ML20055A358
| ML20055A358 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 07/12/1982 |
| From: | Mark Miller CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OLA, NUDOCS 8207160206 | |
| Download: ML20055A358 (9) | |
Text
, -
-- * ~ ,, , .
- i j
g %),. "1, ;
Docntrto a q ,- USNRC , ' . .
.. :\<
1';s
'02 JJ! 15 IF20 1 UNITED STATES OF $4 ERICA ..
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C7F'CE OF SECC.E TAU . .
00CalTING ?4 SERV!ct BRA?lCH 1
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4 Before Administrative Judges -
s . - - y s James A. Laurenson, Chairman Dr. George C. Anderson , ,
Dr. M. Stanley Livingston In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-255- OLA 'a
) ,
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )
.) .-
N (Palisades Nuclear Power Facility)-) July,12, 1982 3 i
. S q /
r LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER COMCERNING STATUS
'p ' * (
OF PROCEEDING 4' '
. s On June 23, 1982, the Licensing Board in this m 3 1
proceeding entered a "Memoranduhl and Order Regarding Stat'us '
ofProceeding"whichcalledforstatementsfromtheparties\'"[
addressing certain specified matters. The subjects the. . . - - e Board asked the parties to address, and; Licensee's responsetC,
, 1 i are set forth below. N. s .
. s.
e ,y
- 1. The current status of this matter including: -s i' x \
- a. Whether Consumers presently intends ' td, replace _ -
the steam generators at Palisades; ,
We are informed by Licensee that it has' established no firm date for the replacement of the steam generators at the .+
Palisades plant, although for~1ong-range planning purposes, the ,
fffhh O
O
}5 d.]
~
Plant is scheduled to be out of service for such replacement from August 1987 to August 1989.
The Palisades Plant was shut down for essentially all of the period commencing in August 1973 and extending to early April 1975 to make repairs to the steam generators and certain other plant components. The repairs included the plugging of a large number of tubes in both of the steam generators, necessitated by various types of corrosion.
Given the uncertainty that existed with regard to future plugging requirements and the expected useful lives of the existing steam generators, and recognizing the length of the procurement lead. times associated with repair components and the time required to obtain regulatory approval for a program of major repair, Licensee, in 1977, initiated a plan to deal with the possibility of continued steam generator corrosion.
The major elements of the plan included procurement of replacement steam generators and other long lead time materials,
~~
f, engineering studies and detailed engineering necessary to support the construction aspects of replacement, preparation work plans associated with replacement activities, and preparation of applications for permits needed from various regulatory bodies in order to effectuate the replacement.
i n
1 Two replacement steam generators have been fabricated and were placed into storage in Chattanooga, Tenn-essee in December 1981. In the meantime, however, periodic inspections of the existing steam generators, including eddy current tests, have indicated that corrosion of steam generator tubes in the existing steam generators has been arrested, prob-ably due to a change from solid to volatile water chemistry. A more recent incident indicates that there is still cause.for concern. On March 18, 1982, while the Palisades Plant was escalating in power, a factor of 10 increase in the off-gas monitor reading was noted. Analysis indicated primary to sec-ondary leakage and the reactor was shut down. On April 23, steam generator eddy current testing confirmed the presence of two through-wall defects in tubes in the "A" steam generator.
The two tubes with defects were plugged and the unit was returned to service. This incident highlights Licensee's need to main-tain its options with respect to steam generator replacement, for which it estimates a required lead time of two years, including licensing. Licensee's decision to actively pursue steam generator replacement activities will be based upon its assessment of future eddy current test results. The decision will also be based upon other relevant factors, including Licensee's electric system reserve margins, inspection requirements for the steam generators with respect to derating. Absent further widespread l failure in the existing steam generators, it is unlikely that i
actual replacement work would take place prior to the time Licensee's two Midland Plant units are placed in service, presently scheduled in 1984 and 1985.
- b. The date on which the Staff completed or will complete its Environmental Impact Statement; Due to the better than expected performance of the steam generators at Palisades, Licensee has not requested the Staff to fix a date for completion of the EIS.
- c. The discovery which has been completed and further discovery which is needed prior to hearing; No discovery by any party has taken place in this proceeding. Licensee anticipates at this time that the only discovery it will need in this case will be the interrogatories seeking identification of Great Lakes Energy Alliance's ("GLEA's") witnesses, if any, and depositions of any such identified witnesses. ,.
