ML20076F052
| ML20076F052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris  |
| Issue date: | 05/27/1983 |
| From: | Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Eddleman W EDDLEMAN, W. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20076F037 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8306010395 | |
| Download: ML20076F052 (32) | |
Text
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
I , . .
00CKETED
, nn-May 27,;19833. q UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANTS' RESPONSES TO WELLS EDDLEMAN'S GENERAL INTERROGATORIES AND INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTIONS 64(f) and 67 TO APPLICANTS CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, et al.
(SECOND SET)
Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.740b, hereby submit the following responses to " Wells
~
Eddleman's General Interrogatories on Contentions 64(f) and 67 to Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company, et al. (Second Set)." The provision of an: sers to these interrogatories is not to be deemed a representation that Applicants consider the information sought to be relevant to the issues to be heard in this proceeding.
8306010395 930527 PDR ADOCK 05000400 C PDR
RESPONSES TO GENERAL INTERROGATORIES INTERROGATORY NO. G-1(a). Which contentions of Wells Eddleman do Applicants agree are now admitted in this pro-ceeding, NRC Dockets 50-400/401 0.L.?
ANSWER: See Applicants' answer filed on April 28, 1983.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-1(b). For each such contention, provide for any answers to interrogatories by Wells Eddleman which Applicants have previously or presently received (except those suspended by Board order, if any), the following informa-tion.
ANSWER: The answers to General Interrogatories herein are restricted to Eddler Contentions 64(f) and 67.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-1(c). Please state the name, present or-last known address, and present or last known employer of each person whom Applicants believe or know (1) has first-hand knowledge of the facts alleged in each such answer; or (2) upon whom Applicants relied (other than their attorneys) in making such answer.
ANSWER: The following list identifies those persons who provided information upon which Applicants relied in answering the interrogatories on Eddleman Contention Nos. 64(f) and 67 and indicates the particular interrogatory answer (s) for which each such person provided information.
PERSON INTERROGATORY NO(S).
Louis H. Martin (64-1, 64-2, 64-3, 64-4,)
Robert K. Kunita (64-5, 64-6, 64-7, 64-8,)
Daniel D. Davis (64-9. )
The above individuals are employees of Carolina Power & Light Company, P.O. Box 1551, Raleigh, North Carolina 27602.
PERSON INTERROGATORY NO(S).
William H. Webster 67-1, 67-3, 67-4.
Mr. Webster is employed by Carolina Power & Light Company, Shearon Harris Energy and Environmental Center, Route 1, Box 327, New Hill, North Carolina 27562.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-1(d). Please identify all facts concerning which each such person identified in response to G-1(c)(1) above has first-hand knowledge.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-1(c).
INTERROGATORY NO. G-1(e). Please identify all facts and/or documents upon which each person identified in response to G-1(c)(2) above relied in providing information to respond to the interrogatory, including the parts of such documents relied upon.
ANSWER: All facts or documents relied upon by those individuals identified in the answer to Interrogatory No.
G-1(c) are indicated within each response to the specific interrogatories on Contentions 64(f) and 67.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-1(f). Please identify any other document (s) used or relied upon by Applicants in responding to the interrogatory.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-1(e).
INTERROGATORY NO. G-1(g). Please state which specific fact each document, identified in G-1(e) and G-1(f) above, supports, in the opinion or belief of Applicants, or which Applicants allege such document supports.
ANSWER: Applicants have indicated which specific facts are supported by the documents identified, within each response to the specific interrogatories on Contentions 64(f) and 67.
_ _ . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _J
INTERROGATORY NO. G-1(h). Please state specifically what information each person identified in response to G-1(c)(1) or G-1(c)(2) above provided to or for Applicants' affiant in answering the interrogatory. If any of this information is not documented, please identify it as " undocumented" in responding to this section of General Interrogatory G-1.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-1(c).
INTERROGATORY NO. G-2(a). Please state the name, present or last known address, title (if any), and present or last known employer, and economic interest (shareholder, bondholder, contractor, employee, etc.) if any (beyond expert or other witness fees) such person holds in Applicants or any of them, for each person you intend or expect to call as an expert witness or a witness in this proceeding, if such information has not previously been supplied, or has changed since such information was last supplied, to Wells Eddleman. This applies to Eddleman and Joint Contentions as admitted, or stipulated by Applicants.
ANSWER: Applicants have not yet identified the expert or other witnesses they expect to call in this proceeding. When and if such witnesses are identified, Applicants will supple-ment this response in a timely manner.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-2(b). Please identify each contention regarding which each such person is expected to testify.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-2(a).
1 i
INTERROGATORY NO. G-2(c). Please state when you first l
contacted each such person with regard to the possibility or such person's testifying for Applicants, if you have contacted such person.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-2(a).
INTERROGATORY NO. G-2(d). Please state the subject matter, separately for each contention as to which each cuch person is expected to testify, which each such person is expected to testify to.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-2(a).
_4
INTERROGATORY NO. G-2(e). Please identify all documents or parts thereof upon which each such witness is expected to, plans to, or will rely, in testifying or in preparing testi-mony.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-2(a).
INTERROGATORY NO. G-3(a). Please identify any other source (s) of information which Applicants have used to respond to any interrogatory identified under G-1 above, stating for each such source the interrogatory to which it relates, and what information it provides, and identifying where in such source that information is to be found.
