Text

Forwards Motion to Compel Answers to First Set of Interrogatories Re full-scale Sleeving.Permission Requested to Undertake Discovery Re Recent Events at TMI & Ginna. Related Correspondence
	ML20050A539
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	03/28/1982
From:	Patricia Anderson; WISCONSIN'S ENVIRONMENTAL DECADE
To:	Bloch P, Kline J, Paxton H; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20050A540	List: ML20050A539; ML20050A830; ML20050A832;
References
	ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8204010394
	Download: ML20050A539 (1)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:_ _ _ g c)BRESPONDENW , sonb ,_, sw rw e so, . .. u.w . g')',y,,,, e.,,, pn r acs : - Fer/vtP6 O;,rn 9 . >, , 4 . 4 , e p, A mp., , y , _.py, as,4 % Vm+t H a. m .. .

                                                                                                                           , n e. : .4 &   .-             .   .c .
               , .It7t$ [cf
               $                                            Wisconsin'SJnvi70ngpntal Deccde                              hl.,'((f,Ea ,            ,.      ~"~~_              _

f r< a r.n ,y em ~ r,c< v,, n,y.ss '8214 Ncqdarroa 59e<:t. Sate 103 "t c' M * - " t' < < .> Owe " ' " " ' w ,w.r a , rucn w,sccon 53703 u g ~f4 , ! ais "m P a s c ure p . r,.. s p, n,, 4 w uma. 1., m. u jo.,. t'Oh 251/020 /f . .. > .' . ;

   ***fIw4"                       i be , ' t r..s /; 1vn                                .                                C e GI      '*O

C I" " ~ 'N

                                                                               %..m. u oun
                                                                                          ..~.y' r,o u.., v. . % . . , s. , ,           nag     D$[)

wg y [ .. m e .,. a . , m..

                                                                                                                   ,g1 ygg2x
                                                                                   ~ m . a.

G 4 22 % March 28, 1982 hD, S i Mr. Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Jerr ' R'7 K1 fn' i Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safeu iconsing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Duclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Uashington, D. C. 20555 Dr. Hugh C. Pa:: ton Atomic Saf{.ty & Licensing Board 1229 - 41s Street - Los Alamos, !!cu !!exico 87544 . Re:Hisconsin Electric Pouer Company ) Point Beach Nuclear Plant i Dockets 50-266 and 50-301(OLA) ; (P111 Scale Sleeving Proceeding) l Gentlemen: Eiraj;, please find enclosed Decade's !!o tion to Compel Licensee's Ansuer to Pirst Interrogatories Relative to Full-Scale Sleeving, dated 11 arch 28,1982. The Licensee did not complete the production of documents in regard to these first inter rogatories until March 25, 1982, f rom uhich date the time for filing motions to compel tolls under the Board's procedures in this prococaing. Transcript p. 1172. Second, this is to request permission to undertake discovery F of the Staff on matters concerning recent events at the Ginna Nuclear Plant and at the Three Mile Island Muclear Pl' ant related to st'am e generator tube degradation. These matters were not . i sufficiently ripe to discover at the time the first round discovery was scheduled. i l Sincerelyr t UISCONSIN,S E WIROUJ1EDTAL DECADE, INC.

                                                                                                       -x_            '<w 950     S by                  f-                          >

_ERS,0N // Di Nctor of Public Affairs PA/jr-P:50266NRC.L32 L cc: Docketing & Service Bruce W. Churchill, Esq. i Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.

8204010394 820328 ,m. ,,, c c m ,m ,,

PDR ADOCK 05000266 I O pm

r gc 7*

                  ,        pzD colutESPONDDG                                                !

WED-03/27/82-P:50266NRC.P36

UNITED STATES

                                                                 '82 231          P0 :21 OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3.
                                                                            ,.^

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Wisconsin Electric Power Company I 3 POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 i DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 Operating License Amendment (Steam Generator Tube Sleeving Program) ; u DECADE'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER TO THE LICENSEE'S AND STAFF'S FIRST INTERROGATORIES RELATIVE TO FULL SCALE SLEEVING i a Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. ("De cade") makes this second supplemental answer to the Staff's first interrogatories ( relative to full-scale sleeving. :.

