ML20045E812
| ML20045E812 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Point Beach  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1980 |
| From: | Malsch M NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20038A409 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-92-436 SECY-A-80-042, SECY-A-80-42, NUDOCS 9307060075 | |
| Download: ML20045E812 (60) | |
Text
,,
^
%Ni ::: 71.;;3
.[
.NUC1. EAR REGULATORY. COMMISS CN
^
ADJUDKATORY JTEM SECY-A-80 42 v ren 27. 19^0 e
m N Sr. git u, 3 l,.N D AR ITEM w
en c
6 7:r:
The ' ' - --i ? i : 7 9 : 2 Trcc:
- artin C.
':Li s i.:
Oeput" 03.2: 31 Cnnsel 5 &je:::
RENCST FOR rEARI'. G Od FOL;T EACH, C:::
1
Background:
The Commission has before it a request for a hearing on two orders relating to Unit I at i
the Min: T urh,cclear facility.
This request for a hearing is one in a series of filings, meetings, Commission briefings and orders related to the question of steam-generator tube integrity at Pt. Beach. 1)
These are described more fully in the Staff flotion to Deny Request for Hearing, dated '
i February 11, 1980 (Attachnent 6 ) ' and need. not be detailed here except as necessary.
On Hovember 30, 1979, af ter..a _ Commission brief-ing'on the safety issues idvolved,'f.h'e tiirector
~
~
of NRR issued an order amending Unit l's license and placing certain limiting con-ditions on its operation.
(Attachment 2).
1 The order gave an opportunity for hearing to
)
"any person whose interest may be affected" by the order.
By letter dated December 17, j
1979, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc.
(Decade) requested a hearing on the order.
l (Attachment 3).
The licensee filed a response 1/
Wisconsin 's ' Environmental Decade, Inc. filed a petition for.
enforcement action and for a hearing on steam generator tube integrity under 10 CFR 2.206 on November 14, 1979.
On November 26, 1979, Decade filed a Petition to Intervene in WEPCO's amendment application proceeding and a request for a hearing on that amendment.
Insof ar as the November 26 Petition related to the llovember 14 one, the Director treated it as a ' supplemental filing and denied both the Movenber 14 and November 26 petitions on November 30.
The
.l Commission decided.not to review the Director's Denial, thus making it the final agency decision on Decade's petitions.
UEPCO withdrew its application for an amendment on December 31, 1979, mooting the request for a hearing on it.
Information in this mctd w:: h!ctej CONTACT:
Marian E. Moe, CGC in accord 3nce mth t
- -do 1 cf in!
- rmation 634-3224 foI4_77g.g(_
V f#
P
- gg7o g s 93o317 g
mm-se eDR
2 on December 27, 1979, on essentially the same the staff's 7?hr. tare 11.!::i:-
crounds as Subsequen :1;,' fo11: vim;da.
iA:tachment 4).
second briefing to the Commission en C1:uary 3,
1360, the-staff imposed additional _liait-ing conditions reducing the primary pressure-in the staan genera: Ors at Unit 1.
See Order Modifying Confirmatory Order of November 30, 1979 (Attachment 5). 2/
Finally, on February 22, 1930, Ce:ade answered the staff's Feb-ruary 11, 1980 flotion To Deny Roquest For Hearing, repeating its request for a hearing and alleging injury to its members stemming from the order.
(Attachment 7)
Analysis:
Pursuant to Section 189a. of the Ator'c.
Energy Act, which provides for a hearing in license amendment proceedings, the novem-ber 30, 1979 order stated that any person whose interest may be af f ected by the Order may request a hearing.
The order also limited the issues in any such hearing to:
1, whether the facts stated in Section-II an'd:.IIIfof+this, Order :are-correc't;- u a n d,:....
.m z. x.a.c m n~.
ty
...-ai 2.
whether this Order should be sustained.
4 a
h
[f.'
-2/
i i
z.
+
0
f,.
t' $
h; h'
,t
I 1
9 1
f i
?
?
Martin G. Malsch Deputy General Covnsel i
Attachments:
1.
Draft Order 2.
Nov. 30, 1979 Order 3.
Dec. 17, 1979 Request for Hearing 4.
Licensee Response, Dec. 27, 1979 5.
Jan. 3, 1980 Order 6.
Staff Motion To Deny Request for Hearing, Feb. 11, 1980 7.
Decade Answer, Feb. 22, 1980
... --- - -.~
.. =,
. Connissioners' comments or consen; s cui; ce croviaec..ectij :o tre Off' :_f:h Se:retary by c.o.b. Wednescay, A ril 9,1930.
Cctmissicn Staff Cf'i:e ;rrents, if any, should be s & '::ed to ne C:--is:'.:ne*: "L*
l April 2,1980, with an information copy to the Offics f t' e Secretary.
I# Pe :ner o
is of such a nature tnat it recuires additional tire for analytical review and c:- ec,
the C:=issicners and the Secretariat sn:uld be apprise: of when rrents ray :e exce::ec.
This paper is tentatively scneduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting curing tne Week of April la, '980.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Corrission Schedule, l
when published, for a specific date and ti e.
DISTRIBUTION Comm ssicners Commission Staff Offices Secretariat 9
?
9 5
t h
I i
1 I
I e
,,y_
rw
.-.v-,, - -,,, - -.,
.nw e
-4..m.im
---c-
., -re
., a pu
...nn
+.aa e
a.
a
=~
pue.mtw
-w-,
.~,s-sr a-a
+ s as a n m
.p s
-.2s
. ~
i
+
- v ed t e
e e
P
)
A.. A C N.IIE AI. _
.W_
l o
)
)
t,
'\\o I
a f
b b
?
e
)
e i
i i.l
' \\
i 1
I 1
i i
a 1
e I
1 1
c-
" " ' * ' ' ^
e
,__g l
L M _m.hM J44r-se
' '.>-pr--a4f 45*4& 45 JM e ES MMM 4 em.mdL5 d WWJb-h A-uM M
-*4 *H 4G-mee 4 L4 44,m i @ 5 9d' Mwm em 4 J+4 M.h4 P4mme # We Mm' i,q
+
I
..q l}
)
C '.
h
. 4-b i
?
{
}.'-
. i 1
- i N'
c.
i i -
o
't 1
i e
?
4
- h i
- t l-I t
t i
L" s..
s...~. sea s,
gue i;
- t 4i 4
e l
?
j 5
i e
u s
s 6
e f
I w
s'
+.
f,
%M tut # *=et e 4 4 gg N-w
..,7..=..
1 f._?,j,1.". '-
4
=
i,,
9
- 4 4
b e
)
e 4
0 R
k
?
N I
I.
?
d' t
b' o
i, s
p 5.4 a
1 4.-
1 1
.k-l 4i d '
4 i.
i a
$'W FWY M +W W"y1p' We $'T 4'W M 'Y ""W 7 drW T F '
7' W M"W57m" wr=zr 9lEkPW 4 m e WWFN1"T-S m' rwi -w r w e e--+e-e*M%NT1e*m-*w>ast--meere emem7 we ih ewe-wierwiw$ m
- a --me =*ur ew---le-
- - - +
L;.. :.,..e. n..:.- n F n. c. :.. r. n.
- ."J"' !M o.E2VLaTODY COv15510N a.
- - : e 'i::e-c'
.. e.
.......C.
Du==gC
- .a
~
..;,...e.
n.:..,..
'
- a - I '. i " ~.,
l
( 2 : * ~ ~. id::
)
Unici) e c_- : c m.
s.n- - s : s. e ;~.., 9: g. ye:
-s y_. -
y:- r-I k" scc :'- Ele: -ic 0 we-Conoany (the licensee) is the holder of 0:erati ; L4 ce se 'ic. 0 :.-24 which autnori:es the licensee to Facili.
Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in Two Creeks. Wisc operate the Poin:
License No. DPR-24 was issued by the under certain specified conditions.
Ato-ic Ener;.. Connissior on Octoder 5,1970 anc is due to ex d 2008.
3y Inservice inspections of the!Polnt:Bea'ch: Unit 1-steam generators formed during the August 1979 and October 1979 outages indic i
general intergranular attack and caustic stress corrosion cra As a result of informa-of the external surfaces of the steam generator tubes.
hich tion provided in discussions with the licensee and its representativ 9
23, 1979 from S. Burstein to H. P..
is documented in a letter dated November 30, 1979, on Denton, and the Staff's Safety Evaluation Report, dated November Point Beach Unit 1, Steam Generator Tube Degradation Due to Corrosion, it was determined that additional operating conditio i 1 required to assure safe operation prior to resumption of oper from the current refueling outage.
I?!
The litersee in le::ers dated November 23, '? ? r.d S:vember 30,.1979 has a;-se: :: a:: :":mi cer t' ': s 2-e.etes sa..: c :. :3 -25s: :: i u s. r.:
'or safe c:erati:. cf Ur.i 1 for a :eric: of c: e##e:tive f.li ::ser :3; s, A'ter review of the Licensee's : mit e-t, it nas been ceteminec :na:
~
l
- ni s cor:-' tmer.: s9:;;d be fc eali:ed b.v orde.
2::: dirc.i.v, pursuant to the 1
At:-ic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's Rules and Regula-license 4* M Cr. Farts 2 and 50, IT :c. HE:EBY OEE.E: TH' the above tiens be a er.ded, ir the ranner he-ei.af te-p-evided, c include the foliceting conditions:
1.
a ',
',i ir 3 effe::ive fv11 ;;wer day 5, a :,:.
psid primary tc sec:adery hydrostatic test and a 800 psid secondary to primary hydrostatic test Shovid any significant leakage develop as a result will be perfomed.
i
~"~-
n.
of either test, th'e leaking ' tubes will be identified ' arid 'p'luggsd.-
Witnir. 60 effective full power days, the sade primary to secondary and
~
b) a i
secondary to primary hydrostatic tests will be repeated, and an eddy current examination of the steam generator _ tabes will be performed.
1 This eddy current program will be submitted to the NRC for Staff 1
review.
Primary coolant activity for Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 will be 2.
i limited in accordance with the provisions of sections 3.4.8 and 4.4.8 i
of the Standard' Technical Specifications for Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactors, Revision 2. July 1979, rather than Technical Specification
- 15. 3.1. C.
i r
,r-
3 se:c-:3 y lea;. age will be c: ' need and 3.
C; css sar.eillan:s Of ;-i y ::
- ..- f:r :.:e ;'.;;
- - ce:e:: ion an: ::, fi rma-
- .5 rei:::r a::: :i s.:
- i:- :f ar c' : e #::::wi ; :: :i:4:ns:
a)
Suc:en pri ary te secondary lea. age o# 153 god (C.1 g;r! in either stee ge-e-2::*;
secon:sey iee..a;e in ex:ess cf Zi; g:t (0.17 ;;r', in t,'
Ar; cri a y ::
eitre stear generator; or An u ward trene in priaary to secondary leakage in excess of 15 god c)
, '. ". ;:- ' pe-caj. wnen reas;*ec p ir.3 to se:cn:arj leakage is above l50 g?d.
The reactor will be shut down, any leaking steam generator tubes plugged, 4
and an e:: carrer; exa-ination performed if any of the following conditions are present:
Confirmation of primary to seconda'r/ leala'ge'in~iither 'siiaE gene'rator a) in excess of 500 gpd (0.35 gpm); or, identified leaking tubes in any 20 calendar day period.
b) Any tw:
Tnis eddy current prograr will be submitted to the NRC lor Staff review.
The NR" Staff will be provided with a surrary of the results of the eddy _
i 5.
current exanination perforred under items 1 and 4 above, including a d tion of the quality assurance program covering tube examination and p This sumr.ary will include a photograph of the tubesheet of each steam which will verify the location of tubes which have been plugged, The licensee will not resume operation after the eddy current exam 6.
required to be performed in accordance with condition 1(b) or' 4 Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation determine in writin results of such tests are acceptable.
i J
Ti:5-Gi 4
Tae licer.see will ::
~e:a :
e.' i e n Of Ererga :; ::e ::'.; 3 ::a:; e ?;.
Oe.'sio-g, ca:3: "3 :n 29,197^, ::r fi rm that thi r pro:5:. e is ap:r:-
have ccm-priate for use in the case of a steam generator tute ru::ure, an:
pleted a re:rair.4 g prog-ar fc-all licensed reactor operators and senior reactor operators in this prote:Jre before return to power.
1 will not be operated with more than IEi. of tubes plugged in either E,
Und:
V Copies of the above referenced documents are available for inspection at the Conr.ission's Public Document Roor at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555, and are being placed in the Commission's local public document room at Document Department, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point Library, Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54451.
VI Any person whose interest may be affected by this Order may within twenty days of the date of this Order request a hearing with respect to this Order.
Any request Any such request shall not stay the effectiveness of this Order.
for a hearing shall be addressed to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555.
In the event a hearing is requested, the issues to be considered at such hearing shall be:
e
-m
1 4 '
4-
- i c.
i
'a' hat:.er the fa:ts stat:d in Section II and III of this Orcer are-
)
1 i
c r. c. "...=. r.,
1
.,...... 4.s vr,.e 2,......,s...,2.,..,
e.
. n,. d.
..,,............. -, C s,,.v.. S.e,....
. 1 r., r.
.. ii
.en n:.a..
r' 1
^
i p). W.
- t en
.asi, n:tiec. Direc:ce A:s:r. u.
w Office of Nu: lear Reactor Regulation e.:
n..
i
... =...
Staff Sa'e:y Evahaticr. Report, j
dated 'ovembe-30, 1979
.e... ~e.
-::es.. ie s:....
>i.v:
ti Bethesda, Marylan:.
9 b
P I
r P
e f
-r m.m..
4 ee, A.r..
i
, n,. s
,*-.,e
.aa--
- +,..
a n
e.
