ML20011A667

Answer to Licensee 811008 Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 3-6.Listed Factual Contentions Must Be Resolved Prior to Decision on Licensee Motion for Interim Relief

ML20011A667
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	10/23/1981
From:	Falk K WISCONSIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8110290256
Download: ML20011A667 (5)

Text

m

e. '

u gnr. u WED-10/24/81-50 266 NRC. P07 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA- 'S E.T 26 P1 :04 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION c F!CE F SEORETARV tra;ED'tG ?, SERVICE Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board E*;AI h

[

Wisconsin Electric Power Company POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS-l & 2

[ [g

/g

%*4 Docket Nos. 50-266 and 50-301 OCT 2,m 8ucoi 1981* '.3 Operating License Amendment 3; y ,#"" ~

(Steam Generator Tube Sleeving Program).4 DECADE'S ANSWER TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DI #

and N 01 DECADE' S STATEMENT OF FACTUAL CONTENTIONS WHICH MUST BE RES VED PRIOR TO A DECISION ON THE LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR INTERIM RELIEF By document dated October 8, 1931, the Licensee fdled a

" Motion f or Summary Disposition of Decade Contentions 3 - 6 As Related to Interim Operation of Unit 1".

By Memorandum and Order, dated October 13, 1981, the Board admitted the Decade's Contentions 3, 4, 5 and 7, and Contentions 1, 2, and 10, with certain conditions (" Order").

By oral statement at the October 20, 1981, the Chairman indicated with reference to the aforesaid m3 tion that the Decade should show the relevancy of its contentions to the sleeving demonstration project. Tr. 154.

This filing is respectfully submitted to the Board to show the relevancy of the original Decade Contentions to the sleeving demonstration program and, thereby, also show the need f or an evidentiary hearing prior to any decision o the Licensee's motion f or interim relief. It shall also serve as the Decade's 8110290256 811023 d %

PDR ADOCK 05000266 T) J g\

PDR J ,

Q _.

. answer to the Licensee's motion for summary disposition.

Contention 3 Contention 3 relates to the impairment of the integrity of the original tube caused by the weld or braze with ~ the sleeve.

By letter dated September 24, 1981, we provided the preliminary basis f or this contention with ref erence to the Licensee's own admission in other proceedings. The Board's Order not only concludes that a suf ficient basis f or a hearing was shown, but that the Intervenor made a contention that was more detailed than necessary to justify a hearing. Order, at pp. 4 to 5.

Contention 3 ,

is equally relevant to the demonstration program as it is to the full scale sleeving program because the same braze or weld process will be used in both cases. Thus, the same potential for impairment of the integrity of the tubes exists. The only distinguishing fact is that the demonstration program will involve six tubes and the f ull scale program may involve more than 1,000 tubes. But, independent scientists have concluded that it only requires the rupture of one to ten tubes during a loss-of-coolant-accident to raise the possibility of ,

uncoolable conditions. Egg Report to the American Physical Society by the Study Group on Light Water Reactor Safety, 47 Review d Modern Physics (Supp. 1), at S85- S91. Staff has acknowledged the validity of these studies. Hgg Division of-Operating Reactors, Evaluation d Steam Generator Tube Rupture Events, NUREG-0651(March 1980), at pp. 1 to 2. Therefore, Contention 3 is also relevant to-the demonstration program.

Contention 4 Contenticn 4 relates to the potential for a new corrosive

~* .

environment in the annulus between the sleeve and the tube.

Decade's September 24, 1981, letter provided a preliminary, basis for this contention with reference to a similar concern expressed by the Staff. The Board's- Order concludes that a sufficient basis has been shown to justify a hearing on this issue. Egg Order, at p.-5.

The same reasoning that shows the relevance of Contention 3 to the demonstration p;ogram applies with equal force to Contention 4, because the demonstration program will not do anything different from the full scale program that would eliminate the annules.

Contention 5 Contention 5 relates to the deterioration of ~ eddy current test results in a sleeved tube. The preliminary basis f or this contention was included in the Decade's September 24, 1981,_

letter, and the Board's Order ruled that it was sufficiently supported to warrent a hearing. Egg Order, at p. 5.

Again, this is a matter which relates to the demonstration program for the same reasons as described with respect to the other contentions.

Contention 6 Contention 6 relates to the reduction in the flow of primary core water. The Board denied this contention, Egg Order, at 6, notwithstanding the basis provided in the Decade's September 24, 1981.

We believe that the Board's reasoning for denying Contention 6 is based upon incorrect facts.

While we intend to formally request the Board to reconsider its ruling as soon as time permits, this ' contention would not -

relate to the demonstration program even if it is subsequently admitted for the full scale sleeving program. This is because the reduction in primary core flow would only occur at such time as a large number of tubes are sleeved.

Contention 7 Contention 7 relates to the problem of conducting sleeving with " jumpers". This contention was supported with bases in our September _ 24,.-1981, letter, and admitted by the Board. f re r,t O r d e r at p. 6.

To the extent that the demonstration program will be performed by " jumpers", the contention applies to the sleeving of six tubes just as it would to 1,000 tubes, for the reasor.s described above. To the extent that it subsequently develops that this is not the case, then this contention would not bear on the motion for interim relief such as to require an evidentiary hearing.

DATED at Madison, Wisconsin, this 23 rd day of October, 1981.

WISCONSIN'SE!NIRONMENTAL DECADE, INC.

l

• LW h.

KATHLEEN M. FALK Director of Legal Affairs KMF/cm-P: 50 266 NRC. P07 L

,,o 7~-

00CKETED USNRC SERVICE LIST Peter B. Bloch, Chairman. 4 OUT 26 ' P105 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission C Washington, D. C. 20555 hohg[ NG & SkRh BRANCH Dr. Hugh C Paxton 1229 - 41s6 Street Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 +

Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Docketing & Service .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

~

Mr. Richard Bachmann, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Mr. Bruce W. Churchill, Esq.

1800 M Street N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 O