ML19260C560

Response in Opposition to Wi Environ Decade,Inc 791217 Request for Hearing on NRC 791130 Confirmatory Order for OL Mod.Draws Attention to Decade 791114 Original Petition Denied Per 10CFR2.206.Interest Not Established

ML19260C560
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	12/27/1979
From:	Charnoff G SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE, WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML19260C561	List: ML19260C560 ML19260C562
References
NUDOCS 8001070525
Download: ML19260C560 (7)

Text

.

1. December 27, 1979

- yph T

& <$S :

5 D h(, ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4 OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION ca D In the Matter of )

)

WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-266

)

(Point Beach Nuclear Plant, ) (Modification of Unit 1) ) License)

LICENSEZ'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST BY WISCONSIN'S LNVIRONMENTAL DECADE, INC.

FOR HEARING ON CONFIRMATORY ORDER By " Confirmatory Order for Modification of License" dated November 30, 1979 (" Order") (44 Fed. Reg. 70608 (December 7, 1979)), the Director, Nuclear Reactor Regulation ("NRR"), estab-lished additional operating conditions for Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 to ensure safe operation in light of an identified problem with steam generator tube degradation. The Order pro-vided that any person whose interest may be affected by the Order may request a hearing with respect to the Order, but that "any request for a hearing shall not stay the effectiveness of [the]

Order." The Order also provided that the issues to be considered at the hearing were limited to (i) whether the facts stated in Section II and III of the Order are correct and (ii) whether the Order should be sustained. By request dated December 17, 1979, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. (" Decade"), asks for a hearing and argues, notwithstanding the specific language in the Order to the contrary, for a stay of the effectiveness of the Order. 1696 216 8001070 h 2 3

On the same day of the Confirmatory Order, the Director also denied Decade's earlier petition filed on November li, 1979, pur-suant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206, which requested the Commission to pro-hibit operation of Point Beach Unit 1 and to commence an investi-gation and hearing on the safety implications of steam generator tube degradation. " Director's Deuicion Under 10 CFR 2.206" dated November 30, 1979

(" Decision"). Prior to issuance of the Decision, the Commissioners were briefed by the NRR Staf f on the proposed disposition of Decade's petition. At this briefing, Decade was provided an opportunity to respond to the Staff's presentation.

As Decade's December 17 cover letter to the Commissioners acknowl-edges, 'o petition or other request for review of a Director's decision under S2.206 is permitted by the Commission's rules.

Nonetheless, Decade's request for a hearing and its letter to the Commissioners is best characterized as an attempt to have the Commission overturn the Director's Decision. Returning to the well one more time on this issue is not allowed by the Commis-sion's rules.

Decade's request for a hearing should be denied. The request for a hearing is defective. Decade has not set forth with par-ticularity the interest of the pet *tioner in the proceeding, how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why petitioner should be permitted to inter-Vene. Moreover, the Petition fails to set out with any particu-larity the specific facts in Sections II and III of the Order that i696 217

Decade contends are incorrect and as to which Decade wishes to intervene. See 10 C.F.R. 5 2. 714 (a) (1) and (2).

Nor does Decade's " Memorandum in Support of Request by Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. for Hearing on Confirma-tory Order" (" Memorandum") adequately support Decade's request for a hearing. Rather it once again argues for suspension of Point Beach Unit l's operating license and for an adjudicatory hearing on the generic steam generator tube degradation problem. As will be discussed in the analysis below, Decade's Memorandum, except with respect to the allegations concerning Mr. Case, offers no informa-tion which was no+. previously before the NRC when Decade's 52.206 Petition was denied.

Analysis of Decade's Memorandum In Support of Its Request For Hearing on Confirmatory Order Decade's Memorandum in support of its petition for hearing on the Confirr atory Order argues (a) that Point Beach should be closed pending resolution of the tube degradation issue, and (b) that an adjudicatory hearing should be held on the generic steam generator tube degradation matter.

In support of its argument that the Confirmatory Order per-mitting operation of Point Beach should be reversed, Decade offers arguments. None has any merit. Each is considered below.

First, Decade contends that Licensee's proposed " package" provides insufficient assurance that significant tube defects will be identified in a timely manner. In support of this propo-1696 218

t .

sition, Decade offers only (a) an argument it made to the Commis-sion at the November 28, 1979 briefing regarding the value of in-creased periodic hydrostatic pressure tests and eddy current tests, (b) a second argument it made to the Commission at the same meeting regarding reduction in the allowable primary to secondary leak rate, and (c) a remarkable accusation that Mr. E. G. Case of the Staff privately contradicted the Staff's presentation to the Commission.