Staff'n First Interrogatories [ The Decade has recently received copies of various documents f rom the Applicant in response to the Decades' discovery requests under cover of Applicant's letters dated March 23 and 24, 1982. The copies of these documents are presently located at the Decade's Madison offices and are available for your inspection, is 1 1 subject to your having prior written authorization-from 4 Westinghouse Electric Corporation to review those documents for which a claim of confidentiality has been asserted. :s 4 3 5

i.= Y_

**   e, '    .

f

                                                       .2-Staff's and Licensee's Firnt Tnterrogatories The Decade has also accumulated a large number of newspaper and magazine articles, as well as Staf f memoranda, relating to                                      j the January 26, 1982 steam generator tube rupture at the Ginna                                       3 Nuclear Plant.           Ilone of this material is indexed.                                          i
                                                                                                               ;+

The copies of these documents are also presently located in f,: the Decade's !!a d i s on offices and. are available for your i inspection. - DATED at Madison, Wisconsin, this 27th da of tiarch,1982.

WISCpIISfipS ,EINIRONf1 ENTAL DECADE, INC. ( , by

                                                           \!                    ,
                                                                                      ,/                        g PETER AUDERSON Director of Public Affairs                          [

114 North Carroll Street ; Suite 208 11adison, Wisconsin 53703 ' (608) 251-7020 : s before me this W[7 day ofSubscribed and 4t.,ested to 11a r ch , 19 82. [ /[//dfb~n .- /?? & Notary Public State of Wisconsin (1y commission is pet. .- nt. j 5 l I

                                                                                                                .f 5

9-s, t E

e

                                                                                                  ~~
   . ',                 ,_                ,    r.e  --          -
                                                                            '~~     ~  -~     ' ' - ~ = " '

    . '-  /

NTED CORRESWP~s>Mf'nt U M ETE- h u WED-03/28/82-P:50266NRC.P37 h UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DO 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

jlefore the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ' b Wisconsin Electric Power Company l POINT BEACll NUCLEAR PLANT UNITS 1 & 2 '] DOCKET NOS. 50-266 AND 50-301 1 Operating Licence Amendment g (Steam Generator Tube Sleeving Program)

DECADE'S MOTION TO COMPEL LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO FIRST INTERROGOTORIES RELATIVE TO FULL-SCALE SLEEVING f t The Intervenor Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. ("De cade") , hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Boa rd (" Boa rd") in the above-captioned matter, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.7 4 0 ( f) , for an order compelling an ansuer by the Licensee to the questions pr opo t:nded in the Decade's First

         ,    Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Licensee on the Full Scale Sleeving Program, dated February 10,                           3 19 8 2 (" Decade In te r rogatories") , as is more specifically described and for the reasons set forth belou.*

I I INTERROGATORIES 1 TO 4 $ 1 Nature of Interrocatories I Interrogatories 1 to 4 sought facts from the Licensee related to the measures being taken to minimize reactor vessel This- Motion supplants our earlier Motion to Compel, dated October 29, 1981. , l i lg-L

E embrittlement at Point Beach Nuclear Plant and any study being 3 done as to the interrelationship between those measures and i degrading steam generator tubes. Description of the Objection The Licensee's Response to Decade's First Interrogatories - 9 and Request for Production of Documents on the Full Scale {

Sleeving Program, da'ted March 1, 19 8 2 ("Licen se e's Answe r") , , objects to Interrogatories 1 to 4. According to the Licensee, " reactor vessel embrittlement and thermal shock * *

is in no way related to the sleeving of steam generator tubes, and is thus totally beyond the scope of the :

proceeding." Licensee's Answer, at p. 2. The Licensee also contends that the Board " expressly rejected Decade's proposed reactor vessel embrittlement contention * * *" . Licensee's Answe r, at p. 3. For the f ollowing reasons, both grounds f or the Licensee's objection should be rejected and an answer compelled. Reasons for Overruling Objection Under the Commission's rules:

                       " Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding [and are related) only to those matters in controversy which have been _ identified by the Commission or the presiding officer * * *.
                       "It is not ground f or objection that the inf ormation sought will be inadmissible at the hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

10 C.P.R. S2.740 (b) (1) and (2). The matters in controversy which "have been identified by the presiding officer" are: i 1 a, , .

