ML20106F808

Response Opposing Applicant 850205 Motion for Summary Disposition of Issue 15 Re Util Preparedness to Prevent, Discover,Assess & Mitigate Effects of Steam Erosion on Components.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20106F808
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	02/11/1985
From:	Hiatt S OHIO CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#185-566 OL, NUDOCS 8502140101
Download: ML20106F808 (6)

Text

'

(p A

't

^

%~~,;

February 11,.1985 UNITED STATES.0F-AMERICA NUCLEAR-REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 '

t 4.,

ga l, '

t Berere the Atomic Sorety and Licensing Board N g g P12;gg In the Motter'or

)

L

.~THE CLEVELAND ELECTRIC

)

Docket.N_osy 50-440 OL ILLUMINATING CO. ET AL.

N # 50-441~;0L

)

J e.i *

(Perry. Nuclear Power Plant,

)

. Units 1 ond 2)

)

,e s

0CRE-RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF ISSUE-15 h

i 6,

I.-INTRODUCTION On February 5, 1985, Applicants moved for summary 3:

' disposition or Issue M15, which states:

^

~

. Applicant.has not.yet-demonstrated that it'is prepared to c

Prevent, discover, ossessiond mitigate the errects or steam erosion on components or;the, Perry. Nuclear Power Plant that will e

be subjected to. Steam-riow'.q hl-Applicants' base their motion;on the incorporation Qf'Certain

~

Tdesign rootures.to minimize steam'e'rosion in certain, systems,

+

a their~. periodic inspection program', ond their steomgerosion'.

(

hozords.onolysis.

~

10CRE believes;that this issue; con be. narrowed lto whether the Unit'11 extraction steam system ~(N34), should-be replaced:with 4

s

the some erosion-resistant'moterial used in theLUnit 2 N36 d

}

system.

For the' reasonsloutlined.below, 'OCRE urges that 1 Applicant'samotion be: denied..

B502140101 850211

~

PDR ADOCK 05000440

I I'. ' S T A N D A R D S " F O R. S U M M A R Y. D I S P O S I T I O N O

PDR The burden or proorclies upon the movant.ror summary

' disposition,',.who must. demonstrate!that no" genuine ~ issues or-

@So3

i material fact exist.

In fact, the record and pleadings must be viewed in the light most favorable.to the opponents of summary idisposition.

Public Service Co. of New'Hompshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-36', 7 AEC 877 (1974).

In on operating license proceeding, where significant health and safety or environmentoi issues are involved, o Licensing

-Boord should grant a motion for Summary disposition only if it

~

is. convinced that the public heoith and sorety or the environment will be satisfactorily protected.

Cincinnati Gos and Electric (Wm.

H. Zimmer Nuclear Station), LBP-81-2,.13 NRC

~3 6..40-41: (1981).

.I t -is. imp, roper to grant summary disposition of.o sorety

. issue before the issuance of the Stoff's SER on that issue.

~

Duke Power.Co.-(Wm.

B. McGuire' Nuclear Station,' Units 1 and 2),

'LBP-77-20,>5'.NRC 680 (1977).

It is oxiomatic,'ofLcourse, t'h o t Applicants meet 011'of thel

^

.dr' Summary disposition is clearly-Commission's regulations.

q) inoppropriate when~ Applicants have; foiled to meet'one'of-the

! Commission's regulations.

i-4 4

4 4

As. discussed-Applicants' motion foils'on'.the lotter point.

s.

~

-below,' Applicants hove foiledi.to evoluote the effects'of steam

~

-erosion hozords:on occupational:rodiotion doses, and.thus hoved foiled'to ensure.thok such rodiotion exposure Will'be kept

-ALARA.

s

.III. DISCUSSION.

'z.

i JApplicants admit that the N36fsystem.--(extraction steam) has

~... -

. ~.. - -

'ti

.7 1

_3_-

J o potential for significant erosion-corrosion.

Pender ofridovit at 12.

EIn'foct, the potential for steam erosion in this system 15.50 great that-Applicants in 1977 replaced the Piping which-oppeared.especially vulnerable to steam erosion in Unit 2 with erosion-resistant material.

Pender ofridovit at 12, fn.

3, and

-Applicants' answer to 0CRE Interrogatory 9-44 (March 8, 1983)..

HOWever,_the some piping in Unit 1 was not replaced,.-because

~

such a change was_ deemed impractical as the piping was being installed;ot'that time.-

Id.

-Applicants. essentially admit that repair or replacement of the N36' piping because of erosion-corrosion will be necessary.

eventually.

~5ee Applicants *. answer _to 0CRE Interrogatory 9-46.

Any repair or' replacement of this system _will result ~in-radiation exposure to the persons' performing.this wofk.

= a According.to.FSARLToble 12.3-1 and Figures 12.3-1 through-12.3 -

/-

^

v

~

?t, maximum.radiobion levels during, shutdown in the' turbine

' building 1ond~ heater boy,'where the N36 system'is located, r'ange

~

from:2.5 to 25 millirems per hour.

