ML20138B974
| ML20138B974 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 03/20/1986 |
| From: | Churchill B GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138B962 | List: |
| References | |
| 85-520-01-LA, 85-520-1-LA, OLA-2, NUDOCS 8603250256 | |
| Download: ML20138B974 (10) | |
Text
_
r e
1 March 20, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, ET AL.
)
Docket No. 50-289 OLA
)
(Steam Generator (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
)
Plugging Criteria)
Unit No. 1)
)
)
ASLBP NO. 86-520-01 LA
)
LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO TMIA'S MOTION TO BROADEN HEARING SCOPE The Licensing Board has before it a request for hearing from Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. (TMIA") on each of two sepa-rate requests from Licensee for amendment of Operating License No. DPR-50 for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.
The first, Technical Specification Change Request No. 148
(" Change Request 148"), ASLBP No. 86-520-01 LA, seeks permanent revision of the threshold criteria for determining whether plugging or repair of steam generator tubes is required.1/
1/
Change Request 148 would modify the tube repair criteria to allow operation with inner diameter imperfections in certain areas of the tubes of up to 70% throughwall on a sliding scale determined by the circumferential length of the imperfection, starting with the next scheduled refueling outage (currently scheduled for December 1986).
8603250256 860320 PDR ADOCK O
[
G
1 1
6 l
The second amendment request, Technical Specification Change Request 153
(" Change Request 153"), ASLBP No.
86-526-05 LA, seeks a different, temporary revision of the threshold criteria, on a differing and much more limited basis, for determining whether plugging or repair is required.2/
In response to Licensee's submission of Change Request j
148, THIA filed a formal request for hearing on December 23, 1985.3/
The Commission subsequently published a notice cap-T tioned " Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Opportunity for Prior Hearing."
51 Fed.
l Reg. 459 (January 6, 1986).
This Licensing Board, established by the Commission to rule on the request for hearing,$/ issued
~,
a February 12, 1986 Memorandum and Order (Provisionally Or-2 dering a Hearing e n i Provisionally Granting TMIA's Petition for Leave to Intervene), which set the schedule for the disposition of pleadings and the prehearing conference on Change Request
't i
148.
i i
2/
Change Request 153 would nodify the tube repair criteria j
to allow Licensee to operate the steam generators with inner diameter imperfections in certain areas of the tubes penetrating up to 50% of the nominal tube wall thickness if the circumferential length of the imperfection does not l
exceed 0.55 inches starting with the eddy current testing i
outage currently scheduled for later this month and con-tinuing until the next refueling outage (currently sched-l uled for December 1986).
i 3/
Three Mile Island Alert's Formal Demand for Adjudicatory Hearing on Amendment to TMI-l Operating License to Change Tube Plugging Criteria (December 23, 1985).
4/
51 Fed. Reg. 2444 (January 16, 1986). \\
._m.-,v_.-,_,,- - - -
9 Change Request No. 153 was submitted on February 4, 1986.
The Commission published a notice concerning Change Request 153 captioned " Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Conside-ration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing," 51 Fed. Reg. 7157 (February 28, 1986).
The Notice set forth the Commis-sion's proposed determination that Change Request 153 involves no significant hazards safety hazards consideration.
On March 14, the Commission designated this Licensing Board to rule on requests for a hearing on Change Request 153.
On March 10, 1986, TMIA submitted to the Commission a re-quest for hearing on Change Request 153E/ and simultaneously filed before the Licensing Board a motion to broaden the scope of the hearing on Change Request 148 to allow the merger and simultaneous litigation of Change Request 148 and Change Re-quest 153.
TMIA's Motion to Broaden Hearing Scope (March 10, 1986) ("TMIA Motion").
As discussed below, Licensee provision-ally supports TMIA's Motion.
It has not yet been determined whether TMIA is entitled to a hearing on either of the two amendment requests.
The Board's February 12 Memorandum and Order scheduled the prehearing con-ference for Change Request 148 for March 27, 1986, and required 5/
Three Mile Island Alert's Formal Demand for Adjudicatory Hearing on Amendment to TMI-l Operating License to Change Tube Plugging Criteria (March 10, 1986). -
I
. i I
p that TMIA submit a supplement to its petition setting forth its contentions and the bases therefor on March 10.
On that date, I
TMIA submitted five proposed contentions for Change Request J
i 148.
