ML20082F563
| ML20082F563 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 11/25/1983 |
| From: | Lewis M LEWIS, M. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8311290144 | |
| Download: ML20082F563 (11) | |
Text
l I
4
- 1 W
UNITED STAES T AMERICA 0 m D C0FIES? * ~~
NUCIEAR REGUIATORY COMMIS ION f
Before the Atomic Safety and Licinsing Board .83 b 28 m 53 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company Dockets Nos @: c?52-and,Q53.4 )
(Limerick Generating Stations 0GCaET G ER' .
]
Units 1 and 2) .
Intervenor's Motion for Reconsideration o'f M & O Granting Applicant's Motion for q Fummary Discosition of Contention I-62. B Introduction. l At 2:20PM on 11-15-83, Valerie Inne, Secretary to the Board in the Limerick Preceeding, i telephoned this intervenor at home. She informed me that the Board had granted the Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition ofGontention I-62. According to 100FR 2.771(a) "A petition to reconsideration of a final decision may be filed within 10 l days after the date of the decision." Further the W NRC Staff Practice and Procedure Digest (Sep78) states ,"An order granting summary disposition is not interlocutory since it is a final decisisn of an issue in the case. As such , it is appealable."
From the above direction , Intervenor asserts his right to petition for a reconsideration h of the Order granting Applicantps Motion for Summary "isposition of Contention I-62. i b
While attempting to meet the 10 d ay requirement of 10CFR 2.771(a), intervenor asserts i that this 10 day requirement is unfair in that pertinent new material has been filed within the ten day period. This makes meeting the 10 day requirement very difficult.(1) [
E E
1.. Notification of Licensing Board Regarding its M and O Granting Applicant's [.
Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention I-62. dated 11-18-83 and received 11-21-83. h filed by Applicant's Counsel.
f f
f
^
a 2
7 n
M 8311290144 831125 PDR G
ADOCK 05000353 1 PDR g
.l 3
l 2.
Fummary._
In the Board's M and O Granting Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of c ontention I-62, the Board finds ," Intervenor has not provided specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact, as distinguished from allegations, denials, cnd concerns." Subsequently, the Board granted summary disposition. Intervenor submits that the Board has mischaracterized the Intervenor's submittals. Intervenor agrees that he has stated many allegations , denials and concerns, but he submits
.that these allegations , denials and concerns legitimately and properly grow from 4 materials and facts that are stated in the Intervenor's submittals.
The following ismexample of allegations , denials ani concerns based on litigable material facts that the Board has not fully explored as to the effect upon the BWR FIS issue:
- 1. The Board finds," PTS relates to a combination of circumstances that could jeopardize the integrity of the reactor pressure vessel," and then goes on to say,"Intervenor argues that the Applicant's analysis is inadequate." However, the Board mischaracterizes the very pertinent material, facts that the Intervenor presents to support his allegation.
For instance the Intervenor demonstrates 2 instances where the temperature and pressure in a BWR does not agree with the Applicant's requirement that the pressure and temperature follow a steam water saturation curve. The Applicant states 't several timess that a PTS is impossible in a BWR since the pressure and temperature must follow a steam wt.er saturature curve. The Applicant concludes that since the pressure must fall when cold water is added to a BWR, PIS is impossible or at least unlikely.
Nonetheless, the Applicant has submitted information that GE has looked at some of these possibilities where PTS could occur in a BWR.(1)
(1) Discovery 8 Item 4 NEDO 21778-A 77NED 238 Class 1 12-78 F.E.Cooke "Trans. Temp. Rise Affect Toughness for BWR."
Page v "With regard for the potential for a water solid pressure transient that would
. violate the revised Appendix G limits recommended in the Report, the only events discussed by GE were a rod drop accident during a hydrotest or concurrent with an inadvertent filling of the vessel to water solid conditions."
Intervenor: The above are examples of possible PIs situations in a BWRibut they are not the particular situations that the Intervenor is most concerned .
s
3.
Summary (Continued)
Intervenor is most concerned with two PTS situations that have occurred in PWRs and are possible in BWRs. htervenor also believes that the Staff and the Applicant have not properly protected the public by refusing to analyze these particular scenarios.
