ML20247D443
| ML20247D443 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/21/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8416 89-584-01-OLA, 89-584-1-OLA, OLA-4, NUDOCS 8903310082 | |
| Download: ML20247D443 (93) | |
Text
_
ORisijyg O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- =========================================================.
ATOMIC SAFETY ANP CCENSING BOARD In the Matter oft )
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT ) Docket No. 50-250-OLA-4 COMPANY ) 50-251-OLA-4
)
(TURKEY POINT PLANT, ) ASLBP No. 89-584-01-OLA UNITS 3 AND 4). )
) (P/T Limits)
_________________________)
O Pages: 1 through 91 Place: Miami, Florida Date: March 21, 1989 .
===a b\
k HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OgidsfReporters O 1229 L Street, N.W., Suite 648 8903310082 890321 W on, D.C. 2M PDR T
ADOCK 05000250 PNU (202) 6M
'n
.1
.n-;
1 -
.V. ' UNITED STATES OF AFERICA
> ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD' In the Matter of: )
)
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT ) Docket No. 50-250-OLA-4 j COMPANY ) 50-251-OLA-4
)
(TURKEY POINT PLANT, ) ASLBP No.- 89-584-01-OLA ENITS_3 AND_ 4). )
) (P/T Limits)
_________________________)
t U.S. Federal Building U.S. Courthouse 300 Northeast First Avenue Second Floor Miami, Florida n, Tuesday, V March 21, 1989 ORAL ARGUMENT o
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to Notice, commencing at or about 9:15 o' clock, a.m..
BEFORE: HONORABLE B. PAUL COTTER, JR., Chairman, and HONORABLE JERRY HARBOUR, Administrative Law Judges Reporting:
Alice Price Notary Public p Heritage Reporting Corporation 5
(202) 628-4888 l
e 2
'G v APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PETITIONER:
JOETTE LORION,' Director.
- , Center for Nuclear Responsibility 1
7210 Red Road i Suite 217 South Miami,' Florida 33143 (Pro Se)
FO4 ITLOPJDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY:
STEVEN P. FRANTZ, ESQUIRE and HAROLD F. REIS,. ESQUIRE Newman & Holtzinger, P.C.
1615 L Street, Northwest Washington, D.C. 20036 JOHN T. BUTLER, ESQUIRE Steel, Hector & Davis '
4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGUIATORY CODMISSION:
JANICE E. MOORE, ESQUIRE Office of the General. Counsel United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ _ . - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - i
a.
<* r I
y'-t
'3
,1 PROCEEDINGS
- 2 (Whereupon, the. hearing'was. called to order by;the-3 HONORABLE.B. PAUL COTTER, JR., Administrative Law-
'4 Judge, at 9:05:o' clock, a .m. , after' which .the 5 .following occurred:)-
6 JUDGE COTTER: We'll go on the record, and I will-7 say formally good morning, ladies and' gentleman. p i
8 I'm-B. Paul Cotter, Jr. I'm the Chairman of this 9 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which'was appointed y 10 November 30, 1988, to hear the petition to intervene filed ~
11 by Ms. Joette Lorion and the Center for Nuclear 12 Responsibility.
13 With me is Judge Jerry Harbour, and absent today.
) 14 ' is. Judge Glen Bright, who had to respond to.a medical 15 . emergency, and so we will proceed on the Quorum Rule.
16 This morning we're to hear oral arguments about 17 ' the request to intervene of M'. s Lorion and the Center for it Nuclear. Responsibility in the matter of Florida Power and 19 Light Company, Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4.
20 The docket numbers are 50-250-OLA-4 and 50-251-21 OLA-4.
22 The Licensee in September of 1988 applied for a 23 license amendment to change the pressure temperature curves 24' in the technical specifications governing operation of the 25 plant.
Heritage Reporting Corporation l l (202) 628-J888
--muu___- _am-_-_2-__._ _
4
- O
.lf Ms.:Lorion has subsequently petitioned to
[. .2. intervene, and the NRC Staff,.underfthe No Significant.
3 Hazards Consideration = rule, sometimes known as the Sholly 4_ Amendment, has issued the license, I believe, in' January.-
5- We.are:hore now to hear argument on three 6 potential contentions filed'by Ms. Lorion.
7 Land withLthat,'I would ask.the parties to identify.
8 themselves forithe record.
9 Ms. Lorion?
10 MS. LORION: -Yes, I'm Joette Lorion, the Director 11 of'the Center for Nuclear Responsibility, representing the-12 Center pro se.
-13 JUDGE COTTER: Licensee?
14 'MR..FRANTZ:
My'name is Steve'Frantz.from the firm 15 of Newman & Holtzinger in Washington, D.C.,. representing r-16 Florida Power:and Light.
17 With me, to my-immediate.right, is John Butler 18 .from the firm of Steel, Hector lS Davis in Miami, and to his 19, right, my partner, Harold Reis.
20 JUDGE COTTER: It's Brantz or Frantz?
21 MR. FRANTZ: Frantz, F-r-a-n-t-z.
22 JUDGE COTTER: Thank-you. q 23' Ms. Moore?
24 MS. MOORE: Yes, your Honor; my name is Janice 25 . Moore and I'm counsel for NRC Staff. )
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ = - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - __ __ ___: . _ _ _ _
l:t ,
- 3. ,
s o
5
?h Os/ :1 '
JUDGE COTTER: Thank-you, a;
i -2 LAre there any preliminary matters to take up.
3 before weLaddress Ms.-Lorion's~ petition?-
4 MR. FRANTZ:- I have:none.
5' MS.-MOORE: .The Staff has none, your Honor.
6 MS. LORION: I,have none.
7f JUDGE COTTER:- All right.
8 Perhaps'for.the record, it would be good if ' ins c 9 would identify who's=with'you, Ms. Lorion, t
'10 MS..LORION: Okay.
11 Sitting at the table with me is Thomas Saporito, 2I 12 who is a member of the. Center.
13- JUDGE COTTER: Thank-you.;
(). 14, Do I understand correctly; from all the: filings
'15 that Petitioner's~ standing to-intervene is conceded?
16 Is that correct, Mr. Frantz?.
17 : MR. FRANTE: That's correct.
l
- 18 JUDGE COTTER: Ms. Moore?
- 19. MS. MOORE: Yes, that's correct.
20 JUDGE COTTER: So that the only question is l21 whether there is a viable contention presented in the 22 petition to be heard in this connection; is that correct?
I y 23' MR. .FRANTZ: Yes, it is. l 24 MS.. MOORE: Yes.
25- JUDGE COTTER: All right. Then let's begin, Ms. l Heritage Reporting Corporation E ;(). (202) 628-4888
~.
l-I
1 34 JJ T
o 6
'I 1 Lorion.
2' Well, let me begin.
3; Your first contention deals with the issue of-No
)
4 Significant Hazards Consideration.
5 Juid as you are all aware in this Board's Order of 6 January 19, 1989, involving scheduling in this matter, we 7 had indicated that we would not hear arguments:about the No 8' Significant Hazards issue.
- 9. And'the' reason for that is that so far as I'm 10 aware of the law,.we have'no jurisdiction to hear-it.
11 'So that even if the applicant or Licensee and the 12 Staff were not to oppose that contention, we still couldn't 13 hear it because the parties cannot confer jurisdiction on us 14' .to deal with that' issue.
- 15. The regulation involved leaves as your only 16- recourse a petition to the Comnission to ask them to 17 exercise their discretionary authority to review a 18 determination by the Staff that no significant hazards are 19 involved in the license amendment.
20 Is there anything else that you can add to what's 21 in your pleading that would change that?
22 MS. LORION: No.
23 In fact, we do plan to file a 2.206 Petition on 24 that issue.
25 I would just also comment that we still contend Heritage Reporting Corporation O. (202) 628-4888
..\n 7-
.1 that;the Board could not make such a finding because they L
L 2' did not have the proper. data ~to do-so'.
-3 JUDGE COTTER: You mean the Staff?
-4 :M3..LORION: _ Oh, excuse me;Jthat'the Staff could 5- not make'such:a finding because they did notchave._the proper:
6 data to do so.
7 And-also that they:should have performed'an ;
8 environmental impact assessment because we're' talking about 9 ' pressurized thermal shock or a pressure vesse1~ rupture and 10 subsequent meltdown which would create a great hazard.for 11 the environment'in the South Florida. community.
12 So although we're not allowed to argue over it,.we
- 13 would still'like to just make that contention.
() 14 JUDGE COTTER:' All'right.
15 That's a route for you to go, but I take it you 16 are nct -- are you withdrawing your contention from this
~
17 proceeding?
18 MS. LORION: I'm not sure that I'm withdrawing it 19 because I'd like to try to fit it in to 28 NRC 145, -1988.
20 I know it's stretching it a bit, but it's the case 21 of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation; by the Staff's 22 failure to test weld metal samples for Unit 4 for what they 23 did not do and also the Staff's failure to perform an 24 environmental impact assessment, that there were things that 25 they did not do in issuing their No Significant Hazard Heritage Reporting Corporation
.() (202) 628-4888
g.g
,,o:
V '
B
?
8-
'. 1
~
' ^ lh
~
11 -Consideration, that should declare that ' consideration void.
1 .
2 :. ' JUDGE COTTER:- Is.there'anything else you.want to- .
8 a: 3 saynin. connection with Contention 17 4; MS. LORION: That's ' all; . thank-you.-
'5 JUDGE COTTER: All'right. ,
- 6 Mr. Frantz?
17 MR. FRANTZ: -I fully agree with the Board's '
8 statement that the-Board'has no jurisdiction to consider the 9' Staff'sL No Significant Hazard Consideration' determination. .
- 10. :Ma'. Lorion has also raised an issue'of whether the-11' Staff should havefissued an environmental impact appraisal..
. 12 This is an entirely new issue which she has not
- 13 raised previously in this proceeding.
(b 14? And if she intends to raise ~it in this. proceeding, 15- 'she should follow the procedures in 10.CFR 2.714 for late 16- file contentions.
17 Now,' from what Ms. Lorion has said, I'm not sure.
18 she-intends to raise that here; perhaps only in her 2.206 I
19 Petition.
- 20 I only mention that if she does intend to raise it 21 here, she needs to file a late file contention and meet the 22 five criteria of 2.714.
23 JUDGE COTTER: Anything further, Mr. Frantz? 3
)
W '24 MR. FRANTZ: No, I don't.
1
, pf i JUDGE COTTER: Ms. Moore?
a.
. t. .
1 '
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . . m
p f
9
. r) . 1 MS. MOORE:, Yes, your Honor.
(_/.
2 The Staff agrees with the Board that'the Board has 3 no jurisdiction'to review the Staff's No Significant Hazards 4 Consideration.
5 And I would agree with the Licensee that if there 6 is now a contention before us that Ms..Lorion is attempting 7 -to file concerning that the Staff should have prepared an:
8 environmental impact appraisal,.that.there should be a late 9 contention filed.-
10 JUDGE COTTER: All right.
11 Do you'want to add anything more, Ms. Lorion?
12 MS. LORION: No, that's all, Judge Cotter.
13 JUDGE COTTER: All right then.
() 14 Would!you please address Contention 27 15 MS. LORION: Did you want me to use the--
16 JUDGE COTTER: I think it would be better if you 17 did; we could all hear a little bit better perhaps.
18 MS. LORION: I was wondering if in addressing the 19 next two contentions, I could just give a very brief 20 background of why these pressure temperature limits are so i
21 important because there are members of the public here who 22 may not understand.
23 JUDGE COTTER: We would appreciate it too.
24 MS. LORION: Thank-you.
25 I believe we're here this morning to discuss an Heritage Reporting Corporation l-() (202) 628-4888
,8
- q ,
l '
9
.. .10 LN. "
.1 = issue that's on the frontiers of science,'and that= issue' il.
2' surrounds the issuerof pressure vessel embrittlement and-the
-3 ' compound problem of-pressurized thermal' shock.
4 It's necessary.for us,all:to realize that the 5 absolute integrity of the still vesselithat surrounds the?
' reactor'corestin. Turkey Point Units.3 and"4 is central to 6.
-7= protecting the health and safety of this community and the 8' South Florida environment, because if the-integrity of these 9 embrittled vessels is not maintained and they should 10 rupture,:this. community, I think by' concession of everybody
~ 11' here, would suffer the most feared reactor accident, a 12 meltdown.
13 ,
Such a meltdown is capable of distributing the
( L14 radioactivity contained in the Turkey Point units over:a-15 wide area of land.
16 And according to the Sandia Labs' report, NUREG 2238 could kill and injure tens of thousands, perhaps 18 hundreds of thousands of people in the South Florida-19 Community.
20 The issue we are here today to discuss is critical 21 to maintaining the integrity of these vessels.
22 It is critical because neutron irradiation and 23 time have caused the beltline welds in both of the Turkey 24 Point Units 3 and 4'to become severely embrittled and the
'25 fracture toughness of these vessels has become severely Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
s ,
3x y T '
a.
1
, o f y;5 y 11:
(/ '1- ; re'duced.
a4
, 2' In recognition?of the fact:that1the fracture' L3 Ltoughness:is reduced over-time, power ~ reactors are operated 4 !4- within restrictions imposed by the technical specifications
^'1 ,
- 5- on pressure during heat up and cool down.
' 6- . These restrictions, if~ set conservatively and 7; . correctly, assure that the reactor vessel will not be 8 subjected to'that combination of pressure and temperature
~
9 tthat could cause brittle fracture of the reactor vessel if
-10 : there are significant flaws in the vessel material.
11J So-that's why, because we want.to. protect this
- 12- community from a vessel fracture, these pressure temperature 13' : limits.must be set conservatively.
' 4 14' ,
And I believe the Staff, in the safety' evaluation,
~ 15. - noted that.the pressure temperature limits are among1the 16: most. limiting, perhaps the most limiting, of all limits ~on 17; l reactor operation because they protect the reactor vessel.
'18 -which is our first line of defense in a nuclear accident.-
'19 Did you want me to read the contention or just 20 briefly paraphrase what the concerns are?
21 JUDGE COTTER: I think a paragraph probably would 22 be sufficient.
L23 MS. LORION: Okay.
'24 - Basically, Contention 2 is stating that the 25 revised pressure temperature limits that have been set by Heritage Reporting Corporation j
.(f (202) 628-4888 l
.[
IPd',
, 4 ,
,s R
, 12.