The identical five contentions were included in TMIA's request for a hearing on Change Request 153, also submitted on 4
March 10.6/
Therefore, in the interests of judicial economy, it would seem reasonable to accede to TMIA's request to combine j
the two proceedings to the extent of considering both sets of contentions at the March 27 prehearing conference.1/
The March 27 prehearing conference could also serve as an opportunity to discuss the feasibility of combining other
)
prehearing activities such as discovery and motions for summary disposition, as well as the hearings themselves, should the l
Board subsequently determine that TMIA had presented at least one litigable issue in each proceeding.8/
In determining the feasibility of such a merger, however, the discussions would J
f 6/
Compare TMIA's Supplement to Petition for Leave to Inter-vene (March 10, 1986) at 1-2 with Three Mile Island Alert's Formal Demand for Adjudicatory Hearing on Amend-ment to TMI-l Operating License to Change Tube Plugging Criteria (March 10, 1986) at 2-3.
7/
Licensee is filing today and tomorrow, respectively, its responses to the TMIA's contentions on Change Requests 153 and 148.
8/
Licensee's responses to TMIA's contentions assert that none of the proposed contentions for Change Requests 153 and 148 satisfies the contention requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b).
k i
4 -
4 1
1 have to take into account the differences between the two amendment requests.E/
It is possible, for example, in light of i
9/
The proposed plugging limit in Change Request 153 is dif-ferent from and independent of the Change Request 148 sub-mittal.
Some of the more important differences between i
the two requests are described below.
A.
Change Request 148 would allow continued operation 4
with imperfection of up to 70% throughwall penetration and 0.413 inches in length.
It contains a sliding scale allowing imperfections of lesser throughwall penetration and greater length until the imperfection is 0.8 inches J
long at a penetration of 40% throughwall.
Change Request 153 would allow operation with an imperfec-tion of up to 50% taroughwall penetration with a maximum 4
length of 0.55 inches.
For an imperfection greater than j
0.55 inches in length, the imperfection must penetrate j
less than 40% throughwall for the tube to remain in ser-l l
vice.
Therefore, unlike Change Request 148, Change Re-quest 153 does not propose a sliding scale depending on imperfection size.
For an imperfection penetrating 50% throughwall, the maxi-mum crack length allowable by Change Request 148 would be 0.7 inches, as compared to 0.55 inches permitted by Change Request 153.
B.
For Change Request 148, the margin separating the re-sults of the structural analyses and the proposed plugging criteria is in all cases at least ten percentage points i
(10%) on nominal throughwall.
For Change Request 153, the minimum margin is twenty percentage points (20%) on nomi-nal throughwall.
C.
Change Request 148 and 153 both contain detailed as-sessments of the extent of compliance with the specific guidance in Reg. Guide 1.121 (TDR-690 and TDR-758, respec-t tively).
Both TDR-690 and TDR-758 develop comprehensive i
tube plugging criteria, in accordance with Reg. Guide 1.121, which meet or exceed NRC guidelines on structural i
margin.
Margin against plastic collapse was demonstrated by using a non-linear strain analysis as part of an elas-tic plastic fracture mechanics analysis.
The margin to l
(Continued next page) 1
"i u'
j
,6 the significant technical dissimilarities between the two change requests, that as the issues are shaped during the prehearing processes they may warrant separate proceedings.
Other important factors that would have to be taken into account are the differing procedural'and legal considerations of the two amendment requests, and the equities of Licensee's scheduling needs, which are different for each amendment re-4 quest.
i The Commission's February 28, 1986 Notice set forth a pro-posed determination that Change Request 153 does not involve a significant hazards consideration-pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92.10/
Thus, assuming the Commission makes a final 1
f (Continued) i burst was shown to be exceeded by elastic plastic fracture mechanics or by actual test data or both.
i i
These methodologies are different from those previously i
utilized by the NRC staff for assessing steam generator tube iritegrity.
However, Change Request 153 differs from Change Request 148 in that the margins to safety associ-ated with Change Request' 153 have been independently con-firmed to be in accordance with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.121 by methodologies previously uti-lized by the NRC Staff for steam generator tube integrity j
applications, as identified by the NRC Staff in Board No-tification 86-06 (February 21, 1986).
D.
Change Request 153 requests an amendment that would
. l only be effective until the next refueling outage, sched-uled for late 1986, whereas Change Request.148 seeks a permanent license amendment.
