ML20091C445

Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 11 Re Cable Insulation.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Applicant Entitled to Favorable Decision.Related Correspondence

ML20091C445
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	05/25/1984
From:	Swiger M CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20091C448	List: ML20091C445 ML20091C467 ML20091C476 ML20091C498
References
OL, NUDOCS 8405300567
Download: ML20091C445 (9)

Text

-

b*

5dif/

d RELATED CCRRESPONDEN0t DOCKETED twe 1984 t 25'30 7$y MY NOM 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  : g ". r e ,. , ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7l;0 ; T.c; i y,

• R V w: i 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' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF EDDLEMAN CONTENTION 11

'I . Introduction Carolina Power & Light Company and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Pow'er Agency (" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.749, for summary disposition in Applicants' favor of Eddleman Contention 11. As grounds for their motion, Applicants assert that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to Eddleman Contention 11, and that Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on this contention as a ,

matter of law.

Dk bbh O!0h0!$0 0 PDR

}To)

f, ~ts This motion is supported by:

1. " Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Sup-port of Motions for Summary Disposition on In-tervenor Eddleman's Contentions 64(f), 75, 80 and 83/84," dated Septembe. 1, 1983;

2. " Applicants' Statement of Material Fac'.s as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard on Eddleman Contention 11;"

3. " Affidavit of Richard M. Bucci;" and

4. " Affidavit of Peter M. Yandow, Edward M. Steudel and Harold W. Bowles."

II. Procedural Background Eddleman Contention 11 states as follows:

Applicants' FSAR and the SER and ES are de-ficient and in error because they do not take account of the fact that polyethylene used as cable insulation, deteriorates much more rapi'dly r under long-term doses of gamma radiation than it does when exposed'to the same total dose over a much shorter period of time (which is how this material, PE, is tested for service in nuclear plants), as shown by the work of K. Gillen and P. Clough of San'dia Laboratories. The tests these workers conducted show that the insulation becomes embrittled by the radiation's breaking chemical bonds in these polymers (which are long groups of linked chemical units called 'mers'), -

allowing oxidation of the plastic PE which makes it brittle.

Applicants' Motion for Codification of Admitted Contentions, dated December 17, 1982, Appendix A at 14-15, approved in Memo-randum and Order (Addressing Applicants' Motion for Codifica-tion), dated January 17, 1983. The contention was admitted by the Board in its September 22, 1982 Memorandum and Order (Re-flecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Conference),

LBP-82-119A, 16 N.R.C. 2069, 2091-92 (1982).

L. _j

O

! Discovery has been conducted on Eddleman Contention 11 since January 1984.1/ Discovery activity has. included: Appli-cants' discovery requests to Mr. Eddleman of January 24, 1984, l to which Mr. Eddleman responded on March 7, 1984; the NRC Staff's (" Staff's") discovery requests to Mr. Eddleman of March 15, 1984, to which Mr. Eddleman responded on April 19, 1984; Applicants' follow-up discovery requests to Mr. Eddleman l

of March 23, 1984, to which Mr. Eddleman responded on April 12, 1984: Mr. Eddleman's discovery requests to Applicants of March l

26, 1984, to which Applicants responded on April 17, 1984: and Mr. Eddleman's discovery requests to the Staff of March 26,' -

1984, to which the Staff responded on April 18, 1984.

l In the course of discovery, it was determined that there are no polyethylene-insulated electrical cables at Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant ("SHNPP") which will be exposed to i

radiation.2/ This fabt, which is documented in an attachment 1/ Discovery has, technically, been open since September 22, 1982. See LBP-82-119A, supra, 16 N.R.C. at 2113. However, the date for responding to discovery responses on Issue 11 was later deferred. See Memorandum and order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Second Prehearing Conference), dated March 10, 1983, at 4.

l 2/ In originally opposing admission of the contention, Appli-cants stated that "certain forms of polymeric material are em-ployed as cable insulation at the Harris plant. . . ." Appli-cants' Response to Supplement to Petition to Intervene by We1.1.s Cddleman, dated June 15, 1982, at 117 (emphasis added). The Licensing Board interpreted this statement to say that "[t]he Shearon Harris plant will use polyethylene." LBP-82-119A, supra, 16 N.R.C. at 2091 (emphasis added).

O to a letter from M. A. McDuffie to Harold R. Denton, dated April 26, 1983, was communicated to Mr. Eddleman. See Appli-cants' April 17, 1984 discovery responses, at 26. The letter and attachment had previously been served on the Licensing i Board and the parties.

Despite the fact that Applicants believed Eddleman Conten-

! tion 11 to be moot, Applicants' counsel and experts met with Mr. Eddleman to exchange substantive information on an informal basis in an effort to settle the contention. Applicants and l

Mr. Eddleman were unable to agree on a basis for settlement.

However, based on the information exchanged during the course of discovery and in owlilement discussions, it is apparent that l no material issue of fact has been raised with respect to 1

Eddleman Contention 11.,'

!!!. Arcument A. Standards for Summary _Disposi_ tion The general standards by which motions for summary dispo-l sition are judged are set forth in " Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition on Intervenor Eddleman's Contentions 64(f), 75, 80 and 83/84," dated September 1, 1983, which is incorporated herein by reference.

