ML20031B669
| ML20031B669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/01/1981 |
| From: | Bloch P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD), WISCONSIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110050377 | |
| Download: ML20031B669 (10) | |
Text
4/r%
ll (13 20
-4 GCTjy'g;,jg*1
~
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g-Ofr,
0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
y 6
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD g
4
-4 Before Administrative Judges:
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Jerry R. Kline Hugh C. Paxton SERVED OCT 21981 5
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWEii COMPANY
)
Docket Nof # %
'h,
(Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
)
M
[l V
October lh198fCT g jgg Y33 J
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
l-2 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ED REQUESThiG ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
/Y/fy s3 On September 28, 1981, ApplicantfiledaMotionforAuthorizatiorN6]b',
Interim Operation of Unit 1 with Steam Generator Tubes Sleeved Rather than Plugged. Neither petitioner nor Staff have yet had the five days we allotted to them for a response. However, we find that this filing contains insufficient information and we have therefore framed a series of requests i
for aaaitional information which will help us to decide the question on its merits.
Since we do not believe that any party's rights will be prejudiced by ordering a response to these requests for informatio~n, we are issuing these requests subject to comment by all parties.
Unless we are persuaded otherwise, failure to respond to these questions could result in an adverse determination concerning facts or legal conclusions.
We recognize that this Board action, taken even before we have decided whether or not to grant the intervention petitiom filed by I
950 s
, fD 8110050377 811001 PDR ADOCK 05000266 O
y Request for Information: 2 s
s Wisconsin's Environmental Decade (Decade), is extraordinary action.
T However, this is no ordinary case, as the ensuing chronology documents.
I BACKGROUND OF THE CASE On July 2, 1981, Wisconsin Electric Power Company (WE) asked the Office of Nuclear Reactur Regulation to amend the licenses _for Units 1 and 2 (Point Beach). WE's license requires it to plug tubes in its steam generator when the walls of the tubes have been degraded by more than 40 percent of their original thickness. The amendment seeks parmission to insert new tubes or " sleeves" inside of the defective tubes and to operateN the reactor with sleeved rather than plugged tubes. Thd. sleeving would s occur in two parts: a demonstration involving up to 12 tubes to be sleeved in the fall of 1981 and a program involving about 1,000 tubes to be sleeved in March 1982.
i A.
Claims Concerning Urgency
's WE urges substantial urgency for the treatment of its application.
s, In particular, it requests approval of the, amendment in time to conduct tae-sleeving demonstration program "during the Point Beach Unit 1 fall refueling outage." The WE assertion of urgency was reiterated in a September 18 filing requesting issuance of a hearing schedule to assure completion of the' proceeding by March 16, 1982.
Even greater urgency is sought because of
-1 WE's most recent request, for interim operation of Poin.t ' Beach Unit 1 with slceved tubes, following a refueling outage scheduled to begin on October 9,_
bl
- 1981, s'
w
\\
1 1
! 's t
\\-1
\\i
\\
i
\\
.s s
1 s
.x 4
(
I r
- F.equest for Information: 3 a
n
?..
~
Decadd equested a hearing in a filing of July 20, 1981, antedating the NRC's publicat @n gf federal register notice which announced the opportunityforahedhg.
46 Federal Register 40359 (August 7, 1981).
w~
Decade vehemently contestsw the need for expediting this hearing,
.x
\\
stating:
Steam ~ generator ~ tube degradation and sleeving programs have been the subject of' intense controversy in tnis country, sufficient to alert dhe Licensa of the possible necessity for a hearing.
If the
\\
Licensee dd.not file its application in time for the normal
.\\
procedures to run their due course, then it is not in a position to requet an abbreviated schedule that restricts the rights of others.
s 3
ThiQs especia,lly the case when the other party has extremely 1
C - r-1-twitCd finam.idl resources and when shorr.er time periods effectively
)
act to bar mewingful pub}1: participation.
It shc0ld be noted, vs well, that the licensee makes no claim that there'is any compelling n9ed to complete the sleeving program for Point Beach Unit 2 in March 1982, other than the f act that this
+
?
- apparentQ is the time which has been scheduled for the overhaul. A aptter cf ' apparent convenience to the Licensee is not a sufficient m
q' grogad.tosoverride a matter of medhingful participation for members
~
cf st'ni pubJic; this is especially true in a case involving a
,,N
'~
y cndroversic.1 oroject of the' size and nature proposed by the
+
s
. Lisensee.
x1 N
nterven6P'.) Respu
.a to Licensee's Proposed Hearing Schedule at 2-3.
,7 o
y S,
y s.
- 4. (
\\
l
\\
s B.
Jh( Board's Approach,
f On September 16, 1981, the Bogr0 held an on-the-record telephone V.
conference for the purpose of clarifying the status of the case and working s
\\
[
out procedures for the, fair cyi expe<'itious handling of the proceeding.
i During the coiiferenq a number of steps were taken in order to i
attempt to expedite the proceedisq. One step was to authorize WE to file an 2
" interim, motion with supporting information, affidavits if necessary, to show th'at "there is no problem with this sleeving program." Tr. 8.
