ML20033F241
| ML20033F241 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/05/1990 |
| From: | Lorion J CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033F233 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA-4, NUDOCS 9003190059 | |
| Download: ML20033F241 (48) | |
Text
p+
..x tace,ritt-UbNRC
'90 MAR -8 P3 :32 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
$.'rf.{4,y C,.ifl.p,'y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
HMNL81 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING. APPEAL BOARD
-In.the Matter of Florida Power and Light Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-4
)
50-251-OLA-4 (Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
)
(Pressure / Temperature Limits) 1 Uni s 3 and 4)
THE CENTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY'S AND J0ETTE LORION'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPEAL OF THE LICENSING BOARD ORDER GRANTING
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 2 AND DISMISSING THE PROCEEDING Joette Lorion, lear Responsibility-Director Center for Nuc 7210 Red Road #207 B Miami,661-2165 Florida 33143 (305)
(305) 662-2600 March 5, 1990 4
I 9003190059 900305 gO.
DR ADOCK O
.,a
s' sah I
i TABLE OF CONTENTS i'
East TABLE OF CONTENTS i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii I.
INTRODUCTION 1
II.
BACKGROUND 3
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION
'S IV.
ISSUES RELATED TO INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 2 7
V.
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT 10 VI.
ARGUMENT 11 A.
THE BOARD ERRED BY NOT ADDRESSING THE EXPERT VIEWS OF DR. GEORGE SIH ON AN ISSUE THE BOARD THEMSELVES DEFINED 11 B.
THE BOARD ERRED BY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE AND MARING FACTUAL DETERMINATIONS AT THE
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT STAGE 15 C.
THE BOARD ERRED BY FAILING TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN THE RECORD EVIDENCE IN A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE i
TO INTERVENORS 16 D.
THE BOARD ERRED BY REQUESTING THE LICENSEE TO FILE A REPLY TO INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 2, AND THIS ERROR MAY HAVE RESULTED IN SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICE TO INTERVEORS 17 E.
THE BOARD ERRED BY STRICTLY ADHERING TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE WHICH CAUSED INTERVENORS' CASE TO BE PREJUDICED 20 i
,e TN -
p..
4 j
a f
. 11
]
i.
F.
.THE BOARD ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND THAT-CONFLICTS IN THE NRC AND LICENSEE EXPERT
'.,h TESTIMONY RAISED A GENUINE ISSUE OF F
MATERIAL FACT CONCERNING WHETHER OR NOT LICENSEE MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM 23 G.
-THE BOARD ERRED BY FINDING THAT INTERVENORS ARE-CHALLENGING THE COMMISSION'S RULE FOR p
'AN INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM 25 p
f p
H..
-CONCLUSION 27 i
ci.
EXHIBITS 1-3 p:
('
~
4-.
, i
r-ei.*Jb '
i l
- tii -
i TABLI 0F AUTHORITIES j
i c?
Cases Pare (s)
Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970)
American Manufacturers Mutual Ins. Co. v. American 6
l
.Broadcastine-Paramount Theaters. Inc., 388 F.2d 272 (2d Cir. 1967) i:
Association of Massachusetts Consumers. Inc. v. U.S.
17 Securities and Exchance Commission, 1975, 516 F.2d 711, 170 U.S. App. D.C. 118, certiorari denied, 96 l-S.Ct. 781, 423 U.S. 1052, 46 L.Ed.2d 641 1
Buchwalter v.
Federal Trade Commission, C.A. 2, 1956, 20 236 F.2d 344 i-CF Greater Boston Television Coro. v.
F.C.C., 444 F.2d 11 i
841-(D.C. Cir. 1970), cert,iorari denied, 403 U.S. 923 (1971)
Department of Public Service Reculation. Public Service 17 Commission, State of Mont. v.
U.S.,
D.C. Mont. 1972, 344 F.Supp. 1368 Fairbank v. Hardin, CC.A. Cal. 1970, 429 F.2d, 264-20 I
certiorari denied, 91 S.Ct. 244, 400 U.S. 943, 27 L.Ed. 247 Freedman v. Continental Gin Co., C.A. 5th, 1967 381 F.2d 6, 16 459 l
Garaux v. Pu11ev, 739 F.2d 437 14 Hevvard v. Public Housinc Administration, C.A.Sth, 1956, 7
238 F.2d 689 Mickle v. Linstock, D.C.S.C. 1965, 39 F.R.D. 58 7
Minnesota Min. & Mfr. Co. v. U.S. Rubber Co., C.A. 4th, 6
1967, 279 F.2d 409 NLRB v.
Burns,'207 F.2d 434 (8th Cir. 1953) 13 Po11er v. CBS. Inc., 368 U.S. 464 (1962) 6 Philadelohia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power 6
Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB 562,10 NRC 437 (1979)
L
.n
t.
wD 1
iv Pace (s)
Cases Prince v. Industrial Com'n, 89 Ariz. 314, 361 P.2d 929 13 (1961)
Regnaud v. White, C.A. 6th, 1958, 170 F.2d 323 7
Rosenfield v. Vellincton Leisure Products.Inc., 827 16 F.2d 1493 (11th Cir, 1987)
Src v. Chenerv Coro., 318 U.S. 80 (1943) 11 Sosna v. Celbreeze, D.C. P.A. 1964, 234 F.Eupp. 289 19 United States ex rel. Done Wint Ott v.
Shaughnessy, 12 116 F.Supp. 745 U.S. v. Farmers Mut. Ins. As s 'n of } tiron. Towa, C.A.
6 8th, 1961, 288 F.2d 139 Wait Radio v. F.C.C, 418 F.2d 1153 (D.C. Cir. 1969) 11 Winto v. Washington, 359 F.2d 633 (D.C. Cir. 1968) 11 Administrative Decisions Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant, 5
Units 1 and 2).ALAB 182, 7AEC 210 (1974)
Cleveland Elcetrie 111uminatine Co,, (Perry Nuclear 5
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 443, 6 NRC 741 (1977) i Dairvland Power Coooerative (Lacrosse Boiling Water 6, 17' Reactor), LBP 82 58, 16 NRC 512 (1982) florida Power and Licht Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear 21, 22 Generating Plant, Units-3 and 4),
LBP 85 29, 22 NRC 300 (1985) j Niarra Mohawk Power Corn. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear 27 Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, 1 NRC 347 (1975)
Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Baily Generating 27 Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB 303, 2 NRC 858 (1975) i
- t. ',
r-
y e
~ tr
?
.l q~
v.
0 Administrative Decisions Pace (s)
Pacific Cas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear 27 Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 781, 20 NRC 819 (1984) i Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear 6, 27 Project, Unit 1), LBP 77 45, 6 NRC 159 (1977) e Pennsv1vania Power & Licht Cooperative. Inc.
27 (Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),
s 12 NRC 317 (1980)
Public Service Comnany of New Hampshire. et al.
11, 12, 15 (Seabrook 9tation Units 1 and 2), ALAB 422, 6 NRC 33 (1977)
Vircinia Electric Power Co. (North Anna Power Station 6
Units 1 and 2), ALAB 5E4, 11 NRC 451 (1980)
Rerulations Rule 56, Fedaral Rules of Civil Procedure 5
5 U.S.C. 556 19, 22.
s a
5 U.S.C. 55'(d) 12, 20 l
42 U.S.C. 2239(a) (1982) 28 10 0.F.R. 2.749 22 10 C.F.R. 2.749(b) 5, 14, 22 10 C.F.R. 2.749(c) 14 10 C.F.R. Appendix A 9
10 C.F.R. Appendix C 8
I 10 C.F.R. Appendix H 9, 25 j
l
I L
~ s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
Docket Nes.
LA-Florida Power and Light Company nbs d
(Pressute/ Temperature Limits)
THE CEhTER FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY'S AND J0ETTE LORION'S BRIEF IN l
SUPPORT OF THEIR APPEAL OF THE LICENSING BOARD ORDER GRANTING
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF INTERVENORS' C0hTENTION 2 AND DISMISSING THE PROCEEDING I
There is-a high, increasing likelihood that someday soon, during a seemingly minor malfunction at any of a dozen or more nuclear power plants around the United 1
States, the steel vessel that houses the radioactive core is going to crack like a piece of glass.
The result
,I will be a core meltdown, the most serious kind of nuclear accident.
l Demetrios Basdekas, hPC Safety Engineer i
"The Risk of a Meltdown, "
l New York Times (March 29, 1982),
LExhibit 1).
I. INTRODUCTION f
This appeal concerns the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Order dated January 16, 1990, which granted Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contention 2 and dismissed this proceeding.
As a result of the Board's ruling, Intervenors, the Center for Nuclear i
Responsibility and Jcette Lorion, will be prevented from presenting evidence i
i (2) at a public hearing that could prove that the Licensee's methods for determining the extent of radiation embrittlement' damage to the reactor pressure vessel welds-in Turkey Point Unit 4 are unscientific and could result ih non-conservative pressure / temperature (P/T) limits being set, which in turn could result in a vessel rupture and meltdown of the reactor Core.
It is ironic that only a few weeks after this Board granted summary disposition and cancelled the public hearing on these very important pressure vessel embrittlement issues, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman l
Kenneth Carr told a Congressional panel on February 8th that pressure vessel integrity is the major question confronting the NRC.
Speaking before the House Interior & Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Energy & the Environment, Carr stated that utilities have been able to replace virtually any component in a reactor with the exception of the reactor pressure vessel.
Carr, who was seeking funds for research on life-extension issues, told the committee that "we have some concerns about pressure vessel integrity."
(Exhibit 2).
Pressure vessel embrittlement and the threat that fatigued metal poses to the health and safety of people living near aging nuclear reactors, such as Turkey point, is a significant safety issue that demands to be fully-and fairly debated in a public forum. The question of whether or not the i
Licensee is using improper methods to determine the extent of radiation I
- embrittlement damage in setting the pressure / temperature limits for Turkey Point Unit 4 is a significant safety issue that should have been resolved at hearing after weighing the testimony of expert witnesses - not by summary judgment.
For as Judge Cotter so aptly put it at Oral Argument "there's a complicated metallurgical question lurking underneath all this,"(TR. at 37).
I
..=
(3)
II. BACKGROUND On October 19, 1989, a notice was published in the Federal Register announcing the proposed issuance of amendments to the Technical Specifications d
for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
On November 17, 1988, the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc.
(Center) and Joette Lorion, collectively referred to herein as "Intervenors",
filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a Request for llearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene (Petition) concerning the Florida Power &
Light (FPL) amendment request.
