ML20080S307

Motion for Reconsideration of ASLB 830809 Memorandum & Order LBP-83-46 Granting Summary Disposition of Issue 13.Motion Based on Addl Evidence.Certificate of Svc Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20080S307
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	10/14/1983
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
LBP-83-46, NUDOCS 8310180337
Download: ML20080S307 (4)

Text

_- -

n -- .

-.; a x.w-

~ ~ ,. . , . . . . _ ,

'7 ~ October 14, 15 [3 UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMNISSION 00CMETED USNRC Before the Atomic Safety and Licensine Board In the Matter of )

)

CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING ) DocketNod{Fy{'pfr{'r,,

COMPANY, Et A1. ) =

) (Operating License)

(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, )

U. nits 1 and 2) )

)

~

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE LICENSING BOARD'S AUGUST 9, 1983 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING SUhMARY DISPOSITION OF ISSUE #13 Intervenor Ohio Citizens for Responsible.. Energy ("OCRE")

hereby moves the Licensing Board to reconsider its August 9, 19 83 Memorandum and Order (Summary Disposition of Turbine Missile Issue) , LBP-83-46, on the grounds that the attached , letter from S.H. Bush to A.J. Cappucci of the ACRS dated June'27, 1983 indicates that the Licensing Board seriously erred in granting summary disposition of Issue #13 without receiving additional evidance, specifically, the General Electric report, into the record.

OCRE is aware that this Board expects moti!.ns for reconsidera-tion to be filed in a timely manner. The Board has interpreted

" timely" to mean within 10 days. See August 18, 1983 Memo-randum and Order (Motion to Reopen) at 12; January 28, 1983 Memorandum unh Order (Reconsiceration: Onality Assurance) at 12; December 13, 1982 Memorandum and Order (Concerning Reconsideration and Dismissal of , Hydrogen Control Contention) at 1-2. Although this filing',h'as exceeded that time period, OCRE believes that it has good cause for its late filing and that the Board should -

1 8310180337 831014 PDR ADOCK 05000440 3

. - . -g -

PDR -

e entertain it.

First, the letter upon which OCRE bases this motion, although dated June 27, 1983, was not docketed by the NRC until September, as evidenced by the accession number. It was not received by the Local Public Document Room in Perry, OH until' September 19. OCRE did not discover it until October 7.

The additional time, from October 7-14, was needed to contact Mr. Bush (see below) and to prepare this filing.

Secondly, OCRE did not file a timely motion for reconsideration because it chose to file exceptions with the Appeal Bor.rd instead. OCRE's review of the case law in the NRC's Practice and Procedure Digest (NUREG-0386) led it to believe that an appeal of an order granting summary disposition would not be interlocutory. .OCRE felt that appealing to a different tribunal would be more effective than seeking reconsideration from this Board. The Appeal Board, in ALAB-736, held that such an appeal was interlocutory. OCRE was content to. await the issuance of a partial initial decision, until the Bush letter was discovered.

This letter constitutes proof that summary disposition should not have been granted.

The Licensing Board, in its August 9 decision, relied extensively on a publication by Mr. buch. The attached letter by Mr. Bush remarkably echoes OCRE's primary argument (and that of Sunflower Alliance) opposi ng summary disposition at that time: that additional information, especially tht GE report, l was needed before the Staff's position can be confirmed.

OCRE war.ced to be sure that the June 27 letter still reflects Mr. Bush's opinion. On October 11, 1983, the OCRE Representative

a called Mr. Bush. He stated that, to his knowledge, the GE reoprt has not been released yet, as he had requested it and still har not seen it, and that he would havc to see that data before he could resolve his concerns.

A Licensing Board's findings must be supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record. Pacific Gas and Electric (Diablo Canyon, Unit 2), ALAB-254, 8 AEC 1184 (1975). It is therefore nothing short of amazing that this Board

.would decide that the record was sufficient to grant summary disposition, when an ' expert in the field (and two parties to the pro.ceeding) has stated that supporting documentation is necessary, that, until it is supplied, the Staff position must be considered optimistic, and that the burden of proof should 1

~be on the utility and turbine vendor.

For the foregoing reasons, OCRE urges the Licensing Board to reverse itself,. to reinstate Issue #13 in this proceecing, to accord OCRE liberal discovery rights, and to decide the issue on the basis of a complete evidentiary record.

Respectfully submitted,

. sY Y Susan L. Hiatt OCRE Representative 8275 Munson Rd.

Mentor, OH 44060 f.216 ) 255-3158

, ~ -,, ,. ,, , ,- .-.

. ci-/G M t

~

@3 ale ~e Pacific Northwest Laboratories P.O. Bos 999 Rechland. W4,hington U.5 A. 99352

~

- ' , Telephone (509, 375-2223 June 27,1983 reie,1s.2sn

- , , , d 'k Mr. A. J. Cappucci, Staff Engineer J b ,d Advisory Cor,mittee on Reactor Safeguards > N ,'

O. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission h i .