ANSWER: Applicants have identified all such other sources of information, if any, within the answers to the specific interrogatories set forth herein.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-3(b). Please identify any other source (s) of information not previously identified upon which any witness identified under G-2 above, or other witness, has used in preparing testimony or exhibits, or expects to use in testimony or exhibits, identifying for each such source the witness who is expected to use it, and the part or part(s) of such source (if applicable) which are expected to be used, and, if not previously stated, the fact (s) or subject matter (or both) to which such source relates.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-2(a).
INTERROGATORY NO. G-4(a). Please identify all documents, and which pages or sections thereof Applicants intend or expect to use in cross-examination of any witness I call in this hearing. For each such witness, please provide on a timely basis (ASAP near or during hearings) a list of all such documents, the subject matter Applicants believe they relate to, and make the document (s) available for inspection and copying as soon as possible after Applicants decide or form intent to use such document in cross-examination.
ANSWER: Applicants have not yet identified which docu-ments, if any, they intend to use in cross-examination of Mr.
Eddleman's witnesses.
1
( . . .
INTERROGATORY NO. G-4(b). Please identify any undocumen-ted information Applicants intend to use in cross-examination of each such witness for me.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-4(a).
INTERROGATORY NO. G-5(a). For each contention Applicants state or admit is an admitted Eddleman contention under G-1(a) above, or an admitted joint intervenor contention, please state whether Applicants have available to them experts and informa-tion, on the subject matter of the contention.
ANSWER: Applicants have available to them experts and information on the subject matter of Contentions 64(f) and 67.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-5(b). If the answer to (a) above is other than affirmative, state whether Applicants expect to be able to obtain expertise in the subject matter, and information on it, and if not, why not.
ANSWER: Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-7(a). Please identify all documents which Applicants plan, expect or intend to offer as exhibits (other than for cross-examination) with respect to each Eddleman contention admitted in this proceeding which (i) is included in your current response to G-1(a), or (ii) is the subject of interrogatories in this set; please state for which contention or contentions each exhibit will be or is expected to be offered.
ANSWER: Applicants have not yet identified those docu-ments they intend to offer as exhibits relating to Eddleman Contentions 64(f) and 67.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-7(b). Please identify all documents which Applicants plan, expect or intend to use in cross-examination of any other parties' witnesses or joint intervenor witness in this proceeding, with respect to (i) Eddleman contentions identified under G-7(a)(i) (or G-1-(a)) above, or any other Eddleman contention which is the subject of inter-rogatories in this set; (ii) each Joint contention now admitted in this proceeding; (iii) per our agreement of 4-8-83, each contention of each other party to this proceeding which is currently admitted. Please identify for each such document the
witnesses, or witness, and all contentions with respect to whom (or which) that document is planned, expected, or intended to be offered or used.
ANSWER: Applicants have not yet identified those docu-monts they intend to use for cross examination of any wit-nesses.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-7(c). Please identify which of the documents identified in response to (b) above (i) will be offered into evidence by Applicants, and (ii) which of the same documents Applicants expect to offer into evidence or intend to-offer as evidence or exhibits in this proceeding.
ANSWER: See answer to Interrogatory No. G-7(b).
i INTERROGATORY NO. G-8(a) Please identify, for each Eddleman contention which is the subject of this or an earlier set of interrogatories, all information not previously identified which was (i) used or relied on in preparation of Applicants' responses to that contention and all contentions superseded by it (per transcript of July 1982 special prehear-ing conference, the Board's September 1982 order admitting contentions, or stipulation 'cy Applicants or W.E.), with respect to any facts alleged therein, identifying for each such fact the specific source (s) of information used or relied upon.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-8(b) Please identify all persons who supplied information relied on or used in Applicants' response to each contention for which information is requested in G-8(a) above. (ii) Please identify for each such person what informa-tion was supplied, and with respect to which contention (s) each item of information supplied was used. (iii) Please state all
- known qualifications of each such person with respect to the subject matter of the contention for which that person supplied information.
INTERROGATORY NO. G-9(a) Please identify all information not identified in response to the above general interroga-tories, including all documents, which Applicants rely on or intend to use in making their case or carrying their burden of proof in this proceeding, with respect (i) to each Eddleman contention which is the subject of this or an earlier set of Eddleman interrogatories to Applicants; (ii) with respect to each joint contention on which discovery is now open under the Board's March 10, 1983 order, or on which discovery has been
open under said order establishing a discovery schedule. (The phrase "or on which discovery has been open" is intended to keep this interrogatory current and continuing for information and documents which Applicants rely on or form intent to use after the formal close of discovery. I interpret Applicants' continuing interrogatories to apply continuously from their date of submission to me, and I intend these to apply likewise.)
OBJECTION: Applicants object to Intervenor Eddleman's Interrogatories Nos. G-8 and G-9. Interrogatories Nos. G-8 and G-9 as demonstrated below, are repetitious, overly broad, impose an undue burden on Applicants while providing Intervenor with information of little or no usefullness, attempt to circumvent the restrictions of 10 C.F.R. S 2.740(b)(2) against routine discovery of materials prepared by Applicants in anticipation of the hearing, and are an undisguised attempt to compel Applicants to prepare Intervenor's own case.