It is obvious that a hearing would serve no purpose simply to have the Commission consider again the two propositions pre-viously advanced by Decade and rejected by the Commission at the November 28, 1979 briefing. As to the third reason, Decade's ac-cusation of Mr. Case simply defies belief. While we are accus-0 tomed to Mr. Anderson's frequent misunderstandings of technical matters, one would have to be more than charitable to assume that Decade's reckless assertion of Mr. Case's lack of integrity was only a matter of misunderstanding. It is nothing more than a deplorable display of arrogance. It should be emphatically re-jected.

As a second reason for reversal of the Confirmatory Order, Decade points to the leakage which developed after return to ser-vice of Point Beach Unit 1 following issuance of the Confirmatory Order. This, of course, was a post-Order event of the type which I was anticipated in Section IV of the Order. Thus, it is doubtful that it disputes the correctness of the facts stated in Section II 1696 219

L .

and III of the Order. The Licensee Event Report, dated December 22, 1979, shows that the leakage was due to one leaking tube and to two faulty plugs inserted earlier. This event does not reflect poorly on the effii:acy of the Licensee's package to deal with the deep crevice tube degradation matter. Rather, the event demon-strates that the reduced allowable leak rate serves its purpose adequately. The event provides no basis for initiating a hearing because it does not dispute any fact stated in Section II or III of the Order.

As a third reason for requesting a hearing, Decade contends that the tube degradation has not been confined to the tube sheet.

Moreover, Decade levels a second charge of lack of integrity. This time it is pointud at the Staff as a whole and indirectly at the 0

Licensee. Both are charged with withholding relevant information from the Commission. This is not true.

There was no withholding of information by the Licensee. As Decade itself points out, the five suspect indications were in-cluded in Licensee's LER report of November 16. What Decade fails to appreciate is that the issue before the Commission on November 28 was tube degradation due to intergranular corrosion. As the attached letter of December 21, 1979 to the Staff shows, Wisconsin Electric believes those five indications are attributable to earlier thinning or cracking rather than to intergranular corrosion. That this condition has not progressed is demonstrated by the recently completed eddy current tests of 1900 tubes in both A and B steam 1696 220

generators which revealed no indications at or above the tube sheet. Decade's reiteration of the American Physics Society con-cerns about steam generator tube failures above the tt Ne sheet coincident with a LOCA are simply not pertinent. The Commission heard this same concern by Decade on November 28 and correctly gave it no heed, given the circumstances here.

Finally, as a fourth reason for reversing the Confirmatory Order, Decade argues that even if further tube degradation were confined to the tube sheet, there still exists a serious safety problem. To manufacture its argument, Decade postulates without any confirming test data that longitudinal defects could dove-tail. Decade presumes "for sake of discussion" that 20% of re-maining wall thickness is required to prevent a double ended tube failure -- ignoring all the test data showing only 10% is required

-- and mischaracterizes what Westinghouse said at the November 20 meeting regarding eddy current tests. The Decade essay, after brushing away all the attendant noise, simply charges that there is a realistic probability of 185 ta' as failing. Of course, if the Staff had said that 50 or 500 tubes would have to fail, Decade would charge that 50 or 500 tubes would or could fail.

With this final argument, Decade moves into its basic request i.e., a generic tube degradation hearing which would consider the interface between steam generator tube integrity and the ac-ceptance criteria utilized to evaluate emergency core cooling system.

1696 22I

Whatever the merits -- or lack thereof -- of the Decade petition, to the extent it requests a generic tube degradation hearing, it clearly goes well beyond the issues allowed in any hearing on the Confirmatory Order.

In conclusion, we respectfully submit that the Decade peti-tion should be denied in this docket because:

a) it fails to state the interest of Decade and how that interest may be affected by the proceeding; b) it fails to set out matters in controversy within the issues set out for hearing in the Confirmatory Order; c) it is only an attempt to subvert the Commission's rules, which do not permit a request for review of the Director's decision under S2.206; and d) it amounts only to a request for a rulemaking regarding the interface of the ECCS acceptance criteria and steam generator tube integrity on a generic basis, which is not appropriata in this particular docket.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE By M Gerald Charnoff )

Counsel for Wiscons E dic Power Cc:apany 1800 M Street, North West Washington, D. C. 20036 (202) 331-4100 Dated: December 27, 1979 1696 222