ML20031E518
| ML20031E518 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 10/08/1981 |
| From: | Churchill B SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20031E516 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8110160053 | |
| Download: ML20031E518 (13) | |
Text
_. _.
e October 8, 1981 UNITED STATES OF AMEPICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM1SSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
).)
WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-266
)
50-301 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant,
)
(OL Amendment)
Units 1 and 2)
)
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF DECADE CONTENTIONS 3 - 6 AS RELATED TO INTERIM OPERATION OF UNIT 1 I.
INTRODUCTION Wisconsin Electric Power Company
(" Licensee") submits this brief in support of its motion for summary disposition of proposed Contentions 3 through 6'of Wisconsin's Environmental' Decade (" Decade"),"
as those contentions relats to interim operation of Poin; F2ach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, following the sleeving demonstration program, with up to six steam generator 2/
tubes which exceed the plugging limit sleeved rather than plugged.
_1/
Licensee and the Staff.have opposed the admission of proposed Contentions 1, ? and 10 on the grounds that they are bey nd the scope of tais proceeding.
Proposed Contentions 8 and 9 are not truly contentions.
And proposed' Contention 7, by its express terms, relates only to the proposed full-scale sleeving programs.
Accordingly, Licensee's motion for summary disposition addresses only proposed contentions 3 through 6.
_2/ Much of.the information which supports summary disposition (Footnote continued next page) 0110160053 811008' gDRACOCK05 g
. As shown below, there is no genuine issue to be heard as to any fact material to proposed Contentions 3 through 6, as they relate to the proposed interim operation'of Unit 1, and Licensee is entitled to a decision in'its favor on those contentions, as they relate to the proposed interim operation.
The Affidavit of David K. Porter filed herewith demonstrates the complete absence of any factual basis for Decade's propos;d Contentions 3 through 6 as they relate to proposed interim operation.
None of Decade's proposed contentions have as yet been accepted by the Board for adjudication in this proceeding.
Never-theless, this motion must necessarily be filed at this time be-cause the sleeving demonstration program must take place during the refueling outage for Uni't 1 which is t'o occur this month and next.
Licensee, in its filing dated October 5, 1981, has opposed the admission of Decade's proposed. Contentions 3 - 6.
The Boa,rd's rejection of those contentions would, of course, obviate the need for a ruling on this motion for summary disposition.
9
_2/
(Footnote continued from page 1) in Licensee's favor of proposed Contentions 3 thr'ough 6 as those contentions relate to'the proposed interim operation of Unit 1 necessarily militates in favor of the complete summary disposition (as to Licensee's July 2, 1981, license amendment request) of those contentions.
However, because of the severe time constraints on Licensee because of the imminence of the sleeving. demonstration program, the instant motion for summary disposition is limited to a request for judgment in Licensee's favor on proposed Contention 3 through 6 only as those contentions relate to the proposed interim operation of Unit 1.
{
i -
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND By letter dated July 2, 1981, Licensee filed with the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical Specification Change Request No. 69.
In that Request, Licensee ser.hs amendment of Facility Operating Licenses DPR-24 and DPR-27 (for Point Beach Units 1 and 2, respectively) to allow operation with steam generator tubes which exceed the plugging limit speci-fled in the current Technical Specifications, but which have been sleeved rather than plugged.
A petition requesting a hearing on Licensee's Technical Specification Change Request was filed by Decade on July 20, 1981.
.In preparation for the proposed full-scale sleeving programs encompassing a significant number of tubes in the Unit 1 and Unit 2 steam generators, Licensee is, conducting a sleevi,ng demonstration program at one of the Unit 1 steam generatces during the fall 1981 refueling outage'.
The demonstration program involves sleeving up to 12 tubes, up to six of which will have experienced degradation exceeding the plugging limit.
Anticipating that any hearing on Licensee's July 2 Technical Specification Change Request would not be co'mpleted, and a decision issued, prior to'the date on which Licensee plans to complete the sleeving demonstration program and close up the steam generators in preparation for return to power, Licensee moved the Board for authorization for Unit 1 to resume power
1
. operation after the outage with up to six tubes which exceeded the plugging limit sleeved rather than plugged, pending the out-come of the hearing on Licensee's July 2 mnendment request.