Mr. Eddleman has elsewhere requested "all facts" known to persons with first-hand knowledge or relied on by such persons in providing information for answers to any of his interroga-tories (Interrogatory No. G-1(d)); all facts and/or documents used by such persons in answering his interrogatories (Interrogatory No. G-1(e) and (f)); the identification of all documents used by witnesses or potential witnesses (Interrogatory No. G-2(e)); all potential exhibits (Interrogatory No. G-7(a)); all potential documentary evidence (Interrogatory No. G-7(c)); and all docunents or information which are potentially useful for cross-examination of Mr.
Eddleman's or any other party's witnesses (Interrogatories Nos.
G-4(a) and (b) and G-7(b)). Interrogatory No. G-3(a) requests "any other source (s) of information which Applicants have used to respond to any interrogatory" admitted in these proceedings.
Although the sum total of the interrogatories referred to above logically encompasses all the relevant and useful information
. available, Mr. Eddleman now seeks "all information not pre-viously identified" which was used or relied on in any degree in preparation of Applicants' responses and the identity of all persons who supplied any information for those responses.
Interrogatory No. G-8(a) and (b). In addition, Mr. Eddleman also demands "all information not identified" on which l
Applicants intend to rely in " making their case or carrying their burden of proof in this proceeding" concerning
{
Intervenor's or any joint contentions. Interrogatory No.
G-9(a). It can be fairly stated that Mr. Eddleman wants the totality of information, documents and personal identities, no matter how tangentially related to the contentions admitted in
! this proceeding, to which Applicants have possession, access or knowledge. In his attempt to leave "no stone unturned" Mr.
( Eddleman has gone too far. Interrogatories Nos. G-8 and G-9 l are classic examples of " catch-all" interrogatories that ara justly rejected by the Commission and Federal judicial authori-ties as an abuse of the administrative process.
As indicated by the comparison with other general inter-rogatories, supra, Interrogatories Nos. G-8 and G-9 are clearly, in part, repetitive. Beyond that, both
_g_
l l
. - _ , - . . _ . . . . . . - _ . . _,_ _ - . _ . . . . _,_..__,___.___e _ . . . _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ ._. _ _ ~
interrogatories are unduly broad. " Sweeping interrogatories are not the way to compile evidence on ... somewhat subjective contention (s]." Duke Power Company, et al. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ASLBP 81-463-OlOL, Memorandum and 3
Order (Rulings on Motion to Compel), (April 18, 1983) (slip opinion at 3).
Interrogatory No. G-9 clearly attempts to shift the burden of Mr. Eddleman's case preparation to Applicants. In fact, the interrogatory asks as much: " identify all information ...
i which Applicants rely on or intend to use in making their case or carrying their burden of proof...." "There is nothing in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that compels either party to present'its case in advance of trial." United States v.
Grinnell Corporation, 30 F.R.D. 358, 362 (D.R.I. 1962). Use of discovery as a tool to substitute for a party's own investiga-tion, necessary to present his case, or to force an early and premature presentation of an opponent's case has been condemned a an abuse of discovery. UINTA Oil Refining Company v.
Continental Oil Company, 226 F. Supp. 495, 501-505 (D. Utah 1964); Fishman v. H. Riise Gift Shop, Inc., 68 F.R.D. 704 (D.V.I. 1975); Central Hide & Rendering Co. v. B-M-K
! Corporation, 19 F.R.D. 294 (D. Del. 1956). These accepted principles of federal judicial practice have been adopted by Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards in NRC proceedings. See i Duke Power Company, et al., supra, at 2 (attempt to shift burden of case preparation to Applicants is impermissible).
i i
l 1
l 1
I
Read literally, Interrogatories Nos. G-8 and G-9 would require the disclosure of protected and privileged material.
To the extent that the interrogatories ask for trial prepara-tion materials, Applicants also raise the objection that such materials are protected. See 10 C.F.R. $ 2.740(b)(2).
Applicants have provided relevant information relating to I
Applicants' answers to interrogatories in response to Interrogatories Nos. G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4 and G-7. To the extent Interrogatories Nos. G-8 and G-9 seek additional information, they are objected to as being overly broad, irrelevant, burdensome, and seeking protected and privileged information.
RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTION 64(f)
INTERROGATORY NO. 64-1(a) please list every valve on the IF-300 series spent fuel shipping cask owned by Carolina Power
& Light Company (b) please identify all documents in which the seating mechanism of any such valve is shown or described (c) please identify for each such valve, all documents which describe the valve, which Applicants possess or which are known by Applicants to be on file with NRC. (d) please identify all documents which list or describe the materials of each valve identified in response to (a) above. (e) please identify the chemical constituents of each material which is incorporated in each valve identified in response to (a) above. (f) please identify all fluorocarbon components of each valve in the IF-300 series spent fuel shipping cask owned by Applicants (or by CP&L).
ANSWER: 64-1(a) The only pressure relief valve connected to the cask cavity is a Target Rock relief valve. See Certificate of Compliance No. 9001, Revision No. 15, at 114 (previously provided). This valve is being removed from cask j service, and these interrogatories regarding its characteris-l tics are irrelevant. Indeed, the contention is moot.
l i
l l
i
Nonetheless, in furtherance of settlement negotiations regarding withdrawal of this contention, we are providing answers to certain of your interrogatories.