10/
The Commission's Notice provided the opportunity for pub-lic comments on the proposed determination pursuant to 10 (Continued next page)
. i s
l
~,.. _. - _ _. _ -.. _. _...... -,... _., -. _ _. _.
a I
i determination of no significant hazards consideration at the i
expiration of the 30-day comment period, the hearing on Change Request 153 would not have to take place prior to issuance of the requested license amendment.11!
This would be consistent with Licensee's need for that amendment in time for the eddy 1
current testing outage scheduled for later this month.
On the other hand, the Commission did not make such a de-termination for Change Request 148.
Commission Notice, 51 Fed.
i Reg. 459 (January 6, 1986).
If a hearing should be required on f
Change Request 148, it would have to take place prior to issu-ance of the license amendment.
Licensee is hopeful of having a i
]
determination on Change Request 148 in time for its next sched-uled refueling outage which is currently scheduled for December (Continued)
C.F.R. S 50.91(a)(2).
This regulation provides for a thirty-day comment period, and further provides that the Commission normally will not grant the requested license amendment until after this comment period expires.
10 C.F.R. S 50.91(a)(2).
The Commission, after receiving a i
request for hearing on the amendment, and after the expi-
)
i ration of the comment period, may then make a final deter-mination that no significant hazards consideration is in-volved and that the license amendment should be issued.
10 C.F.R. S 50.91(a)(2)-(4).
If it so rules, "the Commis-sion need hold any required hearing only after it issues the-amendment...."
10'C.F.R. S 50.91(a)(4)(emphasis added), and "[a]ny hearing held would take place after is-suance of the amendment."
Commission Notice, 51 Fed. Reg.
at 7157, 7158 (emphasis added).
This is true even if an interested party satisfying the requirements for interven-tion of 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714 has filed a request for hearing on the amendment.
10 C.F.R. S 50.91(a)(4).
I 11/
See note 10, supra.
j i
4
~7-
e t
1986.
Licensee would not want a merger of the two proceedings to jeopardize any chances there might be to meet that scheduling need.
For the foregoing reasons, Licensee suggests that TMIA's motion be provisionally granted to the extent of considering both sets of identical contentions at the Mr.rch 27 prehearing conference.
At that time the Board could entertain discussion among the parties cn the feasibility of further consolidation of the two proceedings.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE t
q)
N l' s ww Brutfe W@hurchilll P.C.
Alan D. Wasserman Wilbert Washington, II Counsel for Licensee 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 (202) 822-1000 Dat d:
March 20, 1986 '
r p
.)
r i'
00LKETED usHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 MAR 24 g) 50 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel f0C 1Yb5'Sb'VID BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION
)
Docket No. 50-289 OLA 2
)
(Steam Generator (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,)
Plugging Criteria)
Unit No. 1)
)
(ASLBP No. 86-526-05 LA)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Licensee's Response to Three Mile Island Alert's Formal Demand for an Adjudicatory Hearing on Amendment to TMI-l Operating License to Change Tube Plugging Criteria" and " Licensee's Answer to TMIA's Motion to Broaden Hearing Scope" were served on this 20th day of March, 1986, to those persons on the attached service list by (1) hand delivery if denoted by an asterisk; (2) overnight courier if denoted by a dash; or (3) by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, if not otherwise indicated.
G L T). K) w Alan D. Wasserman i
l Dated:
March 20, 1986 1
o
1 1
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-289-OLA-2 GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION, et al.
)
~~ ~~
)
Plugging Criteria)
(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, )
l Unit No. 1)
)
ASLBP No. 86-526-05 LA SERVICE LIST e
Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairman Docketing and Service Section (3)
Administrative Judge U.S. Nucler.r Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20555 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Joanne Doroshow, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
315 Peffer Street Oscar H. Paris Harrisburg, PA 17102 Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Thomas Y. Au Board Panel Assis' tant Counsel Commonwealth U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission of Pennsylvania Washington, D.C.
20555 Dept. of Environmental Resources Bureau of Regulatory Counsel e-Frederick J. Shon Roon 505 Executive House Administrative Judge P. O. Box 2357 Atomic Safety and Licensing Harrisburg, PA 17120 Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mary E. Wagner, Esq. (2)
Office of Executive Legal Director i
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 2
l
._.-_,,-,._y_,...w
_.-..,,..-.,,yn,-,-,,_-m______...c.--,-,,,,%-,_.
w,,-,,.,wn w y r,
,y_
..