                " Wisconsin Electric Power Company has not demonstrated    S that its sleeving program for the Point Beach Nuclear Plant,     .j Units 1 and 2, can be conducted without endangering the          ;d health and safety of the public and vill be conducted in         4 compliance with the Commission's regulations."                   ;

Transcript p. 164. ( The Board went on to explain that this simplified contention y "will provide Decade lattitude f or discovery in rational areas g concerning safety effects." Memorandum and Order, dated October f 1 13, 1981, at 9. As a courtesy to the staff, the Decade subsequently offered = greater specificity as to those matters it considered in controversy, including: g

                "(9)  Measures that may be taken to alleviate thermal       d shock   or embrittlement of the reactor vessel,          such as   1 reracking of the core to place lou burnup assemblies in the       3 center, may exacerbate a loss-of-coolant-accident in terms of interactive effects caused by secondary-primary in-leak age. * * *"

Letter from P. Anderson (WED) to R. G. Bachm ann (NRC) , dared January 18,19 82, at p. 3. Under the procedures established by the Board in this proceeding, there vill be no further resolution as to which matters are in controversy, insof ar as th2 full-scale sleeving DhBBC D1 ihn DIDE22ilinS in EDDE2ID2d, until the Board rules on ! Decade's Motion Concerning Litigable Issues that will be due within 14 days f rom the receipt of ansvers to the second round discovery requests. Transcript pp. 890 to 892. Contrary to the Licensee's claim that the Board has already adversely ruled on the thermal shock issue, that ruling was in 5 reference to the highly irregular and abbreviated phase of these proceedings dealing uith the Ilcmonstration sleeving program.

[ b Memorandum and Order Authorizing Issuance of a License Amendment

Permitting Return to Power with Up to Six Degraded Tubes Sleeved Rather Than Plugged, dated November 1981. In this phase of the ;

proceeding concerning full-scale sleeving, on the other hand, there has been no such ruling at this time. - Thus, the only question for the purpose of this Motion to l Compel is whether these is a reasonable basis for assuming that evidence might be discovered shouing a nexus between sleeving and rf vessel embrittlement under the vide lattitude traditionally allotted in the discovery process. 1 4 Sleeving has been proposed in another attempt by the . Licensee to cope with deteriorating steam generator tubes, a t concern which implicates the " health and safety of the public". f. t Reputable, independent scientists have concluded that a locs-of-coolant-accident may cause degraded or impaired steam . generator tubes in a pressurized water reactor to rupture, : resulting in substantial in-leakage of heat energy from the ' secondary side to the depressurized primary side. This, in turn, 3 7 may result in suf ficiently serious steam binding as to " reduce the [ reflood rates] to values so low that.the core would not be , adequately cooled." Report to the American Physical Society by the Study Group on Light Water Reactor Safety, 47 Review of Modern Physics (Supp. 1), Summer 1975, at p. S-91. , t The American Physical Society Study Group goes on in its .. report to note that "the core thermal behavior in the reflood f e period represents a most critical problem area in the thermal i E history of the core." Id. , a t S-91. Not only are there serious [ t questions of simple' cooling problems due to inadequate reflood ; i B 1 l-

r rates, but also those low reflood rates may create " substantial thermal shocks" on the " structural behavior" of the core as well as from embrittled fuel cladding. III . , at S-90. Those additional loadings may cause " brittle cladding f ailure." .Ld., a t S-91. These safety problems with degrading steam generator tubes j in general may be exacerbated by sleeving. In line with the j overall broad contention set forth by the Board, Contentions 3, 4 and 5, as well as Contention 7, show that sleeving may impair the integrity of steam generator tubes, and do so to an extent worse than from plugging. Contention 6 shows that the flow of primary cooling water through sleeved tubes will be retarded. Petition of Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, dated July 20, 1981, at pp. j 3 to 4.* .