/- .-
h- 1' - this amendment are non-conservative'and will cause the 2' -reactor. unit:to' exceed'thefrequirements of General Design' h
- 3! Criteria 31 of; Appendix H at?10'CFR;Part 50, which requires L '# '
4 that the reactor 1 coolant pressure boundary be designed.with.
15; aLaufficient margin to: ensure that when stress under-4
'6l operating, maintenance, testing, and postulated accident-
"7 conditions, one,1 the boundary will behave in a:non-brittle 8: manner; and,ftwo, the. probability of a rapidly propagating
- 9. ; fracture is: minimized.
'10 We're basically. stating in our contention that the
'll' 'RTNTD, or reference temperature which the Florida Power and 12' . Light Company has calculated, isinon-conservative.
13 The reference temperature, basically,'is the point
~ 14 at which metal and the reactor _vesselL-- or excuse me -- the 15- nil. ductility. measure is the point.where the metal and the
~16 ; . vessel stops being ductile.and becomes brittle, and then is 17 the potential offa pressurized thermal shock 1 event or the 18 metal cracking becomes increased.-
19 The RTNDT is also~an accounting of the damage that 20 radiation over time has done to_the_ vessel welds. R 21 Our scientists and scientists we have consulted 22 over the years,say that RTNDT should be calculated by a I 23 plant specific basis because Turkey Point Unit 3 have 24 different operating histories or different nuclear reactors; 25 thus, you cannot use data from tests done on Unit 3 to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . - _ _ _ _ _ __u________
y; r _,
13
. ,. ~
A/ 1 justify any kind of limits that are set on Unit 4. .!
2 .So we are contesting the fact that instead of 3 using Unit 4 test weld metal data, Turkey test weld metal 4 data, which were performed back in 1976 and ahow that Turkey 5 Point Unit 4's weld metal samples were thirty percent more i 6 brittle than Unit 3.
7 Because these are not being used, we're saying g 8 that the pressure temperature limits, which are based on 9 this reference temperature, are not conservative for Turkey 10 Point Unit 4. I 11 The Staff and ths --
(
12 JUDGE COTTER: Did you say 1974 data?
h 13 MS. LORION: 1976 data.
A
.,' ' J (m/ 14 In other words, Judge Cotter, the only test ever 15 performed on weld metal in Unit 4 showed that unit to be 16 thirty percent more brittle than Unit 3, and no tests were 17 ever done subsequently.
18 Instead, around 1981, Florida Power and Light, 19 because they were concerned about. exceeding a screening 20 criteria which the NRC had set which would not allow 21 continued operation, began to use Unit 3 data for Unit 4 22 which made the problem look less worse than it actually was.
23 They continue to use now an averaging, it seems to 24 me, of the data between Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
25 Our experts say that in setting these pressure Heritage Reporting Corporation
{')s
- s. (202) 628-4888 i
I
mgf W.
,sy; '
-c 14'
'l~- 'temperatur, limits, you'cannot do that; You must use UnitL4 az -
, 2 ' data.
po" 3; JUDGE COTTER: ' Is that your' characterization ofd B
E 4 the Licensee's-motivation for using.--
5 MS. LORION: . That's my characterization.
6 JUDGE COTTER: I take it that's an inference.that' '
7 you otherwise don't have anything to --
8 MS. LORION: Right; that is not.
9 Nobody has ever proved that. We would like to-10 prove that.
n 11 In any event,~the Staff and the Licensee are 12 arguing that we are -- let me get'it from;my paper here --
13 .that first of all, we are raising an issue that should have 14 'been raised in 1985, when a license amendment was passed to f
15 allow the integrated surveillance program at Turkey Point 16 which allowed thea to integrate and test the data in both 17- units or in one unit for both units.
18 However -- and I have copies of that Federal 19 Register notice from March, 1985.
20 It was a very vague kind of Federal Register 21 notice about some integrated program; did not tie at all the 2
.2 fact that this integrated program would.ever be used to set 23 pressure temperr.ture limits 2 or the reactor.
24- So tnus,, I think our arguments are germane to this i 25 proceeding where new pressure temperature limits are being Heritage Reporting Corporation
.( ) (202) 628-4888 m - --- _ _ _ _
- J .
g" ./"T. . - r U. li set.-
~ .> >
t 2. Also.thatiissueLwas never adjudicated before a
'3 licensing ~ board-or uny other co'urt.
c 4- There are-also substantial public --
5 JUDGE COTTER:~ Before you continue, do[you have 6- the citation to the Federal Register notice?
7- MS. LORION: Yesi 50 Federal Register - I don't' 8 know if this is right -- yes; 9919, March 12,-1985.
9 So it seems.to me they're trying to stop ins from l'0 ; litigating this issue saying that we should have' raised thisi' 11 issue before; when, in all-truth, we.could notlhave raised.
12- it before -because it: never addressed setting pressure
' 13 ' temperature. limit's for the plant.
(/ 14 JUDGE COTTER: How would you characterize what it i.'
15 did address?
16 MS. LORION: I'm not sure.
17 If you read the Federal Register notice, it's'hard 18- to tell.
19 They said that they were going to have an 20 integrated program for testing of specimens, but did not, i
21 anywhere in the Federal Register notice or in their data 1 22 that was submitted after that, talk about how they would use 23 the data.
24 Let me give you a for instance:
25 For instance, even if we say that they could have -
Heritage Reporting Corporation
)
(202) 628-4888 e
L.l_'.___-.__-__.____- . _ _ . _ - _
,m 16 I
u' 1 an integrated surveillance program; even if we would admit i 2 to that and we think that it's fine. I mean, I'm sure it's 3 fine for some reactors.
4 But what we would say is that if you're going to 5 use an integrated surveillance program, then for both units 6 you should use the most limiting reference temperature, 7 which would be the Unit 4 weld metal data, for both units, 8 because by the regs they are required to use the most 9 limiting test data.
10 JUDGE COTTER: What's the age difference between 11 Units 3 and 47 12 MS. LORION: They're both about ten years old.
13 They do, however, have different operating
/,
k-) 14 histories.
15 For instance, in 1987, Turkey Point Unit 3 had 16 thirteen percent capacity only. Unit 4 ran at about fifty 17 percent capacity.
18 They have different start down -- shutdown and 19 startup histories.
20 JUDGE COTTER: Over the ten years, is it your 21 impression that the Unit 4 reactor has been operated at some 22 significantly greater percentage of the time than Unit 3?
23 MS. LORION: I don't know that for certain, but I 24 do know that the only tests ever done on the weld meta 3.
25 showed that the welds were more severely embrittle in that Heritage Reporting Corporation
(')N
\_ (202) 628-4888 w_,-___-
T,1 y-n 17-
[- 1 reactor' unit.
F 2 Thus, if you.were going to set these amendments in-p 3 a conservative fashion, you would use the most limiting 4 reference temperature, which'would be base'd on Unit 4 data.
5 JUDGE COTTER: .I have an arithmetic problem.
6 You said earlier that that test data was from-7 1976.
8 MS. LORION: -Yes, it was.
9 JUDGE' COTTER: Which would be thirteen years ago.
10 MS. LORION: Well, what they do when they do the 11 test dats, for instance, they can project at what point
.12 _ they' re going to be in ten . years.
~ 13~ They predicted from the test data that in ten
()I 14 years Turkey Point 4 would be at 342 degrees, which would be 15 over the screening criteria; while Unit 3, I believe -- and 16 this is in the Southwest Research Institute report from 1976 17 -- Unit 3 would only be at about 250 degrees.
18 JUDGE COTTER:- I forget; were the reactors 19 operating in 19767 20 MS. LORION: Yes, they were.
21 That was the first weld metal specimen test 22 performed under the regulations.
23 JUDGE COTTER: And it was taken from a capsule in 24 an operating rea4 tor?
25 MS. LORION: Right.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888
18 f)'J Also, if this' Board would decide -- see, we're not
- 1 2 challenging.the' concept of an integrated surveillance 3 program.
4 We're saying that Turkey Point presently does not 5 meet that, the requirements for an integrated surveillance 6 program.
7 JUDGE COTTER: And why not?
8- MS. LORION: Basically --
9 JUDGE COTTER: We'll go off the record for a 10 minute.
11 (Off the record.)
12 JUDGE COTTER: We'll go back on the record.
13 Proceed, Ms. Lorion.
) 14- MS. LORION: First of all, under Appendix H, Part
.15 C, it says that:
16 "An integrated surveillance program may be 17 considered for a set of reactors that have similar 18 design and operating features.
19 "The representative materials chosen for 20 surveillance from each reactor in this set may be 21 irradiated in one or more of the reactors, but 22 there must be an adequate dosimetry program for 23 each reactor.
24 "No reduction in the requirements for number of 25 materials to be irradiated or number of specimens Heritage Reporting Corporation
('/g
(_ (202) 628-4888
'T~ R o/ c ,
i
- 19 o
- 1- 'per. reactor is permitted, but the amount of 2 1 testing may.be reduced if the initia1'results n
- ~ '3- < agree'with the prediction;"
4 ,
Well, the initial results that;they got on:the 1
5 weld.metalitest-for Unit-4 did not~ agree with.what-they 6 thoughtLthey were going to get.
t- -
71 Also, I don't believe that the operating. features 8: of the plants are similar -- are identical enough that:they
.9~ should bora11 owed to use a smearing of the data.
'10 '
Pacific Northwest Lab, when they'did'their 11! pressurized thermal shock reports, air.o_ stated that these' 12' kind of i limits should be set on plant specific data, v.
13 It also says:
LO 14- There mest be some - -
152 JUDGE COTTER: I'm sorry, when was the' Pacific 16 Northwest Labs report?
17- 14S . LORION: I think that's in the contention.
18 JUDGE COTTER: As an_aside, it's a little easier 19 to write a decision on these things if we can find them all 20- or as much of them as possible in one place.
21 MS. LORION: The thing is, I feel like I'm really 22 getting to the merits of this whole thing by going through 23 the testing and the -- I mean, that seems to me-to be~really f
24 the merits of the contention and it was going to be part of 25 the evidence that we would present, so I'm having a problem Heritage Reporting Corporation
. (202) 628-4888
__- __ - _ . _--_______-____ = --- _ __ -__ - -_ _ _ -__ _ _ _____ _ _ _ ____ -__
p*ao 7e , ;.
.g ,
l+
,s 20'
. withthis.
l' 2 " JUDGELCOTTER: -We're inquiring into it, NW.
h 3 Lorion, to make it. clear that we understand your basis for
!h 4~ the' contention.
i1! ,,'
5 MS. LORION: I understand that.
l 6 I would have to look that up.
- 7 JUDGE COTTER
- - All right.
1 8' ,MS. LORION: . And maybe when I come.back, instead
- 9. 'of' wasting a lot of time, I ' ll - --
10 JUDGE' COTTER:- I'm sure it's in the record 11' somewhere'. That's-sufficient.
12 Tell.me again why you do not think the operating 13 history.is the same for both reactors.
() l'4 MS. LORION: Bacause they're different reactor 15 units.
16 They have different startup and shutdown 17- histories.
18 There have been extended outages in Unit Number 3.
. 19 And I have to get back to the only tests ever done 2M) on Unit 4 showed it to be more severely embrittled.
21 So how they could justify having an integrated 22 surveillance program for two reactors that showed different, 23 much different test results, has always been quite beyond 24 me.
25 It certainly is not scientific; for if you were to Heritage Reporting Corporation O. (202) 628-4888
21
.im
- li' say that'the thirty percent more embrittled was a scatter 2 result, you would take a second test to determine that that 3 result.was wrong and that you aren't operating at dangerous 4 levels, but that was never done.
5 In fact, Southwest Research Institute recommended 6 to Florida Power and Light.that they test another weld _ metal 7 sLmple from Unit Number 4 in three years because'the first 8 sample was so embrittled.
9 Florida Power and Light did not only'not' test in 10 three years, but requested a license amendment not to'have l
11 to test a sample from Unit 4 again until around the year
-12 2000.
13 So it seems to me if you were being scientific,
() 14 you thought you had a problem with that unit, you would test 15 a second sample to make sure it was a scatter result.
16 Also, the letter that I attached from Dr. George 17 Sih, who is the Director of Fracture Mechanics at Lehigh 18 University, in that letter Dr. Sih says that it's not valid i 19 to use data from one unit for the other unit, and he is an i
20 eminent scientist on the topic of how metals break.
21 JUDGE COTTER: It's my understanding of the record 22 that Dr. Sih's position was examined by the Staff in --
l 23 MS. LORION: That's not true. ,
1 24 Dr. Sih spoke before Congress on the subject of
'25 pressurized thermal shock.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L________.._ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _
4
,i
.s l i i r 22.
! '1 And they say:his views were' rejected, but:they-
'2 were'never rejected on this issue because this issue was
'3 never heard.
4 Dr. Sih never testified on this~ issue. -There was 5 :no hearing.
- 6. JUDGE' COTTER:' I'm not talking about'a hearing. <
E 7 I'm talking about the Staff reviewing Dr.'Sih's' position'and 8 making a. determination that they did not agree with it.;
9 :MS. LORION: Dr.,Sih's position.on pressurized 10 thermal shock'is different from Dr. Sih's position on-I 11- whether you.can useLdata from one unit of a nuclear reactor 12 -for another. unit, I would think.
-13 JUDGE COTTER: Well, they're.two different issues.
() - 14 MS. LORION: Right,- and that's what I'm saying.
15' When FPL said they disagreed with his views,'which 16 I still haven't seen an absolute disagreement.with his 17 views,'they may have rejected some of his views on
~
18 pressurized thermal shock.
19 This has never been-adjudicated, which is again 20 why the Licensee's and the Staff's argument should fail 21~ because this issue has never been. decided by a licensing.
22' board or anybody else.
23 JUDGE COTTER: Well, presumably, it's been decided 24 by the Staff.
25 MS. LORION: Well, what do you mean?
l' Heritage Reporting Corporation
. () (202) 628-4888 1
k
.V:. p j
1s 4
h 23
- 1 JUDGE COTTER:- That the staff ~ disagrees lwith Dr.-
L 2 !Sih's' position and it has come-to a contrary. conclusion.
3 MS.'LORION: ~Well,.Dr. Sih's. position was never
-4. presented to.the'. Staff untiliafter they passed their~
5- amendment.
