ML17339A627

Answers to Interrogatories Per ASLB 800122 Order.Nrc Safety Evaluation & Eia Are Deficient Due to NRC Reliance on Licensee.Prepared Steam Generator Repair Rept.Certificate of Svc & Licensee Complaint Encl

ML17339A627
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	02/05/1980
From:	Lumer J, Marshall R, Rogow B LUMER, J.V., MARSHALL, R.A., ROGOW, B.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8002270029
Download: ML17339A627 (40)

Text

Pl <<>>

BELATED COBBESPO'ADWlCH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gO co ~P G ~v THE ATOMIC'AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 6

Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman gg(h< ~@A r Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Dr. Oscar H. Paris In the Matter. of Docket Nos. 50-250 50-251 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (Proposed Amendments to Facility Operating (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Licenses to Permit Units Nos. 3 and 4) Steam Generator Repair)

ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES PURSUANT TO THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD DATED JANUARY 22, 1980 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5. 6.5, 9.5, 11.5, 13.5, and 14.5.

The Steam Generator Repair Report filed by Licensee, FP6L, in these proceedings is deficient for the following reasons:

1. Licensee in Volume I of the Final Safety Analysis Report for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 represented in that report that no significant corrosion of the steam generator tubes was expected during the lifetime of the unit. 'his statement is ound

~

a

~

Page 4 3 - 4 Such repres en tation certainly included that the 8't steam'enerator tubing supplied by Westinghouse would no t corrode ,

crack , dent , an d was fit for the us e for which it was intended .

Within three years , in December , 19 7 5 , the

- J NRC was informed by Westinghouse that several plants designed-by them had experienced steam generator tube deformation in the form of a reduction in tube diameter. This reduction in tube diameter was later termed

denting. Xn fact, in Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4, this deformation or so called "denting" occurred after. four to fourteen months of the plant's operation. Further stated in the FSAR filed by Licensee is the statement on Page 4.2-12 "considerable experience with corrosion in steam generator and heat exchanger application has been accumulated in the i;ndustry". However, as can be seen by the listing of the generic problems of Westinghouse Steam Generator tubes for nuclear reactors as listed in the Summary of Operating Experience with Recirculating Steam Generators published in January, 1979 as NUREG-'Q5-23, it is clear that Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 have experienced, despite the represen-tations to the contrary made in the FSAR by Licensee, all of the corrosion, cracking, denting, and leaking problems which were supposedly not to occur during the lifetime. of the plant.

Licensee's present SGRR in these proceedings makes the identical representation with. regard to the proposed repair replacement steam generator lower assemblies which are to be supplied once again by Westinghouse, stating once again no further corrosion can be expected to occur in therepaired'team generator tubes.

Licensee also refers in its SGRR to the past history of the supplier, Westinghouse, with regard to the .production of steam generators as being excellent. intervenor questions the proposed repairs as described in, Licensee's Steam Generator Repair Report as being highly suspect in the fact of the actual history of the performance and degradation of the Turkey Point steam generators. Norever, the problem is not isolated to,one case; the problem of steam generator tube degradation. is a generic one suffered throughout the industry in pressurized water reactors

II II functioning with Westinghouse supplied steam generators. Intervenor's.

question as to the inadequacy of Licensee's SGRR is further borne out by review of the legal complaint filed by PP6L against Westing-house in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in Case No: 78-1896-Civ-JE, which is attached and made a part hereto as Intervenor's Exhibit "I".

Intervenor submits that until such time as a repair project.

of degraded steam generator tubes is completed and a reactor with a repaired steam generator is operating for a sufficient test period that any proposed steam generator repair report is pure speculation and that any NRC assessment of such a steam generator repair report as has been conducted in the EIA and SER,prepared by the Staff in this case further compounds the error.

Given the problems of steam generator tube degradation in Westinghouse Steam Generators generically suffered by all Westinghouse pressurized water reactors presently operating, Intervenor suggests that it is impossible for Licensee in good faith to represent in its Steam Generator Repair Report the prediction that the repairs will satisfactorily remedy the corrosion, leaking, cracking, and denting problems suffered by the tubes in steam generators. Further, Licensee has never attempted such a repair. Intervenor seriously questions Licensee's ability to actually assess what the repairs will entail.