Admittedly, the Licensee disputes all or part of these Contentions.

But, at this juncture before the Board has ruled on which contentions { 3 are admitted and before a trial on the admitted contentions has been d held, reliance on these perceived problems is appropriate for the limited purpose of ruling on discovery requests, especially in view of the f act that the intervenor's contentions are consistent with the Board's broad contention. h b I i, a L .. - . x: ;. . -_- .

i If the accident at Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant taug'ht anything, it shoved that major catastrophic events can be l l propogated by the interaction of videly separated components in a nuclear plant. Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island, .The Need fpI Chansn(1979), at p. 9. j Thus, actions that may appear on the surface to be unrelated t to steam generator tubes can play a major role in the safety of a nuclear plant, especially if, as here, they affect the cooling requirements of the core that tube failures can exacerbate. One such potential interaction of concern relates to the thermal shock issue. It should first be noted that embrittlement , of the reactor vessel vall is a concern to the " health and safety of the public": 7 pressure vessels * * *

                                                                                               "Because the possibility of failure of nuclear reactor                                                     a is remote, the design of nuclear facilities vessel failure.

docs not provide protection against reactor Prevention of reactor vessel failure '

depends primarily on maintaining the reactor vessel material fracture fracture during toughness at levels that vill resis t brittle plant operation. At service times and ,

operating conditions typical of current operating plants, reactor vessel adequate marginsfracture of safetytoughness against vessel properties provide failure; houever, as plants accumulate more and more servica time, neutron .

irradation intial safetyreduces margins.the material fracture toughness and Ennointion nf the EnacinI .Vnnnel UninIlals .Tonshness Enfat.y Issue, NUREG-0744, at p. A-1. ~ In fact, several older reactors are experiencing difficulty 81 maintaining safety margins. Point Beach Nuclear Plant is one of [ E the 20 older pressurized uater reactors in this country suffering f rom worrisome reactor vessel embrittlement. Memorandum from L. C. Shao(DOR) to D. G. Eisenhut(DOR), dated September 14,1977, r e e il _J

Reactor Vessels with !!arginal Toughness Properties. l At least tuo actions being taken by the nuclear industry demonstrate that the thermal shock issue is intertuinned with the , tube degradation issue. First, an amelorative measure being considered to retard , embrittlement is " changing the core design to reduce the vessel fluence * *

i.e. louer the neutron production in elements nearest the pressure vessel uall * * *." Memorandum f rom T. J.

l Wal ke r (DOE) to S. S. Paulicki(DOE), dated April 7, 1981, re I Minutes of PWR Ouner's Group Meeting with NRC on March 31, 1981, . i rt p. 2. That is to say, higher neutron omitting elements may be ; relocated auay f rom the perimeter to the center of the core and visa-versa. It appears from the Licensee's statements in other filings that these measures have been taken at Point Beach Unit since 1980:

                                                                                         "For Point Beach Unit             1,      Cycles 1 through 7 (1970 through 1979), neu fuel was located on the core periphery as was contemplated in the original design.                                                          Beginning with Cycle 8 (1980), core loading patterns employed a Lou Leakage Loading Pattern (LLLP) design and assemblies with several                                                                           -

previous cycles of burnup uere positioned at certain locations on the core periphery. ,*.*

Thus, the neutron exposure of the Unit 1 longitudinal uelds for the last two years has been reduced belou the fluence levels which have

                                                 'boen predicted.                                        The LLLP uns also f ully implemented for                                            g' PB11P Unit 2 Cycle 7 (1980)."                                                                                                      9 Letter -f rom C. W. Pay (WE) to H. R. Denton(NRC), dated January'15, 1982, at-p.                                                           ~. 3 of the attachment.                                                                            :.
                                                                                                                                                                                            = . .S It necessarily follous that this reconfiguration of the core                                                                     -{

may result in greater heat and' neutron bombardment in;the center I of the core incurred in an attempt to reduce irradiation o'f the E