On January 10, 1989, the NRC Staff issued Amendment Nos. 134 and 128 respectively, revising the pressure / temperature (P/T) limits for-the Turkey Point nuclear units along with the Staff's Safety Evaluation and No.
Significant llazards Consideration Determination.
'The Intervenors,-on February 17, 1989, then submitted their Amended
. Request for llearing and Petition for Leave to Intervene which listed three contentions that Intervenors asked the Board to admit for litigation in this proceeding. On March 21, 1989, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board instead of granting Intervenors a Prehearing Conference to address their contentions, held Oral Argument in Miami, Florida.
On June 8, 1989, The Board issued an Order which denied Intervenors' Contention 1 and accepted portions of Intervenors' Contentions 2 and 3 in the proceeding.
On September 8, 1989, after meeting with the Licensee, Intervenors withdrew Contention 3 from this proceeding.
On September 11, 1989, the Licensee filed their Motion for Summary I
l
b
( 4-)
Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions. On October 19, 1989,- Intervenors filed their Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of I
Intervenors' Contention 2.
Intervenors 34 page Response contained a i
Statement of Material Facts, 24 exhibits, an affidavit from Intervenor,-
{
i Joette Lorion, and two letters from Dr. George Sih, Director of Fracture 4
Mechanics at.Lehigh University.
One of Dr. Sih's letters, which was dated October 18, 1989, referred specifically to issues that the Board had' framed for this proceeding and addressed the arguments of the Licensee's expert.
On November 6, 1989, the Licensee, directed by Board Order, filed l
=l Licensee's Reply to Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary j
Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions.
Licensee's Reply contained 34 pages, exhibits, and an " easy to read" table that addressed and disposed of j
each of Intervenors' issues of material fact.
1 On November 16,1989,-Intervenors filed their Motion to Respond to i
l Licensee's Reply in which they informed the Board that their reading of-j the Rule did not allow such a reply and asking that they be allowed to respond to the reply lest the Licensee be given "two bites at the same apple". The. Board never responded to this motion.
1 On December 4, 1989, Intervenors filed Intervenors' Supplemental j
Response to Licensee's Discovery Requests informing the Licensee that Dr.
j i
George Sih, Director of Fracture Mechanics at Lehigh University, would be an expert' witness on behalf of Intervenors at hearing.
Intervenors attached both Dr. Sih's October 10, 1985 and October 18, 1989 letters, along with his professional qualifications and informed the Licensee that Dr. Sih would be testifying on the subect matter contained in these letters.
l l
d
.t (5)
On the same date Intervenors-filed their Motion to Modify Hearing Schedule, which requested that the hearing date be moved so that Dr.
Sih, a' renowned expert in the field of fracture mechanics,would be able.
.]
to testify.
-j On December 15, 1990, the Board issued an Order that changed the j
hearing date to February 27, 1990, so that Dr. Sih could testify, On January 22, 1990, the Board issued their Order granting Licensee's s
Motion.for. Summary Disposition and dismissed the proceeding.
1 i
{
III. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR SUbMARY DISPOSITION
-I The Comission's rules governing sumary disposition are analogous to i
Rule.56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Alabama Power Co.(Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, 217 (1974).
4 In operating license proceedings, the burden of proof with respect to sumary disposition is upon the applicant-movant, who must demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact.
Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.(Perry Nuclear _ Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-443, 6 NRC 741, 753 (1977).
o When a proper showing for sumary disposition has been made by the movant, the party opposing the motion must aver specific facts in rebuttal, j
10 C.F.R. 2.749 (b). Moreover, where the movant has satisified his i
initial burden and has supported his motion by affidavit, the opposing party must proffer countering evidential material or an affidavit explaining why it's impractical to do so. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) and Advisory Committee Note; see Adickes v. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 160-61 (1970).
(Emphasis supplied.)
I l
L:
n s
(6) n Where the proponent of a motion for summary disposition has met his burden, his opponent must set forth specific facts to demonstrate that there exists a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Mare allegations and denials are not sufficient to overcome an otherwise persuasive summary disposition request. ~ Virginia Electric-Power Co.,
(North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, 11 NRC 451, 453 (1980); Philidelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,.
Units 2 and 3), ALAB-562, 10 NRC 437, 444 (1979).
.On a motion for summary disposition, the opposing party need not show that-he would prevail on the issues, but only that there are genuine issues to be tried. Pacific Gas and Electric Co.(Stanislaus Nuclear Project, Unit 1), LBP-77-45, 6 NRC 159, 163 (1977) citing Poller.
- v. CBS, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 473 (1962); American Manufacturers Mutual Ins.
Co. v. American Broadcasting-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 388 F. 2d 272, 280 (2d Cir. 1967). On a motion for summary judgment the court cannot try l
issues of fact. lit can only determine whether there are issues to be tried.
Freedman V. Continental Gin Co., C.A. 5th, 1967, 381 F. 2d 459, 469, i
Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. U.S. Rubber Co., C.A. 4th, 1960, 279 F.2d-i 409, 415.
i i
i In determining whether a motion for summary disposition should be i
granted, the record must be viewed in the light most favorable to the opponent of such a motion. Dairyland Power' Cooperative (Lacrosse Boiling I
Water Reactor), LBP-82-58, 16 NRC 512, 519 (1982).
The party opposing the motion for summary disposition is to be given the benefit of all i
reasonable doubts in determining whether a genuine issue exists.
E.g. U.S. v. Farmers Mut. Ins. Ass'n Of Kiron, Iowa, C.A.8th, 1961, 288 I
v i
( 7g F.2d 139,:142; Hevvard v Public Housine Administration, C.A.Sth, 1956, 238 F.2d 689, 696; Reenaud v. White,C.A 6th, 1958, 170 F.2d 323, 327; Mickle
.v. Lipstock, D.C.S.C. 1965, 39 F.R.D. 58, 61.
IV. ISSUES RELATED TO INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 2 Admitted Contention 2 states:
That the revised temperature / pressure limits that have been set for Turkey Point Unit 4 are non-conser-vative and will cause that reactor unit to exceed the requirements of General Design Criterion 31 of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, which requires that the reactor coolant pressure boundary be designed with a sufficient margin to insure that, when-stressed under operating, maintenance, testing, and postulated accident conditions. (1) the boundary behaves in a non-brittle i
manner and (2) the probability of a rapidly propagating fracture is minimized.
l Petitioners-contend that the new pressure /
temperature limits could cause the reactor vessel to i
exceed these requirements because the Licensee has based
)
its calculation of the predicted RTNDT for Unit 4 partly on surveillance capsule V test results from Turkey Point Unit 3 rather than predicting the RTNDT for Unit 4 based on Unit 4 capsule V surveillance cap:ule data -- a practice which is not scientific, not valid, and could cause the Unit 4 reactor to behave in a brittle manner l
which would make the chances of a pressure vessel failure and resultant meltdown more likely.
Petitioners contend that predictions of RTNDT and
?
pressure / temperature limits derived from the shift in-
-l L
nil-ductility temperature should be based only on L
plant-specific Unit 4 data, especially in light of the i
fact that the only tests ever performed on Unit 4 weld specimens demonstrated that the weld material in the Unit 4 vessel was 30% more brittle than that of Unit 3.
Because Unit 4's weld material is more embrittled, Petitioners contend that the FPL Integrated Surveillance program does not meet the Requirements of 10 C.F.R.
Appendix G Parts V.A and V.B. and 10 C.F.R. Appendix H, including Appendix H Parts IIC and IIIB.
- Finally, Petitioners contend that the surveillance capsule V for E
Unit 4 should be tested to establish the new pressure / temperature limits and should the testing indicate that the RTNDT for Unit 4 has passed the 300-degree Farenheit (sic) screening criterion set by L
the NRC, Unit 4 should be shut down until it is demonstrated that the Unit 4 reactor pressure vessel can maintain its integrity beyond this limit, m
n >-
L 9
D j
( 8')
-The pressure / temperature (P/T) limits for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 are among the'most critical-limiting conditions of operation because they define the permissible operating envelope during reactor heatup, cooldown, criticality and testing and are designed to ensure the integrity of the reactor pressure vessel, a critical-piece of safety equipment.
According to 10 C.F.R. Appendix G, the pressure / temperature limits must be predicted based on the results of pertinent radiation effect studies that I
~
predict the effects of neutron irradiation on pressure vessel embrittlement.
These limits are required to_be based on the most limiting nil-ductility reference temperature (RTNDT) for the respective reactor units. The reference temperature is the point at which the metal in the pressure vessel loses nearly all of its ability to maintain its fracture toughness.
Fracture toughness is a material property that enables the material in the vessel to resist brittle fracture when stressed.
An adequate level of fracture toughness provides assurances that small flaws or cracks will not propagate-in a brittle manner as a result of stresses caused by reactor heatup, cooldown and/or abnormal transients.
Thus, it is necessary to accurately and conservatively account for the effects of irradiation and other factors on the RTNDT of the pressure vessel in order to set conservative P/T limits that will protect the public from a brittle' fracture of-the vessel and subsequent meltdown of the reactor core.-
In order to meet the requirements of Appendix G, 10 C.F.R. Appendix H requires the Licensee to establish a surveill.ance program to periodically withdraw surveillance capsules from the reactor vessel and CHARPY test them to determine shifts in the RTNDT (fracture toughness of the metal). This
g o.-
G e
( 9 )-
l calculated shift in the fracture toughness of the vessel material due to neutron irradiation damage is called the Adjusted Reference Temperature or
'(ART).
Appendix 11 also allows the use of an Integrated Surveillance Program c
for multiple reactors located at a single site on an individual basis depending nn the. degree of commonality of the units and the predicted l
- l severity of irradiation, l
Contention 2 primarily contends that the current pressure / temperature i
1 limits that were set for Turkey Point Unit 4 using data from the Integrated I
Surveillance Program are non-conservative and could cause the reactor pressure vessel to rupture, which in turn would cause the Turkey Point reactor to exceed General Design Criteria 31 of Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part i
50.
Intervenors further contend that the Licensee should not be permitted to use the data from the Integrated Surveillance Program because the conduct
-(
of the. Integrated Surveillance Program at Turkey Point does not meet the i
i 7
requirements of 10 C.F.R. Appendix 11.
Intervenors base this assertion on
{
the fact that the Turkey Point units have different operating histories and
]
the fact that the only weld metal. tests performed on Unit 4 showed that this Unit's weld metal was 30% more embrittled then the weld metal of Unit 3.
