ML20147J053
| ML20147J053 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/01/1988 |
| From: | Ferster A HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147J057 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5775 OL-1, NUDOCS 8803090161 | |
| Download: ML20147J053 (11) | |
Text
,_.
..s7,75 '
00CKETE0 USNRC Ma rch 1, 1988 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
~
~
BEFORE THF ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD OrFICE 07 H CM U 1 00C6.EimG '. 9"KL Viale.
In the Matter of
)
)
Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket No. 5 0-4 4 3 OL-1 pp/-6d-/ '
)
(Seabrook-Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
ONSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING & TECHNICAL
)
ISSUES
)
NECNP'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE BOARD'S DENIAL OF NECNP'S MOTION TO COMPEL, DATED FEBRUARY 17, 1988 I.
Introduction The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP")
hereby requests that the Licensing Board reconsider its Order dated February 17, 1988 denying NECNP's motion to compel, and ruling that the issue of "microbiologically induced corrosion"
("MIC") is not within the scope of NECNP Contention IV.
In sup-port of this motion, NECNP presents an expert affidavit as to the meaning of the Contention, and scientific studies contemporaneous to the admission of Contention IV demonstrating that, in 1982, MIC was recognized as one of the detrimental effects biofouling of nuclear power plants.
NECNP further asks that the Board rule on that portion of NECNP's January 25, 1988 motion to compel regarding Applicants' definition of "biofouling."
NECNP notes, in this regard, that i
the Board's ruling on the question of MIC is not dispositive as to this definitional issue, which concerns fouling by bivalves and debrir and ic therefore squarely within the scope of NECNP Contention IV.
g7 0
3 C*
y
- Finally, should this Board rule that MIC is within the scope of NECNP Contention IV, NECNP renews its motion to compel dis -
covary with regard to Applicants' refusal to respond to inter-
- rogatories directed to "circulating water systems" such as the Fire Protection System.
II.
Microbiological 1y Induced Corrosion and Other
.T pes of Microbial Pouling are Within the 1
_ Scope of NECNP Contention IV.
A.
The Plain Language of the Contention Covers MIC Contention IV's subject matter and scope is very simple It states that "The Applicant must establish a surveillance and maintenance program for the prevention of the accumulation of mollusks, ' other aquatic organisms, and debris in reactor coolir.g systems." According to the attached affidavit of Dr. James Bryers, a professor in the Center for Biochemical Engineeri ng at Duke University, this statement broadly identifies the process that causes "fouling" and microbiological 1y induced corrosi on in nuclear power plant heat exchangers.1 It is therefore Dr.
Bryers' opinion that both microbial fouling and microbiologi cal 1y induced corrosion are within the Scope of NECNP Contention IV 2
t
+r 1
Bryer Affidavit, at 1 4, attached as Exhibit A. Dr. Br) *rs is the author of over thirty published articles in scientific nals and treatises on the subject of microbial fouling and its
, car-effects in engineered systems, hea t-e xchange 'aystems,
including nuclear power plant His Curriculun Vitae is attached as Exhibitand is a recognized expert in this a 3.
2 Bryer Af fidavit, at t 5, attached as Exhibit A.
o This reading of Contention IV as not limited to any one type or effect of fouling is corroborated by scientific studies,-which generally define the process of fouling as follows:
and/or organic deposits on surfaces.The term fouling refers to the In cooling systems, these deposits form on condenser tube walls increasing fluid frictional resistance, heat transfer."
accelerating corrosion and impairing Bryers, J.D., Characklis, W.G., Zelver, N.,
and Nimmons, M.G.,
"Microbial Film Development and Associated Energy Losses," at
?
12.14-1, Paper No.12-15 presented at the Proc. 6 th OTEC Confer-
"Ocean Thermal Energy for the ' 80's," Washington,
- ence, D.C.,
June 19-20,1979, excerpt attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Th is definition generally corresponds to the definition contained in NECNP Contention IV.
