ML20081C509

Contention on Transamerica Delaval Diesel Generators Re Model Dsrv 12.Model Cannot Be Relied Upon to Perform Requisite Safety Function

ML20081C509
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	03/04/1984
From:	Stamiris B STAMIRIS, B.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
OL, NUDOCS 8403140119
Download: ML20081C509 (3)

Text

-__

ja e

DC'.KETE:,

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM41SSION UNO

'84 MAR 12 All :48 In the matter of Docket Nosi:50-329 OL C.P.Co. Midland Plant CCCH'j501330.ot Units 1 and 2 Dr^ M BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD .

3/4'/8'4 '.

STAMIRIS'O*.'Li CONTENTICE ON TRANSAMERICA DELAVEL DIESEL GENERATORS In documents dated February 13 and 15,1984,- the NRCJstaff has compiled findings and summarized conclusions regarding the TDI diesel generators supplied to nuclear plants. Based on these reports and conclusions, intervenor Stamiris contends that because of the problems identified with TDI emergency diesel generators, thermddel DSRV 12 diesel generator engines from TDI can not be relied upon to perform their requisite safety function at the Midland plant.

The Februrary 15,1984 (docket nos. 50-416, 50-312) document contains a 1/25/84 Policy Issue (secy-84-34) which concludes "During the course of the evaluation of the failure and the repairs of the Shoreham EDGs, information related to the operating historyof TDI engines and the CA program of the manufacturer has been identified which calls into cuest fon the reliability of all TDI diesels. " (p.1)

Also , "The staff believes that before additional licensing action is taken to authorite the operation of a nuclear power plant with TDI engines, these issues t, relating to CA, operating experience,

• 8403140119 840304 gDRADOCK 05000329 PDR (_

] [o '

, and the ability of the machines to reliably perform their intended funct f on, must be addressed. " (p.2)

The February 13, 1984 B.N.84-021 compiles NRC TDI inspection reports from 3/79 to 7/83. These reports contain eatensive notices of deviations, nonconformancegtandntiolations of NRC ~ regulations ty ::t byc TDI which confirm the failure of TDI to properly implement their OA program or to properly inform the Comadssion under 10CFR Part 21 of certain failures and defects.'3 VIrlations).'.

The February 13, 1984 B.N.84-020 reports on a 1/26/84 TDI -

NRC meeting and includes other summary reports on TDI enginets oper-ating experience to date.. The listing of significant problems to date at the San Onof re '1, Grand Gulf, and Shorehen plants, as well as non- nuclear experiences confirm the inability of the TDI gener-ators to perform reliably and safely. (enclosure 3)

The transcript of the 1/26/84 meeting confirms the NRC's lack of confidence in the TDI generators.(p21, 22)aand cuestions the TDI owners group approach to solving the identified problems (p46). When asked by Mr. Denton whethe.r the group had considered "just replacing the engine with one of the different design",the reply was "We don't have a group to considor replacement of design. Replacement of engine is a very long tenn project. This (chosen approach) is something we can do over a period of months as opposed to a period of years. "(p47)

The TDI diesel generators were installed at the Midland plant 1 in the fall of 1979, prdor to NRC approval of the then recently completed surcharge at the!DOB, with the explanation that they could ,

l be . removed if necessary at a later date. Unless the appilcant elects l 1

to replace the cuestionable diesel generators, the combined' effect'

,e, , ,, ,, ,---w- , . , , , , , . - . . . . . , , , . .

3_

of the TDI generator problems with the so!! related structural and differehtf al settlement problems of the OM proceeding and the recent IOCER 50.55(e) report 83-14 (1/13,30/ 84) results in a very unreliable back up power system. The 55(e) report indicates " requirements for differential settlement between the DGB structure and DG pedestals were not accounted for in the design of the piping, eaufpment, conduits,

~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '

and pipe supports."

o Whether considered in conjunction with the aforementioned soll settlement problems, or considered seperately, tha record in the Mid-land Ilcensing proceedings canngt be considered complett without ASI.B attention to the TDI-QA androperating1&b111ty11ssuesFaddrisiede16.this' contention and its supporting NRC documents. Cleveland Perry Plant Memorandum and Order (New Contentions on Diesel Generators), Cleveland Ele,ctric_I11malnat ing Co. et al (Perry Nuclear Power Plant ),' LBP ' 83-80, ,

18 NRC at . , Dec. 23,83, slip opinion at 2-5. n , Sand: Men:or.andums (Adequacy of Record: Dele. vel Diesel Generators), Texas Utilft,le,s_.-

General Co. et al (Cosanche Peak' Steam Electric Stations Units.1&2)',.

LBP 84- ,, 18 NRC at __,,(Jan. 31,84), slip opinion.

In the event that this contention is accepted, intervenor . .

requests that appropriate discovery be a11 owed against the parties, vendor, contractors and consultants at a time and in a manner of the Board's discretion. ORDER SCHEDULING DOCUMENT REQUESTS CN SUFFOLK COUNTY PROPOSAL SUPPORTING DIESEL GENERATOR CONTENTIONS, Long_I,s t,and_ l Light Co. (Shoreham Unit 1), slip opinion, (Feb. 2, 84)

Respectfully Submitted C O arties N NRC Secretary Barbara stamiris 5795 N. River Freeland, Mich. 48623 ,

l

-.