(b) The Target Rock relief valve is described in detail in the IF-300 CSAR (NEDO-LOO 84-2) at S 6.5 (previously provided).
(c) See (b) above.
(d) See (b) above.
(e) See (b) above.
(f) See (b) above.
INTERROGATORY NO. 64-2(a) Please state all reasons why the IF-3OO series casks are no longer used to ship spent nuclear fuel with water. (b) please state whether Applicants are aware of any finding that valves on the IF-300 series casks (i) would not (ii) might not reseat after opening; (c) please state all conditions under which Applicants believe the valves on the i IF-300 cask would open (i) when the cask contains a full amount of water as coolant (ii) when the cask is used " dry"; (d) please state the maximum temperature of spent fuel which a dry IF-300 series cask can handle safely; (e) please state the maximum spent fuel heat generation, in watts thermal, BTUs per hour, of other units of heat generation, which CP&L's IF-300
, series cask can handle (i) for a trip of up to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> (ii) for a trip of up to 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (iii) for a trip of up to 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> (iv) for a trip of up to 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> (v) for holding such fuel
- within the cask indefinitely. Please also state the tempera-ture outside the cask which is assumed in your answers to each of (i) through (v) above, and the maximum temperature outside
- the cask for which each such statement (your answers to (i) l through (v) above ) remain valid. (f) please state the exact basis, and all calculations, which support your answers to each
! part of (e) above. (g) please identify all documents you rely I on for answers to each part of (e) above. (h) please state whether CP&L has shipped fuel dry in the cask CP&L owns (spent fuel).
i l
. -- ._ - - -. - .=. . .-. . . . .
ANSWER: 64-2(a) CP&L's inventory of colder spent fuel at its Brunswick and Robinson Plants is such that there is no anticipated need to make " hot" fuel shipments in the IF-300 cask, which require water as the cask coolant.
(b) Not applicable. The Target Rock relief valve is being removed from the IF-3OO cask.
(c) (i) Not applicable. The relief valve will no longer be used on the cask.
(ii) Not applicable. The relief valve will no longer be used on the cask.
i (d) The cask license is based on a maximum bundle and total cask heat load (Btu / hour), not on fuel temperature. See Certificate of Compliance No. 9001, Revision No. 15, at 1 5.(b)(1).
j (e) (i)-(v). In a dry mode, the cask is licensed for a maximum heat load of 40,000 Btu's per hour.
This requirement is independent of the length of the shipment.
The ambient air temperature for all cask thermal analyses is 130 F. See Certificate of Compliance No. 9001, Revision No.
15, at 8.
(f) See the IF-300 CSAR (NEDO-10084-2),
SS 6.1.3 and 6.3.
(g) See (f) above and Certificate of Compliance No. 9001, Revision No. 15.
(h) Yes. Forty-two shipments have been made dry.
INTERROGATORY NO. 64-3(a) Is CP&L's spent fuel shipping cask equipped with instruments or guages which (i) continuously measure the temperature inside the cask (ii) continuously measure the pressure inside the cask (iii) can continuously measure the air pressure inside the cask (iv) can measure the temperature inside the cask on demand (whenever you request a reading) (v) can measure the pressure inside the cask on demand (vi) measure the temperature of the spent fuel inside the cask (aa) directly (bb) indirectly; (vii) measure the pressure inside the cask in any way? (b) If your response to any part of (a) above is affirmative, please state for each part for which your answer is affirmative, what instrument is used, where it is located on or in the cask, what its accuracy is, whether this accuracy has been measured in the time since the cask began service, whether and how this accuracy is affected by radiation inside the cask, or particles or radioactivity inside the cask; whether this accuracy is affected by the use of air, rather than water, as the " filling" of the cask around the spent fuel; whether this accuracy is affected bY thermal circulation of air inside the cask, and if so, how, and the identification of all documents in which the information requested above in (b) is contained. (c) does CP&L measure the temperature of air inside its shipping cask during " dry" shipments of spent fuel? Please state how if not identified in response to the above interrogatories.
ANSWER: 64-3(a)(i) Yes.
(ii) No.
(iii) No.
(iv) Yes.
(v) No.
(vi)(aa) 'No.
i (bb) Yes.
(vii) Yes.
(viii) Yes.
(b)(i) The cask is equipped with a thermo-couple in the cask bottom, which measures the temperature of the cask cavity. See IF-300 CSAR (NEDO-10084-2), 9 6.7.
(ii) By taking time and temperature data using the thermocouple, the internal pressure could be obtained.
(iii) See (b)(ii).
(iv) See (b)(1).
(v) See (b)(ii).
(vi)(bb) With appropriate calculations, the fuel temperature could be calculated from the cask internal temperature data.
t
! (vii) See (b)(ii).
(viii) See (b)(1). The thermocouple is tested at least once annually to determine if it is functioning propertly. Applicants have no detailed information on the effects of the cask's environment on the thermocouple accuracy.
_(c). For each dry mode shipment, CP&L must take sufficient time ~ temperature-pressure data to ensure that the cavity pressure will not exceed 45 psig and that the
! average cavity wall temperature will not exceed 210 F during the 130 F day with no auxiliary cooling. See Certificate of Compliance No. 9001, Revision 15, at H 8.