The Board finds ,"Intervenor 's reference to immersion of the RPV in cold water at Indian Point 2, a WR, is not relevant to the Limerick (BWR) RPVs." Apparently, the Board believes that because a RPV is a BWR it cannot experience the same immersion that a PWRcan. A RPV does not care if it is a PWR or a BWR. If you immerse it in water, it will get cold and wet on the outside. An appropriate finding would beto direct the staff and Applicant to determine if an immersion
, of the IGS RPV in cold water would produce a PIS . An immersion in cold water could cause the IGS RPV to get cold on the outside and remain hot and pressurized on the inside. Cold RPV wall while the Pressure and temperature remains high is a PTS.
The Board misunderstands what Intervenor is trying to convey with the Indian Point experience. I am not attempting to say that Indian Point 2 is a BWR whi-h it is not.
What I am trying to point out is there is a definite possibility that a RPV can be immersed in water. This immersion can produce a PTS. Also this FIS would not be related to the water steam saturation curve. The reason that the FTS in the case of an immersion would not be related to the water steam saturation curve is that the temperature of the water on the outside of the RPV could be very cold while the inside of 6he RPV could experience high pressure and high temperature all at the same time. This coincidence of cold RPV wall and hi6h internal pressure and temperature constitutes a PTS . (1)
(1)Interveno- Statement at A.5.1)a) and footnote (1) on samepse.
, . .....~w
4 -
Snamary (dontinued)
Intervenor has also pointed out a situation wherein stratification occurs ani the I
resulting heat transfer produces the cold z:etal/high temperature ani high pressure that constitutes a PTS. The NRC developed and studied this scenario only for PWRs so far.
The results were surprising and unexpected in that slow cooling produced a PTS event. (Intervenor Stdement at A.5.1 ard footnote 3 at same Page 4)
At least the above scenario of slow cooling should be analyzed for BWRs. If this scenario produced the surprising result that slow cooling could produce a PTS in a PWR, surely it is worth looking at to tell if the same scenario could produce the i equally surprising result in a BWR like IGS.
The above are just examples of how Intervenor ani Board have interpreted actual events differently. Intervenor asserts that the Board should interpret svents in a manner tha provides maximum safety. Maximum safety would be provided by interpreting the above events as Intervenor petitions arti requiring further j PTS analysis of BWR RPY at ICS.
The Intervenor is further hampered by a mind-set similar to the nind set that preceeded the TMI#2 accident.
Previous to the TMI#2 accident , very few instances of PORY inoperability were reported. The PORY was not a safety grade valve in many plants and it was backed up with a block valve that could be closed if the
(
! PORY did not work. The same situation is presently at hand with PTS. f jj E
y Previous to the NRC acknowledgement that PTS was a problem in PWRs, very few PIS ovents were reported. 3 e
Since said acknowledgement, many more FIS events are reprted.
However, since PTS has not been acknowledged as a concern in BWRs, many PTS events g g
in BWRs iny not be reported. The above scenarios that Intervenor describes for ..
IWRs may have already occurred & BWRs. Since noone is sensitized to the FIS concern {
{:3 t BWRs at this time , these events are not being reported for BWRS. y this Intervenor belisves The reason ttat
%w that he has had to rely en events and scenarios fer PTS svents at PWRs is that similar events are going unreported at BWRs. This lack [
of reporting becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. PTS events are not r.eported at i
BWRs because the industry and staff are not sensitized to reporting PIS events h
9 at BWRs. There are no reports of PTS events at BWRs so there is no problem with -
PIS events at BWRS. and so andsoon and so on.
This self fulfiiling prophecy, of course, ends, and we have another TMI#2 accident that couldn't happen. 5 ok
- 5 u==.
Summary (Continurd) jQ haTT
- d The Board makes findings using material that is not in any submittal and $
na
- ggd lateradmittedincorrectbytheApplicant.(1)
The Board finds great weight with the Applicants material facts, but provides ,
}g[
little weight to the information that the Intervenor provides showing the error of ((
the Applicant's M?s. (See page 3 of this filing wherein Intervenor shows BWR does 3$
not have to follow Steam water saturation curve as far as PIs is involved ])}
End footnote on Page 3 which shows that Applicant did know of possible FTS {
sq hvents in a BWR in contradiction to Applicants Memo at Page 6,"(t)he pressure in a BWR follows the water steam saturation curve.") The Applicant provides h;: -
g data in discovery that contradicts his own ifs. One example is IF 36" ;he results, b=
of neutron fluence calculations have been compared to field measurements and have ji been ;ound to ove_ predict conservatively the neutron flux" y (P
Although MP36 is straightforward and comforting , no data accompanies it. However, Intervenor finds some data in discovery that contradicts F36 and none that t.:.