Intervenors main concern is the fact that the Licensee has failed to perform -
a second weld metal test for Unit 4 and instead is relying on data from the
'less severely affected Turkey Point Unit 3 to set P/T limits for Unit 4 In a Board Order dated June 8, 1989, the Board limited the scope of the i
proceeding on Contention 2 to the issue of whether Licensee's conduct of the L
integrated surveillance test program at Turkey Point fails to meet the require-ments of the program itself" and "whether the difference of less than five percent in operating time between the two units is...significant." ( Order 17-19).
f
s
'A:
x
( 10 )
V.
SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENT The record developed in this case presents a classic example of the type of conflicting evidence and factual issues which must be deferred for -
resolution at hearing.
The Board concluded that the Licensee has met its burden of proof on Contention 2, that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the Licensee is entitled to a decision as a matter of law. The actual record before the Board, we suggest, cannot support the Board's conclusion.
Significantly, the Board distorts the record evidence presented by the.
Intervenors in support of their Contention 2.
Based on their distorted characterization of the record, the Board wrongfully concluded that the Intervenors failed to set forth specific facts which presented a genuine' issue material factual issue concerning Contention 2.
The Board compounded its error by failing to resolve conflicting inferences from the evidence in a light more favorat.le to the non-moving party, Intervenors, when they interpreted a line in a from.Dr. George Sih, Intervenors' expert witness, in a light more favorable to the Licensee.
Additionally, the Board erred by totally disregarding evidence presented by Intervenors concerning the views of Dr. George Sih, Director of Fracture Mechanics at Lehigh University, on the issue of whether or not the difference in operating time and fluence between Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 is significant -
an issue the Board themselves defined.
Finally, the Board urr.ed by disregarding evidence presented by Intervenors on the issues they defined and instead weighed the evidence themselves and made factual determinations - a practice which is inappropriate at the summary judgment stage.
~
.. + - -
p.
g;.
s
,e i
df W*
(l13 );
Vy y -
Intervenors contend that a proper view of the record, viewed as it-J
~must.be "in the: light 'most favorabid to the.non-moving party," reveals genuine p
issues ~'of~ material fact:on Contention 2.
These genuine issues offmaterial?
s 7
fact preclude summary judgment.-
m l
LVI. ARGUMENT 4
.A.
THE BOARD ERRED BY NOT ADDRESSING THE EXPERT VIEWS OF DR. GEORGE 1
s SIH ON AN ISSUE THE BOARD THEMSELVES DEFINED.
x
. Licensing Board's.have a duty not only to resolve contested issues but to articulate in reasonable detail'the-basis;for the-course-of action.
A-~ decision need.not refer individually to every proposed finding,;but.it Jmust sufficiently; inform a. party of-the disposition of its contentions.
s Where testimony which is reasonable and sponsored by a well qualified witness 4
l1s_ presented, a Board which is not accepting that testimony has an: obligation; Eto explain that course oftaction.
Public Service' Company of New Hampshire,.
Jet al. L(Seabrook' Station Units l'and 2), ALAB 422, 6 NRC 33, (1977).
For--it is a well accepted principle of administrative law:that the!
Jorderly functioning of the process of' review requires that the grounds'upon
=i a
p which the ~ administrative agency acted be clearly disclosed ~and adequately, j
sustained.-
SEC v Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943). CF Greater Boston Television ' Corp v. F.C.C., 444 F.2d 841, 851-3 (D.C. Cir.1970),-- certiorari denied, 403 U.S. 923.(1971); Wait Radio V. F.C.C., 418'F.2d 1153, 1156 (D.C.
Cir. 1969).
_?
A Board must do more than reach conclusions; it must" confront the facts." Wingo v. Washington, 359 F.2d 633, 636 (D.C. Cir. 1968).
A Licensing Board must adequately confront the conflicting view points of expert witnesses
':p
.n w
I q;r 4
- Q>
fyd[
~
j gy
?
7 r
pg,
. w. ;
L y_
-e' A
- e _l' a
ff
.l
.( 121) 4, W
-m p :e and' resolve.each issue'before it. See generally Public Service Co. of'
(
4 h.'i
, New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units:1 and 2),iALAB-442,'6 NRC.33, 41-(1977)._-
I m
y.
-t
]"*
- As Intervenors explained earlier,i he Licensing Board ^in-its June t
N m.
iI'
- 8, 1989, Order. admitting Contention 2-to this proceeding,' limited the scope 9
m a
R of'the. cont'ention to;the following issues:
p q
Whether the Licensee's conduct'of the Integrated y
Surveillance' Program met the requirements of the a
bs, Program itself: and
(
'Who.ther the difference of_less than'five percent-l
.in bperating-time between the two Turkey Point l
p'
- Units is significant.
(Board Order' June 8, 1989 at 17-19).
In response to Licensee's motion for summary disposition, Intervenors:
4 prov'ided the Board with evidentiary material-that created:a-genuine issue; l
E of material fact on the issue of whether or not the five: percent difference,
'[
4 p' I in: operating time between the units is significant. (See Intervenors' -
[
L' J
}
U 1
Reply-to-Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition,Lpp. 27-29 and q
b attachment A..to the Reply, an-October 18, 1989,1 letter from Dr. George 4
+
- Sih pDirector of Fracture Mechanics at'Lehigh University.)
~
h Intervenors. contend that'both'under the. Rules of Practice andithe b
{
Administrative Procedure Act, Dr. Sib's letter -qualifies as evidentiary material. The legislative-history of the Administrative Procedure Act D
C
- makes clear that the provision for exclusion applies only to " irrelevant,
~
p-
.o.
q
-immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence" and not to legally incompetent o
w f
evidence.
5 U.S.C.A. 556 (d). United State.c ex rel. Dong Wing Ott v.
t Shaughnessy, 116 F..Supp. 745, 750.
Thus, although Dr. Sih's letter was not in affidavit form, it should still be considered as, evidentiary material because it is relevant, material 4
Y k
e
~
+
--e r
~
g p['
w 7
[h; b,
,A*
h[ *
(13I),
n s
p M.
- and,as the attached professionalEqualifications.show' written by anl i
f jexperticompetent to testify on the. issue. More precisely, Dr. Sih. is"
't
~
L i
k_
. clearly;an expert in th' field of fracture mechanics, his letter addresses e
nx a
an' issue the Board'themselves defined, and it is relevant because itL n
h'
$.? 4 ~
t
~
was written after Dr. Sih's review of.the Licensee's Motion.for Summary n
@j Disposition.and specifically addresses the views of Licensee's expert j
E Lvitness on' the. issue.( See pgs. 2, 3 and Figure 'I of the1Sih' 3etter l
'attachhd'asExhibit3.)I L
f:
It-is-apparent from the Board-Order dismissing this proceeding.
L>
that'the Board did not address the' views of Dr.: George Sih on the issue
~,of whether or.not'.the difference in operating time is significant,:nor
'did they:give Intervenors a reason as to why they did notLaddress or' i
n n g
accept Dr.-Sih's testimony.' -It is also clear from'the Boards,0rder
^
that they only: addressed the views of the NRC Staff and-Licensee on the issue'they themselves defined.-( Board Order, January 16, 1990, pp."17JS'23).
Intervenors contend.that the exclusion by the Board of relevant, material.and' competent evidence.in-the form of the.0ctober 18, 1989,: letter from-Dr.. George.Sih'is prejudicial and.'should be grounds for.
s
- reversal of the Board's decision.
ERB 'v. Burns,207 F.2d 434 (8th. Cir.
[
.a
'1953); Prince v'. Industrial Com'n 89 Ariz. 314, 361 P.2d 929 (1961).
9 a
'Intervenors contend that this is so because if the Board had not excluded g
the views of Dr. Sih as outlined in his October 18, 1989, letter, a il genuine issue of material fact would have existed concerning the issue
.of whether a five percent difference in operating times is significant, and Intervenors Contention 2 would have remained litigable. For it is clear a
I t
3
eyy
.x b:n '
,- t ien,'L 3
h, i
y.=
p t
N f
(14 ).
y v.
i from page 3 of Dr. Sih's letter and the attached graph that.his position' i
f is that neutron damage accumulation is a highly nonlinear process,.and.
.nr that predictions based.ona linear' sum are'not always conservative in r
a
.thstf although the difference in total operating time 'between unit' 3 and.
~
M 4 is only 4.8%, the deviations on a yearly basis are enormous. Dr. Sih's f 1.
graph attached to his. letter-illustrates the significance of the' differences rm E
.between the units by demonstrating that Unit 3 behaved differently from.
y P
Unit 4. in that it possessed a slow. down period. Thus, if-the Board had r
considered Dr. Sih's views on this issue, Intervenors contend that summary c
judgment could not have been granted.
Finally, if the Board did not consider.the evidence.in Dr. Sih's
. letter becau'se,as they remarked on page 19 of their Order, it was not
- in the' form of an affidavit, Intervenors contend.that this too would be an error.
'itervenors' reading.of 10'C.F.R. 2.749 (b) does not require
.that-Dr. Sih's-letter be an affidavit to be considered as factual evidence'.
4 However, Intervenors are pro'se-litigants in this proceeding and:do not know all the technical requirements of the summary judgment proceeding.
4 Intervenors believe, however;'that if the Board felt that for'Intervenors
}
to preclude summary-judgment Dr. Sih's letter should have been in the form of:an ' affidavit, they could have. pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.749 (c) d
,p h.
allowed Intervenors a continuance-to.obtain an affidavit from Dr. Sih.
h For.as the Court pointed out in Garaux V. Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439:
"The rights of pro se litigants require careful protection where highly:
technical requirements are involved, especially when enforcing those requirements might result in a loss of opportunity to prosecute or defend
.c t
?
1 T
v h%@) ' g ^
h kll $
E p.y kN
(' 15 )-
k ^ > '.
t P
j
- a. lawsuit on the merits. District courts must take care to insure that o
i i
proselitigantsareprovidedwithpropernoticeregarding!thecomplex~
?
L i
' procedural issues involved in summary judgment proceedings."
in conclusion, on the-issue of'whether or not.the difference in M,
1 operating time between the two' units is significant,the Board fell far 4
q short of meeting the applicable standards in dispo<iing of this important o-3
-issue because of their: lack of reference toc (much less discussion of)-
P k
evidence that existed in.the record contrary to that which-it accepted.
4
'M-7Especially-when.the-contrary evidence in the' record is reasonable on its
~
faceand spor.sored by a technical expert. If Dr. Sib's views on the issue-
.they defined were not' accepted by the Board, the Board had some obligation-to explain why:not.- Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units'I and 2), ALAB 422, 6 NRC 33, (1977).
