ML20112J799
| ML20112J799 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/14/1985 |
| From: | Churchill B GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20112J780 | List: |
| References | |
| OLA, NUDOCS 8501180378 | |
| Download: ML20112J799 (12) | |
Text
=
January 14, 1985
'rq no R 7.)]
e' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
~
,:7 n
-r.
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boardi.
In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289-OLA
~ ~ - -
)
(Steam Generator Repair)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO TMIA'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS &.TROWBRIDGE '
George'F. Trowbridge, P.C.
Bruce W; Churchill, P.C.
Evans Huber Counsel.for Licensee 1800~M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036
.(202) 822-1000
' o\\ek-g g
r-7.
,-.c.
January 14, 1985
~
'25 J"
- 7 R? :27 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Vf A,t:
~.. g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ar.,
u_.
4' a >lCW Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board' In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289-OLA
- ~ - -
)
(Steam Generator Repair)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit'No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO TMIA'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD f
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE George F.
Trowbridge, P.C.
Bruce W.
Churchill, P.C.
Evans Huber Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000
O':vc:gr January 14, 1985 C
??:T7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
^ -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Board In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
) Docket No. 50-289-OLA
) (Steam Generator Repair)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO TMIA'S MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD I.
INTRODUCTION On December 10, 1984, Intervenor Three Mile Alert, Inc.
("TMIA") filed a motion to reopen'the record (" Motion to Re-
. open").in this proceeding "to receive into evidence new infor-mation which has recently become available to TMIA."
TMIA's I
[
brief in support of its motion to reopen ("Brief") also i
addresses a Notice of Appeal TMIA had filed on November 10, 1984 from the Initial Decision of the Licensing Board below.1/
l This filing constitutes Licensee's opposition to the motion to 1/
'None of the documents was accompanied by a properly exe-
.cuted certificate of service as required by 10 C.F.R.
52.701(b).
In addition, the Notice of Appeal was not served on Licensee.
t
/
.y4---
r
..r, cr
--y,-m--
7 -
ww.--
reopen.
Licensee's opposition to the appeal is contained in a separate appellate brief filed this date.
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY The record in this proceeding was closed on July 18, 1984 at the conclusion of the hearings held before the Licensing Board below on July 16-18, 1984.
Tr. 686.
The Initial Deci-sion, dated October 31, 1984, authorized Licensee to operate Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1, with steam generator tubes repaired by a kinetic expansion repair process.
On May 9, 1983, Licensee had submitted a request for amendment of the Technical Specifications of the TMI-l op-erating license to approve the kinetic repair process for steam generator tubes.
Without such a license amendment, TMI-l would not have been allowed to operate with tubes repaired in such a manner because the Technical Specifications required defective tubes to be plugged, and thus removed from service.
In the August 12, 1983 Notice of Hearing, 48 Fed. Reg.
36707, the Commission specified that the subject matter of the hearing would be limited to Licensee's request for authoriza-tion of the kinetic repair process:
l The amendment requested would revise the Technical Specifications to recognize steam generator tube repair techniques, other than plugging, provided such techniques are ap-proved by-the Commir.sion. --.
The licensee's application, dated May 9, 1983, further requested that the Commission approve, within the provisions of the pro-posed Technical Specification revision, the kinetic expansion steam generator tube repair technique used at the facility, thus permit-ting subsequent operation of the facility, with the as-repaired steam generators.
Parties to the proceeding below were Licensee, the NRC Staff, TMIA, and two ind'ividuals referred to collectively as Joint Intervenors.
Also participating in the hearings was the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which had requested leave to par-ticipate as an interestdd State pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
52.715(c).
The Licensing Board admitted eight TMIA contentions and three contentions advanced by Joint Intervenors.
Memoran-dum and Order (Ruling on Contentions), LBP-83-76, 18 N.R.C.
1266 (1983).
On February 24, 1984, both Licensee and the NRC staff filed motions for summary dispositio.n of the contentions of both intervenors pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.749 (" Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition"; " Staff Motion for Summary Disposi-tion").