6' JUDGE. COTTER: But they'have at some point
~
.7 reviewed,it and.taken.a position on it.~
8- 1MS. LORION:. Well, I have not seen:it,-but maybe- .
'9- they have.
- 10. They're obviously arguing against my contention,-
11- so they.must have-taken some sort of position, but that-12 position-was never, you know --a formal -- not'a formal 13 hearing process on the issue.
h :14 JUDGE. COTTER:- I understand that.
15' MS. LORION: I:think'even'if this Board should 16 decide that.I am contesting the rule, which I will say again 17 I'm not contesting the rule which allows an integrated 18 surveillance program.
19 '
I'm contesting the rule as it applies to Turkey 20 Point, and even, I would go so far as to say that again I 21 would say, "Okay, have your integrated surveillance program, 22 but use the most limiting reference temperature you have for both units," and that would be the Unit 4 data.
I 23 >
24 Okay, so if they're going to set new limits, 25 instead of using Unit 3 and Unit 4 data, they should only Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
2 o-tI.
s H24 g q , -
' p l' use Unit-4-data, which is most limiting,-which.:is required L> 2 by the regulation.
E 3 My third: argument would be that in the event that 41 you do decide'again that I'm contesting a CommissionJrule,3I 5 would.ask you;to allow me to provide a formal petition'to
.6
~
ask you to waive'the rule because it-is nottbeing'used for 7 'the purposes for which.it-was drafted.
~
8- :I!believe that this integrated surveillance 9J program or.this rule in Appendix'H was'not drafted soLthat
- 10. Florida Power 1and Light could~ obscure the true operating.
11 condition of their nuclear reactor Unit 4.
12: JUDGE ~ COTTER: Off the'topLof my head,;Ms. Lorion,
'13 we derive our jurisdiction from;the statute that created us-();14- and the rules that.the Commission has issued, and we~cannot 15 waive Commission rules.
16 MS. LORION: My. understanding is that you can, for 17 the' purpose of this hearing.
18 I'm just-trying to find the law on.it.
19 You'll have to excuse me; I'm not a lawyer, just a 20 determined individual.
21 JUDGE COTTER: It seems to me you're doing fine.
22 MS. LORION: I would cite in the case of Public 23 Service Comoany of New H==nshire, 28 NRC 7, 1988, which-24 allows interveners pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758, to ask that you 25 waive the rule or regulation.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (f (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ a
k, 25
() 1 I'll just read a little ? iece:
2 "The rules of practice contain" -- this is'on Page 3 8.
4 "The_ rules of practice contain a limited exception 5 to the prescription _against challenging'NRC 6 regulations and provide that a party to a 7 licensing proceeding mayJpetition for a waiver of 8 a regulation if special circumstances with respect 9 to the subject matter of the particular. proceeding 10 are such that the application of the rule or 11 regulation or provision:thereof would not serve 12 the purposes for which the rule or regulation was 13 adopted."
() 14 That's 10 CFR 2.758 (b) .
15 So that would be my third argument; that if you 16 decide I am challenging the rules.
17 For the purposes of this proceeding, so we can get 18 to the merits of whether Unit 4 data can be used for Unit 3, 19 or' Unit 3 for Unit 4, and have Dr. Sih testify, that the 20- rule be waived for the purposes of this proceeding.
21 Finally, I would just say that 2 know that the 22 Staff and FPL are challenging this contention based on the 23 fact that they believe this issue has been decided by the 24 NRC, and there's been a 1985 amendment; there's been an 25 October ' 87 letter by the NRC which allowed the integrated Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888
, .; r Q E- j, L- . .
'I :
8 .
126' p
j]I-T
'1l Surveillance program to be used for the. pressure temperature a,
12- limits,.I-believe.
That. letter did not provid:e notice for hearing;.
3; '
(-, ' ' 4 ;was'not-issued in the Federal Register;..thus, I could not n 5- -intervene on that letter and I would have if I could.have.
- 6. And even if you:should decide, again;I would cite 17 23 NRC 525, 1986, where they; talk about collateral estoppel,
~
8 tand on Page 528,.-they talk that, "Even if the requirements,"-
0" '9 -- and say that it's decided that I shouldn't be able to re -
10 litigant these-issues --
"Even where these requirements.are met,,however,.-
the doctrine must be applied with a sensitive-13 regard for any supported assertion of changed.
b 14 circumstances or the possible existence =of some 15 special public interest-factor in the particular 16 case."
17 I think-the circumstancesLat Turkey Point are 18 . changed.
19 I think there's been extended outages of Unit 3,
- 20. which would make that reactor --
21 JUDGE COTTER: Let me back up and ask you to be a 22- little bit more specific on that one.
23 If the determination -- I think there were two 24 determinations; one in '85 --
25 MS. LORION: That allowed the -
0; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
5-1 4
. s
.s . ,, o b : ;
- L 27 . .. i L V- 1 JUDGE. COTTER'-- that allowed the integrated 2 surveillance-program, and then again, you're saying,.in '87, 3 there was anlettertapproving its. application for --
- 4 MS. LORION: Well,.it' appears to me that the staff-5 ,was aware:that'when.they issued the '85_ amendment.it had-no'-
b 6 provisionsifor changing; pressure temperature. limits, so,they 7 wrote the October, 1987, letter allowing Florida Power and
~
8 ' Light to'use the integrated program-and data to set the-
, .9 ' pressure temperature limits.
-10 JUDGE COTTER: Well, assuming that the '85 letter 1 11 didn't specifically call out pressure temperature limits.
12 MS. LORION: :It said there would be no operating 13 changes to-the reactor,: inLfact; which would mean that you.
() 14 couldn't change the pressure temperature limits.
15 JUDGE COTTER: All right.: Then, help me here.
16' Take both the '85 letter and the '87 letter ~and' 17 give me specific instances of changed circumstances since 18 then which would warrant the waiver that you're talking 19 about.
20 MS. LORION: Well, the changed circumstances again 21 are that Unit 3 has had extended outages due to a boric acid
- 22. leak to the vessel.
23 JUDGE COTTER: You're saying since '85?
24 MS. LORION: Yes, in 1987.
25 JUDGE COTTER: Okay.
Heritage Reporting Corporation O- (202) 628-4888 ;
- p. , '
y 7
- 28. ;
1- Roughly, how long was'the. outage?
2 MS. .LORION: lI-believe it was for six or seven' 3 months.
4 Also, I think the changed circumstances would be,.
' ~
5 . basically, that the first test-to Unit 4 showed that by ten L
6 years of operation, Unit 4 was going to be at 342 degrees,1
.7. whi~ch-is over the screening criteria limit for pressurized 8 thermal shock, which is 10 CFR 50.61.
9 JUDGE COTTER: You're.saying that's a projection-10 'of'the 76 test?
11 MS. LORION: Yes, it was, by Southwest Research 12 Institute, a laboratory hired by the Florida Power and Light-13 Company.
] 14 But more important, I uculd talk about the special 15 public interest factor here.
16 I think the consequences of petitioners being 17 wrong are a lot less dire than the consequences of the Staff 18 and the Licensee being wrong.
, 19 If petitioners are wrong, they just have a wrong 20 factual argument.
21 If Licensee-and-the Staff are wrong, the public 22 health'and safety of everybody that lives in South Florida 23 is in jeopardy because these reactor vessels-have become 24 much more embrittled over the last ten years.
25 And I think Unit 4 needs to be checked out, and if Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
29 l
.g
\ /- 1 it's not checked out, that weld' data should be used so that
-2 we know that these limits'are conservative ~that are being
'3 set.
4 You're talking about a pressure vessel rupture,-
1 5 the worst kind of accident you could have. !
6 We saw the Aloha Airlines flight come -- airplane 7 come apart in flight.
8 We know that metal can break.
9- In one of my cases, the Appeals Board, which was 10 not allowed -- this is the United States Court-of Appeals --
11 to get.to the merits of the pressure vessel issue because 12 it was in Appeal Court; stated that this pressure vessel 13 issue was on the frontiers of science, and I believe that
/*
- t. 14 they were right because it is, because we don't know how far 15 we can take these vessels before one of them, the welds is 16 going to crack.
17 I might acquaint you to a person right inside of 18 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Demetrious Basdekas, l
19 who's a nuclear reactor safety engineer, who has done j 20 voluminous work on the subject of pressurized thermal shock 21 and pressure vessel rupture.
l 22 One other thing I wanted to add was that in 1981 !
l
~
L 23 the Commission itself wrote a 50.54 letter to Flordda Power 24 and Light Company stating that reactor Unit Number 4's 25 pressure vessel was approaching levels of concern, and that Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
I s
30 k/ 1- they needed to supply data and information as to why.the 2 license'shouldn't be revoked for that unit.
3 It was then, the first time, I saw Florida Power 4 and Light using Unit 3 data for Unit 4, which was never 5 . challenged by the Commission; was allowed to continue until 6 they finally passed the license amendment in 1985.
7 Thus, I will assert here that Florida Power and 8 Light has been using' legal alchemy to get around the rules' 9 and regulations of the Commission, and not science.
10 I just have a note here that the Southwest 11 Research' Institute report was dated August, 1986, and that 12 was the results of tests to the surveillance capsules in 13 Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.
() 14 You will see that the Staff itself does comment in 15 their safety evaluation on the fact that the Unit 4 data 16 does show that there's more embrittlement.
17 They, however, say that they think this is a 18 scatter result.
19 I would again contend that you can only say it's a 20 scatter result if you have more than one saraple to look at, 21 and they never have had.
22 I guess, in closing, I'd just Esy that our 23 contention certainly is specific. It has a basis. It is 24 inside of the Federal Register notice.
25 It only pertains to the pressure temperature
}
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
j
q p3 1
q l . .
i
-J
-l
'1 limits being set.for the plant..
It is'not a challenge-to
'2 NRC regulations. 'We do not believe that:it.is; and that it 3 should.be admitted.- f
'4- Are we going to.go one-contention at a time,-so:I !
5 .can have a rest?
- 6 Thank-you..
7 . JUDGE COTTER: Thank you, Ms.=Lorion.
8 Mr. Frantz?.
9 MR. FRANTZ: As Ms. Lorion~ recognized, we are not-
.10 here to, debate the merits for contentions, but,only to 11 determine whether they satisfy the standards for 12 admissibility of contentions.
~
13 However,'I really can't let some of Ms. Lorion's G
D .14 statements go by without some comment.
15 This morning we have heard numerous misstatements 16 .from Ms. Lorion. She's neglected other facts that would 17 indicate that her data is outdated and erroneously 18 interpreted by Ms. Lorion.
19 In-particular, for example, she says that we are 20 dealing with frontiers of science. That statement is just 21 patently absurd.
22 The impact of radiation on metals has been known 23 for decades.
24 In fact, Ms. Lorion herself has been raising 25 concerns regarding pressurized thermal shock at Turkey Point Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
\
1 I-L
- i 32 s
1 since at least 1981' .
2 This is-not a'new area at all.
3 The NRC has repeatedly. dealt with Ms. Lorion's
]
'4 concerns, and in every case has rejected them throughout the 5 years and in numerous safety. evaluations and in other. forms.
6 In particular, she says the welds are severely 7 embrittle at Turkey Point. I 8 Well, the fact is'the NRC Staff-has performed a. !
9 safety evaluation and has determined that the weld material i
10 complies with the Commission's regulations ~regarding ;
11 pressurized thermal shock in 50.61.
- 12. Ms.'Lorion just simply omits to mention the fact-13 that we have other surveillance data from Unit 3.
() 14 We've used that in conjunction with Unit 4 to 15 determine the appropriate reference temperature for both 16- : units.
17 But again, we really aren't here to debate the 18 merits. We are here to discuss whether or not the 19 contention satisfies the standards for an admissible 20 contention.
21 In particular, Contention 2 challenges the ,
l l 22 practice -- I'm quoting her -- the practice of using l 23 surveillance capsules from one reactor to help predict the 24 RTNDT of another reactor.
25 She says that this practice is not scientific and l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l'
%, ' g
. 7' '
- i i
)
y 33_ l 1
7s
- Q 1 is not valid. 1 I
2 Well, the fact of the matter is the Commission's 3 regulations in Appendix H' explicitly provide for the use of 1
4 a integrated surveillance program. 1 5' And she appears to be challenging that when'--
6 JUDGE COTTER: Does-it specifically mention use of 7 it with respect to welds?
8 MR. FRANTZ: It does not,1I don't believe, 9 explicitly call out welds, but surveillance' capsules 10 typically include samples of both the-weld material and the 11 forging material. 1 12 I think it would be clearly within the 13 contemplation of the people who drafted-that regulation to
()'14 include in an integrated program for both welds and 15 forgings.
16 JUDGE COTTER: Is there anything in the statement 17 of consideration for the issuance of that appendix that 18 casts any further light?
19 MR. FRANTZ: No, I don't believe so.
20 But the Commission has recognized for many years C 21 that the weld material is the most critical material.
22 The reference temperature for the forgings is far 23 lower than the reference temperature for the welds. That's 24 been known by the Commission for at least a decade; well 25 before the amendment to Appendix H was passed which-l Heritage Reporting Corporation
.() (202) 628-4888 i
- - _---_ -----------_-_--- _ _ ._J
'l 34'
] 1 permitted integrated surveillance programs.
2 That was'well known by the Commission at the. time 3 .the regulation was passed.
4 JUDGE COTTER: -So you're saying it was within the 5 contemplation of the promulgators of the regulation that the 6 integrated surveillance program would be used specifically
- 7. .in connection with welds?
8 MR. FRANTZ: Yes, sir.
9 JUDGE COTTER: But it was not specifically called 10 out?
11 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.
m.
12 JUDGE COTTER:- Isn't there some rule of law about 13 specifically calling things out in regulations; that'if it's
() 14 not' called out,.it's not covered?
15 MR. FRANTZ: I believe the regulations do call out 16 the fact that you need -- let me get my copy of the j 17 regulations.
18 The regulations do mention the beltline material.
19 The beltline material would naturally include the weld 20 inaterial.
f 21 And, in fact, I refer the Board to Appendix H and l
22 --
23 JUDGE COTTER: Are you looking at the appendix?
24 MR. FRANTZ: Yes, I am. I'm looking at--at this 25 point, I'm looking at Appendix G. I think it's G and Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888 l
l l
6 I
- o e .
35 r .
t U.
- 1 Appendix H or complementary. regulations..
12 : Appendix'G governs fracture toughness-
~
3l requirements.