B. THE BOARD ERRED BY WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE AND MAKING EACTUAL-
+
DETERMINATIONS AT THE
SUMMARY
JUDGMENT STAGE.
i
- The Board compounded their, error on the issue of whdther the 5% difference. in' operating time between the units is significant by 4
themselves weighing the evidence and making.a factual determinations.
1 The Board states on page 34: of their Order that "Because the-difference
~
in operating features between the two Turkey Point reactors was acceptable w
Lin 1985, we find a zortiori, that'a smaller difference today remains acceptable." The Board makes this determination despite the fact that-IM the record' evidence clearly demonstrates that a controverted genuine issue t
?
of material fact exists on this issue in that Dr. Sih, an expert in the
)
field of fracture mechanics, clearly disputes this simplistic approach to what is clearly a complicated metallurgical issue. ( Board Order at 34, 4
1
.g
'q
pg.
,ya p
m m;
m u
i _.
1s
[K
(.16 = ) -
0 Sih' Letter,. Exhibit 3, pg. 3!&' Figure'1).
g; 4
u
(
It is: clear from the Board's determination' stated on pageL34 that
~
g they have overstepped the bounds of the summary disposition proceeding,
(;
10n a motion for summary judgment the court cannot try issues:of' fact.
n
.It can only determine whether there are issues'to be tried.
Freedman s.~ Continental Gin Co., C.A.' 5th, 1967, 381-F.2d2459, 469.
The court may~.
not weigh the evidence:or pass judgment on the credibility of witnesses,-
sihee that is the role for'the trier of' fact.
See Rosenfield'v ' Wellington i
Leisure Products, Inc.,827 F.2d'1493 (11th Cir.-1987).
r
.The: fact that.the Board weighed'the evidence and made their own i
factualfdeterminations on an issue that they4 themselves~ defined,.an issue:
p,
. clearly in-dispute by experts,should be grounds for reversal of the n
p Board's decision in th'is proceeding.
C.
THE BOARD ERRED BY FAILING-T0 RESOLVE CONFLICTS IN IHE' RECORD EVIDENCE IN.A LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO INTERVENORS.
As.to the other issue on Contention 2 that_was framed by the Board-whether the Licensee's conductiof the Integrate'd Surveillance' Program fails! toimeet the requirements of the program itself -Intervenors presented evidence to.the Board that_the Turkey Point units have been operating with mixed and different fuel. core designs since about_1985.- (Intervenors '
qg Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition, pp.18-20, Exhibits j 19).
.In their addressing of the mixed fuel' core issue, Intervenors I
quoted from an October 10,' 1985 letter from Dr. George Sih which was
.. attached as'an exhibit to their Reply, j
On page 21 of the Board order dismissing this proceeding, the Board 1
-addresses.Intervenors reference to the Sih letter and states: "It is not 1
i m
J j
m
p g,,
74 m
1 f
~.
V'4
[~
a 4
_ l t
('
( 17 )
~
U
'I P
telear whether Dr. Sib'is referring to possible differences in core loading.
a fhistories or to structural loading histories.: A fair reading of' this, letter 5
y
. suggests.that he is referring to plant-specific differences in' structural.
f lioading histories resulting from postulated pressurized th'ermal shock, l
h an, issue;not within the bounds'of this proceeding."
l r
5 H.
n determining whether a-motion for summary judgment should.be granted, g
d f
Ethe: record mu'st beiviewed in the light most favorable to the. opponent'of-such g'
a motion.
Dairvland Power Cooperative, (Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor) m
'LBP-82-58, 16 NRC'512, 519 (1982).. Contrary to this standard, the Board resolved-conflicts in Dr. Sib's letter in a light more favorable to'the h
proponents.of the summary judgment motion.
Because-of the. Board's-
'tailure to view Dr. Sih's letter in the light most favorable to-the
-Intervenors, the Center and Ms. Lorion were unable demonstrate.that a I
rgenuine issue of material fact existed as to whether or not the units
! differing fuel cores caused the Licensee to fail to' meet the requirements
.^
t of,theiIntegrated Surveillance Program.
Thus, the Board's error of. law-
- t should cause the Board's-decision to be reversed.
{
D. THE BOARD ERRED BYLREQUESTING THE LICENSEE TO FILE A REPLY TO INTERVENORS'= RESPONSE TO LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR SUFNARY DISPOSITION
-OF INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 2, AND THIS ERROR MAY HAVE RESULTED IN' s
SUBSTANTIAL-PREJUDICE TO INTERVENORS.
The mere fact that the determining body has looked beyond the
- record proper does not invalidate its action unless substantial prejudice is shown to result.
Department of Publia Service Regulation, Public Service Commission, State of Mont. v. U.S., D.C. Mont. 1972, 344 F. Supp.
'i386.- See, also, Association of Massachusettes Consumers, Inc., v. U.S.
t
}
m f
4 l
( 18.)
Securities'and Exchange Commission, 1975, 516 F.2d 711, 170 U.S. App. D.C.
118, certiorari-denied 96 S. Ct. 781, 423, U.S. 1052, 46 L. ed.2d 641.
In a Board Order dated October 3, 1989, the Board requested that the I
Licensee file a response to both the Intervenors' and Staff's responses l
to Licensee's motion for summary disposition of Intervenors' contentions.
On November 6, 1989, the Licensee filed their 34 page reply, along with an
" easy to read" table that disposed of each of Intervenors' arguments on the contention. The Licensee also provided the Board with pertinent sections of the ASME code-in reference to Dr. Sih's arguments concerning " strain i
rate".
On November 16, 1989, Intervenors, who had never before been confronted with a reply to their response to a motion for summary judgment in other ASLB proceedings, filed a motion stating their view that such a reply-is not allowed by the Rules and asking for the opportunity to respond to the arguments that Licensee had raised, i
The Board never responded to Intervenors' Motion for. Leave to Respond.
-Instead, the Board addressed the issue in-their January 16,1989, Order:
We ir.advertantly directed Licensee to file a Reply to Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Dispo-sition.
Because our rules do not provide for such a reply
^
(see 10 C.F.R. 2.749; Long Island Lighting Co., 26 NRC 201, 204 (LBP-87-26, 1987), reconsid. denied 26 NRC 302 (LBP-87-29, 1987), we have not considered Licensee's Reply.
This decision relies solely on the record of the case prior to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition,the Motion itself with suoporting documentation, Intervenors' Response and supporting documentation, and the NRC Staff's Response and supporting documentation.
( Board Order at page 16).
- pll Jh; ~
' ~
[n,
py j
w.o g7 n:w %9 h ig- )
e
+
7*
e Intervenors contend that 5 U.S.C. 556'of the Administrative Procedure
{d.y
{Act requires that if the Board's decision was. influenced in any way byl p
,.y this extra-record material, without al]owing Intervenors to' respond, it b1 j
is' contrary to this section,.and a denial.of due1 process of law which V
p' requires a rehearing.
Sosna v.,'Celbreeze, D.C. P.A. 1964, 234 F.Supp. 289.-
(,4
-Intervenors contend that despite the Board's-assertions that they g
'have not. considered Licensee's' extra-legal Reply as:a= basis for their r
' decision,- they may have read the Reply and been influenced by the arguments f
e contained therein.
For-instance..on pageL32 of the Board's Order dismissing this
,/
proceeding, the-Board's. comments'on strain rate not being required by-the Commission's testing program are attributed to the Collard Affidavit, 59-70. Yet, it is clear _ from a review of the Collard affidavit that. he
~
t never 'a'ddresses the -topic of " strain rate", nor the fact that such a 1 W
i calculation is not required by the Integrated Surveillance Program.:.
1 lA.
i icareful review of the record shows that there1are only two. places where this discussion of: strain rate appears : first, in Irtervenors'EResponse Licensee's Motion for. Summary Disposition and the attached.0ctober 18, q
to
-1989 letter of Dr. George Sih;and second..in Licensee's Reply to Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition with the attached j
I ASME codes. (.See Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary' i
pf
-Disposition pp. 27-28 and attachment A, pp. I and 2, and Licensee's Reply j
U
'to.Intervenors' R>asponse'to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition pp.
28-20 with attachments).;
.{
g
'Intervenors contend that the Board's statement that, "Intervenors' 1
i concern with strain rate in fact relates to the fracture toughness requirements for the danger of pressurized thermal shock, a matter which f
_i
o E
y L
N _
O_
'. ^ -
c s
( 20 )
g hasLbeen excluded from this proceeding," is'a statement:that may not only have been influenced by Licensee's Reply arguments,-but is another example of the Board-interpreting the evidence in a light most favorable to the
. proponents of.the summary disposition motion.
Intervenors' contend that this Appeal Board, in all fairness, must inquire as to whether or'nor this Board read and/or reviewed Licensee's e
Reply to Intervenors' Desponse to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition,.
and'if.they. find the Board has read the extra-legal Reply,'they must reverese the Board's decision on' the basis that the Board's decision g
1 may have been influenced by their review of extra-record material'and has resulted in substantial prejudice to the Intervenors.
For as the old saying goes :" You can't unring a bell."
w E. THE BOARD ERRED BY STRICTLY ADHERING TO TI:E RULES OF EVIDENCE 1
{
WHICH CAUSED INTERVENORS' CASE TO BE PREJUDICED.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556 (d) of the Adminstrative Procedure Act, f
the hearing' officer in an administrative proceeding may receive any oral
')
1 or documentary evidence, but the agency as a matter of policy shall.
t provide for the exclusion of irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious
-evidence.
Technical rules of evidence applicable in civil trials are not 4
employed in administrative hearings.
Fairbank v. Hardir. CC.A. Cal. 1970, 429 F.2d 264 certiorari denied 91 S. Ct. 244, 400 U.S. 943, 27 L.Ed 247.
l Adminstrative agencies are not rigidly restricted by jury trial rules of
- -s :
i evidence.
Buchwalter v. Federal Trade Commission, C.A. 2, 1956 236 F.2d f.
344.
l u
d L
]
y I'
l N.
~
w :..
_t
( 21 )
a-In NRC licensing proceedings before Licensing Boards with technical members, opponents of motions for summary disposition, as differentiated from proponents, may support their opposition with affidavits supplied by affiants of " questionable competence".
Florida Power and Light Co.
(Turkey. Point Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 3 and 4), LBP-85-29, 22 NRC 300-305 (1985).
s When Intervenors filed their 32 page Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions, they attacht:d 24 Exhibits, two letters from Dr. George Sih, Director of Fracture Mechanics at Lehigh University, and an affidavit from Intervenor, Joette Lorion, stating that she had been researching nuclear issues for over 10 years, that she had a broad knowledge of pressure vessel embrittlement issues, and that she had prepared Intervenors' Response and researched the documents attached to the Response.
