ML20041A447

Response Opposing Wi Environ Decade 820101 Motion for Continuance.Established Schedule Will Not Lead to Decision to Advance Contemplated Sleeving Program.Problems at Ginna & TMI Are Irrelevant

ML20041A447
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	02/16/1982
From:	Churchill B SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20041A448	List: ML20041A447 ML20041A451
References
NUDOCS 8202220172
Download: ML20041A447 (5)

Text

-

\

l Februaryg6 4gl982 UD l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,82 FED 18 /UO:52 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing-Board _

i zr

, ' ~~ ~ .

In the Matter of )

)

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-266

) 50-301 (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, ) (OL Amendment)

Units 1 and 2) )

e> Mg LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO INTERVEN ,, . ,

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE ,-?". yg y-  ?

fA Q9h,A I. INTRODUCTION '

')x /w N q

" Wisconsin's Environmental Decade Motion ew IContinu ance," dated February 1 (postmarked February 2, 1982), was supplemented by its February 4, 1982 letter to the Board.

By these filings, Decade seeks "a continuance in scheduling final deadlines for discovery, determinations on litigative issues and hearings in the above-referenced proceeding until fall 1982." Decade's motion "does not contemplate any alteration in the present schedule for hearing the con-fidentiality issue."

As grounds for its initial motion, Decade points to the January 15, 1982 letter from counsel for Licensee to the Board (notifying the Board of Licensee's decision to proceed with full-scale sleeving of Point Beach Unit 2 during its spring 1983 outage, and to replace two steam generators at g)SC@

s -

Unit 1 beginning in October 1983) and to the Ginna tube

//

rupture incident on January 25, 1982. In the letter 8202220172 820216 PDR ADOCK 05000266 O PDR

I

, supplementing its motion, Decade further asserts that the discovery of steam generator tube degradation at Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 ("TMI-1") supports its motion.

Decade's February 4, 1982 letter also stated Decade's intent not to file its initial discovery within the schedule previously established by the Board, "since to construe i matters otherwise would defeat the intent of the Motion 'for a continuancel before it was ruled upon." This part of Decade's motion was disposed of by the Board's February 5, 1982 " Memorandum and Order (Concerning an Extension of Time . ) "

Licensee opposes Decade's motion.

II. DISCUSSION Underlying Decade's motion for a continuance is the apparent assumption that the current schedule established by the Board for this proceeding will lead to a decision far in advance of spring 1983, the time of the planned full-scale sleeving of Point Beach Unit 2. This is not the case. The prehearing schedule established by the Board in the January 11, 1982 telephone conference call concludes with a late summer conference call on Decade's reply to the submittals of Licensee and the Staff.in response to Decade's motion concerning litigable issues. Tr. 890-892, 900-902.

Assuming that an evidentiary hearing is neaessary, such a hearing would probably be scheduled for autumn 1982, to be

followed by the parties' submittal of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, probably on the schedule set out in 10 C.F.R. S 2.754.1/ Time must also be allotted for the Board's preparation of its initial decision, and for the Staff's issuance of any license amendments which may be authorized.2/ Thus, while the schedule previously established by the Board will enable a timely decision on full-scale sleev-ing, it is not a schedule which will lead to a decision far in advance of spring 1983.2/

In support of its motion, Decade also points to Licensee's decision not to perform full-scale sleeving at Unit 1, but to instead replace those steam generators beginning with the fall 1983 outage. Much of the argument in " Licensee's Response to Decade's Motion to Dismiss the Application in Part" is responsive, but need not be repeated here. Suffice it to

-1/

10 C.F.R. S 2.754 requires that an applicant's proposed findings be filed within 20 days after the close of the record, with the proposed findings of intervenors and the Staff filed within 30 and 40 days, respectively, of the close of the record. Applicant is then permitted 10 days to reply to the proposed findings of the other parties.

' ~2/

Obviously, for planning purposes, Licensee has an interest in knowing, as far in advance of the spring 1983 outage as possible, whether it will be permitted to proceed with full-scale sleeving of Unit 2.

3/

l Decade's argument that plans for spring 1983 sleeving support its motion for a continuance has a particularly hollow ring, given Decade's repeated complaints in this proceeding about Licensee's " late" filing of its applica-tion, and the " speed" with which the proceeding is being conducted.

l

o note that, as counsel for Licensee informed Decade by letter dated January 27, 1982, Licensee plans to carry out [r]epairs at either unit * *

• as the situation indicates at any given time, consistent with applicable license conditions.S/ Such repairs could include sleeving.

Decade's suggestions that the Ginna incident and the discovery of corrosion in the TMI-1 steam generators support a continuance are also to no avail. There is no indication whatsoever that the Ginna incident will shed any light on sleeving. To the contrary, the Ginna licensee has conclu-sively determined that the tube involved in the January 25, 1982 incident was not a sleeved tube. Nor does the discovery of corrosion in the TMI-l steam generators have any apparent bearing on sleeving at Point Beach. Indeed, as Decade con-cedes in its February 4, 1982 letter to the Board, the degradation of the TMI-l tubes is from the primary side -- a unique mode of corrosion, never experienced'at Point Beach or any other reactor.

In any event, Decade's request for relief based on events at Ginna and TMI-l is far premature. To the extent that it might appear, at the time of the evidentiary hearing, that such events promise forthcoming evidence relevant to sleeving at Point Beach, Decade may wish to move to hold the record open to receive such evidence; the other parties and the 4/

In fact, although the Wisconsin Public Service Commission

(" PSCW" ) earlier authorized Licensee to procure spare steam generators, the PSCW has not yet authorized the replacement of the Unit 1 steam generators.

Board could then address in a concrete, factual context the particular merits of Decade's proffer. At present, a con-tinuance would be at best founded on Decade's conjecture,

-in the abstract, that such events ggty bear on Licensee's application -- conjecture plainly contradicted by the present state of the record on Ginna and TMI-1.

III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, for all the reasons stated above, Licensee urges the Board to deny Decade's motion for a continuance in this proceeding.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE l

By: A,- x- / k ., d

@ruce~hT. Churchill Delissa A. Ridgway Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.

l l

Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 822-1000 l Dated: February 16, 1982 l

l

.