[.j agrees with it.(2) 2?
(1) Notification for Licensing Board Regarding its Mand 0 Granting Applicant's g Motion for Summary Tisposition of Contention I-62 (11-18-83.) .p
- (2.) Discovery 8 Iten 5 Page 5 Table.
plant Caleglated Measureg RatioMeasured/ Calculated b gunboldt 9x1 10 7x1g0 :
KRB 2.7x10 3 5x10 '.7733 :
Oyster Creek 1.004 Millstone 34 i Tsuruga 1.5 :
! Monticello .88 .
l As the Board Can see , these data go all over from 1/3rd Ito 1.5 x predict.ed. ij s
f t
Discovery 8 Item 6 NEDO 24793 80 NEDO Class 1 Aug 80 G.C. Martin 5
l Browns Ferry Neutron Spectral Analysis Appendix 3 l " Anomalies in the full powerfluxes derived from the measurements ,
a l
above have resulted in an effort at SAI to make independent predictions of the l measurements and in so doing understand these anomalies." !
l As the Board can see, the above statement does. not appear to verify or reinforce :
applicanfs if 36 '" field measurements have been found to conservatively -
overpredict the neutron flux."
l
6.
Sum: nary (Continutd)
Intervenor asserts that E 32 has the same defect as IF 36, but it it ven deeper.
The Discovery 8 Items 5 ard 6 (see footnote preceeding page) contain data that is contradictory to Applicant's F 36 and also MF 32. However, the toughness data that the applicant refers to in :F 32 ,"the decrease in taughness" is not apparent in Applicant's referral to Statenent at A9.
Therefore, if 32 not only suffers from 'a defect of data abut also, an absence of data.
These csntradictions and omissions of Material Facts with discovery data provide sufficient factual issue for litigation. However , Intervenor will go thru each finding of the Board in the following pages and attempt to illucidate how these findings are flawed , azzi how these findings may be corrected to protect the rights of the Intervenor.
l l
1 I
l
\
l l
- 7. .
Mattrial Facts.
Intervenor will attempt to follow the Board's very clear format on Pages 5 on of the Board's M and 0 Granting %mmary disposition.
Applicant's MF 1 thru 1t+ define PTS. The Board finds ,"He (Intervenor) provides no credible basis for this distinctioner addition (cold water being introduce'd onto (presumable as opposed to into) a hot pressure vess9.."
"Intervenors reference to immersion of the RPV in cold water at Indian Point 2 , .
a PWR, is not relevacA to the Limerick (BWR) RPVs." ;
I Intervenor has already shown that getting the outside of a RPV c61d while the inside of an- RPV stays hot and pressurized leads to the cold metal /
high internal pressure and temperature that constitutes a PTS. Intervenor has shown the relevanc e of immersion of an RPV to PTS: namely, the subsequent pressure / temperature / cold metal scenario constitutes a PTS. He has shown that this scenario is pertinent to ICS. (Board'sfindingsindismissing Contention I-57 was partially based upon the large inventory of water on site.
This inventory could easily flood the containment providing an immersion of the IGS RPV.)
Applicant's MF 15 thru 19 and 21 relate to fabrication of the pressure vessel.
"The Board finds that no basis has been presented, nor is one apparent to
! consider potential relationships between welding of the reactor pressure vessel during fabrication in a vendor's facility and overall structural welding ,
I particularly that at the plant site ( the apparent basis of contention VI-1.)"
First , Intervenor phoned Mr Romano, Intervenor for AWFF"S contention VI-1.
This Intervenor asked Mr Ror:ano if his contention only covered on-site welding. He answered negatively, and he assumed his contention covered all suspect welding. Secondly, Applicant filed a " Notification to Licensing Board Ragarding Its Ed 0 Granting Applicant's Motion for Summary "isposition of Contention I-62" on Nov 18. Intervenor received the " Notification"on Nov 21.