The motions were granted in major part.
Memorandum and Order (Rulings on Motions for Summary Disposition), June 1, 1984 (" Order").
All of Joint Intervenors' contentions were dismissed, and Joint Intervenors were dismissed as a party to this proceeding.
Summary disposition was denied in part with respect to two of TMIA's contentions.
The other contentions. _ _.
were dismissed in their entirety.
For the two TMIA contentions which were not totally dismissed, the Licensing Board identi-fied specific sub-issues for which evidence was to be presented at the hearing.
Order at 23, 32, 91-92.
TMIA's motion to reopen apparently deals with TMIA Conten-tion 1.c relating to the plugging of defective tubes, and TMIA Contentions 2.a, 2.b.1, and 2.b.2 concerning the potential for reinitiation of the conditions that had caused the steam gener-ator tube damage.
These contentions had been dismissed in their entirety on summary disposition.
Order at 33-37, 56-80, 91-92.
As will be shown in the discussions below and in the attached affidavits, TMIA's motion falls far short of meeting the requirements for reopening a closed record, and Licensee respectfully submits that the motion should be denied.
III.
REQUIREMENTS FOR REOPENING THE RECORD A motion to reopen the record is "an extraordinary ac-tion."
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), LBP-82-34 A, 15 N.R.C.
914, 915.(1982).
The Appeal Board has held that a party seeking.to reopen a record has a " difficult burden to bear."
Duke Power Comoany (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-359, 4 N.R.C.
619, 620 (1976).
Ifapartycoulddemandarehearingasymat-ter of law "because some new circumstance has arisen,_some new i
2 trend has been observed, or some new fact discovered, there r~
st would be little hope that the administrative process could ever be consummated in an order that would not be subject to reopen-
_t-sr ing."
Id. at 620-21, (cuoting ICC v. Jersey City, 322 U.S.
12 503, 514 (1944)).
- [
The Commission's case law criteria require that the moving f'
party must satisfy each point of a three-part test:
the motion must be timely, it must address a significant safety or envi-ronmental issue, and it must establish that the Licensing Board would have reached a different result if the material submitted h-5 in support of the motion had been considered.
Louisiana Power
& Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
$k Si ALAB-753, 18 N.R.C.
1321, 1324 (1983), citing Metropolitan E
Edison Co.
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1),
ALAB-738, 18 N.R.C.
177, 180 (1983), and cases cited therein,
=.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company,.(Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant,
~
a Units 1 and 2) CLI-82-39, 16 N.R.C. at 1715 (1982) and cases cited therein.
s As discussed below, TMIA's motion to reopen must be denied because it fails to raise a significant safety or environmental
- f issue which would have caused the Licensing Board below to reach a different result.
4
=
M F
a
_T L"
i ini ny i
ii.-,
.,,,,.i,,..,.,,-,w IV.
DISCUSSION A.
Steam Generator Tube Pluccing TMIA Contention 1.c as admitted by the Licensing Board, read as follows:
c.
The kinet.ic expansion repair weakened the tubes.
As a result, the plugs will not be able to hold and give a good seal, and thus the plant's ability to respond to transients pd accidents will be adversely affected In their motions for summary disposition of Contention 1.c, both Licensee and the NRC Staff provided detailed and ex-tensive evidence by affidavit showing that the kinetic expan-sion repair process had no effect on the integrity of steam generator tube plugging.1/
In essence, Licensee and the Staff 2/
Contention 1.c, as presented by TMIA at pages 3-4 of its Brief, was not admitted by the Licensing Board in that form.
That contention, as written, bore no relationship to the kinet-ic expansion repair process which was the subject of the hear-ing below.
On the basis of TMIA's oral statement at the October 17, 1983 prehearing conference that its concern was the effect of the repair process on the integrity of the plugs, Tr.
58, the Licensing Board, rather than rejecting the contention as urged by Licensee and the Staff, Licensee's Motion for Re-consideration of November 29, 1983 Memorandum and Order, December 12, 1983 at 6-9; NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensee's Motion for Reconsideration of November 29, 1983 Mem-orandum and Order, January 2, 1984, at 3-4, amended the conten-tion and admitted it in the form as stated above.
Memorandum and Order (Partially Granting Licensee's Motion For Reconsid-eration), January 9, 1984, at 5.
TMIA has not taken exception to the reformation of Contention 1.c.
3/
Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition at 14-16, 83-87, and Affidavit of Branch D.
Elam, February 23, 1984; Staff Mo-(Continued next page) _
l I
demonstrated that the portion of the tube which engages the l
(
plug has not been weakened or otherwise changed by the kinetic l
expansion process in a way that would affect the integrity of the plug's seal.S/
TMIA produced no evidence to contradict the evidence of Licensee and the Staff.
The Licensing Board dis-misscd the contention in its entirety.
Order at 33-37, 91.
In support of its motion to reopen on this issue, TMIA states simply,.without argument, elaboration, or citation to the record below, that the subsequent discovery of failure of certain plugs " demonstrates that contention 1.c was a substan-tial safety issue."
Brief at 8-9.
In support of its allega-tion, TMIA presented the first page of an internal Licensee memorandum which set out the preliminary results of pull testing of the steam generator plugs.
Motion to Reopen,.
As described in the attached Affidavit of Branch D.
- Elam, January 11, 1985 ("Elam Affidavit"), all of the mechanical roll plugs in the two steam generators were pull tested.E/
Analysis (Continued) tion for Summary Disposition at 8-10 and Affidavit of Conrad E.
McCracken and Louis Frank on Contention 1.c.,
February 24, 1984.
4/-
Id.
1/
TMIA incorrectly characterized the tested plugs as being located only in the "A" steam generator.
Brief, at 8.
} u.
of the test results subsequent to the date of Attachmont 3 shows that of the 1,007 plugs tested by exerting a mechanical pull load, 25 were pulled out of their tubes and approximately 130 exhibited some movement.
Elam Affidavit, 1 6.
The Elam Affidavit clearly demonstrates that the plug movement was not caused.by, and was unrelated to, the kinetic expansion tube repair.
An investigation was performed to de-termine the cause of the plug movement, which included labora-tory examination of the removed plugs and testing to determine the. effects of-potential variations in installation parameters and procedures.
As TMIA's Attachment 3 indicated, the cause was determined to be improper installation.
This was confirmed by laboratory examination of removed plugs, which showed wall thinning less than that required for proper installation.
The plugs are installed with a mechanical roller which expands the rolled plugs within the tube end to' establish the joint.
The roller is driven b/ an air motor.
The most likely installation
-deficiences were identified as inadequate tool air supply or variations in the tool angle or sida load.
Id., 1 7.
The extensive investigation which Licensee had performed as part of its evaluation of the kinetic expansion r.epair :on-f clusively established that expansion could not have " weakened" the tubes to cause an inadequate seal..
Id., 1 8.
- Moreover, plug movement did not occur more frequently in the upper tube ff
'~
, a i.
)
~
sheets, where the kinetic expansion took place, than it did in the lower tube sheets.p/
Id.
Because the plug. movement was not related to the kinetic expansion repair process, it is outside the scope of this pro-ceeding.
Hence, the new information TMIA seeks to introduce does not raise "significant safety (or environmental) issues" i
r which might have caused the Licensing Board below to reach a different result.
Louisiana Power & Light Co.,
supra.
l t
B.
Status of Tube Cracking e
{
The remaining new information presented by TMIA, Motion to
(
Reopen, Attachments 1, 2,
and 4-6, was referenced in TMIA's y discussion of Contentions 2.a, 2.b.1, and 2.b.2, all of which were dismissed in their entirety on summary disposition.
Brief, at 9-11.
Those contentions related to TMIA's allega-a tions that the cause of the tube cracks had not been suffi-l ciently identified to enable a determination that the cracking l
was not likely to recur.
L l
l g/
The plugs were repaired using a re-rolling process which incorporated improved tooling and field procedures.
Properly installed plugs were tested and shown not to be adver.sely af-fected'by the re-rolling process.
Drip and bubble tests were performed on the steam generators after repair, with no leaking rolled plugs found.
Elam Affidavit, 1 9.
OY i d~
~
TMZA is now alleging that in^ creased levels of sulfur and chloride in the primary side of the steam generators (Brief at t
9-11; Motion to Reopen, Attachments 1, 2, 4 and 5) and recent eddy current indications on the tubes (Brief at 10-11; Motion to Reopen, Attachment 6) indicate that tube cracking has re-curred or will recur.
As set forth in the attached Affidavit of F. Scott Giacobbe, January 10, 1985 ("Giacobbe Affidavit"),
however, reinitiation of such cracking has not occurred, and neither of the factors presented by TMIA indicates that it has i
recurred.
The failure mechanism in the TMI-l steam generator tubes was unusual in that the' indications were circumferential in na-J ture and were initiated from the primary side of the cooling l
system, on the inner surface of the tubes.
Both Licensee and thE Staff provided evidence of an extensive series of tests and studies which demonstrated that the cracking was caused by an unusual combination of conditions which occurred while the I
plant was in its period of extended shutdown.
The cause of the tube condition was determined to be intergranular stress as-sisted cracking (IGSAC) induced by intermediate metastable sul-fur compounds.
Unplanned introdtetions of sulfur into the pri-mary system were followed by a combination of axial load i
stresses, low temperatures, and oxidizing conditions which oc-i curred during the cooldown and shutdown following hot l l
f functional testing in August and September of 1981.
See i
Licensee's Motion for Summary Disposition, Affidavit of r
F.
Scott Giacobbe, February 23, 1984, 11 37-43.
Because of the extensive detail in which the source and cause of the IGSAC is known, recurrence can be effectively prevented by controlling the total amount of sulfur in the primary system and by pre-
- venting the combinations of temperature and oxidizing condi-tions which could result in the formation of the harmful sulfur forms.
Id.,
11 108-116.
The attached Giacobbe Affidavit clearly shows that the temporary increases in the levels of sulfates and chlorides in the primary coolant referred to by TMIA 1/ would not cause reinitiation of the cracking.
The increases are far too small, on the order ofo0.1 to 0.5 parts per million (ppm), are of very short duration, and are not accompanied by the environmental conditions necessary to initiate such cracking.
Giacobbe Affi-davit, 11 2, 3, 6.
4 Temporary increases in the levels of impurities in the primary coolant are not unexpected.
Various sources, such as contaminants in chemicals added to the system and impurities 7/
Motion to Reopen, Attachments 1, 2, and 4.
refers to draining and refilling the steam generators, a sec-ondary side operation which has no bearing on the IGSAC.
Giacobbe Affidavit, 1 3. ___ - -____ _
.from the atmosphere contribute to these increases.
Transitory i
peaks in the contaminant levels are also observed during draining and refilling of the primary system, or when changes i
to the chemical conditions of the cooling water are made.
This is cue to the dissolution of residual sulfur from the surface oxide film.
This is precisely the reason why Licensee has, as have all other nuclear plants, installed primary coolant puri-fication systems and established chemistry specification lim-its.
Id., 11 3-5.
TMIA seems to be alleging that the temporary contaminant increases, to the extent they may have been caused by the addi-tion of. ammonium hydroxide,8/ confirm the concerns expressed by Staff consultant Dillon with respect to the peroxide cleaning i-process which was completed in August 1983.
Brief at 10.
No such relationship exists.
Dillon's concern was that the one-time peroxide cleaning process might put large concentrations of sulfur (5-10 ppm) into solution at that time.
(This turned out not to have been the case.)
His concern had nothing to do with the subsequent chemistry control procedures involving the addition of ammonium hydroxide, and he certainly expressed no concern with the magnitude of temporary sulfate concentrations which have been seen.
Giacobbe Affidavit, 1 7.
8/
Ammonium hydroxide is used to raise the pH of the coolant
_when the plant is in wet layup.
Giacobbe Affidavit, 1 7. !-
The observations of the small increases in contaminant concentrations have demonstrated that Licensee is able to moni-tor for such minor increases and to control contamination lev-els through normal cleanup systems when they do occur.
They also confirm that the dissolution of residual sulfur compounds incorporated within the surface oxide films is not a problem, and that, as anticipated, sulfur levels are far below those re-quired for the reinitiation of IGSAC.
Id.,
1 8.
TMIA's suggestion that the recent eddy current indications are caused by reinitiation of the IGSAC is also incorrect.
When the indications were detected during the eddy current inspections conducted in late 1984, Licensee undertook an ex-tensive study to determine their cause, with particular empha-sis placed on determining whether they were indicative of new IGSAC.
The investigation has shown that the degradation is not new, but rather is intergranular attack (IGA) which occurred with the IGSAC in 1981.
Id.,
1 9.
l Licensee investigated the environmental conditions experi-l enced by the steam generators since the IGSAC occurred in 1981, including parameters such as pH, contaminant levels, oxygen l
L levels, lithium-levels, and water levels.
A comparison of the results of this investigation with corrosion test data demon-strated that the steam generators were at no time during that period in a condition where such IGSAC could have taken place. - -
v Id., 1 10.
All corrosion testing to date has confirmed Licens-ee's conclusion that, by controlling chemistry, there would be no recurrence of IGSAC.
Id., 1 11.
Moreover, analysis of the eddy current indications, recently performed bubble (leak) tests, and visual observations of the tubes by fiberscopic ex-amination demonstrate that the IGSAC is not continuing.
Id.
The chemistry evaluation, the evaluation of the eddy current data, the absence of leakage, and the rounded or eliptical character of the defects indicate that they are IGA which pre-viously existed.
This IGA was observed in the previous. failure analysis of the steam generator tubes.
Id.
l.
L The current indications had previously gone undetected be-cause of their small circumferential size and because with IGA there is very little volume loss (i.e.,
loss of metal grains).
Because e,idy current sensitivity is highly dependent on defect l-volume, detection of IGA by eddy current is more difficult to detect than is IGSAC.
If grains of metal in the IGA area should drop out, however, the volume loss from the defect would be significantly increased and the detectability increased.
The thermally induced strains and hydraulic forces during the hot functional testing performed in 1983, subsequent to the record eddy current examinations in 1982, were more than suffi-L cient to cause grain dropout and grain boundary separation of the previously existing IGA, all of which would increase eddy
~ -l I
current detectability.
Such grain loss and grain boundary sep-aration from IGA areas have. been observed on previously removed tube samples, and are expected to continue for a period of time under the action of thermal or mechanical strains to the tubing which occur during hot functional testing or operation.
Giacobbe Affidavit, 1 12.
Because the increases in sulfur and chloride levels are not indicative of the conditions which caused the IGSAC, and because the recent eddy current indications do not signify ad-ditional or progressive attack, the new information TMIA seeks to introduce does not raise a significant new safety or envi-ronmental issue which would have caused the Licensing Board below to: reach a different result had the material been consid-ered-initially.
Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3, ALAB-753, suora.
V.
CONCI.US ION For all of the foregoing reasons, Licensee respectfully submits that TMIA's motion to reopen has failed to raise a
. l, ~
-j
I significant safety or environmental issue necessary to reopen the record in this proceeding, and the motion must be denied.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE c
Jh
/
C765rge T. TrowbridgeT P.C.
Bruce W.
Churchill, P.C.
Evans Huber Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 Dated:
January 14, 1985,,. -
_.