                                                                                                                                                                                            =
                                                                                                                                                                                            'l outer. wall of the reactor along the beltline and .uill result 'in.                                                                                                          E n   .-                           a                                     r     z    a   -

.9 _- ; ;= - : :.

n -

                                                                                                                                                                                         ;h yp                -

3, p- 3; ..; - 3 .. Q %: 33 ~ M - # . -: [ _ _ _-[* _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _f_ _; __ ; '

*f

                                          -g-entirely different peaking characteristics that " contemplated in the original design".         In turn, this implies that the cooling requirements in the center of the core vill be higher, and, hence, louer reflood rates due to tube f ailures and sleeved tubes uill be more severe in their consequences.           It also implies that fuel cladding may be subject to greater embrittlement which can suffer f rom the thermal. shock exacerbated by tube f ailures during Second,     operator      actions   taken   to    ameliorate    the consequences of steam generator tube ruptures (that' may be exacerbated by sleeving) may have unintended adverse implications for the thermal shock problem.         In fact, during the Ginna Nuclear e

Plant tube rupture on January 26, 1982, the plant operator , i delayed terminating high pressure injection uhen the pilot j 1 operated relief valve stuck open during depressurization during a e best-effort attempt to equalize primary-secondary pressure. This uas a reasonable operator response to a steam generator tube accident uhen the goal is to minimize primary unter lecking into the environment through the pathuay created by a ruptured tube, i but it-is directly contrary to the appropriate action for reducing thermal shock uhere high pressure inj ect[ ion during repressurization could rupture an embrittled vessel.

Memorandum (Draf t) from T. P. Speis(URC) to R. Mattson(NRC), dated January 2 8, 19 6 2, a t - p. 1. Clearly, the interactive effects of tube degradation and embrittlement may contain the prescription for the nuclear industry's next major accident. i

_9_ The Board ought not let legal pirouettes elevate form to substance by so narrowly defining the ambit of this proceeding as to exclude serious safety concerns from adjudication. . i When the former Atomic Energy Commission first perpetrated such an abdication of its responsibilities in this regard, the Q 1 American Physical Society was forced to conclude that "the potential for steam generator tube leakage appears to be a j serious problem which was precluded fJam evaluation at the ECCS hearings [in 197 2] ." Report to the American Physical Society, 'l supra, at S91. (Emphasis added.) Even that criticism failed to shock the Commission into ;

action. Later, after-the near catastrophe at Three Mile Island, O l the Rogovin panel concluded in an analogous matter: J "The failure to heed these uarnings and take action cannot be said to he an isolated example. He found that in the past the NRC and the industry have done almost nothing to evaluate systemically the operation of existing reactors, pinpoint potential saf ety problems, and eliminate them by

requiring changes in design, operator procedures, or control logic. The lack of any such comprehensive program constitutes, in our vieu, an unacceptable situation that

, compromises safety and cannot hn allowed 1.n continue." Nuclear Regulatory Commission Special Inquiry Group, Three Elle Inlan11(1980) , at p. 95. (Emphasis added.)- l The Licensee should be compelled to answer Interrogatories 1 to 4. II INTERROGATORY ll

Nature of Interrogatory Interrogatory 11 sought.the names and other identifying l i factors of those individuals temporarily employed to conduct the' < demonstration sleeving program. W enem & ,

                                          ~                                   -      **

_r' , >. _

A &, ~ 3

                      ?   x          A-              -n   .
                                                                                = *           == =~

10- ! b Description of the Objection d Licensee objects to answering this question on the grounds that it "would constitute an undue invasion of personal privacy", would " subject workers to harassment and intimidation" and would be "a fishing expedition". Licensee's Answer, at p. 10. Reasonn for Overruling Objection It is of record in this proceeding that 'the necessity to employ transients to conduct the delicate installation of sleeves has resulted in severe quality assurance problems involving such l things as drug usage. Letter from A. D. Johnson (NRC) to L. T. Papay(SCE), Docket 50-206, oated September 14, 1981. To determine the adequacy of the Licensee's written , i procedures to overcome these limitations, it is necessary to perform an independent evaluction of the actual on-the-job experience. The first place to look to this is the individuals

 ,     who vere involved in the demonstration program.