'10 CFR 20.1(c) requires nucleon power' licensees to =moke

~

every reasonable effort 1to mointain radiation exposures?.

os

~

_ low as is riosonably'acheivable.'

LApplicants failed-to meet i

'this stondord., It'isiu,tterly unregsonable to_prov'ide o greater-

-level:or_ protection in. occupational; dose control in Unit 2 than fin? nit 1,;whenLunit 21will probably.never. operate.

U Thefword 'practicola in'most' senses means that which.is possibleJoricopoble of.being done.. Applicants.never claimed

+=

w

--y 9m,

~....

~

-.~

_4_

'that. replacement of Unit 1 N36 piping was impossibles indeed, it could;not be impossible if replacement at a later time is comtemploted due to the effects of steam erosion.

.It-is certainly more r'easonable to plon for keeping occupational radiction doses ALARA in the design of a nuclear Facility.by using.a material that is more resistant to erosion-corrosion, thereby avoiding the need for later repair or

_repiecement offcontaminated.-radioactive piping.

Applicants have violated the ALARA concept, and 10 CFR 20.1(c).

IV.-CONCLUSION

' Applicants have foiled to consider the effects of steam erosion on occupational radiation doses in that the Unit i N36

~

system is.fobricated of on erosion-susceptible materio1 which t

will. require replacement eventually.

These rodiotion doses, and the resultant'odverse heolkh effects, are entirely avoidable by

~

the some erosion-resisto'nt' material-as is installed in.

using Unit 2.. Applicants-have-thus violated 10 CFR 20.1(c),

~

l For the foregoing reasons,. Applicants motion for summary.

l disposition of: Issue M15 must be denied.

s t

L p

Respectfully submitted, Susan L.

Hiatt t

QCRE RePresentatLve Y,

E-STATEMENT [0F MATERIAL' FACTS AS TO WHICH A GENUINE ISSUE OF FACT EXISTS.

1.

Issue 1hi5 in_-this proceeding states thot:

Applicon't.hos not yet demonstrated that it is. prepared to l

' prevent. discover, assess and mitigate the effects of steam

erosion on components of the Perry Nuclear-Power Plant that will be subjected.to steam flow.

2. Applicants are still not prepared to prevent steam erosion in

[the Unit i extraction steam (N36)-systemi the Piping'in this

~

system, identified 05 vulnerable by Applicants'was-replaced with

.. in' Unit 2, but not in Unit 1.

[ o mor'e. erosion-resistant moterial 3.

Eventually portions of the Unit'1 N36 piping will have to be repaired or' replaced because of the effects of steam erosion.

\\-

'4.LThis repair or-replacement will result in radiation exposure c

_to; persons performing the Work, as FSAR onalyses indicate that

.maximumfrodiotion levels during shutdown in the~ turbine building ond; heater boy,z w'here the N36 piping.is. located, range from 2.5

- to-25-mrem / hour..

L.110 CFRt20.1(c)~ requires-NRC l'ic sees to make.every 5

~

reasonableseffort to keep radiation exposures ALARA.

x e6.: Radiation exposures and:ottendant adverse heoith1 effects e

could-be.ovoided-ifithe Unit-1 N36Epiping susceptible to steam erosion:1were ' replaced with the more erosion-resistant'moterial

'used on; Unit 2.

Li; t

1 e

' sY

l' l.$

g sj CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE s

This is to certi'fy that copies-of the foregoing were served by F2 b, first class, posta'e prepaid, Mail g

this deposit in the U.S.

// M day of-1986 to those on the

./

- service list b,elow.

(f m s<.

Sus'an L.

Hiatt SERVICE. LIST

~

~

I CHAIRMAN Terry Lodge, Esa.-

JAMES P. GLEASON, RTOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD 618 N. Michigan"St*

513 GILMOURE DR.

Suite 105 SILUER SPRING, MD 20901 Toledo, OH 43624

+. - s I'

14 Dr. Jerry-R..Kline-Atomic Safety.& Licensing Board.

U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission i.

q-WasEington,'D.C.

20555 Mr..Glenn O.-Bright _

Atomic Safety - &. Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, i

Washington,-D.C.

20555

. Colleen P.:Woodhead,.Esq.

.' Office'ofnthe' Executive Legal Director M/

U.S.? Nuclear Regulatory Commission _

Washington,.D.C.

20555 Jay Silberg, Esq.

j, o

. Shaw, Pittman; Potts', & Trowbridge 1800 M Street,- NW l.

[:l cWashington,'D.C.

20036 3

4 Docketing & Service-Branch l

. Office of'the Secretary U.S.. Nuclear' Regulatory., Commission r

Washington,..D.C.

-20555 4

Atomic. Safety. &, Licensing Appeal'Bo'ard Panel U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory' Commission 1

1 Washington;: D.C.

20555 L

,