1 I

B. There Is No Genuine Issue of Material Fact as to Eddleman Contention 11 Eddleman Contention 11 states that Applicants do not take into account that polyethylene, used as cable insulation, dete-  ;

riorates much more rapidly under long-term doses of gamma radi-ation than when exposed to the same total dose over a much shorter period of time. As discussed in the Affidavit of l

Richard M. Bucci ("Bucci Affidavit") and the Affidavit of Peter M. Yandow, Edward M. Steudel and !!arold W. Bowles ("CP&L Affi-davit"), attached hereto, there is no reasonable basis to be-lieve that radiation dose-rato effects on polyethylene cable .

I insulation or other electrical insulation at SilNPP will cause unsafe conditions to occur.

The Bucci Affidavi,t shova that the dose-rate effect postu-lated in the Gillen and Clough studies at Sandia National La-boratories, upon whicp Eddleman contention 11 is based, is in-significant as applied to SilNPP. First, Gillen and Clough based their conclusions on the results of testing performed over a range of dose rates that were far too high to be repre-l sentative of the normal dose rates in commercial nuclear I plants. Bucci Affidavit at 1 19. In addition, the Savannah River operating experience which prompted the Gillen and Clough investigations suggests a minimum threshold dose rate below which dose-rate effects are not significant that minimum threshold dose rate appears to be somewhere between 13 and 25 t

4 rada/hr. Id. at 1 20. All radiation :ones at S!!NPP will have normal operating done rates below the minimum threshold. Id.

at 11 20, 34. Total integrated normal operating donos at S!!NPP also will be below the minimum total donos at which significant dose-rate effects and significant degradation have been shown to occur, in all materials tested except for simple polyethylene. Id. at 11 22, 35.

Second, the Gillon and Clough tests indic..to important I difforoncos in sensitivity to dono-rato offecta among insula-tion materials. Id. at 1 23. While thoro is evidence of sig-nificant doso-rate offects under cortain conditions in simple polyethyleno, other, improved compounds havo only exhibited minor offects. Id. Sirple polyethylone is not used no oloc-trical cablo insulatiod at SilNPP and, to Applicants' knowledge, is not used as insulation on any electrical equipment at S!!NPP i insido containment. Id. at 15 31-32.

Third, the material proportion monsured to detect degrada-tion in tho 0111on and Clough tests woro not those relevant to the function of electrical insulation (i.e., muchanical prop-ortion rather than electrical proportion woro monsured). Id.

at 5 24. Nuclear industry cablo qualification tests, and a inter Dandia study responding to 0111on and Clough's work, dem-onatrate that cable with substantial degradation in mechanical l proportion of the insulation continues to provido sufficient insulation proporties to allow the cable to perform its oloctrical function. Id. at 11 24-25.

6-

Fourth, cable qualification testing standards account for any possible dose-rate offects by applying cumulativo doses during testing that exceed the most severe doses the cables could exportance under normal operating and accident condi-tions. Id. at 1 29. None of the Sandia tests has shown that a low total doso occurring over a long period of time, as in the 40 year normal operating life of a commercial nuclear power plant, causes more degradation than an extremely high total dose applied over a short period of time, as in qualification testing. Id. at 1 30.

Operating experience at Carolina Power & Light's

("CP&L's") Brunswick and Robinson plants, as described in the CP&L Affidavit, also indicates that electrical cable insulation atCllNPPwillnotexpotfiancosignificantdegradationduetora-diation doso-rate offects. CP&L's review of the operation and maintenance history o't electrical cable insulation used at Brunswick and Robinson, which have a total operating life of 29 years, showed no evidence that cablo insulation (or other eloc- '

trical insulation) has exhibited any degradation attributable to dose-rate offects. CP&L Affidavit at 1 8.

Finally, as shown by the CP&L Affidavit, GlINPP will have a surveillanco and maintenance program that will include features that will enabin identification of equipment degradation. Paa

14. at 11 9-17. In addition, CP&L already has in place a com-prehensive system for collecting and evaluating other nuclear 4

industry operating experience, including any experience with radiation dose-rate effects in cable or other electrical insu-lation. Id. at 1 17 . This operational experience feedback system will provide information for maintenance activities.

Id. at 11 9, 14. Since dose-rate effects, if they occur, are a long-term phenomenon, there will be ample means for identifying-significant degradation before unsafe conditions can occur.

Id. at 1 17.

IV. Conclusion In conclusion, there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to degradation of polyethylene cable insulation or other electrical insulation at SHNPP from radia-tion dose-rate effects. Applicants respectfully request that l

4

,' s

, . - . .,e

j i .

D-the Licensing Board grant summary disposition of Eddleman Con-tention 11 in their favor.

Respectfully submitted, W ich W & . $u.)i y Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.

Michael A. Swiger SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1000 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 25, 1984 I

l

.I

.l

_ - , . _