4' 'If'you looklat Appendix G, Section,= Subsection-5 .(f), beltline is interpreted as meaning the region of the 6 reactor vessel that surrounds the effective height of the 7 active core, and it' includes,: and I quote,."shell-material, 8 including welds and heat-effected zones."
9- So.the welds are, in'particular, called out in i 10 Appendix G, which I had mentioned before is a complement of 11 Appendix H.
12 .So.I think again there should be no doubt that the
- 13. Commission was aware that surveillance is taken not only for
) 14- the forgings, but also for the weld material itself.
15 ' JUDGE COTTER: If you're relying here on. Appendix 16 G, Mr. Frantz,-are you saying that that's within the ambit 17 of the Federal Register notice and these license amendments?
18 MR. FRANTZ: Yes. I believe Appendix G is called-19 out in the amendment.
.20 JUDGE COTTER: Okay.
21 MR. FRANTZ: And I know the Staff's safety 22 evaluation in particular calls out Appendix G.
23 As I was mentioning, Ms. Lorion seems to be saying 24 that any attempt to use surveillance capsules from one 25 reactor for another reactor is scientifically invalid.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
/(")
J (202) 628-4888 u____ _i- ___ __ _. ____ -_ ___.
36 j() 1: Again, that. constitutes an. attack upon Appendix-H, which expliditly authorizes integrated surveillance' programs
~
2' it provided that certain criteria are met..
'> 4- JUDGE COTTER: Is it your position that if Unit 3 5; were l down for half of the last ten years and Unit 4' operated 6- for.all of-the last ten years.that the integrated
.7 : surveillance' program would give you a reliable view:of the 8- Enil ductility status of.the' welds in Unit 47
'9" MR..FRANTZ: I don't know. I 'd have to confer 10 with my technical experts on that, but that's not'the.
R11 ' situation-we.have in this case.
12 The operating-histories of both reactors are very 13- similar. .There is only a slight difference in the total j(]) 14 effective full-power operating years of.both reactors. '
15 Certainly=there are outages, but --
16 JUDGE COTTER: Do you know what that difference 17 is?
g 18 MR. FRANTZ: Pardon?
19 JUDGE COTTER: Do you know what that difference 20 is?
21 MR. FRANTZ: I'd say it's less than one effective 22 full-power year, but I'd have to confer with my experts.
23 Yes, within one effective full-power year of L 24 operation.
25 JUDGE COTTER: Unit 4 has run one year longer than Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888
I f 1 ,
J 37' f -
l ' .- . Unit 37 E
1 H 2 MR.'FRANTZ:No, one year'less, as a matter: of - H1 3 fact. [
4n : JUDGE COTTER: Unit: 3 has run.one year less?-
! 5 :. MR. FRANTZ: That's' correct.
'6 JUDGE COTTER: 'And the: total number oftyears thatl
- 7. - 'both have run?
8- MR.EFRANTZ: It's approximately' ten years; ten 9 ' effective full powersyears.
10: :The plants were actually licensed in '.72 and:73, 11- but;to. account for periods.of outages, the term?" effective
.12 ~ full-power years" is used. .
1 full power years.
.15 JUDGE COTTER: As you started to point out, 16 .there's a' complicated metallurgical question lurking 17- underneath all this.
~
18 Do you have a view:as to'at'what point the; 19 difference in operating experience would impact on the 20 assessment of the nil. ductility for the two reactors?
21 In other words, if you go back to my question of a 22 moment.ago, if one of the reactors had run only half of the 23 time.
24 You're telling me that one of the reactors has run 25 only ten percent less of the time.
Heritage Reporting Corporation O- (202) 628-4888
_ - . - _ = - _ . - - _
- l.3 <
..J' e
la 1
38
~
T- ! 1. At what point.in there do we'~have a.' difference in 12 the impact on the weld material?
, +
r ;3 . MR.-FRANTZ: If you :look at c Appendix 'H, Appendix H W4 ,4~ does.not talk in.termsLofl capacity factors..
5 It talks in terms of similarities'in', design.'and-f 6 ' operating features; operating features meaning basically the
~
T; ,7 tway.the coresis operated;;whether you have_high-peaking or 8 -low peaking. factors'in the core.-
! 9- And frankly, I'm not sure that the capacity l10 ' factors enter into this.
U 11 As long as.the design is similar,,as long as the s p ' .w ay the plants are operated is:similar in terms"of the.
13 peaking factor, the way the' core flux is arranged, I don't b 14 believei that L the= capacity is going to. enter into this at' 1
'15 all.
16 But again, I'd have to defer to my experts on 17 that.
18 So to answer your' question, I don't think.it would 19 matter at all if the plant only operated--one plant operated- 1 1
20' only fifty percent capacity, the other operated.at seventy 21 percent capacity.
22 Again, I think you could use integrated 23 surveillance programs for both units if you look at Appendix 1
J
~24 H of the Commission's regulations.
25 JUDGE COTTER: Those regulations are generally Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
. . .O. (202) 628-4888 I
- - - - _ _ _ - - =_ --
7---
R:_ i 2- 0 a 11 sr < ,
' s ,
' ' .d q ,
- 7 ,
p 1
0 .- 39i 9O m m I N/ 'l- avery! broadly couched, fare they not? I 7
- 2 MR.-FRANTZ
- That's' correct.- ]
'3 Again, the' Commission itself has' considered.alltof)
- i r,
4 ' this .when it ' issued the amendments back in ' 75 -- or,' 85, ,
e .. , :5 approving theLintegrated surveillance program for: Turkey- .
i ;
15 Point..
7- So in short, I believe M s..Lorion'is basically. ,
d 8 issuing'a contention which is contrary to Appendix H, . and-y a- 9 .therefore,.the contention should be denied under.10:CER y_ 10 1 2.758,1which prohibits attacks upon validityLof Commission's-11 1 regulations.
12 Ms. Lorion has disclaimed any. intention:of 13 actually challenging Appendix H, and to the extent she does
( 14' not want to challenge' Appendix H, I suggest she perhaps 15 amend her contention; delete the language regarding'the' fact 16 that the practice of using surveillance capsules from one 17 reactor in another reactor is not scientifically valid, and 18 instead focus on whether or.not we comply with Appendix H at 19 Turkey Point.
20' Even that. contention, though, I think is not 21 cognizable by the Board in this form.
22 In 1985, FPL applied for an amendment to its 23 licenses to utilize an integrated surveillance program.
24 That application was duly noticed in the Federal 25 Register, and invited any person to file a petition to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 629-4888 l
40
./
( 'l intervene.
2 No one did, including Petitioners here, even 3 though they had the opportunity to do so.
4 JUDGE COTTER: What is your --
5 1G1. FRANTZ: I might. point out, the amendment 6 itself was provided and served upon NW. Lorion, so.she had 7 that opportunity.
8 JUDGE COTTER: What is your response'to Ms.
9 Lorion's position'that the amendment did not --that this 10 particular notice did not give notice of the application of 11 the integrated program to --
12 MR. FRANTZ: I think she concedes that the notice ;
13 did provide adequate warning of the integrated surveillance
(] 14 program.
15 Ms. Lorion has said instead that she did not 16 understand that the results from the integrated surveillance 17 program would be utilized to help calculate the pressure 18 temperature on the curves.
l 19 Juul I would suggest that that reflects ignorance 20' on her part of the regulations.
21 The very purpose of an integrated surveillance 22 program or any surveillaner program for the reactor vessel 23 materials is to calculate a reference temperature that can l
24 then be used to calculate pressure temperature limits.
25 And to say that she had no idea that the results Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888 1
. ., 1
" , t 4
, 4
(,Li ' t f .g y
t.
c+,
^"
41-
'from the surveillance _ capsules would be usedLin:this method'
~
, [h L 1 E 2- -just reflects her ignorance of the regulations.-
': . s y '.' 3 . I think it's.very clear:from the regulations, j Og' ~
1
-4 especia11y'from. Appendix G,-that you use the-results from l?l ,
5 the integrated' surveillance program to calculate pressure; 4
n: ~
-6 ' temperature limits.
7: And if she had read the regulations back in '85,:
,8 l 'perhaps she would have realized this also.
9 >
JUDGE ~ HARBOUR: Would what you have.just said then 10 ~ clear from the~ Federal Register notice of.thatLadoption or L ' 11 . proposed adoption of the integrated surveillance program?
12 MR. FRANTZ:- Excuse me?
13 JUDGE COTTER: In short, Ms. Lorion is arguing not O. 14- that it's her ignorance of the application of the Federal 15 Register notice, but that the notice itself is deficient.
16 because it does not make clear, according to her, that the.
17 integrated surveillance program will:be used ultimately to 18 calculate nil ductility.
19 MR. FRANTZ: I'm saying that there is no reason
- :20 for the notice to provide that kind of a warning.
21 First of all, the pressure temperature limits were 22 not the subject of the amendments; only the surveillance 23 program was.
24 And it is common knowledge among anyone familiar 25 .with the industry at all that the results from the Heritage Reporting Corporation O...
(202) 628-4888 a_-___---_--_ _ _ . 1
l.,
h h
42
- ,Q 5/ 1- surveillance capsules are used to help calculate' pressure 2- temperature limits.
!- 3 There was no reason for the notice to call that u
4' out.
5' Because the amendments were issued in '85, which 6 deal with the validity of the' integrated surveillance-
'7' program for, Turkey Point and becauseDaothing we do here 8 today.in connection.with this amendment or elsewhere in this-9 proceeding'regarding this amendment will' affect the validity 10 of, the integrated surveillance program.
11' This contention constitutes an impermissible 12 attack upon a previous determination by the NRC. ,
'13 It is well established that amendment proceedings 14 are not the appropriate forum for going back and reexamining 15 previous decisions by the NRC.
'16 And I might add that this applies whether or not 17 that previous decision was made as part of a decision by the
?. 8 Licensing Board or whether it was part of a safety 19 evaluation by the NRC Staff.
20 In particular, I'd like to refer the Board to a 21 previous Turkey Point decision, 22 NRC at 598, 599, where a 22 licensing board ruled that it was not permissible to go back 23' and reexamine the Staff's safety evaluation that was issued 24 in connection with a previous amendment proceeding, or, I 25 believe, in that case it was a previous license.
.O v
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, (F) 1 And we have cited in our response to the amended 2 petition five different cases, at least, where licensing 3 boards have refused to go back and reexamine decisions made 4 previously when the amendment in question'had no effect upon 5 the previous determination.
6 And I urge the Board to apply that same principle 7 here today.
8 JUDGE COTTER: Let.me go back and ask you what we 9 might look to in the general literature for the general 10 proposition that you announced that anyone knowledgeable in 11 the industry would understand that the ISP result would be 12 used in calculating pressure temperature?
13 MR. FRANTZ: I would refer the Board back to h 14 Appendix G and Appendix H.
15 JUDGE COTTER: All right.
16 MR. FRANTZ: Where, if you look at Appendix G, it 17 says Appendix G should be based -- the calculations in 18 Appendix G should be based upon the surveillance results in.
19 Appendix H, and Appendix G calls out, among other things, 20 the fact that you should calculate pressure temperature 21 limit curves according to certain criteria.
22 So it's quite clear when you look at both the 23 appendices together that there is obviously an intent by the 24 Commicsion to use results from surveillance capsules to 25 calculate pressure temperature on the curves.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888
44
(~)
^w/ ' 1- And in particular, I'd like to refer the Board to 2' Appendix G, Part 4, Section 2 and 3, I believe, where they 3 discuss the fact that pressure temperature on the curves are 4 calculated according to certain criteria using the reference 5 temperatures.
6 There is one final issue that's raised in 7- Contention 3, and that pertains to whether or not--
8 Contention 2, I'm sorry.
9 JUDGE COTTER: Contention 2.
10 MR. FRANTZ: And Contention 3, both, and that l 11 pertains to whether or not the Turkey Point plants comply 12 with the 300 degree Fahrenheit screening criteria.
13 I assume that Ms. Lorion intends to refer to the 1 14 300 degree screening criteria in 10 CFR 50.61 which governs 15 pressurized thermal shock.
16 That issue should be excluded from Contention 2 l 17 and 3 for several reasons:
18 First of all, like many of Ms. Lorion's other 19 issues, this has previously been decided by the Commission, i
20 by the NRC.
l 21 In 1987, the NRC issued a safety evaluation which 22 concluded that we did comply with the 300 degree screening 1 23 criteria and would comply with it up through the end of,the 24 license lifetime and beyond for the reactor and the vessels 1
25 in questions.
l l [] Heritage Reporting Corporation I v (202) 628-4888
,z-._
E
. . . 45 f '
- c. '11 ;Againf'under the principle of --
r .
2: JUDGE' COTTER: For the record, would you give me' 3 the cite to:that:at this point?
4 :MR. FRANTE: Y6s.
5 .I cite'you'to the safety evaluation by the. Office.
6 of Nuclear: Reactor Regulation regarding projected values and- .
- 7. material properties;for fracture toughness requirements for 8 , protection against pressurized thermal shock events, Florida 9 Power and Light Company, Turkey Point Plants,' Unit 3fand'4, 10 March 11, 1987.
11' I have attached that safety evaluation to our 12 response.
13 JUDGE COTTER: Portions of it?
- 14. MR. FRANTE:
No, the entire safety. evaluation.
15 ' JUDGE COTTER: 'Oh, okay.
16 MR. FRANTE: A second; reason why this issue 17 regarding pressurized thermal shock should not be considered
'18 by the'doard is that'it has no nexus to'the amendments in 19' question.
20 Ms. Lorion has tried dearly this morning to tie 21 the pressure temperature limits to pressurized thermal 2?. Lnock.
23 The fact of the matter is there is no connection.
24 Pressurized thermal shock refers to protection --
25 I'm sorry -- the Commission's regulations in 50.61 regarding Heritagu Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
46
/'~\
'k-1 pressurized thermal shock are designed to provide protection 2 against the accident conditions involving pressurized 3 thermal shock events.
4 What we're dealing with here today are pressure 5 temperature limits which are governed by Appendix G to 10 6 CFR Part 50 and 50.60 of the Commission's regulations.
7 50.60 of'the regulations and Appendix G apply to 8 normal operating conditions, including heat up and cool down 9 and test conditions.
10 The conditions you would expect to see under 11 controlled evaluations involving normal operation are far 12 different from the conditions you would see during 13 pressurized thermal shock events.
rs
(-) 14 The PT limit curves are not designed to provide 15 protection against these accident conditions.