See
" Licensee's Motion For Authorization For Interim Operation of Unit 1 With Steam Generator Tubes Sleeved Rather Than Plugged" (September 28, 1981).
Decade's two-page answer, opposing Licensee's motion, was filed October 1, 1981.
Decade's opposition to Licensee's motion for authorization for interim operation is founded on its proposed Contention 3, which alleges generally that the brazing process used to join the sleeve to the original tube will " fatally compromise" the integrity of the original tube.
As Licensee has previously pointed out, Decade has failed to provide any factual support for its contention that brazing will " fatally compromise" the sleeved tube.
See " Licensee's Response to Petitioner's Statement of Bases For Proposed Contentions 3 - 7" (October 5, 1981).
Licensee, on the other hand, has set forth affirmative evidence demonstrating that the differential pressure testing to which the sleeve-to-tube wall joints will be subjected provides assurances that the joint and tube wall boundary will withstand operating and expected accident conditions.
See Affidavit of. David K. Porter, Attachment 1 to " Licensee's Motion For Authorization For Interim Operation of Unit 1 With Steam Generator Tubes Sleeved Rather Than Plugged," $ 7.
Accordingly, Decade's Contention 3 is ripe for summary disposition.
Decade has similarly failed to provide factual support for its proposed Contentions 4, 5 and 6.
Although Decade does
. not rely on those contentions in its opposition to the proposed interim operation of Unit 1, Licensee also addresses those con-tentions here in the context of summary disposition as to the proposed interim operation, for the sake of completeness.
III.
ARGUMENT The standards governing summary disposition motions in an NRC proceeding are now well established and are quite similar to the standards applied under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedare.
Alabama Power Co.- (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 A.E.C. 210, 217 (1974); See Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B), ALAB-554, 10 N.R.C. 15, 20,,n.17 (1979).
- Where, as here, a proper 1 supported motion for summary disposition is made, the party opposing the motion may not simply rely upon the bare allegations of its contention.
Rather, it must come forward with substantial facts in the form of admissible evidence estab-lishing that a genuine issue of fact remains to be heard.
10 i
C.F.R.
S 2.749 (b) ; Virginia Electric & Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 N.R.C.
- 451, 453 (1980).
A party cannot avoid summary disposition on the basis of guesses or suspicions or on the hope that at the hearing the Licensee's evidence may be discredited or that "something may turn up."
Gulf States Utilities Co. (River Bend Station, Units
1 and 2), LBP-75-10, 1 N.R.C.
246, 248 (1975).
If the party opposing the motion fails to make the proper showing, then sum-mary disposition must,be granted.
10 C.F.R. S 2.749(b).
As the Appeal Board recently emphasized, "swmmary disposition procedures provide in reality as well as in theory, an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearings on demonstrably insubstantial issues.
Houston Lighting &
Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1),
ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C.
542, 550 (1980).
Similarly, the Commission itself has recently issued its Statement.of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, directing that "the boards should encourage the parties to invoke the summary disposition procedure on issues'where there is no genuine issue of material fact so that evidentiary hearing time is not uanecessarily devoted to such issues."
46 Fed. Reg. 28,535 (May,27, 1981).
Applying the foregoing standards to this case, it is clear that Licensee's motion for summary disposition of proposed Contentions 3 through 6--as those contentions relate to the pro-posed interim operation of Unit 1--should be granted.
A statement of the material facts as to which there is no genuine issue to be heard with respect to Contention 3 through 6, as they relate to the requested interim operation, is found in Licensee's accompanying
" Statement of Material Facts."
Licensee addresses each contention individually below.
I
. Proposed Contention 3 Decade's proposed Contention 3 alleges:
During sleeving, the braze or weld between the upper rim of the sleeve and the inner sur-face of the original tube will weaken the integ-rity of the tube even in laboratory conditions, and, in the field, may fatally compromise its integrity.