INTERROGATORY NO. 64-4(a) Please state the maximum amount of water allowed inside CP&L's spent fuel cask during a " dry" shipment of spent fuel. (b)~please state the maximum surface temperature of spent fuel which has been shipped " dry" in this cask to date. (c) please state any temperature which CP&L
, believes (i) would (ii) could cause any valve on the CP&L 1 IF-300 spent fuel cask to (a) open (b) stick open. (d) are any of the valves on CP&L's spent fuel cask pressure-actuated? If so, please state the pressure at which each such valve is set to open. (e) has the opening pressure for any valve on CP&L's
-spent fuel shipping cask been changed since the cask was withdrawn from " wet" use and limited to " dry" use? (f) if answer to (e) is affirmative, identify each such valve and the change and original and final setting of its opening pressure.
ANSWER: 64-4(a) The maximum amount of water allowed for a dry shipment is 1.0 cubic foot. See Certificate of Compliance No. 9001, Revision 15, at 8.
(b) The license is based on cask heat load.
Thus, no fuel temperature data is available. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 64-2(d).
J (c) Not applicable. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 64-1(a).
1 (d) Not applicable. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 64-1(a).
(e) Not applicable. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 64-1(a).
(f) Not applicablo.' See Answer to Interrogatory No. 64-1(a).
INTERROGATORY NO. 64-5(a) what material is used in the saals of CP&L's IF-300 series cask (hereinafter, cask, or the cask, or CP&L's cask)? (b) is there any Teflon-like material used in (i) the seals of the cask (11) the valves of the cask (iii) seals around or in valves of CP&L's cask? (c) identify each such material and what seal or valve it is in, how thick it is, what its dimensions are, and its' shape, for any affirma-tive response to (b) above, for each such valve, or seal, in the cask. (d) please identify the melting point of each material used in any (1) seal (ii) valve in CP&L's cask. (e) please state the variation of (i) tensile strength (ii) elastic modulus (iii) bulk modulus (iv) hardness of each material used in (aa) any seal.(bb) any valve of the cask, stating which seals or valves the material is used in, with temperature, from 0 degrees F to the melting point of the material. (f) please identify any documents known to Applicants'or in their posses-sion which give any of the information requested in (e) above.
(g) does any material used in (i) any seal (ii) any valve of the cask undergo a chemical breakdown or chemical reaction (aa) by itself (bb) with air (cc) with water (dd) with steam at any temperature below its melting point? (h) does any material used in (i) any seal (ii) any valve of the cask not have melting
~
point? (j) if the answer to (h) is affirmative for any mate-rial, please provide for that material answers to (g)(aa) through (dd) above, i.e. stating whether euch material undergoes any breakdown or chemical reaction without melting, by itself, with air, with water, or with steam, at any tempera-ture.
OBJECTION: The interrogatories herein, which address cask i seals as opposed to the pressure relief valve, are irrelevant i t to the issue admitted as Contention 64(f)'. Applicants, l however, voluntarily provide the information below. The cask I
head is sealed with a forged stainless steel seal ring rated to
, at least 600 psi. See CSAR (NEDO-10084-2) SS 4.1.1.3, l
l l l l
l I -. ..
. .- _ - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - . . _ _ ~ _ _ -
i 10.2.1.2, 11. 3 .1.' 1, 11.3.3.1.C.3. The rupture disc which
'- replaces the pressure relief valve is made from nickel material j
with a holder fabricated from Type 304 stainless steel. See l CSAR (NEDO-10084-2), $ 6.5.B. There are no seals which use a 2
" Teflon-like material".
j 1
INTERROGATORY NO. 64-6(a) Do Applicants possess a copy of a document by Pacific Northwest Laboratories entitled An Assessment of the Risk of Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel by i
Truck? (b) Do Applicants possess any documents concerning spent 4 nuclear fuel shipping casks which refer to " Teflon valve seals"? (c) Do Applicants know if the document inquired about in (a) above refers to " Teflon valve seals"? (d) Do Applicants agree that the valve seal materials used in both truck and rail spent fuel shipping casks are similar? (e) If your answer to t (d) is other than affirmative, please state all differences you know in (i) the content of the materials, and (ii) the physical properties of the materials, including melting point. (f) at what temperature do Applicants believe failure of the (i) seals j (ii) valve seals on CP&L's cask would occur? (g) Is there any
] temperature which Applicants believe (1) seal failure (ii)
, valve seal failure on their (CP&L's) cask could not occur below? (h) If answer to (g) is affirmative, what is that temperature for (i) seals (ii) valve seals (iii) any seal (iv) each seal?
ANSWER: 64-6(a) Yes, but only Section 6 and Appendix B.
(b) Yes. "An Assessment of the Risk of -
Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel by Truck" and the IF-300 CSAR e
- (NEDO-10084-2), $ 6.5.A.1.
(c) Yes.
(d) Not applicable.
(e) Not applicable.
(f) Not applicable. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 64-1(b).
(g) Not applicable. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 64-1(b).
(h) Not applicable. See Answer to Interrogatory No. 64-1(b).