L.-nn a
.n s
e-an a.
as ea,a=
.- a n -a sn s, a
e~..
o a
-,sw.a
_ ~. a s we,. -..>
t j '
s
- I 8.
. I 1
1 i
l
- 1 i
d l
I 1
l 1
' l J
a l
i
]l 4
.I l
i l
1 I
l i
b i
-- " ' -+ -- -
s:>v
.,m......
!'4 4v t e -.v., -,
4 2
a
,%=
- Oem. g.
g g } gf4G
% 8iw 6,7o,.,.w?
M,
y$N i,
m D_
44' e',.
. e
+
?
t 4
4 4
.w.
. - ~,
... ~ - - -.
~
2
U:iITED STATES OF AF.:.RICA EETCRE THE SUCLEAR REG;.TLAIGRY C0FCESSION 202::: 3EACH SZ_ ZA2 7:.>.:~~ C:I! l
- CCKET.';0.
E -:5 5 REQUEST SY WISCO::S ::'S E':VIRORE' TAL DECADE, I::C.
ER HF).R:::C C:: CONT!RMATORY OFCER TO:
EDSON G. CASE Acting Director Office of Nuclear F.eactor Regulation U. S. Nuclea r Re gula tery Cor._issien Washington, D. C. 20535 PLEASE TAKE ::CTICE that Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, In c., re s pect f ully requests a hearing with regard to the Confir:atory Order for Modification of License, dated Sove:ber 30, 1979, in the above-captioned cat ter, pursuant to the provision of said Order which states in relevant part:
"Any person whose iNehed$ cay be affected by this Order may within twenty days of the date of this Order request a hearing with respect to this Order."
The interest of Wisconsin's Environtental Decade, Inc., and its me:bers,
including those who reside in direct proximity to Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 are af fected by the provision of said Order permitting the unit te re-open, notvithstanding the potential safety risks cuated by reopening.
This request is cade on the further grounds as stated in the Memorandum in Support of Ecquest by Wisconsin's Environmental Decade. In c., for Hearing on Confirmatory Order which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
WISCONSIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE, INC.
By:
Mo 7A. [d Kathleen M. Falk Gene ral Counsel Dated:Decenber 17, 1979
i WED: 12/17/79
]
l
- l l
l U'!!"ED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REG *~ATORY CI: 11SSION J
POINT BEACH NUCLEAR FIANT UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-266 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST BY WISCONSIN' S ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE, INC.
l FOR HEARING ON CONFIRMATORY ORDER I.
INTRODUCTION II.
ARGUMENT
...,, o u y..-_.
,c.
.,7,; -,.33,;,;g A.
Point Beach should be Closed Pendinc Resolution of the Tube Decradation Issue 1.
The Licensee's Proposed Package Does Not Provide Satisfactory Assurance 2.
Tube Degradation Has Not Been Confined to the Tubesheet 3.
Steam Binding is an Undisputed Possibility for the Corrosion at Point Beach at the Top of the Tubcsheet 4.
Even if Further Tube Degradation Were Confined to the Tubesheet, There Still Exists a Serious i
i Safety Problem B.
An Adiudicatorv Hearinct is Essential on the Generic Steam Generator Tube Decradation Problem III.
CONCLUSION w
1
- -+
~
. - _ ~
1 I.
INTRCOUCTION Point Beach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 which ccri.enced ccmmercial oper-aticn in Oecember 197C, has been ciserved tc e::parienes steam gener::cr tube degradation due to caustic stress corrosica, wastage and denting since April 1971.
(See: Wisconsin Electric, current Recort to the Securities & D: hance Cc. mission, Form 8 -K, date.d October 25, 1979, at !!
Inservice inspections of the facility in August and October 1979 disclosed extensive acceleration of tube degradation.
(See: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Confirmatory Order for Modification of License, dated November 30, 1979, In the Matter of Wisconsin Electric Power Com anv, Dock et 50-266, at 1.)
On November 14, 1979, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc., peti '
.u-
' w u..;
~. 3..
.?
3 e.
um -,. + c.,:..u..
tiened the Commission for an order ' prohibiting reopening ~of Point Beach
=--.
1 and for an adjudicatory hearing on the sufficiency of the agency's bases of continued operation of nuclear reactors experiencing signifi-cant tube degradation.
(See: Petition of Wisconsin's Environmental 4
i Decade, Inc., dated November 14, 1979, In the Matter of Wisconsin Elec-tric Power Comoanv, Docket 50-266.)
On November 28, 1979, the Commission met to consider the Decade Petition and hear its Staff recommendation.
4 On November 30, 1979, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
denied the Decade Petition and authorized reopening of Point Beach 1 subject to certain conditions.
(See: Confirmatory order, on. cit.:
and Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206, dated November 30, 1979, i
3 In the Matter of Wisconsin Electric Power Comeanv, Docket 50-266.)
This Memorandum is submitted in support cf the Decade's request f:r : 5. :1rin: :n th: : nfirr:: cry Crder en the gr und: that all neces-sary factors were net considered in the crder and that critical new f ::s '.1ce subsequently occurred.
II.
ARGUMENT A.
Point Beach shculd be closed ?endine P.esolutien of the Tube Decradatien Issue Seine Exterienced at the Plant.
The primary safety concern at issue involving the matter of steam generator tube degradation at Point Beach is the question of'whether degraded tubes will rupture during the course of a loss of coolant accident causing steam binding and essentially uncoolable conditions in the reactor core.
-(See: Lewis, et al., " Report to the American Physical Society of the Study" Group' on Iiii h' ' Na'ter Reactor' Sa'fety,* ~47 Review of
~
Jt Modern Phvsics 1, Summer 1975, at App. 1, S85.)
After a long period of discussion without resolution, in January 1
1979, the Staff set forth a program for further analysis of the tube degradation issue and recommended continued operation of plants exper-iencing this problem on six ennumerated bases pending final resolution.
(See Eisenhut, et al.,
Summary of Operatina Excerience with Recircu-lating Steam Generators, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NUREG-0523)
January 1979, at 46.)
In our previous filing, we refuted each of the six generalized bases for continued operation, (see: Petition, op. cit., at 6-8) and, t
-y
,e
.m m,w
, -. - + -
.,e
H 3
i
)
to date, no fermal' response has been put forwarf by an;* ne disputing i
this refutatien insefar as it relates to tube fegr:datic.- in the frae standing regicn cf :he tube hund'e.
3 Instead the basis for centinued cpe:::icn Of _?:in: 23ach is pr:n : l i
i in the Staff's evaluation on thrse primary grcunds:
First, the licensee's proposed " package" of new procedures in i
addition to those set forth in the technical specifications (including.
but limited to repeated crevice flushing, increased eddy current testing]
periodic hydrostatic testing, improved tolerances for primary-to-
']
secondary leakage, modification of primary pressure and temperature and closer monitoring of ccndensor in-1cahage) will provide adequate-i assurance of identifying significant tube defects that may exist in ope rat 2.on;
.,g g__.
- ., g y
- g,...,,,
.3_
g, c.:. : -
- .7-.. ; -. -
5g,.
,,,j,,,_, 7 gg, p..,
Second, any further tube degradation will be._ confined _to.the region; of the tube sheet where ruptures during a LOCA will be less likely to,
occur and leak rates will be substantially constrained by the sheet wall; and Third, the realistic assumption of tube ruptures and secondary-to-primary leakage in the region of the tube sheet that might occur during a LOCA will be too low to give rise to concerns over steam binding and core melt.
(See: Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Safety Evalua-tion Recort Related to Point Beach Unit 1 Steam Generator Tube Decrada-tion Due to Deen Crevice Corrosion, November 30, 1979, at 17-25.)
For the reasons set forth below, we believe that there is inadequat;
l 4
support to justify these three new bases for continued operation of Poin: Sea:h frer necessary f ac:crs cna: were nc: censidered and 1
\\
frc= new informa:icr and that an adjudicancr; hearing is necessar-j to 1
compile an adequa:e record on whien to make a decision.
Therefore the pertion cf the Confirmatory Crder permitting the licensee to resume cperation of Point Beach shculd be reversed.
1.
The Licensee's ?rcycsed "?ackage" Does Not Previde Satisfacrory Assurance that Significant Tube Defects Will be Identified Prior to Resumed Operation.
The Safety Evaluation Report states in regard to the licensee's proposed " package" as follows:
The staff agrees that hydrostatic pressure tests prior to returning power and periodically during operation will provide a positive indication and increased confidence in steam generator tube integrity.
. Similarly, the pro-posed decrease in the-primary to-seco.ndary_ leak rate:limitc.m creci will provide conservative limits which will require timely plant shutdown and corrective actions.
(See: Id., at 21.)
This is essentially a more subdued endorsement of the licensee's "packagt:
that was given orally to the full Commission at its November 28, 1979 meeting.
For two reasons we demur from this conclusion.
first, at that meeting, Commissioner Ahearne asked us whether the increased periodic hydrostatic pressure tests and more frequent eddy current tests assuaged our concerns.
We responded and maintain here that these measure would only provide a significant degree of confidence '
if the rate of corrosion was low, which is not the case at Point Beach where the rate of degradation is the worst in the country.
This is because the safety concern arises when there are a sufficient number of
_. ~
j s
)
I incipient tube failures (whether ene to ten per the American. Physical at the eccent of a LOCA to cause Scciety cr 1C0 tc 200 per the Staff) scaar Sinfing and a ccre melt.
If the predicted rate of cerrc icn wculf, leave a sufficient number of tubes degraded which might fail during a LCCA in the pericd becween inspections, then those increased inspections will not provide an adequate margin cf safety.
Also at the same meeting Commissioner Bradford asked us whether the reductions in the primary-to-secondary leak rates assuaged our We responded that this would only be effective if the proble; concerns.
were ceneral corrosion which wears through the tube wall slowly and in i
which a small leak precedes failure, and not stress' corrosion which is charactericed by weakening of the tube wall without a through wall crack until the system is subjected.to: sudden stress prec_ip,it,a_t_ing failures of the tubes.
In Point Beach, it is stress corrosion which is the dominant problem at the present time (see: Safety Evaluation Report, eg. cit., at 4-5), and therefore, lower primary-to-secondary leak rates will not provide any significant degree of assurance of anticipating all incipient f ailures during a LOCA.
The vague reference by the licensee to some undefined laboratory tests purporting to show that small leaks will permit shutdown before critical cracking (see:
Wisconsin Electric, Letter to NRC, dated November 23, 1979, at Enclosurc 3, Viewgraph 21), is completely disproved by the plant's actual, real-life operating experience.
Witness the February 1975 incident in which a 125 gpm primary to secondary leak occurred without warning and which 1
6 was the worst leak ever bef re e::perienced.
(See: MRC, Retort te the Cencress en Abncrmal Cccurrences, June 1975, at A-1.)
This is a::artly what ene would expe : to cccur under stress corresien c ndi:i:ns.
After the close of that meeting, Mr. Case fr0m the Staff came up to us and stated that they concurred in our response as to the adequacy of the licensee's package.
(2ee: Affidavit of Peter Anderson, dated Decerter 17, 1979 which is attached' hereto and incorpora'ted herein by reference.)
However, they did not see fit to inform the Commissioners of this fact or to modify the Safety Evaluation Report to clearly indi-cate that whatever " increased confidence" is provided by periodic hydrostatic testing and decreased primary-to-secondary leak rate limit will be sharply mitigated by virtue of the very high rate of tube degradation and:the: predominance ref: stress corro'sibnr-*"~'"i-1 ~ ~A Be that as it may, we' do'not believe that one can responsibly dispute that the licensee's proposed " package" is of marginal value because of the particular facts of the Point Beach experience.
Essen-tially, we believe that the real basis for continued operation on the part of the Staff is not any significant assurance from the so-called
" package" but rather from the alleged confinement of tube degradation to the tube sheet.
(See: Jd.)
Second, notwithstanding the representations of the Staff and the licensee that the proposed " package" would minimize or substantially eliminate further leaks between inspections, a 200 gpd leak in the "B" steam generator of Unit 1 at Point Beach suddenly erupted the evening m
W-
7 of December 11, 1979, barely 11 days after beginning to return to service and less 'chan one week at 77% to 64; of full pcwer.
(:~c t e :
The Licensee Izent 7.2 pert fcr this cccurrence ' as not yet been fi7 ed.,
It would appear at this point in time that corrosion is not only not abating, but rathar is acceler-ting at an e cen f anter rate, notwith-standing the " package."
.i.i t e rna t ively, the quality controls in the inspection process were inadequate at the same time when the licensee l
made an all-out effort, that will not oft be repeated, to insure that there were no mistakes.
In either case subsequent events conclusively demonstrate that the " package" is ineffective.
4 2.
Tube Degradation Has Not Been Confined to the Tubesheet.
The Safety Evaluation Report states in regard to the alleged
~ _ _.,
~
_._._._._,n
.a.._..
confinement of present and' prd7e'cted -tubede,. gradation'to the~ region
" ' " ~ " ~
below the tubesheet:
Subsequent operating experience at Point Beach Unit 1 (since February 1975) indicates that the wastage and caustic I
SCC phenomenon above the tubesheet have essentially been arrested.
(See: Id., at 4.)
The most recent concerns regarding the integrity of steam generator tubes at Point Beach Unit 1 involve corrosion damage to tubes within the thickness of the tubesheet.
(See:
If., at 5.)
No crevice indications extending above the tubesheet have been observed to date.
(See: Id., at 10.)
l Because the deep crevice cracking is peculiar to the local chemistry conditions in the tube to tubesheet crevice, the i
phenomenon will be limited to that area.
This is confirmed by the location of all defects which have been observed during inservice ECT inspection, and by the laboratory exam-inations and mechanical testing of tube samples removed from Point Beach Unit 1.
(See: Id., at 20.)