The NRC Staff documents., the EIA and,SER, are deficient because they attempt to assess the environmental impact and safety questions raised by the proposed repairs by reliance on the information supplied by Licensee in its SGRR. Inasmuch, as Licensee's SGRR is totally inadequate, as discussed in the paragraph above', it is clear that the NRC could not accurately

II assess the actual and potential risk to the environment proposed by the repairs or the safety questi;ons. If the Staff were really diligent and concerned about the 'public's safety, they would thoroughly investigate, in an EIS and SER, the repairs which are proposed by Licensee, whi.'ch., but for VEPCO's Surray Plant, have never been attempted before and certainly not assessed after the repairs. Intervenor is even more concerned because of the fact that PP&L has repurchased replacement steam generator lower assemblies from Westinghouse, the same company whose steam generators have failed in every. pressurized water reactor using them. If the NRC Staff were to do the investigation required of it by its investiture with the public safety, it would not be necessary in these interrogatories to explain to the Staff why the entire Steam Generator Repair Peport application is deficient and incompetent.

We suggest the Staff read Intervenor's Exhibit "I" attached to the answers to interrogatories. Intervenor urges that no Steam Generator Repair Report, SER, or EIA, could conceivably be represented to the Board-in this case in good faith as complying with the NRC mandate when, in fact, the entire product supplied by Westinghouse has failed, generically, across the board.

We are in the process of supplementing these answers with further explanation as to why specific sections of the SGRR, EIA, and SER are deficient.

1.10 Intervenor contends an EIS must be prepared for this action and as reasons states:

The SGRR prepared by Licensee in this case is inadequate.

See answer to 1.5. In addressing probable environmental harm, the NRC in the EIA has relied on information provided in the SGRR. Intervenor. is concerned that a faulty assessment of probable

0 and potential environmental harm has resulted from this NRC reliance on a faulty SGRR.

Specifically, the following areas concern Intervenor:

1. The environmental harm, including public health, suffered by releases of radioactive effluent to the. environment.

2. The environmental harm occassioned byron-radioactive toxic effluent discharges to the environment

3. The risk of environmental harm from storage of the defective steam generators on site and their storage in an inadequate facility.

4. The failure to accurately calculate the public health dangers posed by the repairs from worker exposure. In regards to this concern, Intervenor states the Licensee's predicted man rem dose rate for worker exposure is too low and is based on a totally inadequate analysis of the tasks to be performed and the radiation fields involved in the repair project. Further, the NRC Staff's assessment of the health impacts to workers from radiation exposure is inadequate and relies on faulty bases for calculating worker health effects, including long-term genetic effects.

5. Failure to consider the potential risks to the environment and human health, including addressing the question of a LOCA accident, from steam generator tube failure resulting from future steam generator degradation when such failures are highly probable, rather than "purely speculative" given the generic nature of the problem of tube degradation and the lack of operating experience with repaired steam generators. See attachment to answers, Exhibit "I".

6. Failure to adequately consider the effect on the

~I environment from the generation of electricity from replacement sources during the outage.

7. Inadequate analysis of the impact on the environment from traffic; demand on already overburdened local housing and social services; and pollution from the construction and repair work.

8. The failure to consider the effect on humans in the service area from the cost of the repairs, particularly in the light of probable recurrence of steam generator degradation.

9. The failure to consider the impact on development of alternative energy sources from the withdrawal of a least one-half (1/2) billion dollars from available capital sources to finance the repairs.

10. The failure to consider the repair project in light of the magnitude of the problem of steam generator tube degradation where it exists as a generic problem in Westinghouse PWR's and given the history of westinghouse's development of steam generators. See attachment, Exhibit "I".

11. The inadequacy of the analysis in the EIA for deciding that it was not appropriate to wait until the Surray repairs were completed and observation and evaluation of operating experience with the repaired steam generators could be conducted after start up of the Surray reactors.