INTERROGATORY NO. 64-7(a) Do Applicants have any data as to the frequency of occurrence of ruptured disks in valves on IF-300 series casks? (b) Do Applicants have any data on seal failures in IF-300 series casks? (c) Do Applicants have any data on whether IF-300 series casks have actually been in fires, or what temperature such casks have reached in fires?
(d) If your answer to any of e, b, or c above is affirmative, please identify all documents containing such data.
ANSWER: 67-7(a) Question does not make technical sense.
(b) No.
(c) No.
(d) Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY 64-8(a) Do Applicants have any data on actual testing of valves on the IF-300 series casks? (b) Do Applicants have any data on Sandia labs tests of IF-300 series casks? (c) Have IF-300 series casks ever been physically tested for conformity with the requirements of 10 CFR 73.32, 10 CFR 73.31 or 10 CFR part 73 Appendix A or Appendix B? (d) if answer to (c) above is affirmative, (1) was it CP&L's cask, and (ii) which requirements were physically tested for? (e) please identify all documents which contain information inquired about in parts (a), (b), (c) and or (d) above, stating for each what information it contains.
ANSWER: 64-8(a) Yes.
l
_ ~ - - . -
l -
(b) No.
(c) No.
(d) Not applicable.
(e) See IF-300 CSAR (NEDO-10084-2),
$$ 10.21, 10.22, 10.2.6.
INTERROGATORY NO. 64-9(a) Do Applicants know if the pressure relief valves on CP&L's cask have ever been tested?
(b) If response to (a) above is affirmative, were they tested?
when? with what results? did any valve fail to reseat in a test? If so, which ones failed to reseat? (c) Are the ASME requirements for pressure relief valves on IF-300 series casks the same ones that apply to stationary nuclear power plant components such as pressure relief valves? (d) If answer to e is other than affirmative, please identify which sections of the ASME code apply to pressure relief valves on IF-300 series casks and which apply to pressure relief valves in nuclear plants. (e) Do Applicants agree that pressure relief valves
, (i) generally (ii) in nuclear plants (iii) in spent fuel casks (iv) in IF-300 spent fuel casks (v) in CP&L's cask, sometimes stick open? (f) if Your answer to or for any part of (e) above is other than affirmative, state in detail the basis for your answer and all facts which support it.
ANSWER: 64-9(a) Yes.
(b) The cavity pressure relief valve used on the IF-300 cask was tested quarterly and passed each such test per the CSAR (NEDO-LOO 84-2), 6 6.5.A.3.4.
(c) Not applicable.
(d) Not applicable.
(e) Not applicable.
(f) Not applicable.
RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES ON CONTENTION 67 INTERROGATORY NO. 67-1(a) Has any nuclear utility ever been caught disposing of low level radioactive waste (i) in landfills not approved for radioactive waste disposal (ii)
-through scrap dealers (iii) without proper authorization? (b) for each part of (a) above for which your answer is affirma-tive, please identify each such utility. (c) Do Applicants know of any nuclear utility company which is doing any of the things inquired about in (a) above which has not yet been caught? (d)
If answer to (c) is affirmative, do Applicants plan to identify such utility to the NRC? (e) If answer to (d) is other than affirmative, why not? (f) what is the identify (sic] of each utility for which your answer to (c) above is affirmative?
ANSWER: 67-1(a). Applicants are not aware of any nuclear utility being " caught disposing of low level radioactive waste" without proper authorization. There have been instances of inadvertent releases of small amounts of low level radioactive waste to landfills and scrap dealers.
(b) Carolina Power & Light Company was cited by the NPC for the inadvertent release of low level radioactive material from its Drunswick Plant to a landfill and to scrap j dealers. See NRC Inspection Report 50-325/80-18; 50-324/80-15 dated August 4, 1980. Applicants are generally aware that the incident described above was not the only such inadvertent release by a nuclear utility but do not have in their files any information on other such releases, nor can Applicants recall which utilities were involved.
I l
- , - , - ~ . . . . . , . . - , . -
- , . ~ - - , - .-.- ,, --- , - - , - , - - - - - - - . - - - - - , - - - - - - -
(c) No.
(d) Not applicable.
(e) Not applicable.
(f) Not applicable.
i
! INTERROGATORY NO. 67-2(a) Did any lawyer for Applicants, or on retainer to Applicants, participate in any way in the formation or drafting of this compact? (c) did any CP&L employee have anything to do with the introduction of NC Senate Bill 196 which contains provisions for North Carolina ratifying such compact? (d) did any CP&L employee or attorney on retainer to CP&L or its co-Applicants (i) draft or help draft any part of NC Senate Bill 196? (ii) do anything to help get Senate Bill 196 introduced? (iii) lobby in any way for the passage of Senate Bill 196? (e) If response to any part(s) or (d) above is affirmative, please identify for each such part each person who took part in each activity. (f) What role, if any, did the Governor's Waste Management Board play in the negotiation, drafting, or formation of the " Southeast Interstate Radioactive Waste Management Compact" (hereinafter, SE compact)? (g) What part did CP&L's VP William Graham, a member of the Governor's Waste Management Board in NC, play in the negotiation, draft-ing, or formation of the SE compact?