1
q 8
j
~
This, ccmbined with the third point discussed belew concerning icwer i
leak rates within the tubesheet, appear tc be the real Staff justifi-i cation for con:inued operation.
For two reasccs, the a::erp: :: fi.C safe cperation frc assumed tube degradation ecnfined tc the tub ic.ts:
are unfounded.
vi*et.
there is an overriding matter in this regard of the utmes:
i gravity that casts a shadow on the integrity on the representa:icns of the Staff itself.
We have just learned of the existence of a letter and attached Licensee Event Report, dated November 16, 1979, from Wisconsin Electric to the Commis sion, and received by the Commissicn apparently en 'Noverher 19, 1979, before ' the Commission's November 28, 1979 meeting.
The report '
indicates that. four_ of f the _ tubes.which-ther eddy currentutest:.showed to.-
be defective were defective at the " top of-tubesheet" and one was "ene-half inch above tubesheet."
(See: Wisconsin Electric, Licensee Event Report No. 79-017/OlT-0, dated November 16, 1979, at Tables 1 and 2.)
Notwithstanding the fact that the Staff had this document from at least November 19, its representations to the Commission on November 28 maintained that all degradation was in the crevice where leakage would be throttled and allegedly no safety problem would exist.
Indeed, when Commissioner Ahearne asked the Staff what percentage of the defective tubes had the defect within 0.15 inch of the top of the tubesheet (where the tube could pull out of its sleeve if circumferentially cracked), the Staff responded that it did,not have that data and the 1
M
~
,-,.r--
c.+
+ -,
--v p.
n-,er,,
e 1
._w
-r
_.~
=-.. _ _. -
9 licensee did_nct proffer the i ;creatien.
Whatever the 5:sff's and licensee's =c:i.t:icn the aff ar: Of ths; withholding the -damaging informa:icn in their possessian was to mialdal:
the Cc=missicn in a mat:ar f the me:: fundam: ::1 i=per:nn:2 :: :ha decision.
It is clear that there are no further grounds for maintaining the ruse that degradatien will be confined e::clusively to the tubeshee.
See:-6, this latest informatica confirms cur previous representa-tions on the ques tien of whether corrosion will remain in the crevice.
For it'is most important to understand that the assertions claiming that the caly remaining pr:blem is deep crevice corrosion-is a hvcether and not a fact.
We have shown above that it is not even true as a matter of f actt that-past_. corrosion;is within the tubesheet..Beyond that, to have any confidence-inea hypothesis that-projects;today?,s-- 1 incorrect fact into the future, a rational person would require either a past track record of success in simple statistical extrapolations -or a complete understanding of the problem.
In point of fact, we have neither.
7tbe degradation has continued to change in location, form and extent without warning.
The licensee conceded in hearings before the Public Service commission of Wisconsin that it did not anticipate the movement of the previously experienced wastage and caustic stress cor-rosion above the tubesheet to deep crevice corrosion or the rapid acceleration of degradation.
(Note: The transcript has not yet been-7
.,,.,~
,r
.u--..
4 1
10 i
1 1
prapared.)
And the safety Evaluaticn 7.ap;rt itself cencedes that as racan:ly as Janu:r; 1.~B, the Staff "did nct censider dae; ::ari:e ctrr:s :n 22.: caz n:: zien:Liisi as a significant code of tube degraa:l
\\
tien prior" to :ha: time.
(See: Safe:y Ivalui:icn Report, eg. cit., a:
1 13.'
rne ?.eport goes on to state that "the Point Beach Unit 1 situatir."!
is unique in terms of the e:: tent and the rapid progression in the last twelve (12) months."
(See: Id., at 5.)
There is no rational basis, premised ;pon predicting the future f rca the past, for hypothesizing 1
no tube degradation at the tcp cf the tubesheet in the future.
Similarly, it follows that a complete understanding of the phenomen does not exist, since it was not predicted.
We know that the encrusted caustic impurities extend from nearly two feet below the top of the tubesheet to a, half of aa f. o.ot -o.r..m.o..re. above. it e.. A.l.t.h.o.u.gh. i.t..m.ay..wel.l.
be that the corrosive effect of these impurities might be intensified' in the confined region of the crevice, that is no reason to conclude that no corrosion will occur at the top of the sheet.
In telephone conversations with Staff, the only defense to this point is that we havc not recently observed corrosion above the tubesheet--which brings the wheel around to where we started--without any responsible basis for 1
i pretending that the safety analysis can assume that no leakage will occur that is not in the crevice.
3.
Steam Binding is an Undisputed Possibility for the Corrosic; at Point Beach at the Top of the Tubesheet.
No one, to our knowledge, has disputed the validity of the American!
Physical society's conclusion that tube ruptures in one to ten tubes
=a:
11 during a LOCA can cause steam binding and ccre melt--at least to the e:: tent tha: the failures are abcVe the tubeshed:.
As indicated in the preceding section, substantial defects from caustic stress corrosion are now being found at the tco of~the tubeshee; and
- b-"a it.
The Staf f has adopted the licensee's conclusicn tha: 40%
of the thickness of the tube wall is " required to resist pressure loadin during a LCCA" outside the tubesheet.
(See: Safety Evaluation Report,'
op,. cit., at 14.) Of the fiVe tubes identified by in-plant eddy current testing as having defects at the top of the tubesheet during the October 1979. outage (approximately one month following the previous complete check of all inlet tubes), two had less than half of the required 40%
of the wall thickness remaininr to withstand LOCA. pressure.
(See:
November 16, 1979 Licensee Event Report, on. cit., at Tables 1 and 2.)
".J
- 1. L
,. c r
- an" i
ia;
,rr m --
b--
It is unknown how many additio 4al tubes with defects of this magnitude at the top of the tubesheet were not identified by the in-plant eddy current test, especially since it is conceded that the test is not effective for intergranular corrosion without through-wall cracking which is pervasive at Point Beach in the tubesheet, (sees Safety Eval-uation Report, op, cit., at 18 & 23), and which may extend to the boundary area at the top of the tubesheet.
Thus, there is a real possibility of an APS core melt situation in the event of a LOCA.
The reasonable assurance of safety in the operating license for Point Beach is premised upon the unit's being able to withstand a double-ended pipe break.
That assurance can no n,-
12 longer be responsibly found te exist.
4.
Even if Further Tube Degrada:icn *..*ere Ocnfincd tc the Tube Sheet, There 5 :ill Ixists a Serious Saf aty.tr:blem.
- shculd be unmistakably clear that the facts make untenable any claim that corresion is ccafined exclusively to the crevice.
But, even if, arcuendo, it wers, there still exists a sericus unresolved safety
)
issue that vitiates the basis for continued operation.
The Safety Evaluation Report states, based upon an incorrect i
assumption that all tube ruptures during a LCCA would be within the tubesheet that:
A large number of tube failures (collapses) would therefore be necessary b(
re the secondary to primary leak. rate would result in steam inding and adversely affect the ability of the ECCS to cool the core.
(See: Safety Evaluation Report, op. cit., at 21.)
.i Underlying calcu1ations in the ReNort'lEnpik"thab5Nr65dinatify' f8h ub5r
~
with a cumulative secondary-to-primary leak rate of more than 1300 gpd would have to rupture during a LOCA to cause steam binding per the conclusions of the APS--if all of the f ailures are within the tubesheet) 1The Staff's calculations have never been subjected to adjudicatic-and it should be clear that we dispute them.
One of the problems with their calculations is that it appears they have not included synergis-tic effects that will retard reflood rates to unacceptable levels.
In l particular, we are concerned about the issue raised in the same APS report about flow blockage from ruptured rods during a LOCA which make '
reflood rates less than one inch a second td31ow to be allowed.
(See:
~
Report of the American Physical Society, op,. cit., at App. 1, S91.)
This should be compared to the APS's previous statement that reductions in reflood rates from the other factor of steam binding can be to as low as one inch per second (see:
Id., at App. 1, S90), thus making cooling of the core further questionable.
0
=.+
,.-y
13 l
(See: Jd., at Appendix A.)
This difference with the APS one to ten tubes is accoun:e' for by attributing a constraining effect en 'n-leakage frem the tube wall.
Apparently, the Staff discounts the possibility 'of problems occurring with 100 to 200 tubes resulting in 1300 gpd in leakage.
Had the Staf f carefully evaluated the actual circumstances at Point Scach, instead of automatically dismissing the mattes it would have found that conditions have deteriorated to such an extent as to make these numbers all too credible.
Three readily identifiable sources of this leakage must be con-sidered.
One concerns tubes with defects not next to the top of the tubesheet for which the constraining effect may apply (i. e 2 more than 0.15 inch from the top),, the second concerns tubes which are next"to 7
the top for which the constraining ef fect will likely not apply (i.e.
within 0.15 inch from the top), and the third, leaking plugs used to seal previously identified defective tubes.
First, as to those tubes with defects not next to the top, the salient question is the number of those tubes with sufficient corrosion to fail during a LOCA.
The Staff has apparently adopted the licensee's conclusion that 10% remaining wall thickness is required to prevent a double ended tube failure during a steam line break (see: Safety Eval-uation Report, op. cit., at 13-14), but not the licensee's hypothesis that " collapse within tubesheet j',Is)7 not possible due to confinement" during a LOCA.
(See: Wisconsin Electric, Letter to the NRC, dated 7
--,-e
P 14 Neverher 23, 1979, at Inclosure 3, Viewgraph 19, emphasis added.)
Instead, the Staff concludes, without any stated basis, tha: "ji7ubs j
c 112;22 during LOCA is hichiv unlikel > since :ubs evalizati:n during cellapse would be constrained by the tubesheet."
(see: Saf s:;- Evalua-tion Report, op. cit., at 14, emphasis added.)
1 Again, rational discussion is inhibited by the failure of the Com-mission to ecmpile a ecmplete record en this fundamental issue that wculd provide a reliable minimum wall thickness, with an adequate margin of safety, for analyzing which tubes with a defect in the tubesheet will not survive a LOCA.
In addition to the failure to quantify what
" highly unlikely" means, there is a substantial problem with assuming a given event can be defined as having only one cause--in this case by assuming collapse only comes from ovalization.
The possibility of tube
=
u..a
.:u W~,.a
.m collapse during LOCA from a longitudinal defect dovetailing open inward, as just one example, is convrently ignored, and thereby pretended not to exist.1 Some proxy for this parameter 'f minimum wall thickness must be used to prevent the absence of all consideration from wishing away a very real problem.
For the sake of discussion, we use a value of 20%
1This unshakable preoccupation in the Staff and the entire nuclear
. industry with blithely assuming given events -can be entirely ex-plained by a single cause has been identified as one of the reasons why the Commission did not anticipate a Three Mile Island type of accident.
Coremelts were just assumed to only be caused by catastrophic sudden f ailures like a double ended pipe break and not by less impor-tant small breaks.
(See: President's Commission on the accident at Three Mile Island, The Need for Change (1979) at 9.)
15 of remaining wall thickness, and ccmpare that value to the ccmbined experience of the August and Octizer cutages because they occured so close in time.
The reports frem those outages disclose that 177 tubes were iden-tified by the eddy current test as having defects 8C% of more of the wall thickness out of a total of 230 tubes with any identified defect.
(See: Wisconsin Electric, Licensee Event Recort, Nos. 79-012/OlT-0, 79-013/01T-0 and 7 9-017/01T-0, dated August 20, 1979, August 31, 1979 and November 16, 1979.) Based upon the evidence available, it must be concluded that these numbers represent only a portion of the actual total number of tubes so afflicted.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation conducted detailed laboratory
-.:......=
testing on three tubes'from Point' Beach after~Ehe.....c?-October 1979 refueling :
one tube which did have an eddy current test indication of a defect and two tubes which had no such indication.
Both of the ostensibly good tubes were shown with laboratory metallurgical analysis to be signifi-cantly defective, 50% and 33%, respectively.
(See: Safety Evaluation Report, on. cit., at 10-12.)
At the November 20, 1979 meeting of the Staff, licensee and peti-tioner, Westinghouse attempted to explain the failure to identify defects in the two good tubes with in-plant eddy current tests by hypothesizing that the defects found in the laboratory were not caused by corrosion in the steam generator, but instead by the pulling force exerted to remove the tube for laboratory testing, a hypothesis which has been adopted by the Staff.
(See: Safety Evaluation Report, on. cit.
16 at 12).
During that November meeting, Westinghouse stated in support cf this hypothesis that the eddy current res:s run in the lahcra cry shewed the same defect as disclosed by the me:allurgical analysis, implying that the defect was not identified in the in-plant ECT because it did net occur until SmcVed.
Of c:urse, even if, a r cu er.d o, this were true (wh'ich it is not),
a laboratcry run ECT conducted by a highly trained professional withcut background noise from the tubesheet is not comparable to an in-plant ECT conducted in the radicactive plant by a less well-trained employee and with tubesheet interference.
Be that as it may we insisted on cceing the laboratory ECT results to corroberate this assertien, and found that the entire claim was apparently fabricated from whole clothe.
4; Although the licensee promiseactovprovide to:us theulaboratoryrc results at the' November meeEing, it was not'f6rthcoming and~'several
~
~
follow-up telephone calls on our part were required.
It turned out that the delay was caused by the f act that laboratory eddy current tests had not in fact been run at the time of the November meeting.
More disturbing, the post hoc results of the lab tests subsequently performed did not bear out the hypothesis.
One of the tubes which had no in-plant EC3 and also had no laboratory ECT, had a 33% defect with 4
the mettalurgical analysis.
(See: Personal Communication with David G. Porter on December 13, 1979, concerning tube R20C73 in "A" Generator.
The portentious implications of a laboratory ECT failing to detect !