The " Notification" clearly states th&t some of the RPV welding was done on site.
This " Notification " eliminates part of the basis for the Board's finding on if 15 thru 19 Also a more appropriate finding would be for the Board l .to have the Staff and $pplicant make sure that the welding is sufficient to l
protect against a FIS at IGS in light of the material facts presented in the Intervenor's submittals.
l l
l
8.
Matrial Facts (Continued) l Intervenor has no comment on W 20 and 22. l l
Applicant's W 21 concerns fracture toughness properties. These properties are directly related to welding quality in many instances. Since the toughness is related to j welding quality and Contention VI-1 gocs directly to' the icsue of welding quality W 21 cannot be accepted as a material fact until and unless Contention VI-1
, is found without worth or merit. Even then W 21 should stand a test to meet the 1
l pertinent facts presented in this Intervenor's submittals.
I The Board states that Intervenor has no comment on F 23 - 29. Intervenor does have I oomments on 23 to 29 Intervenor comments ,"Same Comment as 17." Further, Intervenor points out that while the Applicant and the* Staff promise that Applicant will comply with Appendix G, the FSAR in Table 5 3-la shows many J
, non-compliances that the Staff has or will accept in lieu of actual representative material. There is also an admission that in Item IV 13 (B) "no upper shelf tests run." The notation probably refers to Charpy V notch tests which are a cornerstone to % recent gppendix G compliance. Therefore there i are several issues left open in IF 23 - 29. One is the issue of accepting the welding as qualified after a contentionhas been allowed due to an actual display i ofimproperQc/QA verification on the part of the Applicant, and the second issue is the actual admission in the FSAR that some required tests must not be performed.
In light of these two deficiendes in W 23 - 29, a litigable issue about welding is clear.
l Intervenor has no comment on W 30 and31.
Intervenor's Comments on W 32 and 36 are related. Both these Ws refer to
" verified by operational experience" or " compared to field measurements."
Subsequently, the W are supposed to come up as "well above those expected in the Limerick" or " conservatively overpredict." However the data and stamments found in the discovery process actually contradict the statements in W 32 and 36.
(See Page 3 6 this submittal and footnote.) Since the Applicant's own discovery f data and statement do not agree with these W 32 and 36, there clearly exists a j litiganle issue.
l l
l i
, 9.
Material Facts (Continued)-
i t
Many of" the issues that surround MF 32 and 36 also affect other vs. However l
the affect of the deficiencies of MF 32 and 36 upon other MFs may or may not
- be pertinent to theissue at hand
- namely, has PTS been adequately analyzed t for IGS.
j Intervenor's assertion that MP 37 provides for only " average values
- concerns exactly l what the Board is using as a basis for not accepting Intervenor's assertion as a l
litigable issue. The Applicant and the staff have not demonstrated that average l
values are acceptable. Instead of the Board finding that "there is no ssertion '
i or basis for concluding that " average values" are not acceptable," the Board l should find, " average values are not acceptable for point data and that cracks are phenomenon that can start at a point, therefore average values are
- not acceptable." This finding would provide much greater protection to l
l the health and safety ofthe public, be more consistent with the actual
! physical basis of cracking and provide a clearly litigable issue.
The Board finds for the Applicants in MP43 However the Board does not discuss the relevance and applicability of Intervenor's submissions; but limits the Board's findings to limited areas that inaccurately show lack of relevance. For instance the Intervenor states, " Fuel management considerations in a W R consider high burnup rates as a primary consideration (1) WRs have recently been required to consider minimization ofthe neutron flux to the RPV wall."
The above quotes are competing considerations when applied to the statement,"the l neutron fluz at the vessel wall in a BWR should be low compared with a PWR."
Footnotes have been omitted in this argument , but they are in the Intervenor Statement of 10-24-83
- a. FWRs may not use all and any fuel maneuvers now.
l b. 3WRs may use any and all presently known or unknown fuel maneuvers. '
- c. Therefore since BWRs can use any and all fuel maneuvers-even those that .
would increase the fluence to the vessal wall well above what is predicted presently - ,
- and since NRs must only use fuel maneuvers that minimize fluence tothe vessel wall, l fuel management considerations become a conflicting consideration to MF 43 which is based upon a prediction of fluence at the IGS BWR RPV wall. :
l ,
I
-- -.,---wrm,,,,w,wv,, -,--
,y---w--- , , . . ,
--.-,.7,,.r77 _ . . , , ,7.,,.- -, , , , _ , , , _ , , .,,, , y ,,, , . _ , ...,-.--,um-,,,,_ - , - - - - , y
"~
10.