12. The- failure of the Staff to determine that the proposed repairs constitute material alterations to the technical specifications to the operating license thus mandating an EIS.

13. The inadequate, insufficient, and faulty analysis of alternatives to the repairs, including conservation measures, alternative power sources, and gradual derating of the reactors at Turkey Point.

14. Failure to address the dangers posed to'he environment and human health from inadequate fire protection procedures and insufficient equipment.

15. Failure to adequately consider the increased safety for human health from implementing total decontamination procedures prior te commencing the repair project.

16. Failure to adequately address the harm to the environment and human health from installation of a condensate polisher demineralizer.

17. The inadequacy of the assessment of environment'al and human harm threatened by radioactive releases during the repairs when viewed together with residual accumulations of presistent radiation already present in the environment from past releases from Turkey Point.

For all of the above reasons, and. for others which may be forthcoming, an EIS must be prepared in these proceedings.

4.1 A. Yes.

Pobert Anderson, Dale Bridenbaugh, Arthur Tamplin, Walter Golberg. See answer to l-l(b).

4.2 The experts are presently preparing their positions..

These will be provided as soon as they are available.

4.3 Not determined at this time.

Not determined at this time.

4.6 10CFR 520.16, 20.1068, 20.201, Appendix B.

4.7 10 CFR $ 50.10C.l, 5Q-10E2, 50.30F, 50.40D, Appendix I.

4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 are inapplicable since the Licensing Board's Order of September 25, 1979.

4.11 The processing and final disposition of liquid wastes and effluents are described in SOPH 3.3.6.3 and 5.2.2.4.

4i 4.12 Yes, because. the methods for the storage, treatment, and monitoring of radioactive laundry waste water as presently proposed in the SGRR. are inadequate and discharges of such effluents to the cooling canals will, given the proposed procedures, allow the release of liquid radiocative waste beyond'permitted levels.

5.1 A. Yes.

B. Dr. Karl Z. Morgan; Dr. Arthur Tamplin. See answer 1.1(b) .

5.2 The experts are presently preparing their responses and these will be provided when available.

5.3 Not yet determined.

5.4 Not yet determined.

5.6 20 CFR f20.101, 20.102, 20.103, 20.206, and 20.401.

5.7 and 5.8. These are inapplicable since the Board's Order of September 25, 1979.

5.9 Licensee in. the SGRR fails to indicate how the work force will be recruited, cleared, and hired. Licensee does not provide an estimate of the number of workers required for the repairs, nor does it describe the make up of the work force, i.e.,

skilled, nonskilled, "craft personnel" and laborers'n the SGRR only one paragraph is devoted to the work force and concerns only the training in radiography "craft personnel" will receive.

Further, no mention is made of the procedures to be used in determining worker's past radiation exposure. Intervenor considers the lack of specificity in the SGRR with regard to the work force a serious concern, particularly regarding past radiation history for transient workers which could result in overexposure to such workers. Intervenor suggests that Licensee cannot, especially with unskilled laborers, rely on workers own record keeping.

Intervenor cannot assume, given the lack of plans in the SGRR,

1 that Licensee will obtain adequate information to determine past radiation exposure doses received. by individual workers recruited for the repair project. Intervenor considers such information checking a responsibility of Licensee.

5.10 Yes, Intervenor is concorned that worker overexposure to radiation is clearly, a possibility given the absolute failure of Licensee to establish in the SGRR any procedures by which they will determine'past exposure of the work force hired for the repairs. Any such overexposure would violate the ALARA Standards of 10 CFR g 20.

The SGRR states that "craft personnel" will receive so many hours of radiation training. Intervenor wonders whether such training will be received by everybody on the work force. If not, then Intervenor is concerned that the failure to inform unskilled workers of the health dangers of the work in. radiation fields entailed as a consequence of the job. This too can very well result in exposure to untrained workers in excess of the ALARA standard. Intervenor suggests that the proposed repairs are a very different matter than the work performed'n the construction of new nuclear, electrical generating plants.

