ML19341C955

Requests Response on Behalf of Wi Public Svc Commission to Encl Wi Environ Decade Ltr Re Costs of Operating Facility W/ Radioactive Crud Buildup & Reactor Vessel Embrittlement. Verbal Comments Needed by 810227;written Comments by 810312

ML19341C955
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	02/23/1981
From:	Mendl J WISCONSIN, STATE OF
To:	Trammell C NRC
References
NUDOCS 8103040605
Download: ML19341C955 (3)

Text

.

l

&, - x-wo 6

.m.

Sinte of Wisconsin \ pustic siavice couuission s a STANLEY YORX. CHAIRMAN m .  ; 's\

ECWAR D M. PARSONS. JR., COMMISSION E R February 23, 1981

[Y m 43 9 _f 7

l~ 3 .}

ILLIE J. NUNN E RY, COMMISSION E R Hill Farms State Office Building

--i h n a; , Mwison, wisconsin 53702 W

~ '

73 (608)266-1241 Mr. Charles Trammell U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor:miss h.s u ?E33 '.

M}ii No.6630-CE-20 c,lail Stop 228 y t2 ;j 6 7

Phillips Building Washington, D.C. 20555 e

Dear Mr. Trammell:

Thank you for your February 11 answer to my letter of January 16, 1981. Your answers to our three questions were very informative and they have been used in the environmental screening.

We received one comment letter which requests the consideration of issues within your expertise in reply to our announcement of the screening action. The letter from Mr. Anderson of Wiscon-sin's Environmental Decade, Inc. suggested that we should con-sider two points which are within your expertise: (a) nuclear safety--the hacard of corroded steam generator tubes; and (b) the possible costs of operating a facility with radioactive crud buildup and reactor vessel embrittlement. We intend to address these points in the environmental screening document.

We have drafted a response to the first point and would like you to review that response.

We would appreciate your response to the second point. As I see it, there are two aspects to that concern: (a) the likeli-hood of radioactive crud buildup and reactor vessel embrittle-ment necessitating future repair actions at Point Beach Unit 1, and (b) the cost of any such repair actions.

Our timetable is rather tight. We have a prehearing conference set for February 27, 1981. We hope to prefile a completed environmental screening document with all parties on March 9, 1981. The present hearing dates are March 12 and 13, 1981.

We would appreciate receiving your comments verbally by February 27, and a written confirmation of those comments before March 12.

I have attached copies of Mr. Anderson's comment letter and our draft response to his first point.

If you have any questions, I welecme your calls at 608/266-5990.

o

d.10304ut. %

S cerely, fgo; A

CY'.'Ib Q Jerr7 E. Mendl /o _

WEPA Coordinator JEM/kaw Enclosure

cc

Sol Eurstein. WEPCO

i a -

Answer to'Mr. Anderson!s Letter:

A. With regard to your concern about the safety implications of corroded steam generator tubes.

1. If the steam generators are replaced, this concern

, becomes moot.

2. If sleeves are inserted into the existing steam genera-

. tor tubes, safe repair, startup, and operation procedures j are ensured through NRC oversight. If MRC's procedures

, are parallel to those for San Onofre Unit 1 in Califor-nia, we assume that review of return to power will involve a safety evaluation. The HRC scaff have con-cluded, in the San Onofre case, that sleeving is a sound repair technique (letter of November 28, 1980 from Dennis M. Crutchfield co Mr. R. Dietch and attached

" Interim Assessment" Docket 50-206).

3. If the no action alternative is chosen, NRC staff have informed PSC staff that "as long as the required analy-ses are performed and acceptance criteria mat, the risk or severity of an accident would not be increased as the number of steam generator tubes plugged increases from 127. to 30%"(letter of February 11, 1981 from Robert A.

Clark to Jerry E. Mendl). PSC staff analysis indicates that this alternative would be more costly and more environmentally damaging than the sleeving or replace-ment options, and thus a less desirable choice.

f Further, the NRC staff prepared Safety Evaluation Reports Related to' Steam Generator Tube Degradation Due to Deep Crevice Corrosion on November 30, 1979 and April 4, 1980.

Even if some tubes collapse during a postulated LOCA,

, the resulting leakage would be tolerable. In Appendix A of this document, if the crack is 10 inches below the

, top surface of the tubesheet and if a guillotine rupture occurs .5 inches below the top of the tubesheet, " a very large number of tubes must be simultaneously broken in a guillotine manner to induce a large total in-leakage Qi300 gpm) to be of concern regarding the steam binding

, effect." "Thus, the concern in the Wisconsin's Environ-mental Decade's Petition of November 14 and 26, 1979, regarding the APS study of steam binding is not an applicable concern in this case."

4. The 1981 retirement of Point Beach Unit 1 would also make your concern moot.

I w

- ,- -- , , +- . , - - ,-e- ---,e---p-,w g -< 4 -,n---

- e yptte t 4gv

- STAFF

' BOARD C# C4PECTCRS

.- Prof. John Neess, ExEcWit crtc?ce

, M..Jecnne CeRose. cMWrOSoN , --

Peter Anderson, uc musonct, Peter Ancerson Cr. Unco Mctsace Soencer Becck. vtcat ecycis cecoc%atcc Prof. George Becker Prcf. John Neess Mcry coGozzoci. ,merco ca cwiepvev VOC*nt Hotness Achcrd Presnell Kcttveen Fc'k. Esq.. csvtat ccwn Sheryt Imermon Nichces Secy. Esc. Morgeret Thorroson, sco-!u.ttin tatco Heien Jacces Thomes von ANeo Dorothy Legerroos vetoro wc' son ,

Jucan Lrcsov Anne wereerg Rcte8e Usse Jomes Woife 302 East was.vg'on AveNe voosen. Wiscor'.s.n 53703 (608) 25b7C2O ,y February 2, 1981 cjo hj 5

PUBLIC SERVICE C0511SSION OF WISCONSIN Att: Sarah Jenkins ,4 4802 Sheboygan Avenue c ~2 Madison, Wisconsin 53702 a .;

. :. b Re: Wisconsin Electric Power Co:pany 7. ~

PSCW Docket 6630-CE-20  %,

$ C3 Krn (Screening Comments)

• h

Dear Ms. Jenkins:

0

. G5 Reference is made to your letter dat+_d January 20, 1981, requesting 3 comments on the environmental screening worksheet in the above-matter.

The primary comment that we would cake from reading your letter is that three najor facters appear to have been emitted in bala.ncing the costs and benefits of continued operation of Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1.

First, nuclear safety issues must be considered. Your attention is directed to the 1975 report of the American Physical Society which concluded that corroded steam generator tubes "could induce essentially uncoolable conditions in the course of a loss-of-coolant-accident".

Second, impending costs cf centinued operation of the facility must also be considered. Your attention is directed to growing concerns that radio-active crud buildup and reactor vessel e brittlement will cause further sub-stantial repair costs by the twentieth yea; of plant operation.

Third, conservation must be cos;eidered 's an alternative reans of meeting power demands that would otherwise be met by the unit were it to be shut down.

If you would like further detail in regard to any of these matters, pictse do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

- s WISCONSI?S 2NVIR0RIENT1<bOECADE, INC.

/ 3 -

P it.R A.. uSON Public Affairs Officer PA/cm  %. coo ~ e .-

- _