16 JUDGE COTTER: Are you saying that normal 17 operating conditions will have no effect on the nil 18 ductility of the welds?
19 MR. FRANTZ: As long as the reactor vessel is 20 operated within the pressure temperature limit curves; that 21 is correct.
22 JUDGE COTTER: Could you tell me, I don't believe 23 in the filings it's clear what those curves were prior to L
24 the amendment.
25 MR. FRANTZ: I have been told that the curve for
!"] Heritage Reportir.g Corporation k/ (202) 628-4888
47
(~\
\/ 1 . Unit 3 is slightly more conservative than the curve
, 2 previously for Unit 3, and that the curve for Unit 4 is 3 approximately the same to a little bit more conservative in 4 places,.so there is'some variation.
5 I'm not sure we have done a detailed analysis 6 comparing the curves before and after, but I know in the ,
7 case of Unit 3 we are slightly more conservative than we 8 were previously.
9 I might add that the regulations and the reg 10 guides governing calculation, the reference temperature and 11 the curves themselves have changed over time.
12 Florida Power and Light used the most recent 13 revision, Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.99, in O
\_/ 14 calculating the curves for this amendment, and since that 15 reg guide is different from the ones that were previously 16 used, there may be some differences in the way it was 17 calculated and the results of the calculation.
18 I also might add that the notice of this 19 proceeding does not mention pressurized thermal shock.
20 There is no mandate for the Board to consider 21 whether or not Turkey Point complies with the pressure 22 temperature limits -- I'm sorry, with the pressurized 23 thermal shock rule in 50.61.
24 That issue is just totally outside of the scope of 25 this proceeding and should not be considered by the Board.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KQt ,
llh ,
.ti
' (-
48 kl 1 Therefore, that issue should be excluded entirely
.2 _from Contention 2,-and I.might add, from contention 3Lalso,
,. .3 since she-raises an identical issue'in Contention 3.
-4 I might also respond to one or two other points 5 that Ms. Lorion raised this morning.
L 6 She claimed that the staff has not previously 7 . considered Dr. Sih's views on the integrated surveillance 8 -program.
9 I have cited in the response to Ms. Lorion's 10 amended petition _a letter from Victor Stallo, which 11 explicitly states that Dr. Sih's: views were considered and
~
12- are not valid; that it is entirely appropriate to use an
- 13. . integrated program to calculate reference ~ temperatures.
( . 14 JUDGE COTTER: That was a 1987 letter?
15 MR. FRANTZ: I believe so. Let me check again.
16 That was a November 5 letter, 1986 letter, from1 17 Victor Stello who was then and is now the executive director-18 for operations-to U.S. Senator Lawton Chiles.-
19 And if the Board would so desire, I' d be happy to 20 provide copies of that letter to the Board and to the 21 parties.
22- JUDGE COTTER: I believe they're already in the 23- file.
' 24 MR. FRANTZ: i have not filed that particular 25 letter. I filed a quotation from it. I'd be happy to Heritage Reporting Corporation 4
(202) 628-4888
49 7,
wl 1 provide the entire letter.
2 JUiGE COTTER: We'll go off the record for a 3 minute.
4 (Off the record.)
5 JUDGE COTTER: We'll go back on the record.
6 MR. FRANTZ: And if the Board would like a copy of 7 that letter, I'd be happy to provide it to the Board and to 8 the parties.
9 JUDGE COTTER: Please.
10 MR. FRANTZ: Ms. Lcrion also mentioned that she 11 was considering whether to file a petition under 2.758 (b) to 12 obtain a waiver from Appendix H of the Commission's 13 regulations regarding integrated surveillance programs.
() 14 As she pointed out, she needs to show special 15 circumstances to be able to prevail with such a petition.
1C She certainly has not shown any special 17 circumstances here today or in her amended petition.
18 And based upon what we currently have in the 19 record, there certainly is no warrant for the Board to issue 20 an exception or waiver in this case.
21 Finally, Ms. Lorion concluded that there were 22 special public interest factors which warranted admission of 23 her contentions.
24 JUDGE COTTER: Let me back up a little bit and see l
l 25 if we can get you to address some of the special l
rN Heritage Reporting Corporation
(_) (202) 628-4888 l
1
- - _ - - . _ - - - - - - . - - _ _ - - - - - . - - . - - - _ ------_-.-----------,---------__--a--__-- 4
L . :
1
~50 v- . . ,
I1 -circumstances that Ms. Lorion mentioned.
j2 I take it your: position already is-that tho'
'3 difference in' outages between!the.two is not.such as special-
- f. 4 circumstances?
5 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.
6 Every plant has outages of varying. durations.
7 If you look at the operating history of. Unit 3 and 8 Unit 4, both have had outages.
9 The' total effective full-power years of operation 10' of both reactors is very similar, as we mentioned 11 previously.
12- '
I might also mention that the reactors are 13 basically of. identical design. . They use the same fuel-(} 14 loading management' techniques, similar operating limits, so-15 the parameters of operation are very similar for both
?16 reactors.
17 The.only difference might be a very slight 18 difference in the total operating capacity. factors for the 19 reactors.
20 JUDGE COTTER: What about the scatter result 21 argument from --
22 MR. FRANTZ: I'm glad you mentioned that, and I y
- :23 was going to get to this, as a matter of fact, right now. -
24 The scatter is predicted to occur with Charpy 25 tests and the Charpy tests are not exact.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. ({}
t ' .s. . . __
m l i.
51
.()- l' JUDGE COTTER: Can you enlighten an 2 unreconstructed English major and tell me a little. bit about 3 what a Charpy test is?
> -4 -MR. FRANTZ: Yes. i L
5 I believe the surveillance capsules contain bars 6 with notches in the bars.
7 A hammer or similar device is used to hit the 8 surveillance capsules
- at a certain point certain energy 9 in the bar -- in the hammer hit on the bars, the Cha jy test 10 bars will crack.
11 And the point at which they crack is an indication 12 of the ductility or strength of the material.
13 So that's how the Charpy tests are basically
() 14 conducted on the-specimens themselves.
15 JUDGE COTTER: Can you enlighten me, there's a 16 reference to a shelf, shelf strength, is it?
17 MR. FRANTZ: A shelf upper energy, yes.
18 The response of metal to various external stresses 19 and strains varies depending upon several factors, including 20 the nature of the metal, the irradiation of the metal, and L 21 the temperature of the metal.
l 22 Typically, the strength of the metal will increase 23 with increasing temperature and decrease with decreasing 24 temperature.
25 It follows, basically, a classic S-shape curve Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888
t
. .. 52
. L1 with the strength being up here with higher temperatures and 2 Lbeing lower down here with lower temperatures.
3 -The strength at the higher part, higher 4 ' temperatures, is called the upper shelf' energy of the.
5 ~ specimen or of the metal.
6 JUDGE COTTER: And that's a function of the three.
7 factors you mentioned?
8 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.
9 JUDGE COTTER: And the nil ductility' temperature, 10 as NW. Lorion'I think described previously,-is the point at 11 which the strength of the metal decreases,with this 12 decreasing temperature.
13 Usually, it's a very Abrupt decrease in strength, 14 and that point where it decreases in strength is typically 15 called a nil ductility temperature, and the reference 16 temperature is based.upon nil ductility temperature.
l 17 In calculating ~again the reference temperature 1:
E 18 from the Charpy tests, there is the law of scatter; it's an 19 inexact science; and therefore, the Staff does not directly 1
20 determine the reference temperature based upon the 21
~
surveillance capsule results.
22 Instead, what it does is to use the results and 23 put them into an equation to derive the reference 24 temperature that's used to calculate pressure temperature 25 limit curves.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
-O (202) 628-4888
. .. _ _ - - _ - _ - - - - . - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - - - _ _ - - - - . _ - - . -- ---.--_----a
ft ~ ,
X r! . . 53
' ^
l!{ i .l' JUDGE COTTER: And the purpose. of not: taking' the 2 raw results is to establish what?
3 LMR.'FRANTZ: The Commission--and.the industry has;a.
4 .large' amount lof data.
5 What the Commission has~done-is:to. analyze thatf 6 data and develop,. basically, I guess'a best fit curve or a,
- 7. conservative fit for those data.
8 Land what the results'of the surveillance test 9 _ capsules are used for is,to provide a reference point' 10 'regarding these curves developed by the NRC Staff.
11- So,'in. essence, what the staff does is take its
'12. generic curves and factor in the effects of the results;of j; 13 -the Charpy test to. derive a reference temperature for the
- .14 reactor vessels.in question.
15- The calculations or equations that the staff has 16 set forth in Reg Guide 1.99 contain a factor that accounts 17' for these uncertainties, explicitly accounts for these 18 uncertainties.
19 There's an extra margin put into that equation 20 which accounts for all these uncertainties.
J 21 Therefore, the Commission recognizes the 22 uncertainties and has taken them into account, and the 23 equations in the Reg Guide 1.99 are extremely conservative 24 and do, as I said, take into account these uncertainties.
25 So again, there isn't any concern regarding L -
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
l
-- - _ _ - - _- __ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _- _ _ __ a
54 l ) 1 existence of uncertsi.nties. The Commission recognizesfthat 2- and has taken those uncertainties into account in its 3 calculations' .
4 JUDGE COTTER: I've forgotten the specific 5 document, but somewa6:e in here in the materials'that were 6 attached to your filing in response to the amended petition, 7 there was a document, I believe, generated by the Staff 8 which talks about different copper content results being of 9 such a wide range that it was disconcerting, and then 10 talking about what conservatism were applied to account for 11 that.
12 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.
13 That pertains more to Contention 3. It may be
() 14 better if we defer that discussion until Contention 3..
15 JUDGE COTTER: That's correct; that's right.
16 MR. FRANTZ: Based upon all these factors, I 17 recommend that the Board deny admission of Contention 2, and 18 at the very least exclude the issue relating to pressurized 19 thermal shock and the upper shelf energy life.
20 JUDGE COTTER: All right; thank-you, Mr. Frantz.
21 MR. FRANTZ: Thank you.
22 JUDGE COTTER: Ms. Moore, you did not identify who 23 was with you at the table there.
24 MS. MOORE: I'm sorry, your Honor.
25 The person with me is Mr. Gordon Edison, project i gm Heritage Reporting Corporation t (202) 628-4888 i
I u____ _ _ . - . _ _ - _ _ . . . .
L j"-
' , -- ^$j 55 n li Manager of the Turkey Point facility.
2 JUDGE ~ COTTER: Thank you.
3 MS. MOORE:' The Staff understood Contention 3,--
'4L I'm.sorry, I'm ahead of myself -- Contention 2'as:having 5' . essentially three arguments.
6 The first we understood was that.the Petit'ioners 77 7 wereichallenging the concept of integrated surveillance.
8- In-our view, .if you challenge:the concept'of 9 integrated. surveillance,'that that is a challenge to 10 Appendix H of.the-Commission's regulations.
11: And in order to make such challenges, you must 12 .first provide a formal petition which set forth the special' 13 circumstances which exist which would make.the application 14 of the rule inappropriate.
'1b JUDGE COTTER: Nb. Moore, are you. satisfied from H16 - what you've heard from Ms. Lorion that that is no longer the 17 case?
18 MS. MOORE: It's not clear to me.
11 9 - I understand that's what she said that she doesn't~
20 ' intend to challenge the rule, but I think that if that is 21 the case, the contention should be revised to make it 22 specific to the aspect of this proceeding, the Turkey Point 23 proceeding.
24 JUDGE COTTER: I think that's the question I'm 25 asking you.
}
O
.v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
+
,m i
.56 y( } L1. Is the contention as. elucidated"by'Ms.:Lorion.
2: today,Jin your judgment, still have any' residual elements of ,
3 a challenge to the regulation?
4 MS. MOORE: I think,that it-does.
5 I think that.to'say:one.could never?use Unit 4
~
6 . data in an integrated' surveillance context'to predict PT, 7 limits could well be a challenge to Appendix H and to j
'l 8 Appendix G,. Paragraph 5 (a) , which specifically allows us to -
9- consider the effects on neutron radiation for reference 10' temperature. purposes'of.a-surveillance program.which-11 ' complies with Appendix H.
12- JUDGE COTTER: All right.
13 "
MS. MOORE: If NW . Lorion files this petition, I ;
i; i
14 believe there was some confusion'about whether the Board-
{
15' itself could waive the regulation. l 16 According to 10 CFR Section 2.758 (d), .the Board, 17 if it determines that Ms. Lorion's petition has merit, would 18 have to directly certify that question to.the Commission.
19 So that I don't believe the Board could directly '
20 waive it and hold hearings on that question right now. !
21 JUDGE COTTER: Thank you.
22 MS. MOORE: The second argument that I understood 23 the contention to make was that this integrated surveillance 24 program which is currently in effect at Turkey Point does 25 not comply with various sections of Appendices G and H.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(} (202) 628-4888 l
57
' h--) '
l' The Staff did issue a -- .!
l 2- JUDGE COTTER: I'm sorry, I was writing. Could 3 you repeat that for me?
4 MS. MOORE: I'm sorry; that the surveillance 5 program which is being used at Turkey Point did not. comply 6 with various sections of Appendices G and H.
7 The Staff agroes with Licensee's position on this 8 contention that it should be rejected, or this portion of 9 the contention should be rejected, since that was the 10' subject of a previously noticed license amendment.
11 The Staff did issue a safety evaluation on that 12 amendment and made a determination, and Petitioners did not 13 attempt to challenge the integrated surveillance program at (G
_/ 14 the time of the' Federal Register notice or at the time that 15 the safety evaluation was issued.
16 We believe that Commission case law, specifically 17 the Turkey Point case cited by Licensee, supports the 18 position that an issue does not have to be litigated in 19 order for it to have.been previously considered, and thus, 20 outside the scope of a license amendment proceeding.
21 The third portion of the contention relates to the 1
22 question that a Unit 4 capsule should be tested, and in that 23 portion of the contention, Ms. Lorion raises the question of 2A whether Turkey Point Unit 4 would meet the screening 25 criteria.
Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888 l
L - _ _-
J
['y L -
58 L
[ '1! That'isia PTS consideration which we believe is.
L '2. outside.the scope of.this proceeding.- {
l 3- We'believe that the proceeding is limited to the
~4' notice of hearing,-and that it is limited to the' discussion l d
5 of the calculation of pressure temperature limits.