MIC is one of the detrimental effects of biofouling, which can be caused by the interaction between aerobic and anaerobic bacteria, and biofilms.
Bryers Affidavit, at 1 4.
Perhaps the clearest explanation of the process, and different types of foul-ing, appears in a 1981 article by. W.G. Characklis, entitled "Bioengineering Report -- Fouling Biofilm Development:
A Process Analysis "
The term fouling refers to the formation of inorganic and/or organic deposits on surfaces.
These deposits can impede the flow of heat across the surface, increase the fluid frictional resistance at the surface, and increase the rate of corrosion at the surface.
result.
In any case energy losses Several types of fouling and their combinations may occur in heat exchangers: 1) crystalline or precipitation fouling, 2) corrosion fouling, 3) particulate fouling, 4) chemical reaction fouling, and 5) biological fouling.
Biological fouling results from a) development of a biofilm i
t
. consisting of mictoorganisms and their products (mic'robial fouling), b) barnacles (macrobial fouling), deposition and growth of macroorganis and c) a ssorted detritus.
_ Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. XIII, pp. 1923-1960 (John Wiley & Sons, In c. 19 8 0), attached as Exhibit D.
As the attached affadivit indicates, biofouling has a number of detrimental effects, including blockage, constriction and/or mechanical deterioration of the operating characteristics of valves and.ptaps, fluid resistance, and corrosion. Bryers Affadivit, at 1 7.
Nothing in the plain language of Contention IV suggests that the scope of the contention should be limited to t
the effect of biofouling that cause blockage of intake structures and impairment of heat transfer capabilities, and exclude the corrosive effect of biofouling.3 Ra t he r, as noted above, the plain' language of the contention refers broadly only to the pro-cess that causes biofouling, which process can result in a number of detrimental effects, including but not limited to blockage, fluid resistance, and biologically mediated corrosion.
Bryers i
Affidavit, at 1 4.
Indeed, the bases to the contention clearly describes "corrosion" as one of the problems associated with "fouling."
NECNP Contentions," filed June 17, 1982, a t 2-3.
3 The use of the word "blockage" in the caption of NECNP Conten-tior IV cannot be cotistrued as limiting the scope of the conten-tion to only that detrimental ef fect of fouling, to the exclusion of others.
Like the interpretion of statutes, See e.g. Pike v.be used to alter or vary the plain meaning of provisions. titles or capt cannot U.S., 3 4 0 F.2d 4 87 (9 th Ci r. 1974).
7
. Scientific studies clearly identify corrosion as one of th e
detrimental effects.of microbial biofouling.
As is noted above, microbial fouling is a form of=biofouling.
See Characklis, K.G.,
"Bioengineering Report -- Fouling Biofilm Development: A' Process Analysis:" Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. XIII, pp. 19 23-1960 (John Wiley & Sons, In c. 19 8 0), attached as Exhibit 6:
Bryers Affidavit, at 1 7.
The following is a quotation from a 1982 article, White, D.,
"Microbial Facilitation of Corrosion,"
at p.-3, presented at The International Corrosion Forum Sponsored
_by the National Association of Corrosion Engineers, March 22-24 1982, discussing the correlation between microfouling and mi cro-biologically induced corrosion:
4 saltwater, problems of microfouling and subsequent bially facilitated corrosion become more important only do microbial films increase resistance to efficient Not heat transfer, increase the resistance to fluid flow and provide the conditions for facilitation of corrosion, but they may provide the ideal growth conditions for the huna pathogen Legionella, n
t Excerpt attached as Exhibit E.
If anything, the use of the word "accumulation" in the Con-tention reinforces a broad, rather than limited construction of Centention IV.