Here, the work is to be performed in radiation fields, where without training, unskilled laborers may well exceed permissible levels of radiation exposure in violation of ALARA.

Bruce S. Rogow, Esq.

Joel V. Lumer, Esq.

Richard A. Marshall, Jr., Esq.

Henry H, Harnage, Esq.

Neil Chonin, Esq.

Counsel for Intervenor By 100 North Biscayne Blvd.

30th Floor, New World Tower Bldg.

tliami, Florida 33132 (305) 377-3023

Cl 41 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed this Elizabeth S. Bowers, day of Esq.

~ ~ ' 1980 to the following:

Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Oscar Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke g'lQ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel ~<ig U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g)}~

Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel ~

~<+

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OL, Washington, D.C. 20555 @(4~ q@~

Mr. Mark P. Oncavage 12200 S.W. 110th Avenue Miami, Florida 33176 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Bruce S. Rogow, Esq.

Joel V. Lumer, Esq.

Richard A. Marshall, Esq.

Counsel for Intervenor 3301 College Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Henry H. Harnage, Esq.

Counsel for Intervenor Peninsula Federal Bldg.

10th Floor 200 S.E. 1st Street Miami, Florida 33131

~I Harold F Reis, Esq.

~

Lowenstein,. Newman, Reis, Axelrad &, Toll 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Norman A. Coll, Esq ~

Steel, Hector 6 Davis 14th Floor Southeast First National Bank Bldg.

Miami, Florida 33131 LAW OFFICES OF NEIL CHONIN, P.A.

30th Floor, New World Tower Bldg,.

100 N. Biscayne Blvd.

Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 37 -30 3 ay, O N

(;~~

L HO Xk

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DESTRICT OF FLORIDA FLORIDA POW R S LIGHT COHPAN Y a Florida corporation, Plaintiff, vs ~

) COMPMENT FOR DAMAGES

'WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPO(

TION, a Pennsylvania corpor-tion qual'ified to do-.busir re in Florida, ~4 g+G as Defendant.

<ge

(.

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.. Y ("FPL" or "Plaint'ff")

sues WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION ("Westinghouse" or "Defendant")

and says:

l. This is an action for damages ir. an amount which exceeds the sum of ten thousand'dollars ($ 10,000 00), exclusive of

~

interest nnd costs.

2. FPL is a corporation, incorporated under thc laws of the State of Florida, having its. principal place of business in the State of Florida. At all material times, it is and hns bean a public utility engaged in generating, transmitting, and distributing electricity to the public in the State o'f Florida.

3. Westinghouse is a corporation, incorporated under the laws o f the- State of Pennsylvania, having its principal place of business in a State other than Florida. At all. material 'times, it has been qualified to do business in Florida and doing business in Florida, having agents or other representatives in Dade County, Florida.

4. FPL and Westinghouse entered into a Plant Equipment Contract effective November 15, l965 (Contract) .

I r

s ~'/

.STCCL ACCT('AV(S. i<tkL((, F(.O+(OA 'l

Ii

5. Under the contzac<<Hestinghouse was obl'gated to design, manu act> re and furn'sh to FPL the nuclear steam supply systems, (Plant Ecuipment) including six steam generato s, fo FPL's Turkev Point Unit iVo. 3 and Un't Vo. 4 nuclear generating plants in Dade County, Florida.

6. At the time, Hestinghouse entered into th Contract, it knew or should have known that:

(a) The operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 by FPL would be, dependent upon the satisfactory operation of he Plant Equipment to be supplied by Hcstinghouse:

(b) Any inadequate Plant Equipment supplied'y Hestinghousc pursuant to the Contract would have to -be repaired, replaced or revised;

~L (c) inadequate oper".'ng, instructicns suppl'cd to FPL by Hestinghouse would lead. to damage and in) ry to Turkey Point Un'ts 3 and 4g (d) Upon completion, Turkey Point Un'ts 3 and 4 would supp)y a significant part of the power required by FPL to fu'-

f'll its comm'tments to its customers; (e) If Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 were to be in-operative for any period'g FPL would be requi ed, during that per'od, to pzoduce substitute power at its other facilities and to purchase substitu e power from other sources at much greater cost th n it could produce power from Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.