- 6. Therefore, if any portion of the contention does-
,7 relate to the PTS screening criteria, it should be rejected
-8 and the contention should be modified to remove any PTS 9 issues fromLthe proceeding.
10 JUDGE-COTTER: Is there no circumstances under 11 which a PTS issue would be subsumed within.the pressure 12 temperature limits' question?
.13 MS. MOORE:- The Staff believes not; that those-j} 14 . issues are separated because they do' involve two'different:
15 sets of' regulations.-
16 50.61 governs the screening criteria and how-17 whether you meet it is calculated, and Appendix G, 18 specifically, governs the fracture toughness requirements, 19- and Reg Guide 1.99 sets forth specific formulae that.you use
?0 to calculate pressure temperature limits.
21 I don't believe that Ms. Lorion has made a 22' connection between these two today.
23 I would also point out that there was some 24 question raised here about the influence of capacity factor 25 and the effect it would have on an integrated surveillance i
Heritage Reporting Corporation
-(]) (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - 1
r~~- -
, :3 ,y u . ,
,< c j
-(
l
.59
% - 1 . program,: and:this'is an example of where we would have::to.go-2 back:and we would be revisiting an. issue which'the staff'has-3 'already. addressed,-and/itLwas! addressed in the. safety 4 evaluation.which related to.the' license amendments. approving 5 the. integrated surveillance. program.
6 '
And we believe that that issue should remain
~7 outside the scope of this proceeding.
8 JUDGE COTTER:' Do you take the position'that the 9 ' capacity' factor would never. affect nil ductil'ity,<as I 10 -believe Mr. Frantz'did?.
11- MS. MOORE: I believe~.what the SER' states is that' 12 there ils a contingency plan -- there must.be a contingency-
- 13. plan to deal with extended outages.
' 14 ' .And in' addition,'it states that since the plants.
15 have their independent capsules, that if there were a 16 significant difference in capacity. factor or the operating
- 17. time of the plant, that.it could be dealt ~with through those 18 independent capsules.
lL9 JUDGE COTTER: What's the definition of a.
20- significant. difference in the operating time of the plant?
21 MS. MOORE: I don't have a definition for you, I'm 22 afraid.
23 It's the Staff's view, as I understand it from Mr.
24 Edison, that there has not been a significant difference at 25 this point in operating times.
' p; Heritage Reporting Corporation v (202) 628-4888 i
i a
60
(#
LN,)- l' -And I believe he agrees with Mr. Frantz )
4' 2 ' characterization of approximately one effective full power
.3 year.
4 JUDGE COTTER: I used to work for a: smart-lawyer.a-
~5 .long time ago, and he said significant was ten ~ percent or 6 higher.
7 MS. MOORE: I don't believe the Staff has 8 . developed.a position on that one yet.
9 .The Staff agrees with Licensee on the' grounds-for
- 10. ' rejection of this contention, and therefore, I won't go into 11- all the-details'that Licensee has.
12 But basically, we believe that the contention 13 should:be rejected on several grounds,.and that is that we j}L 14 believe"there still is a challenge to the regulations, and
-15 that should be handled pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758.
l 16 And we believe that the contention to the extent i
17 that it challenges the specific provisions of the integrated
.18 surveillance program should be rejected as outside the scope.
19 of this proceeding.
20 JUDGE COTTER: Thank-you, Ms. Moore 21 Ms. Lorion, do you want to respond? :
22 MS. LORION: I do.
l 23 Now or later?
24 JUDGE COTTER: Now.
I 25 I think'we'll take your response and then maybe Heritage Reporting Corporation
(} (202) 628-4888
a:
l.t k
~; .,
- l. 61 ,
ill -we'11 take-a' break before we go to contention-3.
2 MS.'LORION: First of all, I'd like to comment on
.1 3 Mr. Frantz' . remark on my ignorance offhow' surveillance I
4- programs.are used-to calculate pressure. temperature limits j
!: 4 5 by pointing to the NRC Staff response to my. petition on Page 6 'C, where-it-says:
7 "The-Commission's notice of hearing is the means .
8 by'which the Commission identifies the' subject .
9 matter of the proceeding."
10 That March, 1985, Federal Register notice said' ,
11 .nothing.nbout using an integrated surveillance program ever i
12 to change any.operationa1' characteristics of the plant,'
13 . including setting pressure temperature limits.
Thus, if that notice' identified what-I could
().14 r
15 intervene on in that hearing, I certainly would not have
, 16 intervened because I didn't understand at that point the 17 implications from the Federal Register notice of what they 18 were going to do with that data.
19 JUDGE COTTER: What about Mr. Frantz' argument-20 that that's pretty clear with a joint reading of Appendices 21 G and H?
22 MS. LORION: I don't think that it is clear to a j j
23 member of the public when you publish a notice in the 24 Federal Register and do not state precisely.
25 I mean, they stated precisely in the Federal Heritage Reporting Corporation ]'
() (202) 628-4888
- g. t 'n l o'
l q
l 8
'62 ;
L 1 Register notice that this notice:was making no changes to'-
((])
2 any operating conditions of.the reactor..
3 JUDGE COTTER:' It's not the strongest' argument,-
4 Ms.-Lorion.
~
5 MS. LORION:
.W ell, I. haven't completely read 6 Appendix G'or Appendix H.
7 But if you read Appendix H also you see that in 8 -Appendix H there's no notice.that integrated surveillance
'9 program would be used for setting pressure temperature
.10 limits.
11 Also, as to my being estopped from bringing this 12 issue-because it has been raised before, and that even 13 though it wasn't adjudicated because the NRC made findings 14- on it, that somehow I'm stopped from bringing the issue.
)
15 I don't believe that any court of law would stop 16> you from bringing an issue that was not adjudicated unless 11 7 the case they cited, the Turkey Point proceeding, 22 NRC 18 590, 1985, where we were stopped from' bringing a contention j l
19 on hurricanes because it had been decided back when the 20 operating license of the plant was issued.
21 I do not believe that these issues were looked at 22 when the plant's operating license was issued because the j 23 integrated surveillance progran rules did not even come into 24 existence until 1983.
]
25 Thus, this was never decided at the operating Heritage Reporting Corporation j} (202) 628-4888 o- -
' . .]
q q; s
.J
-]
63
- r9 b-
~
-l- ~. license stage, and that's what this cite that..they're making-2'- reference to is,about.
!3 Also, as to outages'having.no.effect on.the -- or:
i 4 not'much effect'on'the neutron irradiation ~to the welds,.
{
~5' it's-well known-that it's the longer you operate the;more:
- 6 .- neutron damage to the welds that causes'the embrittlement-7 problem,-so I'think that's.not a valid argument. . .
8- Also,-as to the letter that's quoted on Page 8 of 9 ithe Licensee's response to our petition, I. reiterate my-10 position-that'what.this paraphrase of this letter says to me 11' .is that Dr. Sih's views were considered as part of the-12 pressurized thermal shock studies in..the 1981/'82 time 13 p'eriod and'.were rejected due to lack of~ technical basis.
O 14 rai 1 et r ea a so o= to y ea e ea =ac-15 '- supports the use of an integrated surveillance program,.but 16 I see no mention here that they looked at Dr. Sih's view,.
17' questioned Dr.~Sih, ever heard him in a hearing, he ever
-- 18 presented expert witness testimony.
19 All Dr.'Sih.ever-did was write a letter to me that 20 this was not the proper thing to do.
21 JUDGE COTTER: So far as you know, is that the 22 limit of the exchange of information between Dr. Sih and the 23 NRC?
24 MS, LORION: I don't know that there was any 25 exchange of information between the NRC and Dr. Sih.
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
O. ' (202) 628-4888
, , y ,
[.
i-I
- 64 E. ,
3 1 .' 1 Dr.iSih provided'a. letter'to my attorney,. Martin l' ,
9 .2 -Hodder.
o 3 Also, I'm getting tofthe pressurized. thermal' shock
[4 issue', Part 50.61'in the~ screening' criterion.
5- Experts who I. consulted with before. filing this 6 -petition stated to me that stating'the~ limits in aninon-7- conservative fashion couldLfurther the' metal in the metal --:
'8 : weaken-the metal further in these reactors, making.it more S susceptible to-a pressurized thermal' shock' event' occurring 10 there.
11 I:think saying that we're not allowed-to look at-12 it, is'like saying you can see a man dead on the street but-13 you're not allowed to do an autopsy to see'how he. died.
l'4 : I mean, it's the result-of -- it could be the 15 result-of an action that they are taking.
16 JUDGE COTTER: You.need to go on law more than 17' metaphors.
18 MS. LORION: Just finally, we're not challenging 19 the rule for integrat'ed surveillance programs. ,
20 We're saying that the Turkey Point units do not 21 meet the criterion for that rule, and that in, setting the 22 pressure temperature limits for this reactor, they certainly 23 should not be allowed to use a smearing of the data; and 24 that if we even want to go with an integrated surveillance i 25 program, they must, according to their own regulations, use
, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f -
h-1 65 1 the most limiting ~RTNDT, and that is'the first~ weld metal' T/')N 6- '
]>
2 sample that was ever taken out of. Turkey Point Unit 2.: I 3- So if.we:need to file an amended. contention on 4- that basis and the Board so-decides, we'll-do so.-
-1 5' .Thank-you, 6 JUDGE COTTER: Is there anything further.on Contention 27 8 MR. FRANTZ: I'd.like to just briefly respond to
,9' 'Ms. Lorion's statements.
10 JUDGE COTTER: Let;me ask you a question first. '
1 11 MR. FRANTZ: Yes,' sir.
.i 12 JUDGE COTTER: Do I understand correctly that 1
13 Licensee does not' plan to check any of the capsul'es for Unit
.i 14- 4 until the year: 2000? ' f
}
15 MR. FRANTZ: I don't believe'that is correct.
16 The' amendment'that's attached to our response to' 17, their petition contains the schedule of tech specs.
18 -The Capsule v from Unit.4 is scheduled to be q 19 removed'24 years after the reactors first began to operate. l 20 JUDGE COTTER: What year would that be?
l 21 MR. FRANTZ: That would be '74 - '73, excuse me, j J
22 so that would be 1997, approximately.
23' JUDGE COTTER: And there was one capsule removed j 24' for Unit 4, I believe; was there not?
25 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
.( }
ic
)
66-
~
' 1.- JUDGE COTTER: Since '76, or'is that the '76
-2' . capsule?
.3 - MR. .' FRANTZ : I believe that's the '76: capsule, but.'
4.. I'd have to go back and check myfrecords.
]l
- 5. And there have been two capsules removed from: Unit 6 3, and there.are.three remaining capsules containing weld.
7 Ematerial..
8 OVDGE COTTER: .In?
9 ~MR. FRANTZ: In both reactors.'
10 JUDGE COTTER: Three each or three total?
11 MR. FRANTZ: There are three total.for both.
- 12. . reactors.
13 JUDGE COTTER: Two of which are'in Unit 47.
O 14 - ra^==== -e et -*1ea, z d 11 v 1 u se <.
15 4; one of which is in Unit 3, if I'm correct.
H16 JUDGE COTTER: . All right; thank-you.
17 MR. FRANTZ: Ms. Lorion first claimed that the 18 . standards here do not suffice to make our case a collateral. y
- 19. estoppel.
20 We aren't arguing collateral estoppel. Collateral 21 ' estoppel, obviously, does not apply in this case.
22 What we are arguing is that she may not go back 23 and seek a reexamination of previous decisions made by the 24 NRC when those decisions are not affected by the amendment 25 in qubecion.
f .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 a
67 l' That type.of argument does not pertain to 2' -collateral estoppel. . It pertains to the scope and nature of 3- the amendment proceedings.
4 So I think Ms. Lorion is mixing apples and oranges 5 here when she brings in issues regarding collateral 6- estoppel.
7 We are not making a collateral estoppel issue here i 8 at all.
9 Second of all, she claims that the cases we cite 10 pertain to issues decided in the operating license 11 proceeding and not in amendment proceeding.
12 She's correct there, but frankly, it's a 13 difference without any significance.
{) 14 15 The-principles involved apply whether or not you're talking:about the operating. license proceeding or our 16- previous amendment proceeding. There's no reason to 17 distinguish between the two.
18 The fact is that the decision was made by the 19 Staff; it was available for litigation if a party had chose 20 to do so; and the decision is final now and there's no 21 reason to go back and reconsider that previous 22 determination.
2
.3 And finally, she says that the staff never fully 24 considered Dr. Sih's views.
25 Well, Dr. Sih's letter that she has attached to l
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(} (202) 628-4888
> t w
~.
1 the amended petition.is the very same letter.that the NRC w
$5 2 ihas' considered and has' rejected as a basis for attacking; 3- .eitherDintegrated surveillance programs,in' general,or-4 . compliance;of~ Turkey Point with theLPTS rules by the 5= Commission.
,6 JUDGE COTTER: Are you:saying that:the NRC
7 .specifically examined Dr. Sih's position, or'are you saying:
'8- that NRC~in reaching.its conclusions on integrated 9' surveillance programs rejected the position as a; generic 10 matter?-
11T MR. FRANTZ: To give you a little' bit of history,.
12 'Ms.nLorion has'been around with us before.
We, in fact, have gone up to the Supreme Court and 14 the Court'of Appeals quite a few times on issues similar to 15' this.
161 As part of one of her pleadings before the. Court 17 'of' Appeals, she attached this letter from Dr. Sih.
L
- 18 In response, the Staff submitted:an affidavit.from 19- one of its technical experts, I believe Dr. Randall, which
- 20. addressed this letter from Dr. Sih.
21 And this is again the very same letter that is now 22 attached to her amended petition. There's nothing new now 23 that the NRC Staff did not consider previously four years 24 ago.
25 JUDGE COTTER: But I was inquiring into the nature Heritage Reporting Corporation l- (202) 628-4888
(
6 K
L .
69 1- and extent of-the' consideration.
'2 MR. FRANTZ: As'I said, the NRC submitted an j L3 affidavit from a technical expert in response to this letter l4 . fully analyzing the statements in that letter.
S' JUDGE COTTER:- All right.
6 MR. FRANTZ:- And as I mentioned previously, Mr.
7 'Stello also used-this analysis in responding to an inquiry 8" ' from-.' Senator. Chiles .
9 JUDGE COTTER: Is there anything further?
10 lMS. MOORE: That Staff has nothing further.