5 Most, if not all'of the arguments and issues raised in Intervenors' Response were material-to the issues that the Board had defined for the proceeding. Additionally, the October 18,'1989, letter of Dr. George Sih directly addressed the issues defined by the Board.1 p
. 11 Dr. George Sih is currently Professor of Mechanics and Director of.
the Institute of Fracture and Solid Mechanics at Lehigh, University.
Dr. Sih,"who has-37 years experience, has been engaged as a principal investigator in more than fifty projects at Lehigh University sponsored by the Office.of Naval Research, National Research Laboratory, National Aeronautics ~and Space Administration etc., all of which are concerned with a discipline that has been referred to as Fracture Mechanics.
.Much of his work has been concerned with estimating the remaining /or life of material and structural components _ damaged by yielding and fracture. Dr. Sih has served as the Editor of the ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics and is the Editor of a three book series on Fracture Mechanics.
Dr. Sih has also served on Committees concerning nuclear reactor components.
(See Professional Oualifications of Dr. George Sih that were attached to his October 18, 1989 letter provided to the Board with Intervenors' Response to Licensee'.s Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contentions also attached here as Exhibit 3).
n
^
I -
,A l
'G 8
p!' a i key
- i w*r u
.. ~
F h.
.(122:):
< w
)
-In(their Order l dismissing this proceeding, the'Boardfrejected'Ms.
'Lorion's affidavit finding that. she was' not competent to testify. for ggs e gg*
.10-C.F.R.c2.749 (b) purposes. ;Intervenors contend that this Board ~could-W Lhave considered the, factual arguments and documents presented'byLIntervenorL
/
w,3j
'Lorion just as the Board did in 22 NRC 300-305, for the purpose'of getting 9-s v
- to the truth offthe matter.
Q{
-Second, it is unclear to Intervenors whether or-not the' Board accepted Dr. Sih's' letters as evidence, since as they state on page 19 of their Order..the letters were not.in affidavit form. ~Nor?is it clear-whether or not the Board considers Dr. Sih competent.to testify under 10:
4 s
C.F.R.-2.749 (b), since they never address this issue. 'It appears, however, that the.. Board did accept Dr. Sih's letters as evidence but' selectively 4
addressed the issues Dr. Sih's letters raised.
The Appeal. Board should-3 1
~
- also note that the Intervenors had attached'Dr. Sih's letters to their l
- p Supplemental Response to Licensee's Interrogatories ~when;they~ informed the s
Licensee and the -parties that Dr. Sih would be appearing as an expert -
7 witness oni behalf-of-Intervenors at ' hearing and would beiaddressing the 3
w y,
1
~
issues contained in his letters. Thus, Lit is clear:that the Board should
.'not have restricted -any of the evidence : contained.in Dr.- Sih's letters
. for the purpose of determining whether or. not material issues of-fact s
existed on Contention 2:that should have-been resolved at hearingi l
f Intervenors contend that'the Board's strict adherence to the rules iq of evidence in this administrative proceeding was unnecessary, prejudicial
. IIntervenors case, and violated the spirit of 5 U.S.C. 556 of the 1
to Administrative Procedure Act which states that a party is entitled to i
i
- present his case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit L
'4 l
'l f
I b
I
w& ~;p;.,
m av y,.g q-;
-o
~
pr ;;
yo
-y, pj:-
- ( 23 1 LN JQ
~ rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as may be required c
y 1,
'for a full and:true disclosure of the facts.
~
1#
Intervenors contend that both-the evidence offered by. Intervenor o
[v i
,Joett'e Lorion and Dr. George Sih is relevant and material-to the' issues s1 i!'
'thit were. defined by;the Board-in this proceeding and should-be admissable.
[
Federal Rule 40'1 tells. us that " relevant evidence means: evidence having any. tendency to make~the existence of any fact more probable or less i
g
- g
. probable than it would' be without the evidence." Intervenors further 3
contend thatithe' Board's failure to consider Intervenors' relevant:and 1
F
' material evidence. on the issues that they themselves. defined'for :this-proceeding'both prejudiced Intervenors' case and prevented'a true disclosure T
of the facts, and. should' be grounds for the Appeal Board's reversal of:
th'e Board's decision.
4 F. THE BOARD ERRED-BY FAILING TO FIND THAT CONFLICTS IN THE'NRC:
M.
AND LICENSEE. EXPERT TESTIMONY RAISED A GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT CONCERNING WHETHER OR.NOT LICENSEE MEETS.THE REQUIREMENTS.
F' 0F-THE INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM.
L From'the outiset of-this proceeding Intervenors have contended that-
.the Licensee does not meet'the requirements of the Integrated Surveillance g.
Program allowed by Appendix H because the initial tests of the weld metal
. sample' for, Unit 4 showed that the weld metal material in this unit was
^30%~more britt1e than the weld metal in Unit-3.
Thus, Intervenors have argued that the use of Turkey Point Unit 3 capsule V data to' adjust the l
reference temperature and set pressure / temperature limits for Unit 4 may.be-g non-conservative and could result in a rupture of the reactor vessel.
To to support their argument, Intervenors pointed out in their Reply brief that the NRC Staff and Licensee have conflicting views on why the first,
7 ci-i' I
'g
y i=
( 24 )
and only,. capsule that was tested for Unit 4 showed that Unit 4 had a much higher rate of embrittlement than Unit 3.
Licensee attributes the high test result to alleged differences in the flux lot number for the Unit 4 sample, (Collard Affidavit 38-43).
This flux lot number difference was also the reason the Licensee gave the NRC Staff for using Unit 3 data to predict the radiation damage to the welds of Unit 4 as early as 1981 - well before the NRC Staff granted the Integrated Surveillance Program.that would officially allow this data sharing process. (See Intervenors' Response-to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition, Exhibit 5). While it appears that NRC technical expert Pryor Randa11'also attributed the high test result to the alleged difference in flux lot number, NRC Staff technical expert Elliot in responding to Intervenors' Interrogatories to the NRC Staff, states that flux lot is only of minor importance in determining the sensitivity to radiation embrittlement.
( NRC Staff Safety Evaluation, pg. 7, NRC Staff Response to Intervenors' Interrogatories, nos. 7 and 8).
These conflicts in the record on the issue of whether or not Licensee meets the requirements of the Integrated-Surveillance Program that were-raised in pages 23-25 of Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition are evidence that genuine issues of material fact exist
- concerning whether or not Licensee. meets the requirements of the Integrated l
Surveillance Program which in turn directly relates to the issue of whether or not the revised P/T limits are non-conservative and could threaten the integrity of the Unit 4 reactor pressure vessel..For the Board to ignore these conflicts in the NRC Staff and Licensee expert testimony is not only an error, it is a danger to the health and safety of the people living near
- the highly embrittled Turkey Point Unit 4 nuclear reactor.
W ci
-i 3
1
( 25 )
L c
G. THE BOARD ERRED BY FINDING THAT INTERVENORS ARE CHALLENGING s'
THE COMMISSION'S RULE FOR AN INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM t.
i The. Board erred by concluding on page 35 of their Order granting summary disposition and dismissing this proceeding that the Intervenors are challenging the Integrated Surveillance Program and that their remedy is really a petition for rule making seeking to revise the testing program methodology.
Intervenors contend that there is no evidence in the record to h
support the Board's conclusion,and that there is ample evidence in the record to support the fact that Intervenors were merely challenging whether the Licensee met the requirements of the program as defined in 10 C.F.R. Appendix H.
At both Orai Argument and in their Board' Order,
~
the Board acknowledges that Intervenors had taken the position that they were not attacking the rule or the concept of an Integrated Surveillance Program.
( Board Order, June 8,1989 at 17, Tr. at 64). This was the reason for the Board's defining the issue on Contention 2 of whether the-L integrated surveillance program at Turkey Point failed to meet the requirements of the program itself".. ( June 8th Board Order at 17).
In Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition, Intervenors-
. addressed this issue and provided the Board with documentary evidence as.
to their contention that the Licensee never met, nor do they now meet, the requirements of an Integrated Surveillance Program.
( See Intervenors' Response to Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition, pp.13-26).
Throughout this proceeding, Intervenors have not once attacked the concept of an Integrated Surveillance Program, which was primarily designed to be 1
i ll
e s
t
( 26')
b(
able to predict radiation damage to nuclear reactors'that have no test capsules in their reactor vessels. This view is supported by Licensee's expert Collard who admits that-Turkey Point is atypical among plants with NRC accepted Integrated Surveillance' Programs in that most of the plants involved in the program do not have surveillance capsules in their reactor r
vessels. '(Collard Affidavit at 47).
Intervenors are not attacking the concept of an Integrated Surveillance L
Program.
Intervenors are attacking the Licensee's use of the Integrated Surveillance Program at Turkey Point because as they demonstrated in their Response brief, Licensee has never met, nor do they now meet, the requirements of the ISP. Intervenors have no problem with an Integrated Surveillance Program being used for the purpose of predicting radiation damage to the welds of reactor vessels that have no capsules.
Intervenors do have a problem with what appears to be a subversion of the purpose of the Rule which has resulted in a camouflaging of the true level of radiation embrittlement damage to the Turkey Point Unit 4 reactor vessel welds. ( Intervenors' Response, pp. 13-26).
The question the Board.should have asked, and the question the Appeal Board should now ask themselves is: "Would an Integrated Surveillance Program-have been instituted'at Turkey Point if the 1976 Unit 4 weld metal test had not.shown such a high level of radiation embrittlement?"
Intervenors request that the Appeal Board do what the Board should have done and require the Licensee to test the Unit 4 capsule V weld metal sample and use that data to determine the ART to set the revised pressure / temperature limits for Unit 4.
Finally, Intervenors contend that the Board erred by ruling that the Licensee is not required to have a written, detailed contingency plan to meet the requirements of the Integrated Surveillance Program.
Intervenors request that this Board, in the interests of the public health and safety, require the Licensee to develop a concrete contingency plan.
l
( 27 )
VII..
CONCLUSION Motions for summary disposition pursuant to 10.C.F.R. 2.749 should not be granted unless the entire record shows a right to summary
' disposition with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy and establishes affirmatively that the adverse party cannot prevail under any circumstances.
Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (Stanislaus Nuclear Project,.
Unit No. 1),LBP-77-45, 6 NRC 159, 160 (1977).
(Emphasis Supplied).
If a contention is to remain litigable, there must at least be presented to the Board a sufficient factual-basis "to require reasonable minds to inquire further." Pennsylvania Power & Light Cooperative, Inc.