7. in August 1974, Plaintiff fizst discovered substantial leaks in certa'n tubes compri ing an an integral part oi the steam generators designed, manufactured, and supplied by Hestinghouse pu svant to the Contract for .urkcy Pcint Unit 4.

in September 1974, 'Plaintiff fizs d'scovezed subs an-tial leaks in certain tubes comprising an 'ntegrai pa" t of the steam genera tor s designed, manufactured, and suppl 'd by He" t' "house pursuant to thc Contract for Turkey Point Unit 3.

"2-r TCC'4 tlCC'COA ~ 04VI'5, 4IAlsl. SLCAIOA y~~"-'d; =ioa&Rvsp wm.~'s

41 O.

9. In April 1975, FPL first discovered that a large nur>er of tubes comp.".ising an integral part of the steam generators designed, manufactured, and, supplied by Westinghouse. oursuant to the Contract for Turkey Poin- Unit 4 were per orming little or none of their intended function because corrosion within the tube assem-blies had dented, partially closed and cracked the tubes and tube suppor t plates .

10. In October 1975, 'FPL first discovered that a large number of tubes comprising an integral part of the steam generators designed, manufactured, and supplied by WeStj.nghouse pursuant to the Contract .for Turkey Point Unit 3 were performing little or none of',their intended function because corrosion within the tube assem-blies had dented, partially closed and cracked the tubes and tube support plates.

11. The aforesaid defects have rendered the steam genera-tors totally unfit fo" their intended purposes, and reasonable efforts to rende" them fit or suitable have .been unsucce sful.

12. Despite FP' s requests and 'demands that Westinghouse correct these de ccts, Westinghouse has failed and refused to do so.

13. FPL has fully performed all of its obligations under the Contract, including payment of thc Contract price, and all

~ 1, conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.

COUNT I

14. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallcges Paragraphs 1 through 13 "above,

15. Westinghouse expressly warranted and guaranteed that the equipment it furnished under the Contract would produce stated guaranteed outputs.

16. Westinghouse breached such'xpress warranty and guarantee by supplying Plant Equipment, wh'ch, because of the defects described above, has failed to produce the stated guaranteed outputs.

17. FPL furnished Westinghouse .easonable, timely and adequate notice of the above-described breaches of Westinghouse's express warranty and guarantee.

-3" 0 I CCI AICC'AVIS, MIAMI 7 QOIIICA

18. As a direct result of Westinghouse's breaches of

. such express warranties and guarantees of the Contract, FPL 'has been and continues to be required to make major repairs, revisions and inspections of the Plant Equipment furnished by Westinghouse, to take Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 out of operation for extended periods of time or repair, revision and inspection, to produce substitute power at its othe" facilities and to purchase substitute power from other sources at much greatc" cost than it could produce power from Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. As a direct result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has suffcrend and will continue to sufEer damages, the exact amount of which is still undetermined.

COUNT XI

19. Plaintiff incorporates by refcrcncc and reallcges Paragraphs 1 through 13 above.

20. Under the Contract, Westinghouse expressly warranted that the work, and all parts thereof, furnished by it would be free from defects in workmanship and material and bc suitable for the use intended, and further agreed that it would, without cost to FPL, promptly correct any defects.

21. Westinghouse breached such express wa. ranties and provisions of the Contract:

(a) By supplying Plaintiff with stcam generators for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 which were:

1. no free from defects in workmanship and material; and

2. not suitable or fit for the uso intended

{b) By failing to promptly or successfully correct the defects 'n the steam generators for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 without cost to FPL.

22. FPL furnished Westinghouse reasonable, timely and adequate notice of the above-described breaches of the express wa ran-ties and othe" provisions of the Contract.