This may lead to a circumferential rupture of the tube under various operating and/or accident conditions.
Decade, as detailed above, has come forward with no substantive facts to support its contention that the joining process will
" fatally compromise" the integrity of the tube.- In fact, the only basis which Decade had provided for its proposed Contention 3 is a reference to the testimony of Licensee's affiant, Mr. Porter, before ths Public Service Commission of Wisconsin.
As even Decade concedes, that testimony notes that any reduction in strength in the area of a joint which might result from the appli-cation of the joining process would be insignificant, and witnin applicable safety bounds.
See Letter of Decade to Licensing Board, dated September 24, 1981, at 2-3.
The Affidavit of David K. Porter filed in support of this motion for summary disposition explains that the sleeve-to-tube joining process to be used in sleeving is either both a mechanical and proprietary heating process or a mechanical joining process alone; that any weakening of the tube material due to the heating process is insignificant and within the bounds of the safety analyses; and that the combination of sleeve and Uzbe is stronger
-g-than the tube alone.
The affidavit also describes the series of differential pressure tests to which each sleeve will be subjected, following the application of the joining process.
As the affidavit explains, those tests ensure that the alleged weakening of a tube leading to a circumferential tube rupture will not occur.
Thene facts contradict Decade's unsubstantiated allegation of an un-acceptable weakening of the tube as a result of the joining proce and that allegation should therefore not be the subject of an unnecessary and time-consuming hearing as the issue relates to the proposed interim operation of Unit 1.
Proposed Contention 4
~
. Decade's proposed Contention 4 alleges:
The annulus between the original tube and the sleeve may give rise to an unexpectedly cor-rosive envircnment where the tube is or may be suffering in the future fro.,a through wall crack and secondary water impurities seep into the narrow space.
The Affidavit of David K. Porter filed in support of this motion establishes that the joining process used in slaeving' does act introduce any new chemical impurities which could result in "an unexpectedly corrosive environment."
If water were to find its way into the annulus between the sleeve and the tube, it would be unlikely to result in an environment which is any more corro-sive than the environment which now exists in the annulus between the tubes and the tubesheet.
Moreover, as the affidavit points out, the material from which the sleeves are fabricated has been
-,.-,,,-,-.m
-~ ~
,,-4
,n_ _ _, -
rn
.,,q,,,
r,
-,.p
-m.
+w, - - - ---
. thermally treated, and has demonstrated a greater corrosion re-sistance in steam generator environments than the original tube wall material.
And, in any event, should corrosion of the sleeve wall occur, such degradation would be detected during the periodic inservice inspection using eddy current techniques, and the sleeved tube would be repaired or plugged as necessary.
Decade has come forward with no substantive facts to support its c_m'antion.
The only basis cited by Decade for its Contention 4 is a Staff memorandum in the San Onofre docket.
The only statement in that memorandum which is remotely related to Contention 4 is the Staff's notation that its meeting with the San Onofre licensee about the San Onofre sleeving program included a discussion of the " effects of stagnation of secondary water between the sleeve and the tube."
Decade has provided lio indi-cation that sleeving programs at other reactors have actually,
created the described " unexpectedly corrosive environment," nor has Decade produced evidence that the material of the sleeves will not actually have adequate resistance to whatever environment exists.
In fact, Decade has not even provided an indication that, at the end of the meeting memorialized in the memorandum which Decade cites, the Staff considered its questions on the matter to be unresolved.
(The Staff subsequently authorized a full-scale sleeving program at San Onofre).
Under these circumstances, Decade's unsubstantiated allegation that sleeving will create "an unexpectedly corrosive
~
' environment" (and the implicit allegation that such an environment, if created, would lead to a leak due to degradation of the sleeve) do not provide any facts as to which there is a genuine issue to be heard, and cannot therefore be the subject of an unnecessary and time-concuming hearing involving those issues as they relate to the proposed interim operation of Unit 1.
Proposed Contention 5 Decade's proposed Contention 5 alleges:
The presence of the sleeve will make the interpretation of eddy current test results extremely difficult and increase the probability that tubes with incipient failures may go unde-tected and rupture during a loss of coolant accident.