The s
' supporting infor diion was intended to in ude " full documents on the L
u-s s
s
(< w] ?*
i t
Y
.v.-
=.
_,._.__-,.-...y
.. _ - -. ~
I.
a s,
/
Request for Inferiution: 4 i
~
amerviment, including [a]... Westinghouse study" being prepared for 7
r l,
3, Applicant. Tr. 6, 17.
p i
We conducted oral argument, subject to subsequent briefing, I
concerning the relevance to the proceeding of three of Decade's contentions.
L j
Tr. 29-37.
During the Conference the parties agreed that the issue of
, wh'atherhnottheStaffmustprepareanEnvironmentalImpactAnalysr ould
- f te' hel'd open until the Staff decide / whether or not to prepare one. i.r. 46-
)
4F.- We ordered the parties to facilitate discovery by discussing i
"everything that is available and relevant." Tr. 49-50. We set deadlines 4
l /
e for the filfng of a request for scheduling the hearing and for responses to
\\
j-that request. Tr. 21-26.
j Both WE and Staff have conceded that Decade has standing to inter-l vene. Tr. 41, 55.
The Board agrees.
However, K and Staff object to the l
lack of basis for Decade's contentions. The Board invited a fast-track i
f particularization of the contentions, based on Decade's representations that i
further basis was availab k.
Tr. 62.
We even established a procedure by which WE and Staff might waive their rights to respond to the basis that was to be offered.
Tr. ?i. However, on September 28, 1981, we we' int)rmed that WE would not waive that right; so we are awaiting its response.
Meanwhile,'with Applicant's support (Tr. 57) and opposition from both Staff (Tr. 72) ar.d Decade (Tr. 61, 64.), we also ordered that discovery
/
could commence even before a decision was reached on the admissibility of contentions. At the time, we anticipated that the matter of basis could be rapidly decided in petitioner's favor.
Now, however, WE insists on responding, so that presumption is no longer called for. Hence, discovery k
Request for Info mation: 5 i
shall not be had against Decade.
But it would continue to expedite the proceeding by permitting to allow Decade to propound discovery requests to WE. Although this will involve some risk of wasted expense should Decade not be admitted as a party, we are hopeful that it will nevertheless proceed to use this authorization.
The Commission's procedural rules are designed for fair and efficient proceedings. Ordinarily, those rules should be used as helpful tools. When we deviate, as we do in this case, we do so because those usual procedurai tools will not provide us with the timely decision that is required.
However, in our innovations, we are cautious because we do not wish to compromise any party's rights to a fair proceeding.
Consequently, we will be receptive to any serious claim of prejudice from our unorthodox methods.
Simultaneously, we will be grateful to parties who join us in a cooperative spirit that seeks to determine this case on its merits and avoid unnecessary adversary squabbles.
In this case, we expect to be particularly sensitive to petitioner's procedural rights because we agree with Decade that the need for expedition has been created by WE, which delayed filing its amendment only because of its incorrect assumption that a hearing would not be necessary.
(Tr.16.)
In fact, WE's plans concerning sleeving were formulated well before its filing and have already been the subject of a decision of Wisconsin's Public Service Commission.
Investigation...into the...Ratemaking Effects of Steam Generator Degradation, etc., Public Service Commission of Wisconsin, 6630-UI-?, 6630-CE-20, 6630-ER-10 (August 11,1981).
l Request for Information: 6 t
II. THE BOARD'S QUESTIONS In this overall setting, the Board must decide how to attempt to i
reach a fair determination concerning an interim order before October 9 and concerning the full Amendment Application by early March, without l
compromising any party's rights.
With that in mind, we carefully read WE's i
request for interim relief and the accompanying Point Beach Steam Generator Sleeving. Report for Wisconsin Electric Power Company, WCAP-9960 i
(proprietary)(WestinghouseReport).
The Westinghouse Report and WE request left us with a series of unanswered questions. Ordinarily, answers would be obtained by waiting for Staff analysis, Decade's response and WE's clarifications.
However, there 1
is no time for such a delay.
To wait would be to moot the WE request.
I Hence, we have decided to propound our questions immediately. We believe
]
that this procedure will be helpful to Decade but that this assistance is permissible because it results from our concern'for necessary expeditior.
rather than from an attempt to assist an intervenor.
Staff's rights also i
should not be prejudiced, since Staff will have the opportunity to ask questiens of its own and to help to provide answers to the Board's questicas.
(We do not consider these questions to be sua sponte issues requiring Commission notification.)
We urge WE to respond fully to our questions. Any, full response will a
suffice, including a cross-reference to a portion oi" the WestinSnouse Report which may have escaped our notice. Our questions are thcse:
(1)
Descrite fully the demonstration you are proposing to conduct and its importance to the overall sleeving project. More specifically, what techniques are to be tested, what empirical L..
Request for Information: 7 l
E t
information will be collected and how will the data be evaluated?