- d. Whether each party believes that a hearing is necessary in this case and (1) if so, the reasons for such belief and the party's best estimate of the length of time of such a hearing;- (2) if not, the reasons for such belief and the party's suggestion for the means to resolve this matter without the necessity of a hearing;
Since this is not a construction permit proceeding, a hearing is not mandatory under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. However, a request for a hearing was filed by intervenor GLEA and this Board has granted GLEA's request. See LBP 79-20, 10 NRC 108,125.
Therefore a hearing must be held unless (1) GLEA withdraws its intervention or (2) summary disposition of GLEA's contentions is sought and granted.
Licensee has no information that intervenor CLEA wishes to end its participation in this case.
No schedule is established in the Board's Special Prehearing Conference Order for the filing of motions for summary dispositions, except that the Order indicates that such motions will follow issuance of the Staff's Safety
, Evaluation Report (SER) and Environmental Impact Statement and the close of discovery. See LBP-79-20, 10 NRC 108, 125.
Licensee anticipates that following the issuance of the Staff's SER and EIS, it will file such motions for summary disposition with respect to all Interviewer contentions.
If an evidentiary hearing is required in this case, our best estimate is that it would take three or four days. This assumes that only Licensee and the Staff will be offering witnesses, and that no new contentions or sua sponte issues are admitted into controversy.
I
- 2. A statement of any remaining issues in this matter and the party's recommendation concerning each such issue.
Since the Staff has indicated by its letter dated March 20, 1980 that it intends to prepare an environmental impact statement, GLEA's Amended Contention 1 has become moot and should be dismissed.
The other two GLEA Amended Contentions admitted in the Boards's Special Prehearing Conference Order, which concern ALARA and construction impacts on the surrounding community, remain issues in controversy in this proceeding.
The better than expected steam generator performance at Palisades and Licencee's decision to defer
- replacement for several years has left this. Board with two alternatives. The Board can keep this case alive, but dormant, on its calendar, or it can dismiss the application, without prejudice to Licensee's refiling it at a later date.
l See Philadelphia Electric Company (Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-657,14 NRC 967 (1981). Licensee would prefer to keep this case alive. In the first place, the company does expect to replace the steam generators in the future. Thus this case is not likely to become moot. Second, keeping this case alive would avoid having to go through the
initial steps of the NRC hearing process again; i.e., intervenors would not have to stand ready to respond to a new notice of opportunity for hearing to protect their rights, and the parties and the Licensing Board would not have to go through the arguments about standing and admissible contentions again. Third, if Licensee's application is dismissed or withdrawn, it apparently will forfeit the fee already paid and have to pay another application fee to the NRC. See 10 CFR S170.12(a); 170.22 (Class V) . Fourth, we are unable to identify any prejudice to any other party in keeping this case alive.
We are not aware of what administrative inconvenience, if any, carrying a dormant case on their -
calendar may cause the members of this Board. We can only respectfully request that Licensee's interest, as stated above, be taken into account in the Board's decision on this matter.
Respectfully submitted
,? .
Michael I. Miller
! ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza i
Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 558-7500 i t Dated: July 12, 1982
...e* -
' I '- '
DOLMETE.0 USHRC
~ '82 M.15 50:2Ci UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-OFF!CE OF SECRt fAC' 00CKETING & SERV!CE BRANCH Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of )
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-255-OLA
)
(Palisades Nuclear Power Facility) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " LICENSEE'S RESPONSE TO MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CONCERNING STATUS OF PROCEEDING", in thd above-captioned proceeding have been served upon the following persons by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 12th day of July, 1982:
James A. Laurenson, Esq. Charles A. Barth, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn.
l Board Panel Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Mary Sinclair 5711 Summerset Drive Dr. George C. Anderson Midland, Michigan 48640 Department of Oceanography University oZ Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
! Dr. M. Stanley Livingston U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn.
1005 Calle Largo Washington, D.C. 20555 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 a
2-I Mr. C. R. Stephens Atomic Safety and ~'. censing Chief, Docketing & Service Board Panel Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comn.
Office of the Secretary Washington, D.C. 20555 l Washington, D.C. 20555 i,
/ .
Michael I. Miller One of the Attorneys for
- Consumers Power Company ,
ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE Three First National Plaza Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 558-7500 Dated: July 12, 1982 i
i a
i l
t l
5 1'
- - - - - . .. . . - - -_ .