1 a 33% defect in a tube when there was no tubesheet to cause interference :
t
17 This is one more graphic illustra ica of the necessity of an adjudics-tery hearing tc tes: the weiter cf asser:icnr.
Even if, arcuende, :n2 r2surre:: the validity ci were to pcstulate some c:her hypcchez s ::
there wculd he no lessening in the safety ecn-the eddy curren: ces:,
cerns.
This is because cf the fac that if cne assumes an effective ECT, then one still has to explain the rcpid appear:nce of cracked and defective tubes--in the ca se of the mos+ recent February 11, 1979, outage, a tube going frcm 0% defect to 300% defect in the space of 11-days, five of which were sicwly ramping up and the remaining 6 days were at only 77%-80% of full power.
Indeed, the safety implications of an assumed effective ECT, but runaway corrosion, is probably even more
- ominous, In any ev.ent,. the -available f acts,_ demonstrate a rea..li, s. tig proba-v
-....ne
.1 :
bility that 185 tubes could f ail during a LOCA and cause steam binding even without any further sources of in-leakage.
Second, as t'o tubes near the top of the tubesheet, the Staff acknowledges that the constraining effect of the tubesheet throttling leakage that might cause steam binding may not operate for cracks within<
0.15 inch of the top of the tubesheet because the entire tube might pull; out of its fitting if the crack is circumferential.
This could create an unrestrained gusher.
(See: Safety Evaluation Report, cm. cit., at 14
~
should not be underestimated in terms of the in-plant test's validity even in free standing regions of the generator.
8
t 18 Inexplicably, the Staff does not pursue the extent of degradation in this upper region of the tubesheet on the basis of the unsupported statemen: " leak r:tes will be large -enough to allcw detec:icn during normal cperation."
'See: J_d_. )
Previously, it has been shewn that this kind of unsupported statement is borne out neither by the actual cperating history of the plant nor by what one would expect when the problem is caustic stress corrosion and not general cerrosion.
Thus, this potential additional e
source of in-leakage should be evaluated.
Looking, then, at the same data from the August and October 1979 outages, 40 tubes had defects identified as above one inch of the top of the tubesheet (see: Licensee Event Report Nos. 79-012/lT-0, 79-013/
20,71979li ugust:3171979"and 'Im OlT-0 and 79-017/OlT-0, dated 1 August A
November 15, 1979), and undoubtedly ma'ny'more' such' defects were not
~
picked up.
We have asked the Staf f to direct the licensee to provide the exact elevation data for these tubes to determine which were within 0.15 inch, but were refused.
If one assumes a normal distribution of these 40 tubes with a mid-point mean and standard deviation, that would imply that slightly more than three are within 0.15 inch of the top.
)
l While the 40% remaining minimum tube wall thickness to withstand a LOCA-l J
l in the free standing region is not necessarily applicable to this i
boundary area, neither is the 20% proxy value for deep in the crevice.
A mid-range 30% value may be used for the purpose of discussion.
- Again, using an assumption of a normal distribution, there would be slightly
l 19 less than three tubes within 0.15 inch of the top of the tubesheet w;th 12; or less remaining en;c.< ness in tne zune wa_.
Even 1: t.ne i
1 cc 7 etely pull out of.the tubesheet, assuming the --' ~-
1
.ure d:es net l
is icngitudinal and not circumferential, one cannot reliably state tha:
the full throttling effect will eccur either.
At this point, any further attempt to quantify would net be.pr -
ductive until an adjudicatory hearing could be held to parse cut the j
exact number.
But the discussion does demonstrate another potential source of significant in-leakage during a LCCA and the necessity for resolution of this question.
Third, no one has considered the question of leaking plugs.
There can be no dispute that plugging a tube does not completely end leaking.
During the October ;19.79 outage, five plugs previously inserted were found to be leaking and had to be welded closed.
(See: Wisconsin Electric, Licensee Event Recort, No. 79-017/OlT-0, dated November 16, r
1979.)
Yet there has been no analysis put forward to estimate potentia::
in-leakage into the primary side during LOCA from faulty plugs.
Clearly, even if, arquendo, it were incorrectly assumed that no corrosion would occur outside the tubesheet, there is a woefully insuf :
ficient basis for continued operation.
B.
An Adiudicatory Hearina is Essential on the Generic Steam Generator Tube Dearadation Problem.
The Atomic Energy Commission inaugurated the era of commercial nuclear reactors without first, among other things, conducting a full-scale review of acceptance criteria for the emergency core cooling, j
l
20 Not until June 1971 were interim acceptance criteria promul-system.
gated (see: 36 Fed. ?e?. 12, 247), and then vi:hcut any hearing or public ccmment, a;7arent1; in in 1::erp: tc f: ras:all tha issue being raised in pending licensing proceeding.
After a significant amcun: cf public pressure, in ::cremier 1971 the Codb.ission's prefecesser agency commenced a rule-making proceeding on the interim criteria in which the ability to ccnduct a full and i
searching review were severely circumscribed by barring the right of discovery.
(See: In the Matter of Interim Acceptance Criteria for Emergency Core-Cooling Systems for Light Water Cooled Nuclear Power Plants, Docket RM 50-1.)
1 In that proceeding, the Union of Concerned Scientists attempted 7' I E R C i l'O'O ' ' " ~*
bud Vi #
to argue that:
(T)he rupture or f ailure of only a very 'few, a handful of i
the steam generator tubes in a PWR under LOCA conditions.
can inject sufficient steam to stall totally the reflood capability (af ter a LOCA) and so to insure clad melting.
It appears likely, if not certain, in view of the known aggravated corrosion of and wall thinning in steam generator j
tubes in several operating reactors, that the forces developed j
by a cold-leg pipe break would rupture sufficient tubes to cause'this stalling.
(See: Union of Concerned Scientists,
)
An Assessment of the Emeroency Core Coolina Svstems Ruline-makine Hearina (1973), at 5.49. )
But the Hearing Board precluded the issue from consideration.
1 Two years later, in the American Physical Society Review of the nuclear safety issue, the respected review panel, corroberated the USC i
findings and concluded in this regard:
(I) t appears that rupture of a few tubes (on the order of one to ten) dumping secondary steam into the depressuriced
1 l
\\
21 l
1 i
primary side of the reactor system could exacerbate steam binding problems and induce essentially uncoolable condi-ti ns in the ccurse Of a 'OCA fcr 7..V 3 sith 2005 cf curren:
l fesign.
. Thus the potential f:r stear ceneratcr tube leakage appears to be a sericut problem wnich was precluded frcm evaluaticn at the ECCS hearings.
(See: Recor: to the
- ~.erican F.-rsical Society, cc. cit., at App.
1, 5-85-51.,
Still, nc r2 View of the issue was f orthccming as the Reactor Safety Study also critted reference to the serious problem.
( S_e e_':
l 1
1 Ra smu s sen, Reacter Safetv Study, WASH-1400 (1975).
And, again, the l
agency was criticized,this time by the review group which it had established, for continuing to ignore the issue.
(See: Ad Hoc Review 1
Group, Risk Assessment Review Grouc Recort to the Nuclear Reculatory Commission, NUREG/CR-0400 (1978), at 48.)
Yet, at this writing, the only thing that the Staf f has done is i
issueareportloutlinin~g~anarea~ofguturestudyandprovidingsixbases]
for centinued operation while the study is conducted.
(See: Eisenhut, i
l 333. cit., at 46.)
With the Decade Petition having established that i
those bases were unfounded, a new basis was adopted that the foregoing discussion demonstrates was premised upon ignoring all factors which detract from the predetermined conclusion and upon the withholding of j
i f atal information from the full commission and this intervenor.
It is time, at long last, for that full inquiry of the tube degrada
-l tion issue to be commenced with an adjudicatory proceeding.
It is time, at long last, for the Commission to reverse'its reputa-l tion for placing "the industry's convenience" above its " primary role of assuring safety."
(See: The Need for Chance, eg. cit., at 19.)
4
i j
22 III.
CONCLUSION i
i For the foregoinw reasons, the portion of the Confirma:Ory Order l
l
..:_._.__e_
)
,_,._.e...._.
,. o.... _4 _ _ a._. _:
catory hearing should be cc=enced en the generic tube degradation i3 sue.
Re s.u e ct full.y submitted b.v, WISCONSIN'S ENVIRON.'* ENTAL DECADE, INC.
By:
mon U -
d Kathleen M. Falk General Counsel 114 East Mifflin Street
~
~
Madison, Wisconsinu 53703...v. - - - rc cr =m. ::: e...a a. u u.
Dated: December 17, 1979 5
O a
9
---+n m
a-
S'l"N!E OF WISCO::S!!!
)
)
ss.
)
Peter Andersen, being first duly swom. on carh de;:ces and s:stes as follows:
1.
That he attended as one of the representatives of Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc., the November 28, 1979, meeting of the U. S.
Nuclear Ecgulatory Co==1ssion.
2.
Tnat Cot:issioners Ahearne and Bradford asked him questions during said ceeting as to the adequacy of Wisconsin Electric Power Cc pany's proposed " package" of testing, surveillance and cenitoring ceasures to mini =1:e risk from operation of Point Seach Nuclear Plant Unit 1 with steam generator tube degradation.
3.
'Ih a t, in response to said questions, he sta:ed that for reasons unrela ted to this af fidavit, the " package" would not provide satisfactory assurance that the risks would be minimized.
4.
That, af ter the conclusion of said meeting, Mr. Edson G. Case, Acting Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation privately ca=e up to him and stated that he agreed that the " package" would not provide the kind of adequate pro.tection represented due to the high rate of corrosien
\\
and the existence of caustic strese co osion.
-l i
Subscribed to and sworn before me this /f%ay of &cmW,1979.
f$Abtu 4ll fol/J Notary Public State of Wisconsin My com.miss, ion..i,s permanent y,, _,....,. e....-,...-..,,,e
.p, a
6AJ AJ M 1 w A.m---
,--#14-nm&*-
4 L
b-
-A$ L
>3
-44 0
ai -
\\emIs-44 5-A4
.9m&
4 8
0 W
F 6
I t
h o
f mm p p * **,=
- e m J.
M i 1 n v b'If,4Y A
'9.
t
+
9 s
t 9
b i
s
- 4 4
9 e
5 I
1 I
I s
b e
h a
._ l
?
s t
t
. t
' i O
O Q
- r. - - --
+
.w am-,,.
w w w
--e..
f~..
'N, g e..,,...,
Dece:.ber 27, 1979 kT
.,.e?.
/w r
, s a r.,
%v.
g < p.
A **'"e' i*
Qj p
.m..
D.tA..
- r..,
~., -
m
.....c=.'...,.
rb -... w mw g..t. ke.
.,y
,... C...,
- -. '... O _..,J Vs e
.~
w
'O c". / v' Q-)
. ~......
e-
..l..~".
.~.J..'..
l-p./.
w J J. J.
wJ
- 7. J *..*"... w..
5
- .r
'D.' f i
)
.. ^.. C e i n
., s..,,
)
o,.,. g.,
- e.,.. 2 0, S. c.o
- p. - ;
- ..p.=.=..:........ r -. a m ;.,
2
(?Cinc 3'3acn Sc. clear Plant,
)
(Mcdification of
)
T 4.
- e. e,)
.. e.v e.c...
e.c : c o, v.c..v.
r e n s.-
.c ~. v
...vs aAL 4
.. r_ v.,,. n.. C.
e..;
a C m u.c
- e.. s.q r s
. ; p s..ge r.e.. +
a.d v.s
.: = :. c. - - v, C ve.. r. =.. n :..
,v_.,..
.v.=.=.
By "Confi=.atory Order for Modificaticn Of *icense" dated November 30, 1979
(" Order")
(44 Fed. Reg. 70508 (December 7, 1979)), the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR"), estab-lished additional operating conditions for Point Beach Nuclear
.. >. - -. w ;. -
..a_,,.._,.
Plant, Unit 1 to ensure safe operation in light of an icentified..
problem with steam generator tube degradation.
The' Order ro-vided that any person whose interest may be af fected by the Order i
mayrequest a hearing with respect to the Order, but that "anv.
recuest for a hearing shall not stay the effectiveness of [the]
Order."
The Order also provided that the issues to be considered at the hearing were limited to (i) whether the f acts stated in Section II and III of the Order are ccrrect and (ii) whether the Order should be sustained.
By request dated December 17, 1979, 1
Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc.
(" Decade"), asks for a hearin and argues, notwithstanding the specific language in the Order to the contrary, for a stay of the effectiveness of the Crder.
1 i
i
i 2_
i day of the Confirnatory Crder, the Oirector also Cn the same denied Oe:ade's earlier pe:::icn filed n :':ve rer
,, 13 3 pur-1
- ---J e-.--
4
.b. 3 a
- =**
...4 -.%
- s -. 2.
3 s,w,a..,
,V L......
J-.
wCe y - *.
- - - - = = - - - - -.. --
a.
--4=---~~.
.w hibit opera:icn of ?cin: 3each Uni-1 and t: ::mmance an investi-gation and hearing on the safety implica ions of steam genarator tube degradation.
" Director's Decision Under 10 C R 2.206" dated r
Sevember 20, 1979
(" Decision").
Prior to issuance of the Decision, l
-he Cc=missioners were brief ed by the SER Staf f on the pr0pcsed dispcsition of Decade's petiticn.
At this briefing, Decade was provided an opportunity to respend to the Staf f's presentation.
As Decade's December 17 cover letter to the Cc=missicners acknowl-edges, no petition or other request for review of a Director's decision under 52.206 is permitted by the Commission's rules.
3--.
Nonetheless, Decade's request for a hearing and its letter to the Commissioners is best characterized as an attempt to have the Commission overturn the Director's Decision.
Returning to the well one more time on this issue is not allowed by the Commis-sion's rules.
Decade's request for a hearing should be denied.
The request for a hearing is defective.