(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),12 NRC 317, 340
-(1980).
Intervenors contend that they have presented genuine issues of material fact.in this proceeding which are in controversy and create a sufficient f
basis that should have caused this Board to inquire further and sh.
. ave caused Contention 2.to remain litigable.
Intervenors further contend that if the Board had viewed the record
~
material under the proper standard, in a light most favorable to Intervenors, the Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition would have failed.
Intervenors request that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board overturn the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's erroneous.
decision because "the record compels a different result." Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2), ALAB-264, 1 NRC 347, 357 (1975). Accord Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear.
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB 781, 20 NRC 819, 834 (1984); Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Baily Generating Station, Nuclear 1), ALAB-303, 2 NRC 858, 867 (1975).
1
O 4
( 28 )
Additionally, Intervenors wish to state for the reu r6 their concern that the Board's conduct throughout this proceeding has been prejudicial toward the citizen Intervenors and not in keeping with the spirit of the Atomic Energy Act. Congress has expressly granted citizens the right to participate in proceedings to determine whether their health and safety requires the modification or cuspension of the operating license of the nuclear plant operating in their community.
42 U.S.C. 2239 (a) (1982).
Congress expressly declared that the regulatory scheme it adopted, including the mandatory citizen participation,vas necessarytoprotectthehealthandsafetyofthepublic(M.2012(e),
Throughout this proceeding, the Board's conduct has been more in keeping with the strict standards of rules and evidence required by the Federal Courts rather than the open and truth-seeking manner required of an administrative agency.
Intervenor, Joette Lorion, who has been involved in administrative
. proceedings before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for almost a decade, has expressed her concerns to Congressman Dante B. Fascell that the Board's actions may be part of what appears to be a growing and concerted effort by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to severely restrict citizen participation on important nuclear safety issues that threaten the public health and safety.
intervenors, who have lost feith over the years in both the NRC Staff i
and now the ASLB.can only hope that this Appeal Board will right the wrongs
)
of the Board and allow the important safety issue of whether the extent of radiatica embrittlement to Turkey Point Unit 4 has been correctly predicted in the setting of the precsure temperature limits for this unit to be resolved at hearing.
W W.&j%W %; h ', l f<;r&w.e
, %, m:l '.b 8
1 ^ ?,, u;, G 2
@ A.:-
..s s
e
- lf.u.
c 43
, lll '
34'
" l' )-t y c S.L' a }
> :f,[le,t.
L h
' bb:
,s,
~
w m4~.
e, -t m,
, -3 3 m
- m.,
e n,
M ; *; % v,, %n s
~;
3,p
..r.
y
- t wn c
c g+
o.
n o
o F
'@ ( f 1(!29:)7 s
me N
o-
.m f j.u m y
- t
- h.'.
4!-
f.'. !.. ii, O-.
t 4
- ~
$ ~
~.
- 4. %, ",
l o.e j
..v, Q #(
JFor all tho' foregoing reasons, Intervenors ask'this Atomic lSafetyi 0
s k
a
=
, ' and^Licansing Appeal.~ oard to reverse:the. Atomic Safety. and'11censingi i
- f.. ' ' '
4 4%sw n
i
.,. >1;.,,.
I' Ni
- Board's'decisioni,nIhis;proceEdingandrordArthatLthe: Intervenors-be Lj w w%..
Mr w
A4V 17 3@y@4,'
GrantedLthefpublichearing-that1they-des,erveandareentitled:tobylawi-W r
, ~
- o..
s d)-
fp t x i
.)
y 3 };I, m:
_e g-v q.
- 4. D 5.
s 3
@ p f,' 'f ( '
w,
i
- [ (_J
's jjf 6
kespectfully suhnitted, W
,P
~ cw ;4 s s m.
r 3m 1
(p o
<nc m
t
-y.e
.o,
,v.
.u m
.T::d ' m
-'.h,-
'-(
j F
e..
1-WtGN,'
?
v_
x.
1,,,i.-.
I e.n +t
,~
[
(
>: 9 r
m;. ? :.
x w
+
M ;,
- e4m-,.
A y? U's
- y-e v
ih 1 $j' -
f, 4
3 s
3
/
.U.
U T jn ': ^
eJoette Lorion, Director T**
if:
y'-
Center for Nuclear ~.responsibilityD
?;
Nf,
_. 7210 Rod Rond //207 B 0'
"44 4
u
@C r i _
Miami,; Florida 33143 y %,' m_ y' 1(305) 661-2165;
- (305T662-260,0-74; ipg _ ~N* n..
w
- .a-ew y.un q,
y 1;-
af(-:
u.. ' ([-
N '..qs u
,.,e,Q -
i 4
.V.
og;; f -.
')j' p;
t by n 2' h 3' ; j,h b..,,q
~
r r-
,Oy
'{:
},j g'i -i O _, _, 4 D
{i-(
Yf
%/y,Y,S:cpF Mr,, %. es.
<u.
w.
- w me
- Dated
- TMarc.h 5,'1990 1,
J WW 'g;W G P W ; ".
e.I
.v m
n;:h q.[
jg
- s. u -
!. !i II,,_., *-, --
I
.- a, gg;;,? *
.m
' s f'._ff
_M ':
m ';'
B iCNNE
~
$p r
,-2--
v, q 'N
?.[ '.!
'\\'
& tyl*",71. } '.'.
MM sk M
'. b.., ;,
o h P p'3 enmm
}'WV F,Q
[~
uigl?: V, ! "y J l [.f.:d 1
1
' '. ' _ ' ~
f
(_.
1 x+
$& CMS
&WQ(?s $,,+. -.
(.=
.. ~
' w --
,)
7 3.Q(ifa,,,T)-l
' - f:^
.1 n-n=
Ni N*
r e,
..f
, ( j._ -
c'
~
ky
+w M;,.
m
,4.
'c
<q.
it, Qkl lf[.+-
I'[
J 4
. 45,s,
f
@t :(^@syg:r r,
e i -
s gm.~
y x.>
c ir fMg zi;.a
- 4 :!M..
e L.
y c;%,l. kl t
% ;%;e.a s ri? '
^^
L a ' '.y:
'.. m
,w&
r
- t
- (p %: aff.'4n g
g' w);f.p h r QQ f2;^v :
e hi&UW$$ W'W
e U ?'
h~
~
s enht a__ma;4 a
- g;
e 00CMEi[0
+
USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 90 mR -8 P3 02 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD;,a. 5 - 2 G? ' '
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-250-OLA-4 Florida Power & Light Co.
)
50-251-OLA-4
)
(Turkey Point Nuclear Plant )
(Pressure / Temperature Limits)
Units 3 and 4)
)
.i
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Center for' Nuclear f
Responsibility's and Joette Lorion's Brief,In Support of Their Appeal of the Licensing Board Order Granting Summary Disposition of Intervenors' Contention 2 and Dismissing the Proceeding have been served on the folicwing parties by deposit in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the date shown below:
Christine N. Kohl Harold F. Reis, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Steven P.
Frantz Appeal Board Newman & Holt:iner, P.C.
'U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L. Street NW #1000
-t Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Howard A. Wilber John T. Butler, Esquire-Atomic Safety & Licensing Steel, Hector & Davis Appeal Board-4000 S.E. Financial Center U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Miami, Florida 33131 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Thomas S. Moore Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Appeal Board O.S. Nuclear Regulatory Thomas Saporito Jr.
' Commission Nuclear Energy Accountability Washington, D.C.
20355 Project 1202 Sioux Street Patricia Jehle, Esquire Jupiter, Florida 33458 Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
~
h % k(( vs Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Joette Lorion, Director
' Dated: March 5, 1990 Center for Nuclear Responsibility',
7210 Red Road #217 Miami, Florida 33143 (305) 661-2165 (305) 662-2600 a
g*.
- f. C -
4 A
1 s
}
,'I' r
1 4
1 V
s-
' Additional copies of Intervenors' Appeal Brief'have been
_sent to the following:
Lo Congressman-Dante B. Fascell 2354 Rayburn House Office Building Washington,_D.C.~20515
. Senator Bob Graham 241'Dirksen SenateLOffice Building Washington, D.C.120510 1
l.,
Representative Peter Kostmayer
.123 Cannon House Office Building Y
-Washington, D.C.=20515~
ntn Senator' John Breaux.
516 Hart Senate Office Building y?
Washington, D.C.
20510 t.
.p p:
Diane Curran
. Union'of Concerned Scientists LHarmon,-Curran,.Toufley 2001 S Street NW #430
- Washington, D.C.
20003 i-:f.
p,
[k"r
'i r
hs
- .9 -
v';'
bi' 3
4 O
t
'H-r e,.
b ' --
eThe Risk '
f $ m M es O:La a
~ V/w g.,,
e w
. a,....
.= _.
., :=
em.C.OWn a._-
e
, tmm.
l
,', By Deme.zios L. Budeku N'.
WA$EINGTON - Then is a Idsti.
I_
inemassag pam.aad that satosesy
'N
.nse, dunna a seem agly minor ma2
- funecne at any of a demo or more su.
- --\\
.. S
' ' ' ' ' = =,
[
easar plaats arand the en: led staias,
'.the stae] vuesal that houses the rs$10 V--
-.A J
1 active core is to crad Ehe a 7
'pfece of glass.
teruit v.11 he e core
,' moltowr the most asnous kind of ac.
.' ~M. "'"--
\\ -]
~
?Ah.l*
cident, wtuch v'.I! !tfurt many peopie.
- .N *
?
~~"r*.
the plant, and prtenbly do.~
~
N 3r*
strt'y sucjearindustry with it.
A
. L On the thirt! anniversary of the
..W\\
""*7
' y Three xue Island acedent, inn oev.
ernmect and industry are unable or
~ d~
- utrw:lhng to denJ honestly and ur.
I s
ge=ry with rar.r e ms m,c3sar.
emfety prtelems.
g
\\\\
c p
r
- Aaraber eenous arrMant is very
- llkaty 1===* the wrung metal was A
l
- used te the rencsor vessels, and with t_
T aeach day of opersoon, neutruo radia.
l 26cm is making the metal more bntile, I
- and snart prune to crack in case of
~
i at suddeo tempersnet mange unoer
\\
- .ug
- preemars.
9
- a. One innahntrer of oudear reac.
- y Id
. tors has rgponed to the Nuclear Regu.
- latory cwa =e that to three to Dve snore years, t!e veenals in sotne,
(
l16 pts will be too brittle to operate
.' sala!y..But 2 asumate is wahtutworker dropped a sma!] ligtrt bufb talo not ilmmaght vtta! to the safe operst$m i
an testrument panel, caustng an niec.
et a plam ended up assetag eartaus i
think2ng, based oc earealiste as.
