-Atomic-Power: Plant, Unit 2),.ALAB-707, 16:N.R.C. 1760, _ 1767M(1982). See also. South Carolina Electric ~&' Gas Company; (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642,'13.N.R~C. .:881, 895;(1981).,- c ?

• - = Ws@Schb

,W@e -- / - 9-MH Wh > & e ' W M WN WW&te.W W M W y em.9 $8,w' e#'-p' t TQ sw

• ee'r esk e M* geath W M $p-eW m+

Meig w w M 4e%eaer+e . we +h4 'NQmmsy**'W 4 -eM g"

III. CONCLUSION For all of the above reasons, Mr. Eddleman's proposed Con-tentions 178-AA and 179-AA should not be admitted to the pro-ceeding. Respectfully submitted, 'YY)it La.t) G. $ D i W Thomas A. Baxter, P. 6. John H. O'Neill, Jr., P.C. Michael A. Swiger SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &'TROWBRIDGE-1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 Richard E. Jones-

Dale E. Hollar CAROLINA' POWER'& LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North. Carolina-'276021 (919). 836-7707

' Counsel-for~ Applicants Dated: February 22,-1985 3 i e 1 h / e 20-c e = 1. 1 A ~ u 4 .-OMN

• • 'IOF

1. b

~,- deep.9 sdP4.- 4 WM_ c

EXHIBIT A 2150'00 01 25481 WRBeb 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 5 In the matter of: 6 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

Docket No. 50-322-1 (OL )

7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station): 8 9 State Of fice Building, 10 Veterans Memorial Highway, 11 Hauppauge, New York. i 12 Thursday, November 1, 1984. 13 The hearing in the above-entitled matter was 14 reconvened, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:00 a.m. 15 16 BEFORE: 17 JUDGE LAWRENCE BRENNER, Chairman, 18' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board. i. l 19 l 20 JUDGE PETER A. MORRIS, Member,. 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing ~ Board. 22 l 23 JUDGE GEORGE A.~FERGUSON, Member,. 24 Atomic Safety and : Licensing Board. 25 -(Not present. ) l m,s e __ =

2150 16 05 25647 { AGBpp 1 A That's correct. 2 Q And it's,also true, isn't it, that you don' t have 3 any experience with the design of large or medium sized 4 diesel engines aind particularly with the design of cylinder 5 blocks? 6 A That's correct. 7 Q You are not a registered or certified welding 8 engine, are you? 9 A No, I'm not. 10 Q Have you ever performed any welding on gray cast 11 iron class 407 12 A Yes, I would imagine I have. 13 Q When did you do that and how did you do it? 14 A My father had a welding shop and about 40 or 50 15 welders with him and I spent a lot of time there. 16 Q Dr. Anderson, are you a registered corrosion 17 engineer in any state in the United States? 18 A No. I have used up my professional licenses in 19 being a registered professional metallurgical engineer and 20 a nuclear engineer. Each one requires approximately 8'to.10 21 years of your experience which you can' t re-use. So.as soon 22 as I have had more experience I make up for that. 23 Q The State of California where you work does 24 register corrosion engineers, doesn't it? 25 A They recently have separated out such a' status

• -****--*eN e

-* pew-.,,,, ,,,_,,,,g -+...es e A ra. _m +

DgQED February 22, 1985 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA W M 26 21:i2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Bo V +.. In the Matter of ) < R. ryT ) $R' t,; " :f' - CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket--No ~50-400,OdZ1 c;. and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) ) (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ) Plant) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that copies of the foregoing "Appli-cants' Answer to Wells Eddleman's ' Diesel Generator Contentions and Information'" were served this 22nd day of February, 1985, by deposit'in the United States Mail, First Class, postage pre-paid, to all those on the attached Service List.- &fgjh h. t)OiW Michael A. Swiger F DATED: February 22, 1985 .1 g.. + .-,v.. . - +... ....._%m,.3 .,y,_,, ~ n. T.r = w .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ) ) CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) ) Shearon Harris Nuclear Power ) Plant) ) SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board Conservation Council'of. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Carolina Washington, D.C. 20555 307 Granville Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 12607 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Mr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C. 20555 LCharles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman . Janice E.' Moore, Esquire _ 718-A IredelltStreet-Office of Executive Legal Director-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission _ Durham, North Carolina ~ 27705 Washington, D.C.~ 20555-Docketing and Service Section Richard;E.LJones,-Esquire Office of the Secretary Vice President and Senior Counsel U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Commission Carolina Power & LightLCompany, 4 L Washington,~D.C. 20555 P.O. Box-1551' . Raleigh,' North-carolina.27602: Mr. Daniel F. Reed, President Dr. Linda W. Little-CHANGE -Governor's. Waste Management: Board - P.O. Box 2151 513 Albemarle Building- .Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 325. North Salisbury Street Raleigh,~ North Carolina ~ 27611 --~~,e-Em Um* ,e9 % y ,y,. .3,, v - <.e. -- em r a w w _f h i '._ -E. M u.' .ij

J Bradley W. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marrietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Mr. Robert P. Gruber Executive Director Public Staff - NCUC P.O. Box 991 'Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Administrative Judge Harry Foreman Box 395 Mayo University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 t 'b k Y t' 1 -Q' 5 :. w._ Aw -,,.d.. em., 2._,, .}}