Decade has not set forth with par-b ticularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to inter-the Petition f ails to set out with any particu-vene.
- Moreover, larity the specific facts in Sections II and III of the Order that
3_
Decade contends are incorrect and as to which Decade wishes c
intervene.
See 10 C.F.R. 5 2. ~ 14 t a'; !.1) and (1).
Nor does Oecads's "Mancrandum in Support Of Request by Wisconsin's Envir:nnental Decade, :nc. f Hearing en Confirma-tory Order"
(" Memorandum") adecuately suppc : Decade's request for a hearing.
Rather it once again argues for suspension of Pcin:
Beach Uni l's operating license and for aa adjudicatory hearing en the generic steam generator tube degradation preblen.
As will be discussed in the analysis below, Decade's Memorandum, except with to the allegations concerning Mr. Case, offers no informa-respect tion which was no previously befcre the NRC when Decade's 52.206 Petzt.,on was deniec.
' Analysis of Decade's-Mem'orandu,
~. -,...
_.JJ m------
In Support of Its. Request For Hearinc on Confirmatorv_ Order Decade's Memorandum in support of its petition for hearing on the Confirmatory Order argues (a) that Point Beach should be closed pending resolution of the tube degradation issue, and (b) that an adjudicatory hearing should be held on the generic steam generator tube degradation matter.
In support of its argument that the Confirmatory Order per-mitting operation of Point Beach should be reversed, Decade of fers arguments.
None has any merit.
Each is considered below.
First, Decade contends that Licensee's proposed " package" provides insufficient assurance that significant tube defects will be identified in a timely manner.
In support of this propo-
I 1
s;;i:n, Ze:ade :ffsrs Only 'a; an argument it mais t: the I:: is-1
\\
s;:n 2: :he ::: ter:er 25, 1979 briefing regarding the value of in-j
' I ctrrsnt i
creased peri:di: hydrostatic =ressure tests and eddy I
- ss:s, (h; a sec:nd argument it made :: the Commissien at the same meeting regarding reducticn in the allowable primary to secondary 1
leak rate, and (c) a remarkable accusatien that Mr. I.
- 3. Case cf the Staff privately centradicted the Staf f's presentation tc the Ccenissicn.
It is obvious that a hearine. would serve no curpose simpi.v to have the Commission consider again the two propositions pre-vicusly advanced by Decade and rejected by the Commission at the Nove:6er 28, 1979 briefing.. As to the_ third,Jeason, Decade 's ac-cusation of Mrc Casersimply_ defies _ belie.f.._While -we. ar_e ac. cus-tomed to Mr. Anderson's frecuent misunderstandings of technical matters, one would have to be more than charitable to assume that Decade's reckless assertion of Mr. Case's lack of integrity was only a matter of misunderstanding.
It is nothing more tha. a deplorable display of arrogance.
It should be emphatically re-jected.
l As a second reason for reversal of the. Confirmatory Order, Decade points to the leakage which developed after return to ser-vice of Point Beach Unit 1 following issuance of the Confirmatory Order.
This, of course, was a post-order event of the type which was anticipated in Section IV of the Order.
Thus, it is doubtful that it disputes the correctness of the f acts stated in Section II O
5-
- =-.
-=
-=..==.=.
.==
=- -
s-22, 1979, shcws tha: the leakage was due :c ene leaking tube and to two faulty plugs inserted earlier.
This event dcas not refle::
poorly on the efficacy cf the L ensee's package to deal with the dee'p crevich tube degradation matter.
Rather, the event demen-stra:es that the reduced allewable leak rate serves its purpose adequately.
The event prevides nc basis for initiating a hearing because it does ne dispute any fact sna:ed in Secticn !! cr :~~
of the Order.
As a third reason for requesting a hearing, Decade contends that the tube degradation has not been confined to the tube sheet.
Moreover, Decade levels a second charge of lack of integrity.
This n..-.--
..~......
time it is pointed at'the Staf f"Es 'a 'sh6fe "and ~~ indirectly at tlie'"
~
Licensee.
Both are charged with withh'ol'dihy rel~evant ' info ~rmEtion~ ~
from the Commission.
This is not true.
There was no withholding of information by the Licensee.
As Decade itself points out, the five suspect indications were in-cluded in Licensee's LER report of November 16.
What Decade fails to appreciate is that the issue before the Commission on November 28 was tube degradation due to intergranular corrosion.
As the attached letter of December 21, 1979 to the Staff shows, Wisconsin Electric believes those five indications are attributable to earlier thinning or cracking rather than to intergranular corrosion.
That this condition has not progressed is demonstrated by the recently completed eddy current tests of 1900 tubes in both A and 3 steam
. er aheve the tube
- s..ar-
- :s whi:h rerea'_ed ne indicati:ns a:
.',eCade 's reiteraziCr. C f the.1.m6riOar..Thysics 3O Oiet*'
OOn-Sheet.
' = ' ' "-a s abcVe the tube shee t
-""a cerns abcut s te r: genera:::
c:ir.riden; with a _CCA are simply ne: pertinent.
The COnnission hearf this same concern by Decade on November 28 and ccrrectly gave it no heed, given the circumstances here.
Finally, as a fcurth reason for reversing the Confirmatcry Crier, :scade argues that even :! fur:her 11be degrada:L:n were confined to the tube shee t, there still exists a serious safety problem.
Co manufacture its argument, recade postulates without any confirming test data that longitudinal defects could dove-Decade presumes "for sake of discussion" that 20% of re-tail.
double; ended tube maining wall thickness; is:. required.,tet prevent-3 data showing only 10% is required f ailure -- ignoring all the test the November 20
-- and mischaracterizes what Westinghouse said at The Decade essay, after tests.
meeting regarding eddy current brushing away all the attendant noise, simply charges that there Of course, if is a realistic probability of 185 tubes f ailing.
the Staf f had said that 50 or 500 tubes weuld have to fail, Decade i
would charge that 50 or 500 tubes would or could fail.
)
With this final. argument, Decade moves into its basic request I
d a generic tube degradation hearing which would consider i.e.,
f the interface between steam generator tube integrity and the ac-ceptance criteria utilized to evaluate emergency core cooling system.
4 1
1 l
._.n._
___.. <_=.
...__csm_
\\
_:m__._2_,_.___
a_ v.. _. e... _. _ _-, _ e.=. _ _= - :,_..a_ _ _ _.
.-c
._3 hearing, it clearly goes well beycnd the :.ssues allcwed in any e a _ _a _
c u.e C.. : _; _ _. _, _._... C _ _.: _
In conclusion, we respectfully submit tha: the Decade peti-tion shou _d be denied in this docket because:
a) it fails to state the interes: of Decade and hcw that interest may be af f ected by the prcceeding; b) it fa:.ls to set out matters in centreversy within the issues set out for hearing in the Confirmatory Order; c) it is only an attempt to subvert the Commission's
~
i f
rules, which do not permit a recuest for review of the Director's decision under $2.206; and 4
d) it amounts only to a request for a rulemaking regarding the interf ace of the ECCS acceptance criteria and steam c.enerator tube intec.rity on a generic basis, which is not appropriate in this particular docket.
Respectfully submitted, SEAW, PITTMA's, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By
)))
Gerald CharnoTi Counsel for Wiscons' E M' ic Power Como.anv.
l'800 M Street, North West Washington, D. C.
20036 (202) 331-4100 Dated:
December 27, 1979
0 6
4 f
f*
- 1 e
N 4PM O'Yh%
$TO had
%# NA'1EdY d t
- en i si.,.
.S,--.--
., -...+.... -.....
r*
e
?
4.i r
9 5
T 4
I l
i i
.f J
e t
?
e l
i l
1
- l 1
. 1 i
i
' " ' ^ - " " ' ' ~ * *
- 2
.s...
- E: E Er :: r E::::
'.:_E:: : E 3._
- -:I::::,
- - t' e "a::er c#
)
'<::5 :NSIN E'_E:TR!C ?OWER COP? ANY
)
Decket No. 50-266
(:cint Beach Nuclear Plant,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
00: E C IFY:N3 CONF::". TC ' 0:. DER CF GEMEEP. 30, 1979 I
Wisconsin Electric Poser Company (the Licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. DPR-24 which authorizes the Licensee to-operate the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, located in Two Creeks, Wisconsin, under certain specified conditions.
License No. DPR-24 was issued by the Atomic Energy
~
~#
'"~
Co nission on October 5,1970, and 'i NuY 'to expire oE July' 25', 2008.
~
11 Inservice inspections of the Point Eeach Unit i steam generators performed during August 1979 and October 1979 outages have indicated extensive general intergranular attack and caustic stress corrosion cracking on certain.of the external surfaces of the steam generator tubes.
The NRC Staff determined in Ncvember 1979 that additional operating conditions would be required to assure safe operation prior to resumption of operation of Point Beach Unit I from a 1
Such conditions were imposed by Confirmatory Order for refueling outage.
Modification of License dated November 30, 1979.
In addition to those conditions, the Staff has now deter-ined that additional conditions are f
required to provide continued assurance that Point Eeach Unit I can be c;erated safely.
/
2 "s:t i:: : :- ' ::-:' ':-s a e 2 3.<:Ed f
- a 5: 1 I t 't;; Es clutt'c' r e: Ort.
1 ca:ec v's ca.e, c ::' " s a-e: ec :: :r.i s O rde r.
Tre '.icer.see r.22 a;rsi: : :
this cendition by le::er dated Deceter 31, 1979.
- II Accordingly, pursuant to the Atomic Enercy Act of 1954, as amended, and tne Com.ission's Rules and Regulations in 10 b?F. Far: 2 and Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT License Nc. DFR-24 ce amended, in the manner hereafter previced, to include the following conditions in at:ition to these conditions listed in the Cenfimatory Orc'er cf tiovencer 30, 1979:
1.
. Unit I will be operated at a reactor ccclant pressure of 2000 psia with the associated parameters (i.e., overtemperature AT and icw pressurizer pressure trip point) with the limits indicated in the Safety Evaluation Report appended to this Order.
2.
The licensee shall develop and follow the necessaryJproddd"res/ fop.%.
operating Unit I at the conditions described in condition-1 -above.
IV
~
In view of the above, this amendment of License No. DPR.24 is made imediately effective.
Accordingly, within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> of receipt of this Order, the Point Beach Unit 1 f acility shall be operated at a reactor coolant system pressure of 2000 psia within the parameters described above.
4 y
m 4
u i
i
- g ;i-s:
,;. css i. eres ic' 09 af#e:.ed by
"'s Ir:e r ~27 ' 'f*
O.t
- c : :#
- :::2 :# tr"! '
e- -E:.e !. 1ti;"-
cire:* :: tr'I : :e.
4c f
f
- - -E
- ces: s r.a'.1 nt s ay :ne e##e::iveness cf :nis ;r:er.
Any re:ves: ' :- a j
hearir; shall be acdressed to :te 4-ector of Nuclear Reacter Regula:icn, U. S.
20E55.
Nuclear Regulatory Cc rission, Washington, D. C.
a hearing is recuestec, the issues to be considered at such
- n the event hearing shall be:
- 1) Whether the f acts stated in Section II of this Order are correc;;
and
. hether this Order should be sustained.
2)
W FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION MYY
-g Harold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Att achme nt:
Staff Safety Evaluation Report, dated January 3,1980 Effective date: January 3,1980 Bethesda, Maryland e
s g
i l
f e
6 Am,, C"n.r1T 6 u
an 5
?
, =
. ~
2 9
I g
A
% W
(
e 4
-m4 i
"M g
,g8*
a 'R
,4 e
e i
d
-i a
4 t
4 f
v e
e i
4 4
-y vpns-s n6-v P w 9
f
,p.;.pg, e-gp--
V-'"PM:
5C*'*#i'W FI
,4_,
wt +Mtit g-K'
-4
"L. t..*-r.a e.. n. r. e e. r
.~a u..e. v. e..M s
n s
un, w vi i..w a w.o
. vy.e..n N U C......,.. L m... y i
'.t v ktuv
..C.s.>....
" **e "l*.~.9P of
)
1
(
- m. e.. k e. +. i;,. an. 9::
- .. n. e.. ".s
- r. t. e r.. :. t. e. 0.,*' 17. : *. *.v..: it. 'v i
a....
1
(. 017.*, c 0,3 C D NU O,l ea r r C n s t r ! *.*,
o.
j 3,
Un1: i/
s p,. y,. e.... g :....,,.%,...q
...,y qi..p......i v L :.i.
- . n... rv..
.r r.,c i : U..
"I 3
im 9
4&
99f
.. _. -..,ey,,
s.. m.c?gj9.....,
g.
6 S c#
-5
- > 9 jb,
o #I.
9 9
rf(pQf i
II q,
S' NiIt.
James P. P.urray Karen Cyr James Lieberman February 11, 1980 Counsel for NRC Stati 1
l i
i UNITED STATES OF AP.E:.!:a
. i HVCLEAR REGULATORY C0"v!SS!0N BE:0DE THE CO WISSIC'
- . : e a::e-cf
' :2:" I:' ELE:T::
- WE:
Y: "P
- ch
': 5C-2$5
(?:irt Beacn Nu:isar Power Pian:,
)
U dt i;
)
' I STA F *'CTIC': 'O DE' V DEOUES; enq ugpp:g t"sconsin Ele:tric Pcwer Com:any (the licensee), is the holder of
)
Facility C;erating License No. OPR-24, issued on Oc:cber 5,1970, wnich authori:es the c:eration of the Pcint Seach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, under 'certain specified conditions.
On November 30, 1979, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued an Order anending the license to inpose certain new conditions on operation of the Point Beach ' facility to which the licensee has agreed.