The term "accumulation" is used in the bio-chemistry field to refer to the accumulation of biofilms on heat exchange systems, and it is this detrimental biofilm or slime that ultimately interacts with bacteria to cause corrosion of heat-exchangers. See Bryers, J.D.,
Characklis, W.G., Ze l ve r,
N.,
and Nimmons, M.G., "Microbial Film Development and Associated Energy Losses," at 12.14-1, Paper No. 12-15 presented at the
c 6-Proc. 6 th OTEC Conf erence, "Ocean Thermal Energy for the '80's,"
Washington, D. C., Ju ne 19-2 0, 1979, excerpt attached hereto as Exhibit C; Bryers Affidavit, at %
8.
Moreover, the term "aquatic organisms" refers both to macro-organism such as mussels, clams, and other biva3ves and bivalve larvae, and micro-organisms,
including aerobic and anaerobic bacteria.
Bryers Af fidavit, at t 8.
Thus, "the accumulation of aquatic organisms" refers equally to the accu".ulation of microorganisms and the formation of biofilms, which can ultimately cause corrosion, as well as the accumulation of macroorganisms, such as clams, mussels, and barnacles, which can cause fluid resistance and impair heat transfer. Bryers Af fidavit, at 1 6.
Moreover, the various causes and effects of biofouling can-not be thought of independently.
As was noted in one early arti-cles:
Biofouling is not limited to microbial activity.
The term includes the interaction of the microrganims and the slime layer with both the chemistry of the solid surface and the bulk fluid.
These interactions can enhance some of the more commonly known fouling phenomena such as precipitation or crystallization (scaling) and corrosion.
Picologlou, B.F.,
Ze l ve r,
N.,
and Characklis, W.G., "Ef fect of Biofilm Growth on Hydraulic Performance," 106 Journal of Hyd-draulics Div., ASCE, a t pp. 7 33-74 6 (1980), excerpt attached hereto as Exhibit F.
Microbial fouling often precedes colonization of heat-exchanger surfaces by macro-organisms, since the microbiological I
organisms which cause the corrosion are a food source for bivalves, permitting and encouraging their settlement and
7-colonization, and the sedimentation caused by and causing micro-biologically. induced corrosion enables mussels and oysters to attach more firmly tc piping surfaces.
Bryers Affidavit, at i 10.
Therefore, control of microbial fouling results in control of macrobial fouling.
Id.; See also Characklis, K.G.,
"Bioengineering ' Report -- Fouling Biofilm Development: A Process Analysis," Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Vol. XIII, pp. 19 2 3-1960 (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.1980), attach'ad as Exhibit C.
Co n-versely, controlling macro-fouling will not necessaryily control microbial fouling or microbiologically induced corrosion.
Bryers Affidavit, at 1 10.
i Accordingly, because NECNP Contention IV broadly identifies the process of "fouling," discovery.and litigation of. Applicants' surveillance and maintenance program for the prevention of "microbiologically induced corrosion," as well as other effects of "fouling" not-specifically identified, are within the scope of NECNP Contention IV.4 Any other reading of NECNP Contention IV would preclude NECNP f rom discovery and litigation of any partic-1 olar effect of fouling, since none is specifically mentioned.
t B.
MIC Was Recognized as a Type of Fouling in 1982 The problem of corrosion in engineered systems caused by the II interaction between microorganisms and biofilms on pipe-liquid f}
surfaces is not a new one.
Bryers Affidavit, at 1 9.
As early as 1977, the corrosive effects associated with microbial fouling f
l h
r I
4 Bryer Affidavit, at t 5.
i
v.and biofilm formation have been the subject of studies by the scientific community, and have been identified as a type of "fouling."
See Norman, G., Ch a r ackl is, 1;.G., and Bryers, J.D.,
"Control of Microbial Fouling in Circular Tubes with Chlorine,"
18 Cevelopment in Industrial Microbiology, pp. 5 81-590 (19 77),
excerpt attached as Exhibit G, and other articles quoted above.