A select number of structured intervious of such individuals would not rise to the level of an invasion of privacy in the sonicxt of _this inann hnIn. Because of the implications on _public, health and safety, nuclear workers are already and properly subjected to a wide range of intrusions, including security checks, personality tests and pat down inspections, that ! might be considered -unacceptably intrusive by the general populace. A voluntary, polite interview is actually 1 significantly less violative of their privacy than that which they have already been subjected to as a condition of employment. As to the Licensea's cry that the request is a fishing

w 0

?;

expedition, the f acts of the matter demonstrate that there is a f serious concern that the annuer might enlighten. In addition, i the modern. rule of lau is.that discovery requests are to be [;

     " accorded a broad and liberal treatment.          IJo longer can the time     l.[

honored cry of ' fishing expedition' serve to preclude a party - f rom inquiring into the f acts underlying his opponent's case." g IUskman L Tavlo r (19 4 7) , 3 29 U.S. 4 94, 5 07. The Board should also compel the Licensee to answer ? 7. Interrogatory 11, or, in the alternative, commission an ji independent investigator to intervieu a random sample of individuals who uorked on the demonstration project. . III t u I!1TERROGATORIES 15 TO 16 : I

                            &lture of Interrogatories Interrogatories 15 and 16 relate to the extent to uhich previously plugged tubes have e::perienced leakage.                                :

Descrlp. tion _.Df_1ho ObjectiAn The Licensee objects that the subject of leaking plugs is "in no uay related to the sleeving of steam generator tubes, and is thus totally outside the scope .o f this proceeding." Licensee's Ansuer,. at p. 24. , 9 Reasons for OverrtililuL_ Objection As discussed in Part I, Iutpra, the safety concerns from I degrading. steam generator tubes arises from possible ' secondary-to-primary in-leakage of heat energy during a LOCA. The extent of that in-leakage determines uhether steam binding vill prevent reflooding the. core. In the previous phase of ~ this proceeding that commenced with I

l. '.

Y i a the filing of the Decade's 10 C.F.R. S2.206 Petition on llovember i 14,.1979, the Staf f concluded that the c:: tent of the in-leakage through tube rupturen at Point Beach liuclear Plant vould be less than that.needed to prevent reflood. Safety Evaluation Report on-B Point Beach Unit 1, dated 11ovember 30, 1979. ; I The Decade informed the Staff that another source of in- i leakage than tube ruptures arose through faul.ty plugs that could rock loose under the stress of a LOCA, and asked that this factor be considered in its safety analysis. Decade Request for llearing ! on Confirmatory Order, dated December 17, 1979. f'. i= To this serious safety question, the Staff responded by

      -innoring it, presumably because it was unable to conveniently explain the issue away.

[ Then, in this phase of the proceeding, the Decade included 5 the problem of leaking plugs as part of its list of contentions. ! , Letter from P. Anderson (WED) to R. G. Dachm ann (IIRC) , dated : January 10, 1982, at p. 2. 9 The rule of lau does not compel the transmorgification of substance into form. At some point, administrative agencies charged with protecting the public health and safety have a moral .

                                                                    .                       \

i

      ' obligation to cease the abuse of legal process that hampers the                    j pertormance of their solemn duty.                                                    }

Interrogatories 15 and 16.should also be answered.

 ,           -n-   - - . -

    * ~                                                                                      '
        , ,  .e
                     ~

DATED at !!ndison, Wisconsin, this 28 th day of !! arch, 1982. WISCpliS IJ' S E!1 VIRO!!!!E!!TAL DECADE, IllC. m

~~3. .

PETER A!1BERSOt1 [ Director of Public Affnirs 114 11 orth Carroll Street - { Suite 208

            !!adison, Wisconsin 53703 (608) 251-7020

b e

a J}}

ML20050A539

Text

Navigation menu

Search