By letter dated December 17, 1979, a cocy of which is attached, Wisconsin's Environ-menta1 0ecade (h6reinafteV Decade) ~ req'ue's'ted"tEaTt'h'e YondfYs'io'n"hol'd Thearin~g"' "
~
~
on the Order.
For the reasons stated herein, the Staff moves pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730 of the Comission's Rules of Practice that the Comission deny this request for a hearing.
Backcround Inservice inspections of the Point Beach Unit 1 steam generators performed during the August 1979 and October 1979 outages indicated extensive general intergranular attack and caustic stress corrosion cracking on certain of the external surfaces of the steam generator tubes.
Following the October 1979 in-spection, the NRC Staff met with representatives of the licensee and its liest-inghouse consultants on November 5, and again on November 20,1979, to discuss the e
- ~
. +. - - -, - -. -, -. -
-2 ooerational ex0erien:e at Point 5ea:n Unit I and the cresent condition of the At the request of the 'F:, Pod nt Seact '.' nit 1 es n:t returned stsa gene-ators.
to ;;wer until a thcr: ugh safety evaluati:n by tha TE: Staff was ::m;1atat.
On fiovember 14, 1979, Wisconsin's Envhental Ce: ate, Inc. re:: vested tnat the Comission enter an order to pronibit the reopenin9 of Point Beach at the end of the olant's refueling cycle and cemence an investigation and hearing on the safety implications of tube degradation at Point Beach.1/
On '!cvember 20, 1979, the Ccamissien formally referred Decade's petition-to the Staff for treatment pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206.
As a result of information provided in discu<sions with the iicensee and its M
repared by the Staff, representatives E and in the Safety Evalu: tion Rep;rt p
it was determined that additional coerating conditions would be required to assure safe operation prior to any.re.umption of operation of Unit 1 after the refueling s
/r u::
.+-
.a, 1.,
1/
The bases of Decade's request were:
- 1) Resumed operation of the plant would violate certain limiting conditions for operation and would threaten public health and safety;
- 2) TheNRCStaff'sproposedbases(NUREG-0523)forcontinuedoperationof nuclear power plants experiencing significant steam generator tube degradation are inadequate,to protect public health and safety; and f
- 3) The Comission's existing reculations, technical specifications, and technical guidance are also inadequate to protect public health and
)
safety.
-2/
This information is documented in a letter dated November 23, 1979, from S. Burstein to H. R. Denton, 3J Safety Evaluation Recort Related to point Beach Unit 1 Steam Generator Tube Degradation Due to Deep Crevice Corrosion, November 30, 1979.
j i
I i
,_________________]
3 cuta;e. 3' ' ~5e li:e-see ir. lette-: ta'.ed N ve-be-29, 1979, and Novenber 20, 1979, 2
" :-e :: :it c s we-e '- : sed 4
- e ' ::s': :
" t :'- :'e' ::-:'. :
3.
27 33: ::
in : e Crder, ':n i:
-t
- :: t:- :' : e 'i;~ ;
e:.!!
- y Ce: ace.
3e:!use the Itaf' :elieves that safe c:eration of tne :cint leich #acility could be.aintained
- he Neve ' er 3C Order,
.i:n impicen:a:i:n :f : e ::r;M.: : *a,; '.::2e: :
De:3de's 2.206 petit':r re:ue:te ;
Orte- :r:r :' ting restart and a hearin:
d
- n se'ety ir.oiitations cf ;be cegraca:icn a:.oin: Esacn was denied.4/ The Co-Mssion did n:t c /erturn the decisi:r. 5l
':e:11e 's F.e ue s t Following the denial of its 2.205 recuest and the issuance of the Confirnatory Order impesing adc'itional requirements an the licensee, Decade reauested a hearing on the Order.
The Director's Order provided "[aJny person whose interest may be affected by this Order may within. twenty (20) days of the date of this Order request a hearing with respect to this Order." Decade asserts that its interest and that of its members "are affected by the provision of said Order pemitting the unit to re-open, notwithstanding the potential safety risks created by reopening." They further contend that "all necessary factors were not considered in the order and that critical new facts have subsequently occurred...
[t]here is inadequate support to justify these three bases for continued operation of Point Beach, from necessary factors that were not considered and from new infomation, and that an adjudicatory hearing is necessary to compile an adequate record on which to make a decision." (Decade's i
petition, at 3-4),
3A/
The Point Beach facility had been shutdown for refueling, not because of any action taken by the Commission. Thus, no action by the Comission was necessary
~~~
]
for the plant to resume operation.
in the Matter of Wisconsin Electric Power Company (Point Beach Nuclear Power Pland 4/
Unit 1), Director's Decision Under 10 CFP, 2.206, DD-79-22,10 HP.C
, November 3:
~~
1979.
{
S/
Memorandum for Leonard Bickwit from Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Comission,
Subject:
SECY A-79-iOOA - SE Y A-79-100, January le, 1953.
4-S tardi-c :e u'-e e-:_
- - 3:a:1 ; :.5 : ' :1 3::e: :er:.r: ::uid re: es: 3. ear' ;, :35 : 3:::F:
Crder fellose: tre re:uire.ent Of sec:i:- liia. Of the A::mic Energy Ac: ef 195',
as e ended, which Or:vitat:
"In any proceecing under :nis Act, fer the... amending of any... cons: uction termi:.... :ne Connission shall grsnt a nearin; u::n :.e re ue:
Of any ;s- :r wtese intert:t ray be affected by 'Fe treceecing, and shall ac-it any such perscn as a party to su:h proceeding." 42 U.S.C. 2239(a}.
The ::--ission has held that judicial c:ncests cf standing should be used in cetermir,in; ri;t:s to a hearing and to interven: ion in an existing hearing undsr this language of secti:n IS9a. and under section 2.714 of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
Portland General Electric Com:ar.y (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, Units 1 L 2), CL1-76-27, 4 NRC 610, 613 (1976); Edlow International Coroany (SNM Expert License), CL1-76-6, 3 NRC 563, 569 (1976). 6/
m:. m r-r- :.w
. 3...,e
~ _.,
.- -- 7 -.
an.
g,
-6/
1r Edlou, an excort licensing case, the petitioners asked for leave to intervere ar c for a hearing.
The Commission held that to establish a richt to hearing the petitieners would have to establish that they possessed stancing - i.e.,
an " interest" which may be "affected" by the proceeding in accordance witn pre-vailing judicial principles.
See also Transnuclear, Inc. (Applications for Low-Enriched Uranium Exports), CL1-77-24, 6 NRC 525 (1977).
The Commission extended its ruling to reactor licensing cases in Portland General Elec. Co. by holding that petitioners wishing to intervene as a matter of right in a proceeding on an acclication for a construction permit (in which a hearing is mhndatory under section 139 a.) must meet the judicial test for standing.
In Lonc Island Licht-ine Co. (Jamesport Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-292, 2 NRC 631, 645(1975), Chairman Rosenthal of the Appeal Board presaged the Commission's decisions in concluding that it was "more probable than not" that both Congress and the Commission intended that judicial standing tests be applied to determine whether petitionerf'for intervention have the recuisite " interest [which) may be affected" under section 189 a.
See Virainia Electric & Power Co. (North Ar.na Pcwer Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAS-342, 4 NRC 93,1 & 2 (1976).
By applying judicial concepts of standing the Comission has recognized
- :t
- ' ave er i-tritt affected by an a:ti:
- t' e ::~'::':n, a : -::
u:t s a t i s #;. te: ts3:I.
~ irs;, a :stitier.er "mus allege 30 e 'rfury - a: 'as oc:ur a:
Or v il pr::a:ly *es it fr
- ne action involvec"; 2 0 s a:et arc ner way, tr.a:
- t
- e-itierer's interest will be adversely a v
- :ed by -he Or er.
3-Se::nd:y, a e
petitioner must allece a, ir.terest " arguably within the zone of interest" crote:ted by t'.e At:ric Ene ;y Act or the National Environmental ?:li:y A:t (NEpi). N The petitioner here has not demonstrated that any interests of it are acversely affected by the Order, i.e.,
by the im:ositien of additional restrictive require e'ts u;en the lice-see.
Decade asserts that " Pe Order termits the unit to reopen".
Contrary to Decade's assertion, this'0rder did not pemit the unit to restart.
If the Order had n:t been issued, the licensee would have been free to restart without the need for authorization from the Comission. The Order only confirmed the conmitmedfof+thelicensee tokoriddct@peration'of its1 facility when t=!
it restarted according to th~e new cbnditidns'specified in"the Orle?.""~
~
As to these conditions imposed by the Order, the petitioner does not claim that operation of Point Beach in accordance with these additional conditions causes harm to it. Even though it only attributes " marginal value" E to the new operational conditions, it does not allege any ham which will befall it as a result of 7/
Pertland General Electric Company, suora p. 4, 8/
As the Appeal Board noted in Nuclear Engineerino Co. (Sheffield Low-level Radio-:
active Waste Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978), the test for standing to intervene is "whether a cognizable interest of the petitioner might be adversely affected if the proceeding has one outcome rather than another."
(emphasisaccea.)
9/
Portland General Electric Comoany, suora p. 4; see Association of Data Pro-cessing Service Orcs. v. Camp, 397 U.S.150,152 (1970).
~
,10/
Decade's petition at 6.
ccepliance with the additional restrictive requirements of this Order. Yet such harm is exactly what is recuired for Decade to have s anding to co-el a nearing er the re uirements of this Order.
As Cecade has nct shcwn that it is advarsely affectac by t e Order, it is clear that its dissatisfacticn is not with the acticn taken, but with tne actier a:t taken by the Comission. Decade argues in its petition that Point Beacn sncaic be cicsed pending resci.: tion of four enumerated issues related to tuce degracation and that an adjudicatory hearing on the generic steam generator tube degradation problem should be held. These actions are not within the secpe of the present Order 11/ and, indeed, the Comission would have to issue some other order to take the action contemplated by petitioner.
Properly characterized, then, the request of Decade for actions in addition to that ordered by the Director is a renewal of its request for action uncer 10 CFR 2.206 of the Comission's regulations.
Decade's petition for; additional-action; reflects 1tsigeneral; interest in "-
- ~
e Wm'
= =:r:te k el
- LH +==r:=
matters concerning Point Beach. eHoLev'ere,ua; mere:"-interest -in:a: problem" is'in-:,
r sufficient.to con.fer " standing" as a matter of right under section 189 a. E The mere " fortuitous,circu stance" that the Comission has issued an Order which happens to be related to a matter about which Decade has sought and continues to seek a hearing through a request for action under 10 CFR 2.206 does not cr. title Decade ~
11/ The present Order serves the important purpose of providing notice of the action the Director intends to take, and as such sets a standard of relevance which governs the present proceeding.
5 U.S.C. 554(b); cf. Douds v. International Lon;.:
shoreman's Association, 241 F.2d 278, 283 (3d Cir. T957). Wnether the present Orce:
snould have gone f artner and imposed some additional restrictions on the Licensee
~
activities is not a question under this Order, but a question outside or beyond this Order. This is also clear from the fact that in order to take the actions r,equested by the petitioners a further order would be required.
12/ Portland General Electric Co., suora p.6, at.613; see also Sierra Club v.
Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 739 (1972).
-7
- a hearir; an:er this Order.
Cf. Indiana & P.ichican Ele-tric Co., et al.,
7: 6:t :. Ccok 'N:leir Fian:, Uni:s 112) ALAI-129, 6 AEC C4, a: 421 (1973).
ss u:
- e n e e::':a:'e -- i-P i ";u y :: :e-i-forer as a resui: cf the i rs;;;r's
- .,r er f:r i: :: 53 ::.ir 21 2ffe:ted an: thereby an;i led to a hearin; 1 *: /
- a
.a-g- :f -i;nt.- I :-. e M tint r::Se:;.;, tre Staf# believed that ce-:ain acci:ional, res ricti/e concitions snoulc be imposed to govern cperation of the Prin: Esach facility; the Licensee has consented to this action; and Decade neither shows that it is hamed by this action nor contends that it should not go into effe:t. I, Theref:-e, while the C =issien could in its discre:icn hold hearir.gs concerning the tube degradation issue, in general, or at Point Beach, the Co=ission is clearly not recuired under this Order to provide such a hearing at the demand of Ce:ade.
13/
In licensing proceedings, the Comission has recognized that sufficient interest may be demonstratec by clai. s thatsthe personaequesting the bearing Jives within m
~
~
the geographMal'Yone that might bi affected 'by the normal 'or ' accidental release of fission product from the facility in question due to the' proposed action.
Louisiana Peer & Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-125, 6 AEC 371, 372 n.6 (1973). Indeed, persons residing in close proximity to a-reactor site and who clearly fall within this geographical zone are presumed to have a cognizable interest in licensing proceedings involving that reactor.
Houston Lighting & Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station), ALAB-535 9 MC 377, 393 (1979). However, this it not an initial licensing proceeding. The Point Beach facility has a license to operate, subject te NDC requirements, an:
there should be no presumption of " standing" due to residential proximity to contest an action which imposes additional conditions on normal operation unless there is a demonstration that hann could come to the petitioner by the action of imposing those additional conditions. No such demonstration has been mede here.
Indeec, Decade concedes that the new requirements have at least "carginal value" See also notes 11 & '2, suora.
14/
In this proceeding, but for Decade's request for a hearing, the only result is the effectiveness of the Order, because the licensee has agreed to operation
~~~
of the facility in accordance with conditions imposed by the Order.
"There must be a concrete demonstration that harin to the petitioner...will or could flow from a result unf avorable to it--whatever that result might be." Nuclear Engineering Co., suora n.8.
-]
8 l
Discre:icnary Hearing The C:nr.issicn, if it so desired, coul: Orde" 2 -aa " ; Or : e 3::i-': 51
m4:1 ; ::r:itions f:- :perati:n :' the 3:4-: Ees:1 t:i y ' ::s e: :. : e : :1-
)
even - : ugh it is n:t legally recuired :: ;rar: a hei i ; in res::nse :: :e: ate's 1/
request. 2: H: wever, several factors militate against such a hearir; in :his care.