(2)
What basis is there for believing that the demonstration is sufficiently safe to proceed without full discovery and a hearing? In particular, what problems might arise if from 6 to 12 tubes involved in sleeving were to shear?
(3)
What is the basis for the statement in 4.1.2(section i
references are to the Westinghouse Report) concerning the tube-to-tubesheet weld?
(Some of these questions may be difficult to understand without reference to arguably confidential information contained in the Westinghouse Report.)
(4)
With how much force is the sleeve driven into the tube? What happens if there is an obstruction in the tube? (s4.2.1.)
(5)
Is it possible for the internai dimension of the sleeve to be too large? If so, what is done to remedy the situation.
( 4.3.)
1 (6)
Will all the joints be measured during the demonstration?
(5 4.6.1, 4.6.2.)
What criteria will be applied to decide whether the sample size should be increased in light of preliminary results? (
4.6.1,4.6.2.)
(7)
What is the basis for the conclusion of "no significant effect" i
on page 4.177 (8)
Has provision been made to adjust processing of tubes if they are crooked? ( 5.1.)
How, if at all, will crookedness affect tube preparation or insertion?
l (9)
What is the basis for believing it to be safe to conduct a demonstration program before testing is completed? (
6.1.3.1, 6.1.3.2; Tables 6.1-11,6.1-3.)
1 l
(10) How, if at all, do the tests now being performed on the sleeves and joints differ from tests performed for initial licensing?
Please explain any differences.
(11) One of five samples appears to have experience axial translation at 1610 lbs. and the range of test results was almost equal to tha average. Are these test results consistent with safety?
(Table 6-16>)
Please compare these results to Task M4 in Appendix A.
(12) Has there been any corrosive weakening of the joints between the tubes and tubesheet?
Request for Information: 8 i
i (13) Has there been any shearing or rupturing of tubes in Units 1 j
and 2 or in similar steam generators located elsewhere?
(14) Please explain the basis for using the adjective i
" unrealistically" on p. 6.61 and for believing that the substituted calculation is realistic.
(15) Are we correct in assuming that Westinghouse is planning maintenance procedures to reduce the number of personnel / hours of exposure and not merely to " provide for the minimum number of personnel." ( 8.0.)
4 (16) How much corrosion can be expected in normal operation in crevices which may occur between a corroded outside tube and the sleeve?
(17) For how long a time are the sleeves expected to function?
(18) On what date did WE inform the State of Wisconsin Public Service Commission of its interest in sleeving tubes in its l
l (19) What is the legal basis for us to issue an Order for Interim Operation before completion of the full hearing process?
l III FURTHER PROCEEDINGS q
Although our questions may advance discovery and expedite the proceeding, there still remains the task of fashioning a method to satisfy 4
the legitimate procedural reaeds of the parties.
First, we plan to act expeditiously on the admission of contentions i
i upon receipt of WE's response.
Second, we encourage Decade to make immediate use of the discovery
/
l process, even before it is admitted as a party.
Third, we solicit comments from the parties concernir.g the following procedural plan, which we expect to implement providing that Decade is admitted as a party.
Pursuant to this plan, Decade and the Staff would have i
h I
r r..
r,,
--.-m---.,--,-vr..,,-,
-..._,.~-.-..-.,--.--~-,-w.--,
~vv ne,v---
-,--- - -,-, - r
. - ~ - - - - < - - - - - - - - - - - -
a i
i Request for Information: 9 1
14 days from receipt of WE's answers to Board questions to show cause why an Order authorizing immediate operation with up to 12 tubes sleeved should not be issued. Cause might consist of legal argument or of a substantive matter which should be pursued before the Board can reach a reasonable conclusion concerning the safety and environmental acceptability of the amendment.
1 i
Cause could include comment on whether the demonstration proposed by WE is important to its overall sleeving program.
It would be understood that a t
1 showing of good cause would require that samething important be shown but l
that, given the fact that WE could have alleviated the urgency in this j
matter by filing earlier, the Board will listen receptively to attempts to show cause.
Fourth, we urge the Staff to disclose to the Boara at as early a time as possible whether staff expects to be prepared to act in a timely fashion i
on the interim order request. Since it is the Director of Nuclear Rcgulation wha issues an Amendment, and not the Board, the inability o'/ the 4
Staff to achieve timely action could moot WE's request, t
l 0R0ER For all the foregoing reasons and based on consideration of the l
entire record in this matter, it is this first day of October 1981 ORDERED (1) Wisconsin Electric Power Company shall respond to the questions i
propounded in the accompanying memorandum.
l l
?
l l
Request for Information: 10 (2)
The parties and petitioner have 5 days to comment on the issuance of the show cause order discussed in the accompanying memorandum.
(3) Wisonsin's Environmental Decade is authorized to make immediate use of the discovery process with respect to its contentions 3 through 7.
(4)
This is an interlocutory order and is not subject to appeal.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD o
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman ADMINIsrRATIVE JUDGE t
October 1, 1981 Bethesda, Maryland h
/
I