The Affidavit of David K. Porter filed in support of this motion establishes beyond question that the insertion of a sleeve into a tube does not preclude eddy current inspection of the origin'al tube wall.
While the presence of the sleeve may hinder obtaining
~
eddy current information about small defects in the sleeved por-tion of the original tube wall, the sleeve does not prevent detec-tion of significant flaws in the original tube wall.
The inspec-tability of the unsleeved portion of the tube is not affected.
However, as the affidavit points out, regardless of the extent to which flaws in the sleeved portion of the original tube wall can be detected, once the sleeve has been inserted, joined to the original tube wall, and satisfactorily tested, the sleeve wall becomes the primary-to-recondary boundary.
The inspectability
. of the sleeve wall is at least equivalent to the inspectability of the original unsleeved tube.
Thus, the probability of incipient failures remaining undetected and the probability of rupture or collapse of the sleeve wall during accident conditions is no greater than that for the original tube.
Decade has not come forward with any substantive facts to support its contention.
Decade's only reference has been the same Staff memorandum which it cited as a basis for its proposed Contention 4.
The only reference in the memorandum on the subject is a notation that the Staff discussed the "inspectability of sleeved tubes" at its meeting with the San Onofre licensee.
There is no indication that the Staff made an adverse determina-tion on the topic; and, as noted above, the Staff subsequently authorized full scale sleeving at San'Onofre.
Nor has Decade provided an indication that sleeving at other reactors has actually resulted in difficulties in inspection of the primary-tc-secondary boundary at those plants.
Under these circumstances, Decade's unsubstantiated allegations that eddy current testing of the primary-to-secondary boundary will be impaired by sleeving and that the probability of tube failure will be increased clearly provide no facts as to which there is a genuine issue to be heard, and should not therefore be litigated with respect to the proposed interim operation of Unit 1.
~
' Proposed Contention 6 Decade's proposed Contention 6 alleges:
The insertion of a sleeve with a nominal outer diameter of 3/4 inch tube inside the original 7/8 inch tube will reduce the flow of primary core cooling water and the cooling capacity of the core under various accident scenarios to an extent not bounded in previous safety analyses.
The Affidavit of David K. Porter filed in support of this motion directly contradicts Decade's allegation.
The bounds of the applicable safety analyses include a minimum thermal design flow of 178,000 gallons per minute.
The maximum possible flow reduc-tion resulting from the demonstration program would have an in-significant effect on the flow rate--less than the flow reduction caused by the plugging of a single tube--and would not reduce reactor coolant flow to less than the required thurmal design flow.
Thus, the sleeving demonstration program would not reduce the margin of safety, as defined.in the basis for any of the Technical Specifications, and would not reduce reactor coolant flow or core cooling capacity under various accident scenarios to an extent not bounded in previous safety analyses.
In fact, the demonstration program is likely to increase the reactor coolant flow, because one or more currently plugged tubes may ha unplugged and sleeved.
In terms of flow restrictior, one plugged tube is approximately equivalent to twenty sleeved tubes.
Again, Decade has failed to come forward with any sub-stantive facts to support its contention.
The only basis which
g O
' Decade has supplied for its Contention 6 is a vague reference to "the San Onofre Licensee's proposed technical specification revisions."
Under these circumstances, there is no genuine issue to be heard as to any material fact related to Decade's unsupported allegations, so far as they relate to the proposed interim opera-tion of Unit 1.
IV.
CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above, Licensee requests that its motion for summary disposition of so many of Decade's proposed Contentions 3 - 6, if any, which may be admitted as issues in this proceeding, as those contentions may relate to interim operation of Unit 1 following Licensee's sleeving demonstration program, be granted.
Because there are no genuine issues of material fact to be heard'in this proceeding with respect to said interim operation, Licensee further requests that its September 28, 1981 motion requesting authorization for said interim operation be summarily granted.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE f
e By f j
Brue6 W. Churchill Delissa A. Ridgway Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
W3shington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 1
Dated:
October 8, 1981
-