- trical ahon cstt.utt. The abort wisshed problems.
sumpoems about plant operators' ac, havoc on the plant's cetrol rystems 1h Nucjear Regulatory Commia.
.ttans and acesdent sequences Some
- a vanety o' tasmunents that run eks is charged with ensurtag that nu.
plants art already too dangervus to teucial putops and valves - and the clear pianta are operstad **with ode,
?
specute without correcstve maar.tres.
result was that tao much water was quate prosecues" of the pubuc health
..The coinminstan could do a great pumped through the reactor, chilung and safery, But bureaucrsue hot.
I
' deal to p evem such an mondent, and it suddeuy. It is very doubtfM that drassms and pr=arapatie with pub.
J stres.ct out the Irves of inacy of thane brtttle vessels, if it ordersd the rpe of "soint of the older plants operstag Ilc ruanas and Maa-ai problems of today wtadd be able to withsland the the industry are contributing to a correct!ve steps already taken at same shock. Fortunately, Rancho
.'sogne European tsactors. But the Seco had been in operstion less than shorumstnad view - that tactudcal
-4 tan wait er do not suost.
corn.m.ssion, regulanng an me r.ry two years; had it besc te op ance for marrh=rs of the riaff ar.known.
.that has senaus Snanc : and tec2mi.
- 10. Its pressure vesaal most likaly edge the safety problems===ented *
- cal perciems,inrtend of tal.teg tr.:ta.
Would have ruptured ttves tends te sweep difficult tettnscal The lands of control s)Tiems that with control rystetas, but the agency i
has yet to demand from utilltaas oper.
.proble:ns unoer the rug. reactzg to went baywtre at Ranche Sece are va y sung nuclear-pewer plants the techni.
1
- crtnes ordy after they occur.
hkely to fail at crucal tit:.es to other ca] date oc ocatrol systems necessary l
..The commaassoc must realae that nuclear. power plants. What a pipe to assias the systems' amfety I
s this cnsts is Upot us. A te.pe ar.try bursts, or a seal ! ails, or a valve fully.
thange severt enAgh to c act a brit.
.IJe reactor vessel alreacy has oc.
sec.ks, airtomaut control and safety It ma.' he that we need nuclear systems almost instarrJy take actee power to inatatain our standard of itv.
,rstrred to Californ:a. but not at one of to companta te, but they do taot always ing. Put :here a a vast difference be.
the older, more vulnerable plants. The take the right acuan commert::a! nu:Jear industry's ad.
Cetrol Fystems att acn reviewed twaso havtag to accept sognething, and snak mg it acceptable. We can mirsble safety recortl - no deaths by the Nw;3 ear Regulatory Comm.s.
make nuc ear power acceptable.
caused by raciauon - sti!! ts mtact, sion. They are not immune to fitt or The Nt clear Regulatory Commis.
Ian this cannot last couch longer, bei.. power tallure; they often have no man chairman, Nunno Palladtze, has cause the reactor vessett and other backuta, so a.rt prtoe to simple fall.
spokee of cJeamag up our nuclear act.
- ctlucal cor=ponects an aging.
urt. They art not even earthquake.
As a private crusse. I hope that we do
' For many years, it has bee: known
- proof, so, besmnas with vigilance at the
- that veneels are h== m bnttle.
The N.R.C. staff has taken the posi.
N.R.C. One entre accident the sue of
.Vhat makes the problem urgent is tien that if a plant gets toto trouble be.
Three Mile taland's, and the public's
.that the metal is as:ng more tspidly came of contro!.cystem analfuncues, reacne ahncet certainly will form.
than err =w' and the ctrt.imstances it has safety systems to take care of ches the auchnt apoon.
1 l
Bat would cause such an acceent ric'w any problems. But this is not so, as
- aeme mort ukaty.
events of the leet few years show. At Damernos L. Saadahar is a runesor t
,, At the Rancho Seco plant, near Sac.
Rancho Seco, at Three MDe laland, aspety siguiser wtth the. Nuclear russssse, Caltf. In March 1g75 a and at other plassa, sentrol systems RegularcryCommiassert
- ' - ~ ^ ^ ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ^
1 I
j c
EXHIBIT 2 j
CARA SAYS PRESSURS VESSEL INTEGRITY IS KEY L1FE EXTENSION ISSUE Presses venal insegnty is the major quesuon confronnng NRC as it preparts to bega semag smo.
]
dards for plant life extannon. NRC Chairman Kennes Carr told a congressonal panel February 8.
Cm. in a hearms held on NRC's proposed Ascal year 1991 budget by the House Interior & Insular A$ airs Subcommauas on Energy a the Envsronment. stressed the need for full funding of NRC's proposed rossarch budget if the agency is to preport to deal with life extension issues.
Asked what me prospects are that reactors can operate beyond the 40 year lives in their current i
licenses. Carr saad unlines have been able to replace virmally any comporant in a reactor with the es.
l cepuen of the tsactor pressure vtanet. "! can't give you a real him answer." Cart said of the prospeca for life estsasion. "That's a quascon we're asking ourselves. We have some concerns about pressurt j
vessel integrity." Carr added that the agency is not yet conymcad that radation. induced embrtttlement of presset vesaals is not a preolem that could limit their effeedvs service lives.
Carr said indicadons are mat "3oodly nurneer" cf uutides will apply for life extension, underlin.
]
ing the need for NRC to increase its research on the effects of aging on plant components. He called
{
plant life etiansion one of several "high prionty issues" that NRC must resolve in the neat several years. " A panod of inianse et!cn is neesco to ensure that all relevant safety issues are resolved before the currera operaung licenses Dcgm to espire later this decace." Carr saad. "Researtti evalundng the j
i tmpact of plant agmg on compcnent ano satety system performance is closely ded to plant ilfe exten.
ston."
Cm said NRC necas to acopt a ru!e on life extension in the "next few years" and that a life ex:en.
sien program "must de fully m piace by the mid 1990s to coal effeedvely with decisions potenually af.
l fecung almost 20ar, of the nations's electne supply." Carr said the agency would begin to review the I
$rst of two lead applications to renew operaung licenses m fiscal year 1991.
The anaidonal funding NRC is seeking m its research budget (see re!sted story) would be used to accelerate projects on the effects ofirraciauon and aging on reactor vessels, piping and support strue.
uares, and omer saft.sy relatro equipment. Carr said. "We cannot overemphacias the fact that a meeerste I
increase in funding. which in reality is a re::teration of cuts in the program over previous years, is criti. -
cal for the succacs of long. range research and the stability of the program." Carr said.
q
--Brian Jordsn, Washingten l.
ISSIDE N.R.C.- Fahnnery is, tsee l
h$
V
/
/
fCJItEW~/7i,I'AC.
s-m, e-~w-w-
.,ew*
4, ry m,--
_y
n LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
,4 e
cx3131, 3 i
f-Institute of fracture and solid Mechanics c
PacLard Lab. Bldg. #19 f
BETHLEHEM. PENNSYLVANIA 180!$
//,,fs**.
. Telephone No. (21.9 ?!S-J130 or 4133 g~g *g i
Fax. No. (215) 758 4024
- d
~-
G. C. Sih Director Fax:
(305)667-3361 October 18, 1989 i
)
Ms. Joette Lorion Center for Nuclear Responsibility 7210 Red Road, Suite 217 I
Miami, Florida 33143 RE:~ Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant Integrated Surveillance Program (ISP).
Document A.
Affidavit of Stephen A. Collard on Contentions 2 and 3 by FPL.
t Document B.
Licensee's Resoonse to Intervenors' First Set of Discovery Re-ouests to Licensee (Auaust 7, 1989).
Dear Ms. Lorion:
Based on the package of documents you mailed me on the Turkey Point Nuclear i
Power Plant Integrated Surveillance Program, I find that the unit 3 data are in-
~
complete and not sufficient to predict the P/T limits for unit 4.
Additional factors such as strain rate and load-history dependent damage accumulation should i
be considered; they cannot be ducussed on an ad hoc basis without analytical and/or experimental support.
The following comments refer to documents A and B referenced above.
(1) Pressure / Temperature Limit (Document A - Section IB7, 8 and 9 on pp. 7 to 9 inclusive).
l While the P/T limits depend on the combined effects of material properties, operating temperature and neutron irradiation as mentioned on p. 7, change in Mrain rate i can significantly affect the fracture toughness and ART This NDT.
influence has not been taken into account in determining the P/T limits.
The supporting argument for measuring fracture toughness from the Charpy V-notch tests is not conclusive because fracture toughness is strain rate dependent and cannot be adequately described by the work done in ft-lb. Work done per unit f
time or ft-lb /sec is the relevant quantity in determining damage thresholds.
f This is illustrated in Table 1 for the HY-80 casting material.
Note that the four cases considered are the same in ft-lb but the applied strain rates are different.
f The smaller weight 30 lb falling through a larger distance 8 ft identified as Case f
IV giving rise to a higher strain rate.
Comparing with Case I, a small increase in strain rate by a factor of 1.1 can lead to almost four (4) times reduction -
fracture toughness (dW/dV)c which is related to K by the relation 1c
L 4
[
Ms. Joette Lorion October 18, 1989 Table 1.
Influence of Strain Rate on Yield Strength and Fracture Toughness Determined from Three-Point Bent Specimen as Specified by ASTM i
E-23 for HY-80 Casting Material.
(Ref. G. C. Sih and D. Y. Tzou,
" Dynamic Fracture Rate of Charpy V-Notch Specimen", Journal of-Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics, Vol. 5, pp.189-203, 1986).
Case No.
Strain Rate Yield Strength Critical Energy (ft-lb) f
- (8'C-1) 78 (ksi)
Density e
(dW/dV)e(ksi)
I (1 x 240) 70.36 78.28 24.46 1
II (2 x 120) 74.00 79.15 15.70 III (4 x 60) 74.80 80.02 10.08 IV (8 x 30) 77.36 80.90 6.47 (14v)(1-2v)Kj
)c
- 2nr E c
where v and E are, respectively, the Poisson s ratio and Young's modulus.
The last ligament of material that triggers fast fracture is r '
c The local strain rates in the reactor vessel where defects prevail can be high and cannot be known unless a two-dimensional, if not three-dimensional, non-linear elastic-plastic stress analysis is performed.
No confidence can be placed in determining P/T limits unless the influence of local strain rates on the frac-ture toughness of reactor vessel materials is accounted for or shown to be other-wise.
This effect cannot be dismissed on an ad hoc basis because it affects the calculations of ART, ARTNDT, etc.