OBJECTION: Contention 67 involves the health and safety of the public related to low level waste disposal. While Applicants believe that final adoption of the Southeast Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact by the participating states will provide reasonable assurance of the availability of regional disposal sites for low level radioactive waste from the Harris Plant, the participation, if any, of Applicants' officers, employees, or consultants in developing the Regional Compact or in urging ratification of North Carolina Senate Bill 196 (to adopt the Regional Compact
in North Carolina) is irrelevant to this health and s'afety contention. Nor would responding to Interrogatory No. 67-2 likely lead to the development of relevant information. The health and safety of the public will be enhanced oy the commit-ment of the states participating in the Southeast Regional Compact, including North Carolina, to provide assured disposal sites for low level radioactive wastes. What role, if any, Applicants' officers, employees or consultants might have had in the development or adoption of the Regional Compact will not alter the Compact's provisions or the degree of assurance provided to the public. Mr. Eddleman indicated his interest in those specific provisions of the Regional Compact which Applicants sought to have included (although the interroga-tories do not specifically request such information). A provision in the Regional Compact will have no more or less impact depending on the proponent of the provision. What the Regional Compact will provide in the way of assurance is the only matter relevant to Contention 67, not how it was adopted.
Interrogatory No. 67-2 appears to seek gossip and little else, and therefore is objectionable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 67-3(a) Has the SE compact been ratified yet by North Carolina? (b) If your answer to (a) is affirma-tive, (i) do Applicants possess a copy of the ratified bill, appropriately certified? (ii) are there any restrictions on the i use of the disposal site (aa) at present (bb) in the future for low-level radioactive waste which that bill designates for North Carolina, for any low-level waste from Harris including (cc) resins (dd) filters (ee) trapped radionuclides in any form (ff) radioactive parts, including steam generators or parts thereof removed from Harris (gg) control rods (hh) incore probes (jj) other wastes designated as low-level under NRC regulations?
~ .
ANSWERS: 67-3(a) No.
(b) Not applicable.
INTERROGATORY NO. 67-4(a) Has CP&L ever issued any Lremo or order at its Brunswick plant to attempt to (i) reducc the output of low-level waste from that plant, or (ii) segregate
" clean" materials exposed to radioactive material, for disposal other than as radioactive waste? (b) If your answer to either part of (a) is affirmative please identify and date such memo or order (c) does CP&L presently ship low-level radioactive waste from Brunswick to any site? (d) identify each such site and the amounts shipped (1) in 1979 (ii) in 1980, (iii) in 1981 (iv) in 1982, (v) in 1983, in cubic feet, curies, and number of shipments. (e) identify all documents containing information inquired about in (d) above.
OBJECTION: Interrogatory No. 67-4 asks for detailed information regarding Carolina Power & Light Company's low level radioactive waste disposal activities at its Brunswick Plant, including the output of low level waste, shipments off-site, quantities, total curies, etc. Such information regarding low level radioactive waste disposal at the Brunswick Plant, a BWR, has no relationship to the magnitude of low level waste that will be generated and shipped from Applicants' Harris Plant. BWR's produce significantly larger quantities of low level radioactive waste than do PWR's, such as Harris.
Furthermore, the Harris Plant will incorporate state-of-the-art technology for low level waste volume reduction. See FSAR S 11.4. (The estimated annual output of low-level waste from the Harris Plant is set forth in FSAR Table 11.4.2-1.) Thus, the amount of such waste shipped from the Brunswick Plant in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983, and to where the shipments were made, is irrelevant to Contention 67, which deals only with assured disposal of low level radioactive wastes from the Harris Plant. Applicants below provide voluntarily the answers to Interrogatories 67-4(a) and 67-4(c). The detailed informa-tion requested in Interrogatories 67-4(b) and 67-4(d) is burdensome to assemble and simply irrelevant to the health and safety issues raised in Contention 67.
ANSWER 67-4(a) Yes.
(c) Yes, to both Barnwell, South Carolina and to Hanford, Washington.
O 'ections bmittdd by c . .
s - ,b
' John}H. O'Meill, J r '. /I Shaw Pittman, Potts & Trow
, idge 180 M Street, N.W.
ington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1148 Richard E. Jones Samantha Francis Flynn Carolina Power & Light Company P. O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-6517 Counsel for Applicants Dated: May 27, 1983
~ .
UNITED STATES 0 NiERICA HUCLEAR REGULATORY CCHMISS!0H BEFORE THE ATCHIC SAFETY M0 LICENS!HG BCARD In ttle Matter of )
)
CAROLIHA PCWER & LIGHT CCMPANY ) Docket Hos.60-460 CL AHD HORTH CAROL 1HA EASTERN ) 50-401 0 HUNICIPAL PCWER AGEHCY (Shearon Harris Nuclear Pcwer )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
AFFIDAVIT OF B. H. WEBSiER County of Wake )
)
Stata of North Carolina )
B. H. Webster, being daly sworn, according to law, deposes and says that he is Manager - Radiological & Chemical Support Section of Carolina Power & Light Company; that the answers to Interrogatories on Contention 6" ccatained in " Applicants' P,esponses to Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories and Interrogatories on Cententlon '
64(f) and 67 to Applicants Carolina Power & Light Ccepany, et al, (Second Set)" are true and correct to the best of his information, knowledge and beTief; end that the sources of his infort11ation are officers, en.ployees, agents and contractors of Carolina Power &
Light Ccmpany.