First, what Decade, in essence, seeks is a hearing en whether tne Opera:ing license for Foint Bea:n sh:uld be susper.dec ;er.dir.; fir.al ras:lution cf tne-s:eam tube degradatien issue, i.e.,
"The :cr:icn of the Ccnfirma::ry C-ter permit:i.;
the licensee to resume c;3 ration should be reversed."
Decade's patition at 4 A hearing for that purpose is precisely what was so;ght by Decade in its 2.205 petitien of November 14, 1979.
In response to that request, the Director of I
Nuclesr Eeacter Regulatien in his Nevef:er 30, 1979, decision concluded.that 1
j it was net necessary to prohibit resumption of Point,Beyth. operations pending.a,
- r.,
z.,_,..
g hearing on tube degradation. ~ NetQthst'a'ndli~ng fje{adeTDe~cYmbe'r~ 1T,'1979, letter i
to the Commission reiterating its belief that a more complete and accurate record be deve10 ped prier to the Commission's decisien on whether to review the j
i Director's November 30, 1979, decision, the Commission did not overturn the-2.205 l
decision and,thus, elle ed it to became the final decision ;f the agency on that issut Consequently, it would be inappropriate to now conduct a hearing on that question.
Second, the limited scope of the action ordered here should not be the i
.)
15/
The Commission can hold hearings as it deems necessary in exercising its authority in the administration and enforcement of the Atomic Energy Act.
~~'
'Section 161 c., 42 U.S.C. 2201(c).
Similarly, as it recognized in Portland General Electric Comoany, 4 NRC at 616 the Commission may at its discretion j
pernit intervention in a proceeding by persons who do not meet the tests for intervention as a matter of right. The Commission has broad discretion in establishing the scope of intervention rights.
See BPI v AEC, 502 F.2d f
424 (D.C. Cir.1974).
l
~....
3
- 4 i
l oretext fer embarking on an adf udicatory hearin; on the ge.eric steam generater
- u:e :e; aca:i:r pr : 2.
1:
^t
- 0~
l'c i'# 13 f i 'ii'i92 On INi; 2';215~'
this order with. limited s:::e, whi:3 it::ses ::rriti:ns :n a si.gle license, is clearly n:t the ap;repriate forum for c:.'deration cf a generi: issue :f this kind.
Finally, in iral:; a! cir:
stan:2: :'e C:r-is:':
' as 2::"ed the fa: tere liste: ir. 10 CFR 2.7i4 to cetermine whe:her :: condu : a discre i: nary hearing or to grant discretictary ir,te-vention ir a Fearing.
Ediew Internati:nal Cc Sarv, surra, 3 'R" at 575; Pcrtla": Ge e ai Ele:tri: C: ra.v, serra, 4.,'?: at $15.
Apolicati:n of those factors in this case de Or.strates that a discretionary hearing is not warranted.
1.
The nature of the cetitiener's right under the Act to be mace a car:y :: :ne crocee:ing:
The petitioner's right to be mace a party is cependent on the presence of an interest which may be affected by the proceeding.
As fully discussed above, Decade is not adversely..
4' ~,-
C., -
~ ' ~
affected by this proceeding.
O.f5f:?
' ~ ~ '
u 2.
The nature and extent of tne oetitioner's crocerty, 4
financial or other interest in tne proceecino:
Decade has cement,trated a general interest in matters concerning the Point Beach facility.
But there is r.o recognizable potential injury to petitioner which could befall Decade as a result of the Director's Order.
3.
The possible effect of any order which may be entered in tne proceeding on the petitioner's interest:
The eff ect of a proceeding on tnis orcer would be to uphold the order; Decade has not demonstrated that it is adversely affected by the imposition of this Order.
4.
The availability of other means whereby oetitioner's interest will be protected:
As noted above, the bases cited by Decade in requesting a hearing on this Order, constitute,in reality, a renewal of its earlier 2.206 request. The Commission has already evaluated the Director's decision on that re* vest and decided not to overturn it.
If Decade is not satisfied with that result, its remedy now lies with an action in the Court of Appeals.
'l
.v 5.
The extent to which the petitierer's in:e est will-be et eser ed by ether rar.ies:
inis fa:ter is no: part-
-. 2.. e......q.1..e5.
.,r.s.i s r...s.
......r. I f.,,. D 1 1..,......,
.,..e.
4
. w.--
6, w..:..
4.
..s....
s
.. g... r. e.
..'.. =. r=...=.c-..=...
4......
.e.
,.v....
...i.a
.=.
1
- c. r
'.a.
a v
.r. = '. ^. - = =.......
.'..'.=..e.
2.,.........
- 2......s-=.."..,~-."..e
...s.
,. n o. r a. w.
. - =. -.
=*.4...:.
Ccnsequen ly, gran ing this re:uest for a hearing would inappropria:ely broaden :.1e s:cpe of the hearing because
...... u-s e.
- e. r, 1 4.
4 - = '. i. n.,. " c "u.a.. s
's o w k.. '. '. ' " a.
.,s u
.u.
iicersee cces no: object and which do not adversely af ~ect tne petitiener.
Cerclusien
- s:ade is n t enti; led t: a hearing as a matter of rignt en the Dire: tor's 0-der nor is a dis:-5:icnary hearin; warranted by the circurstances of this case.
For these reasons, the request cf Decade for a hearing should be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
~^
pg.
p e
~ '
r-
_ _m..,. u.,
James P. Murray
... /..
.a...'
Counsel for NRC Staff h bA Karen'Cyr Counsel for ND taff f
W nw J4 bis LieDerman Counsel for NRC Staff 9
Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this lith day of February,1980.
o UN!TED STATES OF AuERICa
...... a. r. :...... r Y,. r........,.
m.s
-.... ~.
er.es:: u.. vv t. e.c + ny
..w._
In b.e Matter cf
)
)
W:3C;4 SIN ELECTRIC POWER CCr.:ANY
)
Docket No. 50-256 (Point Beach Nuclear Pcwer Plant
)
Ur.it 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I be-eby certify that c:cies of ST'FF "3 TION TO DENY REQUEST FCR HEARING in the above-ca:tioned prc:eeding have been served on the following by deposit in the Ur.ite: States mail, first class, or as ir.dicated by an asterisk, through de:Osit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail systeT., this lith day f February, IFEO.
Marshall E. Miller, Esq., Chairman
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Atcmic Safety and Licensin; Board Appeal Board
- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D. C. 20555 Washington, D. C. 20555 Gerald Charnoff, Es;.
Docketing and Service Sectien*
Jay Silterg, Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbricge Washington, D. C. 20555 1800 M Street, N. W.
Washingten, D. C. 20016 Samuel J. Chilk*
Secretary of the Commission-Mr. Sol Burnstein U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Vice President Washington, D. C. 20555 Wisconsin Electric Fower Company 231 W. Michigan P. D. Box 2045 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201 Kathleen M. Falk, Esq.
1 General Counsel Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc.
114 East Mifflin Street Madison, Wisconsin 53703 1
Atomic Safety and Licensing Scard Panel
- U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 W
Aj f
Karen Cyr j
Counsel for NRC Staff
~
- i
-.*WJn 4 4 4
4.am_,
j E
(..
0 1
a i
b i
d I
e e
O h
i @..n a..... < L i
,~,,
1
-kA r
b e ma -
e.
4 b
M M
d s,,
h,
M
-ag -q g h O
d h
r d
0 t
i 4
1 i
f 4-t t
O h
Vl
--~'- -
,-~v.,
w--i-w
-m--.
wor
~
1.- **. * !.*..* f, %,
c..
4
.C**,.."'.a
^7
.?, *. * ** 7 *. 3
'.**.*.*.af9
.s..'.w ~; *. *.
- t'..*.*.t
- 7 *** * * *
.?... T.**'""..;*.**f.**.T*,.2
. - *... *... e.;...,....
s.
- r..
n
- e CG s.
w.
c........
Ft. O.,..;... ; ;..
. ;.. r.. A C...-..".'. N c.~~
"JT*9.yW d a.
..m m, C.s.
- m..
m T. b* b~7N-*"**
1~ M m
v.,
.W A A 1
a==J*
rT.C.....
...s* s'
.e,... c. w,. :...
.....=,
t..=..
m., a _
., s a.n...e d ' '1 e Co......' '. 4
- ~
e
- -..e 0.
n v...r. w.....,
.t e. g,
v.,. :
- r..
e..
dr y O.e c es de 's Ze:o..r er 17, 1979 ret 1 cst :::. nearing er t.n e 'o ve-he r ;.,.:i-
.2
.c.,e.
.3
_..._....,..,.u.:e
_m...e_...a........
...c.
..c..
......2.
.c.;.......
s.,..
.. w 9'
Sta f f centends tha t the D2cade 'c re uest for a hearine. on the Confi.e. ate:
~...
a.
~
~ -
Order should be denied en the following grounds :
(1)
- 7. e f.e:a de do es no t h av e s tanding : secure a '.ea ring as a r.a-te r c f
.4 e.....s. a ' s e*..
(a)
At the time the Confimatory Order was entered, "the unit was f ree to restart" and the " Order did not remit the unit to r e s t ar t" (see : Staf f Motion to Deny Esquest for Hea ring, dated Tehruary 11, 198 0, at 5); and The Confi..atory Order cannot injure the Lecade's interests in that (b) v it caly resulted in "the imposition of additional restrictive requirements upcn the licensee"(see: _Id., at 5).
m Tne Acada sh::1 6
..0 be af forded a. ce.n:rtunitv. for hearing in the exercis Co mission's dis retion because the Ce.~.nissicn has previously of th2 4.....'..=e...=... c ' ".a.
.... o o y e t t. n t'..e c. a ". '.e d.=. c.'.c.' n.
c.
a..
o.
- (,,,.a
.P*..
0 #
.d e
i
... c.
4.
..,.mJ..,..
e..,,..
.........g J
a
. =P
.G.
1.
es. &
l 1
..y
.s
.,.2..
. s. s
.s....
.a<...
.s..n
- 2. a.
c
.a..u..a.
- e....
..s.
- a..,.. e
.z. s......
.a
.t i
. L,,g...
'. i. 3...... -
1...
J
.s.... 4..........
a
.s....
3.
.,2
.e q :.-.....
.m t s
.T
.......-...,,.,C-.~.
C.....,.-... n
. nw
.. 3 n.. ~
s..
n
.....n
..n.e.
. c...... s.
w...
.u
.2. s.. I w4-3
- e. u.. gg w..
.w..
pv-i.
L
. e.............tr.u.....
.e. 3..s
. C._. s a.
3. %.
.e
..; t!.a*. .*.
'*d**
o y^ e # 2. *. *. J
"...1 V ". ".
, eg
..g
.._g.
c.e. ' :.
.e.c.eg...
24.,C e.
e # ^
- c^,
- b.'*
0 * * # #.
c.' C_ '.'.* S,
- .o ' a's.' s e X.#S '. s
.#C.#
s....
..s.
- a. c... u. a : e :,.....
4.s... a. u.. g
- r. e n. d e
- ..~~ ~.. **e C'. der.
. a.
t
..3..
,.. -.. a. c ".s.
... 3
.3 2..:
A.;
...w
.m e :.....,,.,..
,s.%,,. ?.
,n., _.. r. 3 :.y....
+
n........
.r-
..a: nar.
..n.: c::. " w a:...:.-
.w
.w n.
ru....
+
3,
~
~-oint Seach 1 expe rienced seve're tubd# tie (ndaYlon in~*Adgdsfidd '6e.tche f,'- "'. '... 4 1979 (Se e : Safety Eva.luation Rercrt Related to Point Beach Unit 1 S te e.:r.
C-2 n e ra t cr TV.be Degradation, dated ::ceer-ber 30, 1979, at 6 to 7. )
b~ nile the cr.it was still down for further inspections following the October 19 9 Outage, the Ds:ade filed a petit:.cn with the Cb :r.ission ret.:esting an order barring the plant from restarting.
(see: Petition of Wiscensin's Environ:nental Oe ra de, Inc., dated :;over.be r 1.;,1979. )
- n response to the locade petition, the Cor:.ission app'rsn-ly ex;:essec its concern and directed Staff to preserve the status cuo pending its consideration of the recuest.
(See : Transcript of lieve:.ber 28, 1979 Open Meeting, at 3 and 51. Q/
1./
To the extent.m cui re d by 10 C.F.R. 9.103 authorization is rec ested to cite 2,
' c S O. ".' l i c v... a.. i..g ~.'.. -c".,'... " '. ;
"a u' a.. _~.,
.r
.n.
..a,c,.4...... a. tu..s a.d at
~
this rencrandum.
t
a
,.~~=
~_.
..~ -.._- -
e g
4
- 4 e
.y 2:*.
- a..i.e..y..i., g e. u; Cq..,.,.,. 9.. u. q v.-,... c c.. g. 4 n.
.i
- u. e.
.a..
a
.Q..
s.
. s u. u...
- c..:........a.,
. s. 3.
g_...e..
a.s.
4.*
....aa
. s..s.../3.......e.
w a.,
,.4. 4 e. e. 2.........>.a..
.....s g.
e...........
e....
__..c_...
.a...
-r
~~
..,a:
.e..,.e
. ~...=. u. e. --,
= y.,,. 2 4..
2..,..~...2..
_.....~.e..,..
wnst we are talk ine. about toda.v, has been shut down for refueling for ser.e t i. e.
n a
- lan t is in a holdine. c.atte-n.
It is ready to return t: > owe r
_a..
...,. a,
.........,,u.=...,.u..-2....,.
2 2.
....... e.. 2
..2
..u.