Material Facts (Continued)
The Board finds," This speculation ("Over time a stean water attenuation can be substantially '
less than a single phase water attenuation of the neutron flux.) totally flies in the 4 face of the way BWRs must operate." Intervenor is only trying to litigate how the operation of the IGS will affect FTS . Intervenor is not trying to litigate how a BWR "aust Operate." Even the Board admits,"ta two phase situation could exist in the annulus at the beltline" From the Board's own findings , there cannot i 1
be a scientific law that would stop the IGS from operating in a fashion described by the Intervenor. Intervenor is pointing out that this type of operatinn can s be the source of the " anomalies" speculated about in te Applicant's discovery. j (See Discovery 8 Item 6 on Page 5 of this submit <tal.)
j The Board finds ," This clearly speculative assertion provides no factual issue for :
litigation." First the Intervenor's statement, "The shroud may not be continuous," [
has the force of history behind it. Regulatory Guide 133 was developed to detect !
loose aparts that fall off .n of internal structures r. such as shrouds. 'This :
assertion is not speculative and is based on past experience in the nuclear industry. ]
Accordingly, Intervenor's concluding statement in Intervenor's A.5 "That PIS is not a problem for Limerick only if competing consideration that make FIS a )
problem at BWRs are ignored" does provide many factualissues for liti6atien. -
Applicant's W 33 -47 were developed without consideration of Intervenor's
" competing considerations" which are discussed above. Since W 33 -47 were developed j without consideration of " competing considerations" , they are flawed. Since j W 33 -47 are flawed, their flaws ,in that the Es did not consider all [
pertinent " competing considertions", provide a litigable issue.
i If the flawed data in FSAR 5.3-4 becomes part of the technical specifications, f
intervenor asserts that this technical specifcations will endanger the health ;
end safety of the public by allowing the IGS to be operated in a manner that can produce a FIS. This is the subject of & 48 and provides a litigable issue. _.
11.
Material Facts (Continued) 00lKETE"^
USNRC The deficiencies in the Applicant's fracture mechanics evaluation are discussed on Page 7 of Intervenor's Statement of 10-24-83 The Board finds ," He M e g ) g does not identify anything in the Applicant's MP 50 or the cited statement in Applicant's Affidavit that provides a factual issue for litigation." Hggig3gggg the Board fails 'to note that the very comments to NURE 0744 do provide a fac cfM basis. These comments to NUREG 0744 are found in the Footnoe (1) on Page 7 of Intervernor's Statement of 10 83 The most telling comment concerns the NRC's ;
choice of 1/4 inch flaw. The NRC does not provide a justification for this choice and the fracture mechanics evaluation performed by the staff and applicant do not justify this choice either. Also the monitoring and surveillance required by Appendix /. G and the Technical Specifications will not be able to guarantee that any cracks greater than 1/4 inch willbe detedtable.
The above argument shows one flaw in MP 49-54 Other flaws in the fracture mechanics svaluation appear in NURE 0744 and are not resolved by the staff in Revision 1.
These flaws in the fracture analysis evaluation provide many litigable issues concerning Mr 49 -34 Also the Board's finding," actual data from .uterials actually usea in the reactor were used" conflicts with the data in FSAR Table 5 3 -la and Item IV-B "No upper shelf tests run." This conflict provides further litigable issues concerning MP 51.
FEfITION.
Intervenor respectfully petitions the Board for the many reasons discussed in this Mction For Reconsideration that the Board reconsider its grant of the .
Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention I-62 and dismiss Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition.
Certification.
I, Parvin I. IAwis, did place this yotion For Reconsideration of the M&O Granting Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention I-62.
in the first class mail on or before 25 Nov 1983 which I believe is the timely date per 10 CFR 2.771. , 4 M. l. LEWIS / / O 6504 GRA0 FORD TERF cp2syyj C OgMd/
o.ulL C FA 19 W l