_ b.6.~M. O hn 0S H'. keoster Sworn to an subscriked before me thispf day of 1983.
b -
w ,ff'.. !., ,
i sotary euenc . .,
. c.
My Ccruis:icn Expires: >'2_e h,/Ilf ,
3 .
// / .
., f..... .,
- Q ,, .-
4
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY )
AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY ) 50-401 OL
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
AFFIDAVIT OF LOUIS H. MARTIN County of Wake )
)
State of North Carolina )
Louis H. Martin, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is Manager - Nuclear Fuel Section of Carolina Power & Light Company; that the answers to Interrogatories on Contention 64f contained in '
" Applicants' Responses to Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories and Interrogatories on Contentions 64f and 67 to Applicants Carolina Power &
L'ight Company, et al. (Second Set)" are true and correct to the best'of'his '~
information, knowledge and belief; and that the sources of his information are officers, employees, agents and contractors of Carolina Power & Light I
Company.
_.~
Louis H. Martin St.orn ro and subscribed before ce this g ' day of May, 1983.
O t'y )
.i n . ~-i b f w.
. Notary Public
!!y commission expires: Eb5'/Y7
y - .
a May 27, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) DOCKET NOS. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicants' Responses to Wells Eddlemen's General Interrogatories and Interroga-tories on Contentions 64(f) and 67 to Applicants Carolina Power & Light Company, et al. (Second Set) ", " Applicants' Response to Wells Eddlemen's Request for Production of Docu-ments (Contentions 64 (f) and 67) ", and " Certification of Counsel" were served this 27th day of May, 1983 by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the parties on the attached Service List.
e N
kJohnlH. O'Neill, Jr.
,\
Dated: May 27, 1983 D
f . ,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL and NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
SERVICE LIST James L. Kelley, Esquire- John D. Runkle, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Conservation Council of North Carolina U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 307 Granville Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Mr. Glenn O. Bright M. Travis Payne, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Edelstein and Payne U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Post Office Box 12643 Washington, D.C. 20555 Raleigh, North Carolina 27605 Dr. James H. Carpenter Dr. Richard D. Wilson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 729 Hunter Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apex, North Carolina 27502 Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esquire Mr. Wells Eddleman 718-A Iredell Street Nyron Karman, Esquire Durham, North Carolina 27705 Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard E. Jones, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20555 Vice President and Senior Counsel Docketing and Service Section Carolina Power & Light Company Office of the Secretary Post Office Box 1551 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Phyllis Lotchin Mr. Daniel F. Read, President 108 Bridle Run Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group Effort Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Post Office. Box 524 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Deborah Greenblatt, Esquire 1634 Crest Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
. ..._,_ _ _ ., _ _- _ _ _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ . _n _ _ __
i .
p , . . s e
Service List Page Two 4
Bradlef W. Jones, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marrietta Street Atlanta, Georgia 30303 I Ruthanne G. Miller, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Karen E. Long, Esquire Public Staff - NCUC Post Office Box 991 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 3
, - A .
/ .
May 27, 1983 4
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.g yy( 31 M
. BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING bop]D In the Matter of )
)
CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL AND NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN ) 50-401 OL MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY )
)
(Shearon Harris Nuclear Power )
Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL I hereby certify that I have made the following efforts to resolve Applicants' objections to certain of Wells Eddle-man's Interrogatories (Second Set) dated April 22, 1983, on Contentions 64 (f) and 67.
I spoke with Mr. Eddleman by tel? phone on May 18, 1983, to discuss the substance and nature of Applicants' 6cjections.
With respect to Contention 64 (f) (spent fuel shipping cask pressure relief valve), Applicants believe that the substance of the contention has become moot because Applicants plan to remove the pressure relief valve on its spent fuel shipping cask prior to the next shipment of spent fuel. Mr.
Eddleman and Applicants are involved in active settlement negotiations regarding this issue. While Applicants believe that most of Mr. Eddleman's interrogatories regarding this 1
f: [_ .;
- b
- ? ~ ,
6 f
issue are no longer relevant, Applicants agreed to provide
. formal answers to many of Mr. Eddleman's questions and have
- provided informally additional information to assist settle-ment discussions.
Applicants and Mr. Eddleman were less successful in 4
resolving differences regarding interrogatories related to
\
Contention 67. Mr. Eddleman desires information regarding the role, if any, of Applicants' officers, employees and con-sultants in developing and seeking the adoption of the Southeast Interstate Low Level Radioactive Waste Management Compact. Applicants can find no relevance to such information J
as it relates to the health and safety allegations of Conten-tion 67. Mr. Eddleman also asked detailed questions on con-trol of low level radioactive wastes at Carolina Power &
Light Company's Brunswick Plant (a BWR) . Applicants believe such information is irrelevant to low level waste generation and controls at the Harris Plant (a PWR) . On these two issues, Applicants and Mr. Eddleman were unable to come to an accomodation of differing views of relevance.
Finally, Applicants and Mr. Eddleman disagree as to the permissible scope of Interrogatories Nos. -8 and G-9.
( a s .
g 9
\ John H. O'Neill, Jr.
W, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1148
)
Dated: May 27, 1983 Counsel for Applicants
.__ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . . _ _ _ _ - .-