ML20136H353
| ML20136H353 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 01/07/1986 |
| From: | Churchill B GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#186-685 OLA, NUDOCS 8601090501 | |
| Download: ML20136H353 (8) | |
Text
.
A
\\
OSgyngary 7, 1986 p,w UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY i@gMFgpSJpNP4 :39 Before the Commission 7
,e In the Matter of
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.)
Docket No. 50-289h
)
(Three Milo Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit No. 1)
)
LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO REQUEST FOR HEARING BY THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT, INC.
On November 6, 1985, Licennoo GPU Nuclear Corporation sub-mitted Technical Specification Chango Roquest No. 148 ("Appli-cation") for amendment of Operating Licenne No. DPR-50 for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The Application nooks revision of the threshold critoria (" plugging critoria" or " repair limit") for dotormining when plugging or other re-pair of the TMI-1 steam generator tubos is required.
In a fil-ing dated December 23, 1985, Throo Milo Island Alert, Inc.
(" THIA"), petitioned for a hearing on the amendment and re-questod leave to intervono in the proconding.
The Commission subnoquently published a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating Licenno and Opportunity for Prior Hoaring.
51 Fod. Bog. 459 (January 6, 1986).
As dis-cunned below, THIA's petition fails to moet the requiremonta of the Comminnion's Rulon of Practico, and accordingly should be disminned.
0601090501 060107 r')
i DR ADOCK ODOO 9
}
a The current criteria in the TMI-1 Technical Specifications require plugging or repair of a steam generator tube if an im-perfection is detected on either the primary side (inside) or secondary side (outside) of the tube wall which exceeds 40% of the wall thickness, irrespective of the circumfrential extent (length) of the defect indication.
Licensee's proposed criteria would allow continued use of tubes in some instances with greater than a 40% through-wall indication on the primary side, but only if the circumfrential extent is within defined limitations.
Licenaco provided analyses, including ASME Sec-tion III and Section XI fatigue failure analysis and solid me-chanics accident load analysis, which demonstrated that the ex-isting margin of safety approved by the NRC would not be affected or reduced by use of the proposed criteria.
Applica-tion at 14.
The ovaluations showed that the proposed criteria are in accordance with the existing licensing basis, Id. at 4, and contain margins to failure equal to or greater than those recommended in NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.121, "Dases for Plug-ging Degraded PWR Steam Generator Tubos."
Id. at 5.
Licensco first requested &pproval from the NRC to modify the repair limit by letters dated January 31 and March 1, 1985.
Licensee's position as stated in thoso letters was that the proposed amendment did not involvo either a change in the Tech-nical Specifications or an unroviewed safety question as de-fined in 10 C.P.R. S 50.59, and that a license amendmont was thereforo not required.
On March 26, 1985, TMIA filed a,
l L
lE request for a hearing.
On April 9 cnd April 15, respectively, l
both Licensee and the NRC Staff opposed the request on the grounds that it was premature.
The Staff noted that it would not approve the proposed criteria without a license amendment, and that such an amendment had not yet been submitted.
Staff Response at 4-5.
The Commission accordingly denied TMIA's hearing request as premature, stating that TMIA could petition for a hearing after an amendment request had been filed and a notice of opportunity for hearing had been published.
Commis-sion Order (April 19, 1985).
Consistent with the Staff's posi-tion, Licensee filed the subject license amendment request on November 6.
Section 2.714(a)(2) of 10 C.F.R. Part 2 requires the peti-tion to set forth the specific aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which the petitioner wishes to intervene.
Because the petition is a resubmittal of TMIA's earlier March 26 petition, without update or other modification, it does not directly address Licensee's amendment request.
For example, the first part of the petition, paragraphs 8-15, is devoted to an argument that a license amendment is necessary for the re-quested change in the repair limit.
Since Licensee has subse-quently submitted a request for a license amendment, the argu-ment is no longer relevant.
The remainder of the March 26 petition, rather than dis-cussing the adequacy of the proposed criteria for determining the point at which a steam generator tube must be repaired, is i
1 y
focused on two issues which at that time were pending before i
I the Appeal Board in the kinetic ^ expansion repair proceeding, to l
which TMIA was a party.
Metropolitan Edison Company, Three t
Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1, Docket No. 50-289-OLA N
(Steam Generac'or Repair).
Those issues -- the identification and arrest of the 1981 tube corrosion and the adequacy of eddy current terting -- were subsequently decided by the Appeal Board on May 8 contrary to the positions taken by TMIA in that l
proceeding.