..<:......,...... ~
..,.s
., a. u.
. c a..
a.,
.-v.
...<....g..
.z, w a.. g u.,..s.., z.
e ey
.g.
a c.' ". 4. s g.
"It ha s been held up since ?:cver.ber the Zist.
,....,..,.i.c c.'
".a. c...=..
- .c..->. '.. =....v. ". =. - ~. ~ '.. '*
... :.....e......:..v...
.. a...
W. ~.. =. ~... o # a.. *. :....a n. s '. c va. " e =...~. 4
.'....e.2.
v-~ c...'
.w.
.e.. ar *.
c '.
t"..e. o' ar.. *.
...n, 1
..,e..
..n.e.
2 c.
". :.:.. E '5I:: HUT: First,.n the sar.e packa:e that the li:ensee has agreed at
.e neeti.g with the Envirer. mental Decafe a.d a nrber of other outside individuals a.nd s taf f and everyone el se p res ent last Tuesday, they agreed
.c 4..
a.....,
e... n 3e
., a.
- o... e l a n...o.. e. n c. s....................
... ~.,
.a..
,...,...a.'
.c... e. c.... '. f"..'c...e.'
-:a".a.
- c. '.
- e. ".
e.
.w...
.4.
r.
C ha"'. ?e, et Cetera.
--., 3,4
.. = m ~ 5 a *. I w. *. a. d ".., e..' a.. *.~.
.e u- ". -. ".. ".... '. r. ". _" *.. e.. e,
a the staf f had written the safety.evaluatien addressing all of these concerns, and, n r.be r ts, we h a'd - add re ss e d the~ E. fir:n e nt al, De:a c.
- 71. _.
...v.
... _ e.- at.. e a s.t. w e a::ressed the petition at'le..
.1.,........ly m If.we done't-have the.,
-. ~ -
as pre 1r.inart
- =p' ete detailed respcnse prepared, there would be a reply ^out and a safety eva.luation written. Unt:l the details art worked out on the actual fine.uning of these requirerents and the d.c.in:.strative vehicle is in place, the plant i s shut t'own.
It is cperating-at ze ro pcwe r.
. (See:
';;ver.oer 25 Transcript, supra, at 4 and 60.
Erphasis added.)
It now being understood that the unit was crdered to not restart without prior written approval, it follows that the Confis-.atory Order served to provide r
that authorizatien-without which the plant we. tid still be shut dcwn today.
~n e re f:r e, the ack.nowledged intere st of the Lecade in keeping the facility of f-line until the tube degradation problem is fc11y solved has been injured by the Confir=-
atcry Order.
~d.
EVEN IF THE PLANT *a'M AU'I'd3RI.:ED "'O OPERA 'E WIT' CUT ':"dE CO::FIF.v.ATORY
. CO.. -- y.I z
,r...,5
%.:, c.A C r.
. r.
u..
s.....
nC..,,..,5,..n..H3.
3
.. a n z _..
O R.: r.,
. c.
-.; e. c
_e - : :.. v.
.sI.e.k. S r.
n I
Evan if, areuendo, it were true (which it is not) that the licensee could
v.
have lawfully resured c.eration.cithout
.h e Cc n fi r-.a te ry C r de r, it is untrue to r
..2.:..;.......
r.s.....
..,.4..
. m...
.2......
a.2
....a e.. a.;._._..a...~ c s,.._
- a. e..,
. -.e 5 : g.:.:, >.
u,..,..;
n.
y
.-a..:...
..:.2..=
.~.-.. '. '.. >.. _ '.
..s
'. '. = a ~..,c e ^..- ?.'.- ~..-...
e c
m
.t rin2..: system frc at. :. ::xina tsiv. 597 ? to 557' F.
t E2e : Nevenber 3 0 Iafe :v.
e.
Evaluaticn. ep rt, surra, a: 2 3. ;
HO 'e ve r, then en te :rier 11,.1979, ter days af ter rest-ing cperati:n and f:1*. -;.ng
- plete tasting of all, ru ble:- tute s,
.a j:: leiking recurred.
'Iee:
'.i:e- : 3 e E ven t Ee,c rt 7 ? ' 21,'01T-3, d ate d.~e c e--be r 22, 1979.)
Staf f's cwn analysis of the Lec trier 11 cutage to the Cor:.ission concluded i
that the reduction in operating ten;e rature had worsened instead of ir.creving the problem.
Mr. Tra rell f:r the 5 af f s tated :
.m "Eut in doing the redu:tiens in pri=ary system temperature, they l
actually aceravated > the prc blems associated.iwith.dif fe rential pressurecu + '
1-across the tubes, because in lowerin@ the average temperature in the reactor, he icwered the stean pressure.
At the sa e primary pressure, he lowers the steam pressure about 200 psi.
So instead of business as 14C0 psi dif ferential er thereabouts, he a: ually increased this usual at to 1600 psi. So the' reduction an pressure is really a necessary part of the package, because just taking reduced temperatures by the=selves, you increase the stre ss across the tubes by alcut 15 percent."
( See : Transcript of January 2,1950 Tablic Meeting, at 10.
Empha s:.s adde d. )
Turtherrore, although not raised in the Staf f's metien, it could not be argued that the feregoing problem was rooted by the subsecpent rodification to l
prinary pressure (see: Crder Fodifying Confir.atery Order of November 30, 1979, dated January 3,1980), for reduction in pressure adversely affects saturation and the ability to cool the reactor under all conditions.
As stated by the Staf f:
frca "This change to a lowei pressure adwresly affects the departure nucleate boiling ration and requires justificatien that the reactor is (See: Safety Ivaluation Related to the Point still adequately protected."
5each tJnit 1 Steam Generater Tube Degradation due to Deep Crevice Corrosion, 3.9.
, at 1.)
cates s.anuary 2,
7.,
i i
.l i
4 g
v u....
.......-.e..,e....
. a,..
e
,3
.:,..,....j...
3.
.e.
...., : n.,
v.
.e..,,.-.... gg. o. u. s
.,...a.
a,
.z..,-
,,. ~...........:. u..s.:.,
s : w,.. c....,. :...
- a...u.
.... >.N...."^.'a.o...#.'.>.
4.... ".
- o t a.. 4 al
.4 1.' e #..' e".s ca.,c. - ce.. = =. wo e c e.2
.a 4
7 s: 10..; as that clair of :.n;ury u nc: sham (see_:
5.
S. C. :.. A..._ (
- s 7 3 ), 41
".5.
66.0, 6 5 5 ~.
e.*.#..'....de...*..*.=.....'C 5 a..-
~
... '...... -. ". ' ' -.'..=.-'e.-
.e
- ...,.. a...
a..e...,
.-..' e.
e.. '^ c... c. a. '. w.' '. b. '..
'v ' =.~..' ". e 4..~. ~ s e r,.'..*. =. c '.
~.".e.
. -..... a-. c.- '2 C..' e..o c c r..' c.-
(See : 5.C. R. A.P.,
sta. ding regires is : cre than a "tri f fle".
standing. All that
.e,..,,
C.. :., :....v n...
.s : :.. ~. r
-. r
........s.
,,.r..
.r...r....e
. n.
.e.,.,...
n.. : s...,-
w....
. b.
,r..e.
- v. _.
s
...: w -..:.:..n..
.n:..,..
..D
........_. :..:...,a w.
r
.-.. :...: o
....... w :. :
O r. P. n....)
s.\\r, CFCIR,nINJURY FROM AGENCY _ INACTION. IS.:ICCCN. Z..ED I.N. LAW.
y.
clain th.a.t. the De. cade. _vas not.inj ured
- n additien to the Staf f's.ia..::u. rate
'.:. wa ' ' a e.n e.. s ". a ~....e
" e.~.=. e ' s
.-e a '. " d.' c. s a- ~. i s ' a-t.' c'.
^
w C r s'.c.,
'n o.
s.
- a ~..s.c.:
t ake n b y the Cc=.i s s ion. "
is not with the acti:n taken, but with the articn net (See : Staff Motion, supra, at 6.
Erphasis in original.)
there was no injury to the Decade from Even if, arc.: endo, it were true that i
that injury is in the Confirmatory Order, administrative law fully recogn tes what be inflicted by inaction as well as by acticn. ("edical Cc.ittee v. s.E.C.
cav.
(D.C.Cir. 1970), 432 F. 2d 639; E. O. F. v. Eardi-(0.C.Cir. 1970), 1 E.R.C. 1347, R:chel shaus (D.C.Cir.
1351; :.rchester v. U.S.(1938), 307 U. S. 12 5, 14 3; I.D.F. v.
1 971), 439 F. 2d 554, 590.)
Chus, even when limited to things whic? are emitted f rom the Confinatory the Decade has been i..jured for no one denies -.st Order, standing still exists,
~ 4.. t'.
s.=.... c- - c.-..'....-.-~r...=...~. s.+..'e.~:.
.' a.' ".-c c '
S. e
...s.. s.:.. n. -
v *
- a.
l 1
i I
. s-w 4
9 1
1
.g.
e j
l 5
1 l
.g
..p.a l
- *. =.
.;=.= y ; === q *. a.'L
..........s t.f...~...*J..
..,,.4.2.'-**..**'.+
4..i.*,*,.*.1*..'..,.
4 e...,.
3,....
J.
3.
b J.
2....
.a
.3.
3_
g...
..,g,....
..a....
.e.
J.
..,....... k. ;.
l w.J..
- n. c, -n.i.
s g.3..:.a....
.gy........
,4. m..._3. 4 s
3 v.
........a
.w y
.. w y
a
- .... m. a... c.,....,,
w., w.
u...,.,
3,. 3 g ~.,...
.g
,. m...., g
.n.,.
- n. =.. y
.na..
m.
s...
.u.
.... u.. m. -
... :c s.
......... a s.
.....4.
y:
.... s...
.s
...................... n...
r.u.,
.e.,.a....
.e... :...
....,...., ~
a.
..- a. e.d -.. ' e w.......=s.c
..e c.,..,...,
.,e..'a I s ' a ~d (.' c. :' ), --
2. y a.
.c..)
. e. c e
~.... (., c. c,,,
s a...
.-.r
. 3e.s.
.s,
- ... a. m..
.~
.s.
. :.,.=.,. a.......,..:...,.
.n.
u.,..,....,
.q.
a...:.. +.....' a s.'.e
."4 a s.%. e.,
s. a. a '.A<.c t.i v. 4....-. M.- ;."..'s........"....a..4 4..e. - - e 4.. -
- e..". -
7 agency an:! denied the therough and systeratic a.alysis it ds.ta.ds, even in the c
+
face of unaninous scientific criticism.
( See Fe c.ue st for Eearine., dated tecer.ber s o. < c., a +. 3 s....m.. )
- t.. >.a v a1.4e.#s.v a ". +.# d * >.
.s.
s
.4-
- h... 4.s a.*
caea.,
.e. a "..."..a s ar ~. ~,a.. '.,
+ "
a w
each and every assertion :nade in our reg.:est for hearing. At the sar.e ti-e, Sta f f -
r.akes ne reference to the mst serious allegations of dishonesty on the part of
.i i
equest the licensee (see : January 5,1950 Decade letter) and the vendor (see:
n i
1 I
- 3.... a. a. 1-).
.e..
n.
1
......"..e '. e e e '"..'.e e...'.' w' e.n
- 4., "..~3.'.. g
- t. c -. e..'. ta'.~1 ", c
- a. ' '.
d
..' a'.1
+
.e.. :.,
c.~
c indif f erence and irresponsibility carries l
that no hearing be held. Tnat arrogance, Point Beach, with it full culpability in the event an accident occurs at
.. __ a..e.g m... n.
, s..o c, -a...e
- o r c ~.'..=....e e c.r '.e r e a s a c.a ~.'.e-e v
e..,..
.s, gr~. n.sn, the facts ccrpel such a hearing as a r.atter cf discretien to answer cf right,
.,3
....a. e m..
.z.s.'..-=....'..
.e.=..'s.
-=.3..'-.<..'
- u. z..'. a..'.
w
-y
.G.
l
,w.
i I
o M a* c i
t L Q ' ;a.3,,,.. J....:.<*"---'*
r*-***-*
n
- e... :.
r s..- ~... e..
- .tn cricc5 i
I
A t**
.e' O
i l
1 emm,. e.,
F
.g..
.A.-2
. -
- 4.-
,..i.'....
.J...,..
2.e.:. +.,g
...., J.J
..... +.
....t,,
^
- ~.. -
.?.=..+...'.4..- a.
.n.*a.J.,J.-*...*.**-.*.a
.s+.,.
~
...s.
J.s
.,.s..
4..
..*. 5 2.,....=.2 si J..a.
, =
Je'-,,.
.nA s
g y
... - up s
i e
y g.
J.
......,p:.........%
Lf whk7, e..* L e vv. O......, @
b..% D.
. O..)
4
.I 9 e n......% g 0
I p.,
b.*
I.-...
9 I h4 4
4ee-
- W.*
68
- T*
.e....es.
- a. g e 6#*
s
.e*e.. o -.e.. t
- b..... 0
- w1C..:
1 y
-4 a.
2* o U e r.; C.,'& 5 5
- c.
4 ##*
m.a..
3/
- 7
- c..
.a.....
.a
..*e
.JJ.... = e
- A. A.
.i.t.* C, 7 e. g..
+
..1.~*..C'>9 * *. #
' a. b.a *.* *a. *A..
).* 4 we, O.e C. *. e s
a
- 8 e
e e%.m.e
.. S 3_
p
- ..e gMg w a
f g
%p b er,
N
- ),
,a
- 1. g pi.
or..... ".,'a.n.spe.e.
e.
gy
.a j
e e. e....
r 1
C P
1 d
4 I
1 1
i l
J l
I i
1 f
I e
y-w r
.-