)
(2) Neutron Irradiation (Document A - Section IIIB 61 to 65 inclusive on pp. 42 to 44).
Referring to the data on neutron fluence (n/cm ) in Table 5 op p. 43, it is not sufficient to draw conclusions from the difference of 3.6 x 1017 n/cm2 (life time) and 2.37 x 101/ n/cm2 (1985-90) between unit 3 and 4 based on the total sum.
Material degradation caused by neutron irradiation being accumulative is a time-history and rate dependent process.
It would be more informative to investigate the rate
- at which the neutron fluence is accumulated in time on monthly or at i
The materials on p.14 of Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition of Inter-L venors' Contentions state that -- "the rates or duration of accumulation-- " are L
not important in considering the effects of neutron irradiatirn. This statement appears to be in contrast with one of the most important unit nyt for measuring L
irradiation damage of material.
Here, n stands for the nor.'ser of neutrons per l
cm3, y the velocity in cm/sec and t the time.
Rate affect is reflected by v and and duration by t.
p
Ms. Joette Lorion October 18, 1989 least yearly basis.
This point will be highlighted in relation to EFPH.
t Damage accumulation is a highly non1 Ntar process.
Predictions based on the linen 4um is not always conservative.
The data in Table 5 are not supportive -
of the integrated surveillance program.
(3) Annual EFPH (Document B - Section on Licensee's Response C on p.11).
A case in point on the influence of rate effect can be illustrated by the annual EFPH data on p.11 which is summarized in Table 2.
Although the differ-Table 2.
Annual EFPH for Turkey Point Unit 3 and 4 from 1985-88.
Year Unit 3 Unit 4 f, Deviations
-f 1985 5,032.5 7,706.5
+ 53.1 1986 6,652.9 2,601.8
- 60.9 1987 1,344.6 3.950.2
+193.8 1988 5.176.3 4,828.9 6.7 18,206.3 19,087.4
+ 4.8 ence in the total operating time between unit 3 and 4 is only +4.8%, the devia-tions on a yearly basis are enormous.
A graphical representation of the data in Table 2 can be found in Figure 1.
Unit 3 behaved very differently from unit 4; it possessed a slow down period.
The two curves intersected at P between 1986 and 1987 aside from the initial crossing. An overestimate would result to the left of P and underestimate to the right of P should the data of unit 3 be applied to predict that of unit 4.
The net damage would not add and subtract as in arithmetic.
In general Turkey Point Unit 3 and 4 do differ in their load history. The information supplied by the ISP is not sufficient to conclude that the unit 3 data could be used to predict the behavior of unit 4.
Very sincFely yours,
/
'~/
/ /.. [
'~p [ 1 George C.'Sih Professor of Mechanics GCS:bd
Enclosure:
Figure 1
np
.o
\\;
-l
,' 'i.
i 5
i E,
i l
$e l
}.
g 1,
1 i.
t 20 o Unit 3 e Unit 4 l
r c.
15 t
i' e
C
.c t
m P
~
x kw 10 Slow down period for Unit 3 5(_
l l
1 1985 1986 1987 1988 Figure 1.
Data reproduced from section (c) on page 11 of Licensee's Response to Intervenors' First Set of Discovery Requests to Licensee (Au-gust 7,1989):
Docket Nos. 50-250 OLA-4 and 50-251 OLA-4.
p I
Eio;ra:,hy of Dr. George C. M. Sih l
Professor of Mechanics and Director of the Institute of Fracture and Solid Mechanics i
Dr. Sih is currently Professor of Mechanics and Director of the Institute of Fracture and Solid Mechanics at Lehigh University, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
He also holds the appointment of Adjunct Professor at The Hahnemann Medical Col-lege and Hospital of Philadelphia since 1972.
He received his B.S. at the Uni-versity of Portland, Oregon,1953; his M.S. at New York University,1957; and Ph.D. at Lehigh University,1960; all of these degrees in Mechanical Engineering.
Dr. Sih has engaged in research in the interaction of mechanical deformation and heat flow (1960) supported by the Koppers Foundation, in Fracture Mechanics (1960 and 1961) for the Boeing Company Transport Division and (1962 to 1965) for the National Science Foundation, and as a member of the Technical Staff, Bell Telephone Laboratory (Summer 1961).
He has been engaged as Principal Investigator in more than fifty projects at Lehigh University sponsored by the Office of Naval Research, Naval Research Laboratory, the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-tration, the Air Force, the Amy, etc., all of which are concerned with opti-mizing the use of high performance material with design, a discipline that has been frequently referred to as " Fracture Mechanics".
Much of his work has been concerned with estimating the remaining life of material and structural components damaged by yielding and/or fracture.
He specializes in developing computer soft-ware for predicting the mechanical behavior of structures and the staF'lity of objects moving through fluid media.
His more recent activitics are concerned with-the influence of moisture and temperature in composite materials, laser 91azing techniques and non-destructive testing methods involving high-voltage electrophotography.
,),
7 From 19S3 to 1937, Dr. Sih was er.ployeo by Radio Corporation of America as o
a project and research engineer.
He worked on the research and development of i
input and output devices for the first generation "Bizmark" computer system.
Among the significant patents he obtained were:
1.
Adjustable optical system for line printing, f
2.
Automatic magnetic disc printing device for the Xerox process.
In 1957 and 1958, Dr. Sih returned to the academic life and served at the City College of New York as Lecturer in Mechanical Engineering.
He came to Lehigh University in 1958 as Instructor in Engineering Mechanics and was appointed,
Assistant Professor after completion of his doctorate.
From 1965 to 1966 Dr. Sih.
held the position of Visiting Professor in Aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology and participated in an Air Force research project on the dynamics of '
crack propagation and size effects in the fracture of plates.
b Dr. Sih assumed in 1970 the duties of Regional Editor, International Journal of Fracture Mechanics, and the responsibilities of soliciting and reviewing papers in the field of Fracture Mechanics.
From 1971 to 1975, he served as an Associate Editor of the ASME Journal of Applied Mechanics.
He is also on the Editorial Ad-visory Board of the Journal of Engineering Fracture Mechanics.
He is also Editor-i in-Chief of an International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Fracture Mechanics.
Dr. Sih is a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers and Honorary t
Fellow of the International Congress of Fracture.
He is also a founding member of the International Cooperative Fracture Institute, an organizPtion established to promote the interchange of ideas and infomation among active researchers in fracture mechanics.
l l
\\
2 i
Dr. Sih is also a re-ber of the fellowing societies:
i 1.
Society of Sig.a Xi 2.
ASTM Committee E-24 on Fracture Testing of Materials 3.
International Society of Engineering Science l
4 American Society of Civil Engineering 5.
American Society of Mechanical Engineering 6.
International Society for the Interaction of Mechanics and Mathematics Dr. Sih is the Editor of three book series.
Seven volumes on the Mechanics of Fracture series have been or are about to be published:
Volume I
- Methods of Analysis and Solutions to Crack Problems,1973 Volume II - Three-Dimensional Crack Problems,1974 Volume III - Plates and Shells with Cracks,1976 Volume IV - Elastodynamic Crack Problems,1976 Volume V
- Stress Analysis of Notch Problems,1976 Volume VI - Cracks in Composite Materials,1980 Volume VII - Experimental Evaluation of Stress Concentration and Intensity Factors, 1980 The two other series are Faticue and Fracture:
Volume I
- Fatigue and Fracture S. Kocanda,1978 Volume II
- Fracture Micromechanics of Polymer Materials, V. S. Kukshenko and V. P. Tamu:h,1980 L
and Engineerino Aoplication of Fracture Mechanics:
Volume I
- Fracture Mechanics Methodology:
Evaluation of Structural Compo-nents Integrity, edited by G. C. Sih and L. Faria l
Y
"=
t Volume II
- Mixed Mode Crack Extension by E. E. Gdoutes e - * *
- Volume III - Fracture Mechanics of Concrete:
Material Characteri28 tion and Testing, edited by A. Carpinteri and A. Ingraffea j
i Volume IV - Fracture Mechanics of, Concrete:
Numerical Analysis and i
Structural Application by G. C. Sih and A. DiTorraso Volume V
- Bonded Repair of Aircraft Structure by A. A. Baker and R. Jones l
Volume VI
- Crack Growth and Material Damage in Concrete:
Limit Load and e
Brittle Fracture by A. Carpinteri Dr. Sih has also served as principal organizer and editor of proceedings of f
f several conferences:
i 1.
International Conference on Dynamic Crack Propagation" (1972), Lehigh University 2.
International Conference on " Prospects of Fracture Mechanics", (1974),
The Netherlands
'3.
Conference on " Linear Fracture Mechanics" (1975), Lehigh University 4.
International Conference on " Fracture Mechanics and Technology" (1976),
Hong Kong 5.
14th Annual Meeting of the Society of Engineering Science, (1977), Le-high University 6.
First USA-USSR Symposium on " Fracture of Composite Materials", (1978),
USSR 7.
International Conference on " Fracture Mechanics in Engineering Applica-tions",(1979), India i
8.
International Conference on " Analytical and Experimental Fracture Me-chanics", (1980), Italy 9.
International Conference on " Defects and Fracture", (1980), Poland
F1 4
10.
Internationei Conference on " Mixed Mode Crack Propagation", (19EO),
0 * *
- Greece 11.
International Conference on "t.bsorbed Energy and/or Specific Strain En-L ergy Density Criterion" (1980), Hunoary 12.
International Conference on " Defects, Fracture and Fatigue", (1982),
Canada 13.
International Conference on " Fracture Mechanics Technology Applied to Material Evaluation and Structure _ Design", (1982), Australia 14 International Conference on " Application of Fracture Mechanics to Ma-terials and Structures", (1983), Germany
'~
Dr. Sih has approximately two hundred publications principally in the area of solid and fracture mechanics.
He has authored and co-authored a total of three books.
1.
Handbook of Stress Intensity Factors,1973 2.
Three Dimensional Crack Problems (with M. K. Kassir),1974 3.
Cracks in Composite Materials (with E. P. Chen),1980 Dr. Sih received the 1975 Achievement Award from the Chinese Institute of Engineers in the United States and the 1984 Achievement Award from the Chinese Engineers and Scientists Association of Southern California for his accomplishment.
in research and teaching in fracture and solid mechanics.
Dr. Sih has also been active in serving as members of national comittees.
Among them are the National Materials t,visory Board concerning with the Dynamic Response of Materials Subjected to High Strain Rate Loading; Ship Materials Fab-rication and Inspection; and other comittees concerning Nuclear Reactor Compo-j nents. !
n