III. Applicants' Definition of "Biofouling" Is Incorrect and Inappropriate.
NECNP defines biofouling as "any degree of sedimentation I
and/or corrosion of nuclear power plant cooling systems by aquatic debris, macro-or micro-biological organisms, silt, and mud, or by any other organic or inorganic material. 5 Applicants refuse to accept this general definition, and instead re-define "biofouling" as "extensive settlement of fouling organisms, resulting in significant percentages of the surfaces being cov-ered and thus measurable affecting flow or heat exchanger efficiency.
- Settlement' means colonization on plant surfaces by fouling organisms, primarily mussels and barnacles."6 Applicants i
provide no explanation for why they object to NECNP's definition of biofouling, nor do they provide any support for their re-definition.
Interrogatories 2(1), (n), (o), 3(m), (n), (o), (q),
[
i i
5 NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Produc-tion of Documents to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV,"
l filed December 23, 1987, at 3.
6' "Applicants Responses to NECNP's Second Se t of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV," filed January 14, 1988, at 2.
^
'. -o -.
9-(r) of NECNP's 'Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Pro-duction of Documents to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV, request informa tion regarding biofouling.
Accordingly, to the extent that Applicants' responses to.this questions are based. on an improper, definition of'"biofouling," their answers to these questions are partially unresponsive.
Meither the plain language of NECNP Contention IV, nor the l
accompanying statement of basis for the contention,.contains any indication that the term "biofouling" encompasses only a particu-lar degrea or severity of sedimentation, blockage, or corrosion.
t To the contrary, biofouling can be very extensive, even with very minute levels of biofilm. Bryers Af fidavit, at 1 6.
Similarly, flow or heat inefficiencies can occur even with minute coverage of fouling organisms on surfaces. Bryers Af fidavit, at 1 6.
1 More importantly, the extent or severity of biofouling is one of the ultimate issues in this Zitigation.
It may be, that even minor incidents of biofouling muy indicate that Applicants' biofouling conitoring and surveillance program is inadequate.
Only af ter the completion of discovery and af ter hearing from all i
parties, is it appropriate to make judgments about the extent or
(
degree of biofouling or sedimentation, for purposes of assessing Applicants' conpliance with the relevant General Design Criteria.
At the discovery stage, however, it is critical for Applicants to i
disclose all information about biofouling incidents, treatments, L
and surveillance programs, regardless of whether or not Applicants consider the degree or extent of biofouling to be sig-
)
10 -
nificant.
Otherwise, NECNP will be foreclosed f rom acquiring
'nformation relevant f
to its contention based on a prejudgment about the merits of NECNP's Contention IV that is not theirs to make.
IV.
Relief Requested Based on the arguments above, NECNP respectf ully requests that the Board enter an order compelling Applicants to provide f ull and complete answers to NECNP's Second Se t of Inter-rogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV.
Specifically, NECNP requests the follow-ing relief from the Board:
1)
That the Board rule that microbiological 1y induced cor-rosion and other effects of biofouling are within the scope of NECNP Contention IV f or purposes of this litigation.
2)
That Applicants be order to respond fully to Inter-rogatories 2(1), (n), (o), 3(m), (n), (o), (q), (r), of NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docu-ments to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV, filed December 23, 1987, based on the definition of biofouling contained in NECNP's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docu-ments to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV, to wit, "any degree of sedimentation and/or corrosion of nuclear power plant cooling systems by aquatic debris, macro-or micro-biological organisms, silt, and nud, or by any other organic or inorganic material."
3)
That Applicants be ordered to respond fully to Inter-rogatories 2ft), 3(w), 4, 5,
6, and 8, of NECNP's Second Set of
y;
. ?:j 11 -
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Applicants on NECNP Contention IV,. filed December 23,-1987, with respectfto all circulating water Systems at Seabrook, including but not limited to "cooling systems."
In the alternative,.NECNP requests that Applicants Hbe ' ordered to identify specifically those circulating water systems that they do not consider "cool-s ing systems."
Respectfully submitted, 2
Andrea Fe rster HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D. C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE' I certify that on March 1,1988, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by first-class mail on all parties listed on a
the attached service list.
Andrea Ferster
>