23. As a direct result of Westinghouse's breaches of such express warranties, Plaintiff has been and continues to be r quired to make major repairs, revisions and inspections of thc Plan> Equip-S TCtl. I R d QOVIS. MIAMI, t'RIOA Sing~~,('~%Q+g~~pi ~~~.~~gj7~r. 4g-&(%~+RC Wsr I

ment furnished by Westinghouse, to take .urkey Point Units 3 and out of operation for extended periods of time for repair, revision and inspection, to produce substitute power at its, other facilities and .to purchase substitute power from other sources at much greater costs than it could produce power from Turkey Poin" Units 3 and As a direct resul of the .foregoing, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages, thc exact amount of which is stil'1 undetermined.

COUNT III

24. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallcges Paragraphs 1 th "ough 13 above.

25. hestinghouse is and was at the time of the Contract in the business of designing, manufacturing, sellinq installing and furnishing nuclear steam supply systems, auxiliary equipment and auxiliary systems, including steam genera ors.

26. Nestinghouse impliedly. warranted that the steam gencratnrs designed, manufactured, furnished and sold by it to FPL pursuant to the Contrac. were of merchantable quality and that they were ree from defects.

27. westinghouse b cached the above-described isiplicd warranties by supplying Plaintiff steam generators pursuant te the Contract which were not of merchantable quality, and were not fit for the production of steam and which contained defects in the design, materials and workmanship,

28. FPL furnished Westinghouse reasonable, timely and adequate notice of the above-described breaches of Westinghouse's implied warranty of merchantability.

29. As a direct result of Westinghouse's br'caches of such implied warranties, FPL has been and continues to be required to make major repairs, revisions and inspections of the Plant Equipment furn'shed 'by Westinghouse, to take Tu key Point Units 3 and. 4 out of operation or extended periods of time .or repa'"r, revision and irspec ion, to produc suhst'itute power at its other fac'lities and to purchase -ubstitute power from other sources a" much greater cost than it cculd produce power from Turkey, point srgai <<CC. ()AVls, NIAL QJIIQ*

Units 3 and 4. As a direct result of the foregoing, FPL has suffered and <<ill continue to suffer substantial damages, the exact amount of which is still undetermined.

COWT EV

30. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and reallcgcs Paragraphs 1 through 13 above.

31. At the time Westinghouse entered into the Contract with FFL, it knew that the Plant Equipmeng it was contracting to supply to Plaintiff was intended to bc included in Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, and that Plaintif f was relying on Defendant s skill and judgment to supoly plant Equipment fit for the aforementioned purposes. Westinghouse implied)y warranted that the ?lant Equip-ment it was to suoply pursuant to the Contract would be fit for thc aforementioned purposes.

32. Westinghouse breached such implied warranty by A

supplying Plant Equipmcnt which was not fit fo. its intended pur-poses, was not fit for the production. of stcam and whi'ch contained defects in design, materials and workmanship.

33. As a direct result of Westinghouse's breach oE. such implied warranties, Plaintiff hds bean and continues to be required

~

~

to make major repairs, revisions and inspections r of the Plant

~

Equipment furnished by Westinghouse, to take Turkey Point Onits 3 and 4 out of operation for extended periods of time for repair, revision and inspection, to produce substitute power at its other f cilities and to purchase substitute power from other sources at m ch greater cost than it could produce power from Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. As-a- direct result of'he foregoing, FPL has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial damages, the exact amount of which is. sti', undetermined.

COlPJT V

34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleces Paragraphs 1 th ough 13 above.

"6"

35. Defendant owed Plaintiff,a duty to exercise reason-jj able care in the design, manufacture, and f 'rnishing of the steam P

'enerators for Turkey Point 'Units 3 and 4 and in furnishing P)ain-tiff with operating instruct'ons and assistance.

36. Defendant breached its duty to exercise reasonable care in the following particulars:

(a) The steam generato s for Turkey Point Unit" 3 and 4 were negligently designed and manufactured such that certain tubes comprising an integral part leaked substantially, impa'ring their effectiveness; (b) The steam generators for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 were neg3.igently designed and manufactured with improper materials which were not corrosion resistant, causing the tubes and tube support plates to dent, partially close and crack.