See id., ALAB-807, 21 N.R.C. 1195 (1985).
As to the first issue, TMIA alleges that the results of Licensee's November 1984 eddy current testing indicate that the l
l original 1981 corrosion is continuing.
Petition, 11 16-25.
The Appeal Board, however, considered at length the results of r
those addy current tests and concluded that ".
. the recent
[ eddy current test] indications are the result of ICA (intergranular attack) that occurred in 1981 and are not the I
r l
result of new or a different form of corrosion."
ALAB-807, t
I supra, at 1210.
Egg gg.norally, id. at 1202-5, 1207-10.
l TMIA's second issue involves the difficulty of detecting
[
imperfections before grain dropout occurs.
Petition, 11 26-32.
i l
Such grain dropout is relevant to the. type of IGA pitting de-tected during the November 1984 tew+iing.
Again, the Appeal L
Board considered in detail the existence of the pitting and concluded that it did not significantly affect the strength of the tubts.
ALAH-807, supra, at 1207-10.
Moreover, the Appeal l
Board specifically found that the eddy current determination of I
l l
l I i
(
circumfrential extent is conservative in that the overlapping detection coils tend to indicate a greater length than is actu-ally present.
Id. at 1209, n 68.
TMIA's assertion that eddy current testing "is not en-l hanced" in the upper tube sheet region, Petition, 1 28, is not i
l relevant to the proposed repair limit.
Licensee's application l
specifically excludes the use of the proposed criteria in the tubesheet areas.
Application at 1.
TMIA's concern about Licensee's request to omit eddy current testing after its pre-startup leak test is also irrelevant.
Petition, 1 29. That request was part of the now superceded request to utilize the new criteria prior to current plant operation.
The proposed
(
criteria have not yet been implemented.
Licensee will be con-ducting eddy current testing in accordance with its license requirements, which prescribe testing either 90 days after reaching full power or 120 days after reaching the 50% power level.
Shutdown of TM1-1 for that testing is now scheduled for 1
March 1986.
Thus, the petition fails to state the specific aspect or aspects of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which in-tervention is sought, as required by section 2.714(a)(2), and raises issues which have previously been determined in another proceeding to which TMIA was a party.
The petition is further deficient in that it fails to set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding and how that interest may be affected.
10 C.F.R.
F. -
4 5 2.714(a)(2).
An organization may derive standing from a mem-ber who has the requisite interest and who authorizes represen-tation, Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 N.R.C. 377, 390 (1979).
Here, however, the petition states only that TMIA has participated in other TMI-1 proceedings and that it represents
" residents within a five county radius of the TMI facility."
Petition at 2.
The petition does not identify the interested members of TMIA, does not demonstrate that such members have authorized TMIA to reprecent them, and does not demonstrate that such members possess sufficient interest to give TMIA standing to intervene.
TMIA's participation in other proceed-ings involving TMI-l is not germane to this proceeding.
The petition provides the Commission with no way of knowing whether TMIA, apparently a corporate entity, still possesses the requi-site standing.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, TMIA's peti-tion should be denied.
Licensee is hoping for an NRC Staff determination on its Application in time for the March 1986 shutdown for examination of the steam generator tubes.
In the absence of a hearing, is-suance of the requested amendment in that time frame would 4
appear to be feasible.
Licensee therefore requests an expedi-tious determination on TMIA's petition.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1
sh i
h Jn.J c
Bru Y W @ urchif1' Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 k
4 v
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three' Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit No. 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to. certify that copies of th'e foregoing
" Licensee's Answer to Request for Hearing by Three Mile Island Alert, Inc." were served, by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, to all those on the attached Service List, except those marked with an asterisk were served by hand delivery this 7th day of January, 1986.
/ '()
-JGs
.t bfDee W Churchill Dated:
January 7, 1986
. i.
I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, et al.)
Docket No. 50-289
)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Unit No. 1)
)
SERVICE LIST 4
- Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
- Atomic Safetey and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel (4)
Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section (3)
Office of the Secretary
- James K. Asselstine, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555
- Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Joanne Doroshow, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Louise Bradford Washington, D.C.
20555 Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
1 315 Peffer Street
- Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Commissioner Harrisburg, PA 17102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Thomas Y. Au Assistant Counsel Commonwealth i -
- Mary E. Wagner, Esq. (2) of Pennsylvania Office of Executive Legal Director Dept. of Environmental Resources U.S. Nuclear Eagulatory Commission Bureau of Regulatory Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Room 505 Executive House P. O. Box 2357 Atomic Safety and Licensing Harrisburg, PA 17120 Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
.