11 MS. LORION: I just have some documents I forgot-12 to refer'you to like Pacific Northwest Lab.
~
E13. Can I just cite them'for the record?
-14 JUDGE COTTER: Certainly.
15' MS. LORION: One' document is NUREG CR 2837, 16 " Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Technical Review of 17 Pressurized Thermal Shock Issues."
18 The other is " Pressure Temperature Limits-for the 19 Turkey Point Unit Numbers 3 and 4, Southwest Research 20- Institute, June 30, 1976," Page 9, Page 10, and Page 11.
21 JUDGE HARBOUR: What was the date of that report? j 22 JUDGE COTTER: June 30, 1976?
23 MS. LORION: June 30, 1976.
24 " Analysis of Capsule T from the Florida Power and 25- Light Company Turkey Point Number 3 Reactor Vessel l
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
' 1 f.
1 w
l L 70 e
j r~,Y
/ '1 Surveillance Program, December, 1985," Westinghouse Electric 2 : Corporation, Pages 13, 14.
3 " Reactor Vessel Material Surveillance Program for 4 Turkey Point Unit Number.4, Analysis of Capsule T, June 14,
'5- 1976," by Southwest Research Institute.
6 Just for your general reading, an article that I 7 think helps a lot of people to understand the pressure 8 -vessel issue is an article in Popular Science, June, 1983, 9 entitled " Thermal Shock: New Nuclear Reactor Safety Hazard."
10 And while I'm on that point, I would tie 10 CFR 11- 50.61 to Appendix'G and H because Appendix G and H govern 12 the fracture toughness of the vessel so that they do not 13 suffer from a pressurized thermal shock event or a fracture,
() 14 and the surveillance is in order to assure that this does 15 not happen so you stay within a sufficient operating margin.
16 Thank you.
17 MR. FRANTZ: Excuse me, Ms. Lorion; are you 18 intending to submit those documents for the record or are 19 you just providing references in the record?
20 MS. LORION: Just references.
21 MR. FRANTZ: Okay.
22 JUDGE COTTER: I would imagine that these are --
23 perhaps you can tell me, that all these are a part of the 24 total NRC documents on these two units.
25 MR. FRANTZ: I don't know offhand whether they are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
et i
71 2
1 'in the docket'or not;'I'd have to go back and check.
2_ JUDGE COTTER: All right.
3 MR. FRANTZ: I know some of them may be.
4 JUDGE COTTER: All right.
5 Is there anything further on Contention 27 6 MR. FRANTZ: . I have nothing.
7 JUDGE COTTER: All right;.then we'll take a-8 fifteen-minute recess and we'll come back and taxe the 9 difficult contention.
E10 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
11' JUDGE COTTER: The hearing'will come to order.
12 Nt. Frantz is responding to a question as to 13 whether there was anything further on --
14 MR. FRANTZ: We discussed previously whether there-15 was any significant difference between the history of Unit 3 16 and Unit 4.
17 I'd like to refer the Board to Page 1 of the NRC 18 Staff's safety evaluation for this amendment, which states:
19 "It is estimated that Turkey Point 3 will reach 20 ten effective full-power years early in 1989, and 21 Turkey Point 4 will reach ten effective full power 22 years in mid 1989."
23 So again, the difference between the two units is 24 far less than one year.
25 JUDGE COTTER: Thank you, Mr. Frantz.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l-e 72 (J l' 1 Ms. Lorion, do you want to address Contention 3?
2 MS. LORION: Contention 3, we basically contend 3 that the revised pressure temperature limits that have been 4 set for Unit 3 and Unit 4 are non-conservative and again 5 will not meet the requirements of General Design Criterion 6 31 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50.
p 7 We contend this because we've noted that in their 8 calculation again of reference temperature nil ductility 9 transition, the percentage of-copper used is .26 percent.
10 In the historical documents of the plant, 11 including the Babcock and Wilcox document that talks about 12 pressure vessels, also in the first weld metal test which I 13 gave you the names of on Turkey Point Unit 3 and 4, the 14 surveilAanco program, the 1976 documents that I referred to
/}
15 earlier by Southwest Research Institute, a much higher 16 percentage of copper is used in calculating the reference 17 temperature.
18 In fact, I would ask this Board to note that in 19 the initial technical specification --
20 JUDGE COTTER: Excuse me, when you say "much 21 higher," was that .30?
22 MS LORION: In some cases it was .31. In the 23 pressurized thermal shock report which the NRC issued in 24 November of 1982, where they calculated reference 25 temperatures to look at screening criterion, .32 percent Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888 1
i 73
[)
1 copper was used for the Turkey Point reactors.
2 I would also refer you to the original technical 3 specifications for reactor coolant system pressurizer 4 pressure temperature limits, 3-4 4-38 is the beginning page 5 on the limits.
6 And then there are charts attached, and if you 7 look at -- if you look these up and you look at 3-4 4-33 --
(
8 excuse me, 3/4 4-33 and 3/4 4-34 --
9 JUDGE COTTER: Those numbers would make a lot more 10 sense if you told me what they were.
11 MS. LORION: Technical specifications, the 12 original technical specification pages in the original tech 13 specs for the plant.
r~' 14 JUDGE COTTER: Is it Page 3-4 and then --MS.
, (-
l 15 LORION: It's 3/4 and then a space and 4- -- it starts with 16 4- -- this is compounded wrong.
17 It starts with 4-32.
18 JUDGE COTTER: That would be the page number?
19 MS. LORION: And the section is 3/4 4.9, pressure 20 temperature limits.
21 There's a chart on 4-33, Figure 3.4-2, and on Page 22 4-34, Figure 3.4-3, and you will notice that the reactor i
23 coolant heat-up limitations are based on a .31 percent 24 copper in the welds of the Turkey Point vessels.
25 It is a well-known fact that the percentage of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L]
/
rj ^ , 74.
.1 copper:in the vessels is.one of the most important. criterion
,L2 in establishing the damage that radiation does to the-
'3 reactor vessel welds.
r .
4 I believe that I'm? quoted in the basis.for my. ,.
5 contention the' Pacific Northwest Laboratory review of-
~
'6 pressurized thermal shock, NUREG CR 2837, which states, and'
~ -7 I'll try to get you'a.page number when I back up:-
8 "The conservative estimates of embrittlement of 9- the welds- should be made by assuming the worst-10 possible weld chemistry in maximum credible nickel'-
11 and copper content for the reactor unit."
12- Interveners for Petitioner go on to say in their 13 prediction of RTNDT, FPL assumed a copper content of .26, 14' while-many of the earlier documents on Turkey Point assumed 15 a copper, content-of .30 or above.
'16 Basically, according to the Pacific Northwest Lab
- 17 ' report, a lowering of the copper content.by even a few 18 hundreds of a percent of copper can lower the RTNDT by ten-19 to: fifteen degrees.
20 So I think it's significant that they're using a 21- lower copper content because that reduces their RTNDT.
22- It may also mean that the pressure temperature ,
23, limits they're setting should be much more restrictive than 24 they are.
25 We also make reference to the chart the upper Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 75 Is' ' 1 . shelf energy for the' limiting beltline material, and that 2 according to an October 30, 1987, letter from the NRC to 3 FPL, and a May -- excuse me -- a May 31, 1988, letter from 4 the NRC to FPL, that both Turkey Point units may not. meet 5 the 10 CFR Appendix G, Section DC criterion that governs 6 fracture toughness.
7 JUDGE COTTER: Did you say 19887 8 MS. LORION: Yes.
9 And in fact, the NRC is waiting for further data 10 from the utility to justify why they can continue operation 1 11 when they do not meet the fracture toughness requirements.
12 The reason interveners brought this -- Petitioners 13 brought this in is because it's just another measure of how 14 the radiation damages the vessel itself and the welds.
15 And it's very important to determining whether or 16 not the vessel could be susceptible to rupture or fracture,
- 17. so I just wanted to try to establish some kind of nexus 18 there.
19 JUDGE COTTER: Could I back you up a minute, Ms.
20 Lorion.
21 When you talk about hundreds of a percent could 22 lower the RTNDT by fifteen percent or fifteen degrees --
23 MS. LORION: Fifteen degrees.
24 JUDGE COTTER: Assuming that the difference is 25 somewhere between four and five-hundreds, would that make a
[]' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
\
^i:
1 E
F 76
- 1. dif'ference-in the --
2 MS. LORION: Four-hundreds would make a difference 3 of sixty degrees; yes, it would; especially whea vou're 4 looking at the end of their operating life.
5 I believe that the screening criterion that was 6 calculated using Revision 2, at the end of twenty years, 7 brought Turkey Point to 283 degrees Fahrenheit.
8 If you added sixty degrees to that, that would put 9 the Turkey Point units over the screening criterion if they 10 use the wrong copper content.
11 JUDGE COTTER: Thank you.
12 MS. LORION: And no new pressure temperature 13 limits would have to be set.
14 JUDGE HARBOUR: Excuse me a minute.
}
15 What was your basis; the fifteen degrees per one 16 hundreds percent of copper composition?
17 MS. LORION: Yes, that was the Pacific Northwest 18 Lab report, and I'll get you the page number; NUREG CR 2837.
19 So by using a lower copper content, it just 20 basically makes the problem look less worse than it really 21 is, we contend.
22 As a matter of fact, both these units may now be 23 over the screening criterion.
24 I guess that's all.
25 I'll address any other comments after the Staff Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888 l
l e
- ll - .s>
77 N= 14 'and FPL: speak.
2 JUDGE COTTER: -All right;:thank you.
3 Did you have anyfquestions?
R ..
.4 JUDGE' HARBOUR:- No; thats;all..-
5 JUDGE COTTER: Mr.-Frantz?.
6 MR.-FRANTZ: Once againlwe believe Ms. Lorion has
'7 made a number of-factual misstatements, but.we aren't here.
8 today to discuss-_the merits of her factual' statements.
9 .We're here'to discuss whether the-contentions are 10- admis71ble,;and Licensee contends that theyLare not C
' 11- . admissible.
12 In particular, the issue of the copper value for
.13 the! copper content of the Turkey Point welds has.been 14 fsubject to a previous safety evaluation by the NRC.
15 -That safety evaluation was approved or issued in.
16 1984, and the safety evaluation approved a copper content of-17 .26 percent.
18 The amendments in question here today do not.
19 affect the percent of copper in the welds, and Petitioners
- 20. may not seek to reexamine this previous decision made by the 21 NRC Staff.
22 Now, this safety evaluation is somewhat different
. :23 from the one we discussed on Contention 2.
24 If you recall, the one on Contention 2 was subject 25 to a previous license proceeding.
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 h
<; D
+
-j g' ~ -78
- ' #'t
< IJ This particular safety evaluation was not-within l
N /_
j!. .the context of'a license' proceeding. Instead,-it was issued 3 by the Staff outside the context of a license proceeding'.
4 We don't believe that that difference should have 5 any effect upon the application of.the principle that.we ]
6l need not go back and reexamine previous' decisions made by_ i J
7 the NRC.
- 8. What we have in that' safety evaluation issued five 9 years ago is a final determination by the NRC.
- 10. That determination is not affected.in any way at 11 'all by the amendment in question today, and therefore, the 12 issue really is outside the scope of this proceeding.-
13- If Petitioners want to question the copper percent
} 14 of our welds, the appropriate method for doing so would be 15 to file a petition under 2.206 of Commission's. regulations, 16 which is a show cause petition.
17 It's not appropriate here to seek to reexamine 18 that previous safety evaluation by the staff.
19- Contention 3 also discusses the PTS screening 20 criteria.
21 As I discussed with respect to Contention 2, that 22 issue again is outside the scope of the proceeding; was 23 previously dealt with by the NRC Staff and should not be 24 subject to reexamine here.
25 It simply does not relate at all to the pressure l Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888
P 79 p
C )- 1 temperature limits that'are subject to this amendment.
2 Finally, I might. mention and the Staff has pointed' 3 this out in its response to the amended petition, Contention 4 3 also discussed the upper shelf energy for the reactor 5 vessel specimens and contends that we are not' satisfying 6 Appendix G.
7 Again, this issue has no nexus at all to the 8 amendments in question.
9 The amendments deal with whether or not our 10 pressure temperature limit curves are adequate,.and that 11 determination has no relevance at all to whether or not we 12 comply with the upper shelf energy limits in Appendix G.
13 Therefore, I would submit that this issue should
() 14 be excluded from Contention 3, even if the Board should 15 otherwise admit the contention.
16 That's all I have.
17 JUDGE HARBOUR: Why would you say that the Staff's 18 earlier safety evaluation is not subject to reexamination, 19 but that it's really evidence rather than inadmissible at 20 this point?
21 MR. FRANTZ: For two reasons.
22 First of all, it was a final determination by the 23 Staff, and in particular, nothing regnrding this amendment 24 affects that detern.tnation. i 1
25 We aren't changing the copper content of our i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l
t.
80
) 1 welds. Nothing we do affects the Staff's safety evaluation 2 in '84.
3 And given the fact that the amendment itself has
- 4. no impact upon that safety evaluation, there is no reason to 5 reconsider that safety evaluation here in this proceeding.
6 JUDGE HAREOUR: What were the reasons for the 7 Staff making this safety evaluation in 19847 8 MR. FRANTZ: One thing Ms. Lorion forgot to 9 mention or neglected to mention was_that we obtained more 10 data.regarding the copper content of our welds back in the 11 early eighties.
12 The data Ms. Lorion has cited was based upon a few 13 data points, preliminary data points.
14 We obtained approximately ten times more data
(]}
15 points in the early eighties on the copper content of our 16 welds.
17 As a result of this additional data, we submitted 18 a revised estimate of our copper content to the Staff, and 19 the Staff issued a safety evaluation approving that copper 20 content.
21 JUDGE HARBOUR: Was this as part of a licensing 22 action?
23 MR. FRANTZ: Not as part of a licensing action, 24 per se, no 25 JUDGE HARBOUR: Is this the safety evaluation Heritage Reporting Corporation C' (202) 628-4888 ,
81 r3 k/
- 1 that's included with your response to the interveners and is 2 dated April 26, 19847 3 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.
4 JUDGE HARBOUR: Thank-you.
i 5 JUDGE COTTER: Is it your position that the --
6 again, excuse me if this-is a technically ignorant question, 7- but is.it your position that a change in the pressure 8 temperature curve will have no effect on the nil ductility 9 reference temperature?
