ML19210E478

Reply in Opposition to Wi Environ Decade 791114 Petition Requesting Issuance of Order to Prevent Reopening of Facility After Current Refueling Cycle.Petition Presents No Basis for Safety Risk Allegation.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19210E478
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	11/27/1979
From:	Charnoff G WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7912050087
Download: ML19210E478 (10)

Text

, .

c3 y c) coamo BEFORE THE ""'C

/

- 6 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  : 27 ;g73 3 {

D 7 Tc; d a. t~r sN, -jo uz In the Matter of Wisconsin ) g Electric Power Company ) Docket No. 50-266 g, ,

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1)

LICENSEE'S REPLY TO FILINGS BY WISCONSIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE In a Petition, dated November 14, 1979, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade (hereinafter referred to as " Decade")

requested the Nuclecr Regulatory Commission to enter an Order enjoining Wisconsin Electric Power Company (hereinafter referred to as "WEPCO") "from re-opening" Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, at the end of its present refueling cycle.

Licensee understands that the Commission referred the Petition to the Staff to consider under 10 CFR S 2.206, but requested a briefing by the Staff prior to its response to the Petition.

Thereafter, a meeting was held by the NRC Staff on November 20 with WEPCO, Decade, and a representative of the Wisconsin Public Service Commission to discuss the recent steam generator experience at Point Beach, Unit 1. (There had been an earlier meeting, on November 5, initiated by WEPCO, with she Staff to consider the same matter. That meeting preced ed the Decade's Petition, which was based in large measure on tha notes of that first meeting). In any event, at the November 20 meeting, WEPCO presented more detailed information on the steam generator 1501 307 7912050() j

tube matter. This presentation was confirmed in writing by WEPCO in a filing dated November 23, 1979.

Finally, on November 26 in a filing described as a Response to WEPCO's November 23 submittal, Decade again petitioned for an Order to WEPCO "not to reopen the plant" until after an adjudicatory hearing is convened to " investigate the safety problems resultant from the severe steam generator tube degradation problems currently experienced at Point Beach 1."

We are aware that the Commission's rules do not contemplate a reply to a Petition filed under Secticn 2.206. Nevertheless, we respectfully request leave of the Commission to file this submittal in reply to Decade's saccad Petition, which, of course, is also not contemplated by the Commission's Section 2.206 process.

Section 2.206 and its related provisions set out the process under which a member of the public may petition the Staff to request a suspension or modifica*. ion of an outstanding NRC license authorization. These provisions allow for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause, a hearing thereon, and for immediate effectiveness of a suspension or modification of a license authorization where the public health and safety or the public interest so requires. We respectfully submit that the Decade Petition (s) amount to nothing more than a selective, and often inaccurate, account of information already before the Commission 150I 308

and its Staff. There is no demonstration in the Petition that, if a public hearing were convened, it could present or adduce any technical information not presently before the Commission or its Staff. And, certainly, the potpourri of selective -- and often inaccurate -- representations in the Petitions present no basis for a determination that the public health and safety or the s public interest requires any summary suspension of the licensing authorization to operate the Point Beach unit.

Decade's Second Petition Economic Benefit Although captioned as a response to WEPCO's November 23 submittal to the Staff, fully fifty percent, Pages 2-7, of Decade's Second Petition is devoted to argument contending that there would be little economic gain from continued operation of Point Beach Unit 1.

We will not belabor this point here in deference to the Commission's many assertions that its safety mandate limits its consideration of economics and need for power as offsetting matters.

It will suffice to record, however, that WEPCO's November 23, 1979 submittal, to which Decade's Second Peti': ion is denominated a response, contained no discussion of need for power or economic benefit. The Decade filing of November 26 in this respect is not a responsive filing at all. Second, in a current Public Service i!P61 309

Commission of Wisconsin investigation of the economic aspects of the Point Beach matter, WEPCO has introduced sworn testimony showing that if Point Beach Unit 1 were out of service for a full year, consumers would incur increased costs of about 93 million dollars, substantially more than that inferred from Decade's petition. Moreover, the author of Decade's economic presentation has declined to testify and appear for cross-examination on these matters in that Commission's proceedings.

Safety Concerns We won't here argue the basis for our conclusion that continued operation of Point Beach Unit 1 will not present any undue risk to the public health and safety. This is set forth in WEPCO's submittal of November 23, 1979 to Mr. Denton. We respectfully urge the Commission to give that document the complete technical weight it deserves.

In contrast to the WEPCO submittal, the Decade Petition presents no technical information, let alone any new information.

Rather, its safety concerns presentation consists initially, at Pages 7-8, of selective and inaccurate statements of Point Beach steam generator chemistry. For example, the Decade Petition, while citing WEPCO's letter, asserts that in 1974 certain action was taken "in order to save money." That statement is not true and was not made in the reference cited. Nor is it true, as alleged by Decade, that the 1975 tube failure was attributed to 164f 310

residual phosphate "that would have been removed had the changeover to AVT been done by shutting the plant down." The citation by Decade to tne November 20, 1979 meeting is inaccurate. Such a statement was not made at the meeting.

In any event, these selective statemen':s were not made by Decade to present any safety concern; rather they were explicitly presented only to aver that WEPCO and Westinghouse representations should not be relied upon. They provide no technical information on which the Commission can conclude that there is an immediate threat to health and safety or public interest requiring immediate suspension of the Point Beach Unit 1 operating authorization.

Following these assertions, Decade presents, on Pages 9-11, the 1975 position of the American Physical Society (APS) with respect to the interaction of the Emergency Core Cooling System Acceptance Criteria and steam generator tube integrity.

The APS was concerned that in the event of rupture of steam generator tubes coincident with a LOCA, secondary side steam would interfere with blowdown and reflooding by ECCS. The tube degradation problem at Point Beach under current review is confined to the crevice areas within the tube sheet. Because of the configuration of the tube sheet, a tube collapse therein cannot occur during a LOCA or otherwise. Thus, the APS concern is not applicable to the matter under review here. The Decade statement, 1661 311

on Page 9, that the APS considers "the degradation to be a ' serious problem'" is inapposite here and disingenuous.

Decade chooses to ignore the absence of evidence that the general intergranular attack tube degradation extends above the tube sheet, where incidentally, the crevice is not present.

While citing Viewgraph 22, attached to WEPCO's letter of November 23, for its contention that a break within .15 inches of the top may result in the tube being pulled out during a steam line break, Decade ignores all other metallurgical and test data in Viewgraphs 5, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 23, which concluded that the corrosion was limited to the tube sheet crevice area.

Decade also fails to note that Viewgraph 22 is referring to circumferential cracks and at the November 20 meeting, it was specifically noted that there is no evidence of circumferential cracking in the Point Beach Unit. Decade's selectivity allows it to ignore this salient fact. Consistent with its selective presentation of its recollection of the November 20 meeting, Decade's Petition also failed to acknowledge that NRC Staff consultant, C. Parczewski, presented information at the November 20 meeting with respect to this APS concern. He said that it would require at least 1300 GPM secondary-to-primary leakage to increase significantly the peak clad temperatare during an accident. This rould approximate at least 4 to 5 guillotine tube breaks.

16W)I 312

Decade proceeds to argue at Pages 10-11 that continued cperation at reduced levels may shift the degradation above the tube sheet. Notwithstanding Decade's notes, WEPCO did not state that the sludge level is " increasing" from 6 to 8 inches. WEPCO said the sludge level was "about" 6 to 8 inches.

Decade's consideration of the American Physics Society 1975 report and Decade's unfounded speculation that degradation has occurred or will occur above the tube sheet provides no basis for concluding that there .us an immediate health and safety hazard at Point Beach Unit 1 or public interest justifying summary suspension of the Point Beach Unit 1 operating authorization.

Decade's quotation from NUREG-0523, Page 9 of its Second Petition, is misplaced. That quotation references the denting phenomenon and severe stress corrosion. The issue at Point Beach Unit 1 is not a denting phenomenon and the corrosion of concern is intergranular corrosion in the tube sheet crevice. There is no basis -- other than Decade's misunderstanding -- for Decade's assertion that the " rate of stress corrosion at Point Beach 1 is the worst of any reactor in the country."

Finally, Decade urges that the burst tests results should not be credited because they were performed under static conditions and were not dynamic tests. Decade also contends that the tests have no application "to the extent that future tube degradation moves or extends above the tube sheet." As noted above, the corrosion is limited to the tube sheet crevice area. This was 154)I 313

ignored by Decade. This conclusion is not affected by whether the tests were static or dynamic. Moreover, the dynamic stresses during the accident would be small, and therefore, would not significantly affect the subs'antial margins above accident conditions demonstrated by the static tests.

In summary, Decade's Petition presents much inaccurate information and no information not previously presented before the NRC.

We respectfully submit that Decade's Petition presents no technical basis for a finding that there is an immediate health and safety risk or a public interest which requires that Point Beach Unit l's operating authorization be suspended or withdrawn.

The Petition should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, M c' f_ /' 1 a /'

Gerald Charnoff /s l'ir',

Counsel for Wisconsin Electric Power Company Date: November 27, 1979 1$6I314

t .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

Wisconsin Electric Power Company ) Docket No. 50-266

)

Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Reply to Filings by Wisconsin's Environmental Decade," dated November 27, 1979, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List, in the Washington, D. C. area by hand delivery, and upon all others by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, all on this 27th day of November, 1979.

{'n,,<//evv/w,:-.

r /

/ Jdy E. Silberg (

ig6[ 315

t UNITED STATES OF AMFRICA NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )

)

Wisconsin Electric Power Company ) Docket No. 50-266

)

Po16t Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 )

SERVICE LIST Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Marian E. Moe, Esquire Office of General Counsel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Kathleen M. Falk, Esquire Wisconsin's Envionmental Decade, Inc.

114 East Mifflin Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703 kh