Mail Stop H-1016 Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Cappucci:

PERRY NUCLEAR POWER PLANT TURBINE MISSILE ISSUE ,

In my opinion, the issue isn't Perry, per se; rather, it is the validity of U.e NRR position with regard to turbine missiles generically for both orientatior.s.

I shall comment on the cro's and con's of the new position in a general sense.

I doubt my remarks can ce considered other than preliminary prior to reviewing the General Electric report on their turbines which I believe should become available in June.

A review of the various documents provided confirms a major overlap in material between the various versions of the Perry Supplement and the revised SRP and RG positions. With regard to the general issue of favorable versus unfavorable

. turbine orientations, I see the following issues.

e Historic data not necessarily relevant to nuclear turbines ' infers a failure probability, P1 = 10-4/T.Y. The stress corrosion cracking tends to be unique to nuclear turbines and one class of reheat turbines. Is the poten-

,tial for failure from IGSCC higher or lower than 10-4/yr?

e A Ps value <10-5 is set by NRR for turbines with unfavorable orientations uit sur P = 10-4 for favorable orientations. Picking up an ceder of magni-tude wil' have to be done exclusively by NDE, either volumetric (UT) or visual which infers removal of discs which is a pain. I'll discuss UT-reliability more later.

e The selection of time intervals for ISI appears to be based on data that infers that 1/2 ac is not reached within three years. Since I have not seen a G.E. documentation validating such a number, or an NRR confinnation, I need to accept it on faith. Since this becomes the gut issue, I'm reluc-tant to do so. The Wettinghouse document tends to ccqfirm such a value and I obtain some degree of comfort vis-a-vis a G.E. turbine because Westing-house historically has opted for higher strength alloys which would be more susceptible to cracking, and possibly to crack growth rate, compared to G.E.

. Again, I would like to see the data. At this time, I would be unwilling to accept no ISI until three years in the absence of confirmatory data; e.g.,

the expected G.E. report. .

DESICNATED ORIGINAL O L%iss" = 5 certitiee >> .<

_~s

J Mr. Cappucci June 27,1983 Page 2 The final issue has to do with the reliability of crack detection and sizing -

ln turbine discs using UT. The material poses no problems for UT. Geometry is somewhat complex, but less so than other systems that have been UT'd suc-cessfully. A relative unknown is reliability of detection of IGSCC by UT in ferritic alloys. Because of the nature of IGSCC, it is more difficult to detect than fatigue, L-0-F, etc. I feel it can be detected; however, I am unwilling to set a reliability value. My gut feeling is that I should be able to detect cracks with a reliabili".y of +90% at 95% confidence.

Two other issues remain. The critical crack size will differ for Westinghouse plants versus G.E. because of material toughness considerations. It's interest-ing to read the Westinghouse report when they skillfully skirt the actual a c size. One would need a table of ac values as functions of material toughness and 0,10, 20% overspeed to see the size range: The second half of the problem is the reliability of sizing IGSCC. While I am confident that the cracks will be detected, I'm less confident that they will be sized accurately and the

burden of proof should be on the utility', G.E. and Westinghouse to confirm sizing reliability based on 9xperimental data.

If you forward the G.E. supporting document to me, I'll review and see if their position resolves my concerns. Until I see that report, I consider the NRR position as optimistic. Summarizing:

e Validation of crack growth rates is required; '

e Critical flaw sizes as functions of material properties and turbine speed should be given; and -

e Confirmation of reliability and accuracy of sizing IGSCC cracks is needed.

Very trul yours, Spence / Bush, P.E.

Senior S)hff Consultant SHB:dp O

O n

I

r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE  ! 00RETEi.

, J

'SNRC This is to certify that copies of the feregoing were served by deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class, pos'g3gTCI 17 AH :07 prepaid, this 15th day of October, 1983 to: those on the service list below.

LFFCE OF s,.;0, .

00CKEilNG & SE9vo e

. BRANCH 1--<~ 1 e- ^ - ,

Susan L. Hiatt

~

SERVICE LIST

. -/. :

Peter B. Blcah, Chairman Terry' Lodge, Esq. ..

Atomic Sarety & Licensing Board -McCuanask , P o'mr.oran5r- -&

-Lodge U.'S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. .-e 824xNationat= Bank-B-ldg .

Washington,'D.C. 20555 To-ledo=,=20R_I;;t3JA4, Dr. Jerry R..Kline 6 /d' /V. ///K #a;hu $ 7 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board. Sj,-fg /OS' U . S,,, Nuclear. Regulatory Commission i Washington,'D.C. 20555 , g .

Mr..Glenn O. Bright Atomic,-Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ' ' ' '

0 MamesNtl  ?. M'00h/4Ab"n t ch-in;. IL.E s q .

,' T Office of the' Executive Legal Directcr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com aission Washington, D .C. 20555 r

Jay.Silberg, Esq.

Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge 1800 M Street, NN '

. Washington, D.C. 20036 ..

s:

1 Docketing i & Service Branch

. Office of'the Secretary U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory. Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic. Safety.& Licensing. Appeal. Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

6

-