10 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.
11 The temperature pressure curves are calculated 12' based upon the reference temperature and are not dependent-13 upon the reference temperature.
() 14 The curves themselves do not have an impact upon 15 the reference temperature per se.
16 So, in other words, the curves are the result of 17 the reference temperature and do not cause changes in the 18 reference temperature.
19~ JUDGE COTTER: But if you change the pressure 20 temperature environment, you're saying that that will have 21 no effect on the nil ductility reference temperature?
22 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct.
23 The reference temperature, as we discussed 24 earlier, is a product of the material content of the metal, 25 a product of the radiation.
(} Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
1
d ' s-t 82 h 1 ,
'It's completely independent-of'the operating 2 history of,the reactor; other than the fact that as you 3; operate , longer, : you will have more irradiation of the metal
- 4i and therefore increase the reference' temperature.
5 JUDGE HARBOUR:- But are you saying that stress-
< 6' history has no' impact on the' nil ductility reference
' 7..- temperature?-
8- -MR.fFRANTZ: That's' correct.
9 JUDGE HARBOUR: Thank-you.
-10! ' JUDGE COTTER: All right; thank-you, Mr. Frantz.
I
'll' Ms. Moore?
12 MS. MOORE:- With respect to Contention.3, the.
13 Staff has no objection to the admission of-the contention
..( ) 14 ~ which is limited to the question of the percentage of copper =
15 used in calculating the RTNDT for purposes of revising the 16 PT limits.
17 The effect of that percentage, however, on the 18 ability of Turkey Point to satisfy the PTS screening 19 criterion is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
- 20. 1. wa have already stated with respect to l
21 Contention 2, we believe PTS is a separate and distinct !
l 22 issue and not covered by the notice of hearing in this 23 proceeding.
24 Ms. Lorion, as part of her basis, mentioned and 25 has discussed at this pre-hearing conference, the subject of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4688
i
'V t
'83 1 .the upper shelf energy.
Y -2 The Staff's position is that that also is beyond 13 the scope- of ~this proceeding, outside the notice of hearing, L D4. and'that Petitioners have not shown a relationship 1between 5 the upper shelf energy and the calculation of pressure-6 . temperature limits.
< 7' . Petitioner's discussion of the fact Ethat it :iis.
2 8 just another kind.cf potential vessel failure does not.
9' provid.e a nexus between the upper shelf energy issue and the-10 ~ calculation of revise'd PT limits.
11 -Therefore, we-believe that that issue would also 12- be outside the~ scope of the contention--outside'the. scope-of 13 the proceeding.
~
, 114' Therefore, we would not object to a contention-15 limited solely to whether the correct percentage of copper 16 was used in the calculation of the reference temperature for
-17 purposes of revising the pressure temperature limits.
18 We believe that the Staff's previous safety 19 evaluation, while it did approve the copper content, we have 20 taken the position that since it was not a notice 21 proceeding, was not part of a licensing action, that we 22 would not state that that previous approval, per se, kept 23 the subject,of copper content outside of this proceeding.
24 Nothing further.
25 JUDGE COTTER: Ms. Lorion?
Heritage Reporting Corporation
() (202) 628-4888
___i.__i____i__ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 h 84.
.E\m-f~) 1 MS. LORION: We disagree with Florida Power and
- 2. Light's. analysis that the pressure temperature limits have-3 nothing to do with the copper content because the copper ,
4 content has everything to do with setting the pressure 5 temperature limits.and is one of the most important 6 d criterion.in 'oing it, so we think it is in the scope of the-7 license amendment proceeding.
8 'Also, I would refer.you to another document which 9 I neglected to refer to before,'which is Babcock and Wilcox 10 1556.
11 -This document gives the historical data for the.
12 Babcock and Wilcox reactors for the copper content, and it 13 shows that.what Florida Power and Light is really-doing is
.().14 using kind of a mean averaging of Babcock and Wilcox' plans 15 to arrive at their .26 percent; when if they were being 16 conservative, they would really une a higher value.
17 That, again, is one of the, things we plan to 18 address at the hearing.
19 JUDGE COTTER: What was the date of the Babcock 20 and Wilcox document?
21 MS. LORION: I don't have a date on it, but it was 22 before the plant -- it must have been in the early -- this 23 is an NRC letter. I don't have the document myself, but it 24 was in the early seventies.
25 And it says here that it was replaced by Babcock Heritage Reporting Corporation O (202) 628-4888
1 i
85 l ! 1 and Wilcox 10144-A.. .
2 I would also disagree with Florida Power and Light 3- that -- or: would state that the reference temperature is 4 'directly-proportional to'the pressure and temperature 5 changes;fand.that, in-fact, the pressure and temperature do 6 very'much effect the embrittlement of'the welds and the
~7 propagation of cracks.
8 -Finally, I would point.to NUREG CR.2837, the P&L 9 report on Supplement.1, Page 51 and.52, where it says:
~
10 " Material characteristic of.particular welds are 11 unknown," -- or, "Where1the material 12 characteristic of particular welds are' unknown, 13 then a conservative data base-should be used by-
.-( ) . '14 - assuming high chemistry values or worst weld fle'x 15 conditions."
16 And we contend that Florida Power and Light is not 17 assuming the highest chemistry that could be present in the 18 vessel welds; and in fact is using an average chemistry 19 which is not appropriate for the Turkey Point units.
20- JUDGE COTTER:- Isn't the formula for calculating 21 correct for those sorts of -- using data in that way?
22 MS. LORION: My understanding from these reports 23 is that you should use -- if you know the copper content, 24~ you ought to use it, and if you don't, I imagine there are 25 uncertainties that are accounted for in the calculation. _
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation
-O (202) 628-4888
f 86
/~')
(/ 1 However, I would also point out that Florida Power
-2 and Light did not attempt to lower the weld metal chemistry 3 to .26 until it was evident, in my opinion, that they would 4 not meet or be very close to the NRC screening criterion 5 using the old copper content.
6 Thank you.
f' .7 JUDGE COTTER: We'll go off the_ record a minute 8 while we review what we're looking at here.
9 (Off the record.)
10 JUDGE COTTER: Is there anything further?
11 MS. LORION: I have one further comment for the 1:2 record; a question somebody from the press asked me, which 13 is if I thought FPL was trying to harm everybody in this 14 community.
15 I, of course, do not think that, nor do I ascribe 16 any malicious intent to Florida Power and Light's creative 17 way of calculating things.
18 However, I don't agree with.the way they're 19 calculating things.
20 I've talked to scientists that do not agree with 21 the way they're calculating things.
22 I know that they have two nuclear power plants and 23 they'd like to keep them running as economically as 24 possible.
25 That means, one, they don't want them shut down; L
(j Heritage Reporting Corporation v (202) 628-4880 l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ i
i i ;
+ +
l a
~
T l' .and two, they don't want more restrictive pressure .
- 2 temperature, limits because that would mean it would take >
'3 longer to start up and cool down the reactor-which would be
'4- more down time-and. cost money.
5- I understand that a business.must take into 6 account economic considerations.
7- However,.I would plead with both the utility and 8' the NRC to look at science and not use legal alchemy to' set; 9 standards that should be-set by science;.that they should 10 welcome the views.of Dr.-George Sih; that this Board should 11 . request.that Demetrious Basdekas, who'is'an NRC safety-12 ' engineer,. sit:hore and address the issues, because this-is-
-13 not a minor issue.
- f ) 14 This is of major importance to this community and 15 will be of major importance to other communities as nuclear 16 power plants continue to age and their metal becomes more 17' brittle.
18 We're talking about the lives of. hundreds of 19 thousands of people, and a nuclear accident must not be 20 allowed to happen at the Turkey Point plant because of what 21 'we may not be brave enough to do today.
22- Thank-you.
23 JUDGE COTTER: That's why we're here.
24 I might, as a point of information, Ms. Lorion, I 25 have a recollection that Mr. Basdekas' views on nil l -Q v
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
n 1 L; ,
i l
'I 88 l
/7
- \m/ 1- ductility and so forth was the subject of an' internal NRC 2' procedure calling for-the resolution of different 3 professional opinions, if my recollection is correct.
L 4 Perhaps the Staff might confirm that and furnish-5 you some information on it.
6 Do you know, Ms. Moore?
7 MS. MOORE: I really don't know that for certain.
8 I believe you're correct, and I will look into it.
9 MR. FRANTZ: I believe, Judge Cotter, you are 10 correct, and I'd be happy to provide that to the Board and 11 the. parties.
12 JUDGE COTTER: Yes, if you would. That might help _
13 clarify things, at least, for Ms. Lorion. ;
p<
( .
14 MS. LORION: Could I just address Mr. Basdekas for
[
l 15 a moment?
16 You're right, Judge Cotter. Mr. Basdekas, in 17 fact, I think was-the source behind the pressurized thermal 18 shock report being performed in 1982.
19 However, over the years he has felt, and I have 20 here a letter by him, a memo for Chairman Palladino, March 21 6, 1985.
22 JUDGE COTTER: I'm aware of all that, and I don't
-23 want to go back and bring into this proceeding a matter 24 'which has been resolved internally.
25 MS. LOAION: Right, but he might be able to help
(~} Heritage Reporting Corporation
(~/ (202) 628-4888
i l
89-()- 'l you see if these are valid issues or not.-
2' I also would like to really for the record make Il '
'3' his final statement in his-letter.because I think it's 4 'important.
5 JUDGE COTTER: Well, we --
6 MS. LORION: "I'might~not have accomplished-a. -+
7 great deal beyond receiving punishment and 8 intimidation, but I am satisfied that I have E 9 stayed away from what appears to be-increasingly 10 in vogue within the' agency to literally give the 11 store'away."
'12 Thank-you.
13' MR. FRANTZ: If I may respond, just very briefly.
() 14 JUDGE. COTTER: I really don't need an awful lot of 15 rhetoric in this..
16 I'm more interested in issues than rhetoric, and I 17 appreciate, Ms. Lorion, your earlier statement of your 18 position with respect to Florida Power and Light, and this 19 Board certainly understands.
- 20 For those who are not generally party to these 21 kinds of proceedings, we certainly understand that your 22 concerns carry the highest good intentions.
23 And to the extent that rhetoric on either side 24' occasionally gets a little excessive, we discount that.
25 MR. FRANTZ: Just to briefly mention about our Heritage Reporting Corporation O- (202) 628-4888 l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _
..g ,
4 q
eg
,ik
- k. <
.90' p ! '1- pressure: temperature: curves,.we did use the NRC-approved l 2_ ~Regu1atory~ Guide 1.99, Revision 2.. We did use-the NRC-e
' ~
3 -approved ASME' Code.
.4 We are not'doing'anything. unique:here.that'hasn't' .
5' already been approved by the Staff in general and-
'6' specifically in our safety' evaluation.
7 Thank you.
8 JUDGE. COTTER: Is.there anythingfurther?
9L (No response.)
-10' . JUDGE COTTER: All right.
11 I have one final matter I would 11ke.to take.up'in
.12- ithe natureLof a contingency p1an in the'. event-that one or-
. 13 ~ Emore . of' these - contentions. were admitted to- the . proceeding, . I.
0;14 weu1d 11*e ee see a schedu1e new for deine whatever is.
~
15 .. necessary to proceed to hearing.
16 Do we have a filing on a proposed schedu1e?
- 17 .MR. FRANTZ: That's correct, Judge Cotter.
18 On March 13, I sent a letter to the Board 19- outlining a proposed schedu1e which had the agreement of a11 20 parties.
21 JUDGE COTTER: Let me take a look at that.
'22 (Examing document.)
23 JUDGE COTTER: This represents everyone's views?
i 24 Is that correct, Ms. Lorion?
25 MS. LORION: Yes, Judge.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
l' .
i 11
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ i
W i.
91 1 JUDGE COTTER: Ms. Moore?
2 MS. MOORE: Yes.
3 JUDGE COTTER: And what period of time does it
~4 assume for the Board to issue its decision on'the admission 5 or non-admission of contentions?
6 MR. FRANTZ: Typically, the Board issues orders on 7 amended petitions to intervene within one to-two months,.and 8 that's what we figured on here.
9 JUDGE COTTER: Thank-you for_your generosity.
10 All right, then when we~ issue our decision, if a ,
11 contention is admitted, we will incorporate this schedule 12 .into the decision.
13 MR. FRANTZ: Thank-you.
() 14 JUDGE. COTTER: I want to thank all the parties for 15 a thorough exposition of their positions. It's been a great 16 help to us.
17 And we will see what we can do about hitting the 18 short end of Mr. Frantz' assumption as far as issuing a 19 decision.
20 With that, this hearing is adjourned.
21 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned at 11:35 22 o' clock, a.m.)
23- ** **d 24 25
/~N Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
-- - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
$ r. . >
- e .
3 '
, t,, :
f '
+.1 l,,*l
\ l f. h S 'f $ ,i V
~
' ,'^ '
, . ,.n,
- 1. ' REPORTER'S' CERTIFICATE' #*
N -#l .)
, , j. . . , , . s ,,
2 . -
D0CKET-NUMBER: 50-250-01A-4 and 50-251-01A-4 '
( '; ; *!:y 3
CASE ' TITLE: FIDRIDA ' POWER ' AND. LIGHT COMPANY -
4
, 4 ,
(Turkey.Poin't Plant, . Units 13 anW 4) . .!
5 . HEARING DATE: MARCH 21,1989 - .
6 IOCATION:' .
MIAMI, FLORIDA 4
i q
7 :
,' I.hereby certify that thc proceedings and evidence- J 8 -
j are contained fully; ^andT accurately on: the tapes =.and. notes..
j 9- l .
l reporte'd by.me.at the hearing in the above caselbefore the- l 1
~
10 -
UNITED STATES NUCIEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
j 4
+ 11.
12 .!
~
..77 13 y
S
'u ,); '
Date: March ~22,:19897
'w .. :
i 15-16
-b
'[ / %-
i
' A4 cx
'i
$ 17 Official Reporter-- l
- l Warren & Ass'oc'intesi-T 1L l
? HERITAGE-REPORTING.. CORPORATION j h 19 1220 L Street, N.W. j i : Suite'600.
[ 20 Washington, D.C. 20005 .
- Nw,,vv %.y :l j 21 W b y
- -~
' l,
'f-23 I l- I 1
24 \
l-fd "
O. !
I l
- -