!c) The steam generators fox'urkey Point Units 3 and 4 were negligently designed and manufactured,so as to facilitate corrosion ~hich caused the tubes and tube support olates to dent, partially close and crack.

(d) The operating instructions provided, by Defen- A(

dant negligently specified the introduction of chemicals or substan-ces into the liquid transported around the tubes which facilitated the corrosion of the tubes and tube support platesg 1j (e) Although Defendant was aware of similar prob-lems with steam generators of the same type sold to other utility customers,, Defendant failed to warn Plaintiff of the possibility or g likelihood of such problems, occurring in the steam generators for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.

37. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has been and continues to be required to make ma3or repairs, revisicns and inspections of the plant Equipment, furnished by Westinghouse, to take Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 cut of operation for extended per'ods of time for repair, revision and inspect'on, to produce subst'tute power at its other facilit'cs and to purchase subst'tute power from other sources at m ch greater cost than't could produce power from the Turkey Point Units 3 and

-7" t,(1

~ CCC HCCTA> d QAYIS, MIAMI,CLQAIOA gt

.~gc~Q~~~+~P~gC ~~pP~~+&4tCMw~4r,fn~~tS&wsaa TQwRLsKaaiivÃ0%~$+aDelwq,

i~

4. The foregoing has caused Plaintiff to suffer substantial and continuing damages, the exact amoun of which is still undetermined.

WHEREFORE by reason of Counts I through V above, and each of'hem, plaintiff demands judgment for damages in. excess of ten "housand. dollars ($ 10,000.00), together w'th interest, costs, a."'.d further demands trial by j"ry.

ST'L HECTOR 8 DAI/XS Attorneys for Plaintiff 1400 Sou heas- First Hational

'Ban'k Building Miami, Florida 33131 PhoneI-(305) 77-2 BY:

THOMAS ED CA?PS 5ZC5L v>> QA JI5, I>>I*VI A<MW J< .A<V'~>>>><A>>L '>>Q~LM <<<<~+45 '>> 'l>><>>>> <L < ~iM~~<<I<<ILggaeeg P4IIIV55<<I<I~g ~<5<VI~~

0 Internal Distribution:

Central 'RC

'OELD-FF (2)

'Shapar/Ehgelhardt Christenbury/Scinto 'February 4, 1980 Karman Goldberg/Chron (2)

Noor.e Grotenhius - 316 Phil:.

'Neil Chonin,'Esq.

New llorld Tower Building 100 N. Biscayne Boul'evard Miami, Florida 33132 In the Natter of Florida Power and Light .Company (Turkey Point Nuclear Gener ting Unit 'Nos. 3 and 4)

Docket Nos. -25 8 50-251

Dear Nr. Chonin:

Per your letter. of January 22, 1980 and our subsequent telephone conversa-tion, I have enclosed copies of the utility progress reports fi.led in con-nection with the Surry steam generator repair operation and Task Action Plans regarding llestinghouse, Combustion Engineering and Babcock 5 llilcox steam generator tube integrity. I cannot recall being asked or promising to send these documents to Rusty Marshall as suggested in your. letter.

The September 19, 1979 memorandum referenced in your letter is from ll. S.

Bivins and G. P. Turi, Hydraulic Engineering Section,. to L. G. Hulman, Hydrology-Neteorology Branch, concerning their site vi'sits to the Turkey Point and St.

Lucie nuclear plants. Internal'emoranda, such as this,-are not routinely served on parties. to an adjudication except through counsel:. External: corres'-

pondence relevant to .this proceeding are and will continuei;to".besserved on all,parties.

Sincerely yours, Steven C. Goldberg Counsel for NRC Staff .

Enclosures:

As stated cc w/enc.: 'Harold: F. Reis, Esq.

OEL'D GELD CV ItHA N R ~ 'CGoldberg:ea .MKa 2/4/80 2/4 .,

kRC PORihf 5la (976) WRCST 0240 0 U 5 0 VSIIPIMCNS HtlNTIIIO OPPICEC'101 ~ 20 ~ 1lt

i5 4 t

'II

/

h II

'l 1

I P

\