ML20128E513
| ML20128E513 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vogtle  |
| Issue date: | 07/01/1985 |
| From: | Joiner J GEORGIA POWER CO., TROUTMANSANDERS (FORMERLY TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMA |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20128E517 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#385-662 OL, NUDOCS 8507050359 | |
| Download: ML20128E513 (16) | |
Text
.
. 6 62-
"'sgrco u
c Jggy1, 1985 AI '3 A10:16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION gicc BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3 RANCH In the Matter of
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al. )
Docket Nos. 50-424CL
)
50-4256L (Vogtle Electric Generating
)
Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF JOINT INTERVENORS' CONTENTION 10.3 (CABLE IN MULTICONDUCTOR CONFIGURATIONS)
Pursuant to 10. C.F.R.
S 2.749, Georgia Power Company, et al.
(" Applicants") hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ("ASLB" or " Board") for summary disposi-tion in Applicants' favor of Joint Intervenors' Contention 10.3.
As grounds for this motion, Applicants state that no-genuine issue of material fact exists to be heard with respect to Contention 10.3 and that Applicants are enti-tied to a decision in their favor on that contention as a matter of law.
In support of this motion for summary disposition of contention 10.3, Applicants rely upon:
(1)
Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as to Which No Genuine Issue Exists to Be Heard Regarding Contention 10.3; (2)
Affidavit of Joel Kitchens, dated June 27, 1985
(" Kitchens Affidavit"); and D$Ok$$fl0500 850701 0
4 o) h 7
(3)
All the filings in the proceeding, deposi-tions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the state-ments of the parties.
.I.
Background.
As originally proposed by the Joint Intervenors, Con-tention.10 stated:
Applicant has not shown that safety-related electrical and mechanical equipment and components will be envi-ronmentally qualified at the onset of operations and throughout the life of the plant as required by Gen-eral Design Criteria 1, 2 and 4 of 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix A and other applicable NRC rules.
Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia (" CPG") Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing (April 11, 1984)
(" CPG Supplement") at 21; Georgians Against Nuclear Energy ("GANE") Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Request for Hearing (April 11, 1984) ("GANE Supplement") at 23.
The Joint Intervenors based this proposed contention in part upon an unidenti-fied study performed by Sandia National Laboratories
("Sandia").
According to the Joint Intervenors, in that study Sandia found that multiconductor configurations of EPR (ethylene-propylene rubber) cable material performed "substantially worse" under-the test conditions than sin-gle conductor configurations and concluded that "qualifi-cation testing employing only single conductors as test specimens may not be representative of multiconductor per-formance."
CPG Supplement at 22; GANE Supplement at 24.
e In their response to proposed Contention 10, the Applicants divided the bases provided by the Joint Inter-venors for that contention into eleven subcontentions, which they addressed separately.
Subcontention 10.3 encompassed the Joint Intervenors' allegations concerning
~
the appropriateness of testing single conductor configura-tions to qualify multiconductor cables.
Neither the Applicants nor the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
staff opposed the admission.of subcontention 10.3, and the Board admitted that subcontention as a contention in this proceeding in its Memorandum and Order on Special Prehear-ing Conference Held Pursuant to 10.C.F.R. 2.715a, dated September 5, 1984.
LBP-84-35, 20 N.R.C.
887, 904 (1984).
The parties subsequently engaged in and completed dis-covery on Contention 10.3.
The following requests and responses comprised that discovery:
Joint Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce (Oct. 25, 1984) at 11.
NRC Staff's Interrogatories to Campaign for a Prosper-ous Georgia (CPG) and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy (GANE) (Nov.
1, 1984) at 5.
Applicants' First Set of I'nterrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Nov.
5, 1984) at 11-13.
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docu-ments (Nov. 29, 1984) at 62-65.
CPG /GANE's Response to Applicants' First Set of Inter-rogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Dec.
5, 1984) at (unnumbered pages) 16-19.
CPG /GANE's Response to NRC Staff's Interrogatories (Dec. 10, 1984) at 4-5.
Applicants' Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Jan.
4, 1985) at 12.
Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia / Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests to Produce (Jan.
9, 1985) at 15.
Letter from T. Johnson to J. Joiner (Feb.
7, 1985)
(enclosing supplemental information from Howard Deutsch in response to Applicants' Third Set of Inter-rogatories) at (unnumbered pages) 1-2.
Applicants' Response to Intervenors' Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docu-ments (Feb. 13, 1985) at 65-66.
In addition to this written discovery, the Applicants on March 25, 1985 deposed Dr. Howard Deutsch, whom the Joint Intervenors had identified as having provided information used by them in responding to the Applicants' written dis-covery requests concerning Contention 10.3.
CPG /GANE's Response to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and Request.for. Production of Documents (Dec.
5, 1984) at (unnumbered page) 40; Intervenors Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia and Georgians Against Nuclear Energy Response to Applicants' Third Set-of Interrogatories and Request for Production (Feb. 5,~1985) at 7.
II.
L_egal Standards for Summary Disposition.
The admission of a contention for adjudication in a licensing proceeding under the standards enunciated in 10 l
C.F.R. S 2.714 does not~ constitute an evaluation of the l
merits of that contention.
Instead, such a ruling !
l l
l
t reflects.merely the determination that the contention satisfies the criteria of specificity, asserted basis, and relevance.
The admission of a contention also does not dictate that a hearing be held on the issues raised.
Sec-tion 2.749(a) of the NRC's Rules of Practice authorizes a licensing board to grant a party to the proceeding summary disposition of an admitted contention without proceeding to a hearing.
That section provides that "[a]ny party to a proceed-ing may move, with or without supporting affidavits, for a decision by the presiding officer in that party's favor as to all or part of the matters in the proceeding." 10 C.F.R.
S 2.749(a).
Delineating the standard to be applied by a licensing board in ruling upon such a motion, that section further states:
The presiding officer shall render the decision sought if the filings in the proceedings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the statements of the parties and the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of fact and that'the moving party is entitled to a decision as a matter of law.
10 C.F.R. S 2.749(d).
The standards governing summary disposition motions in an NRC licensing proceeding are quite similar to the stan-dards applied by federal district courts to summary judg-ment motions under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Alabama Power Company (Joseph M.
Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 A.E.C. 210, 217 (1974);
-y,.
.~e-7
Tennessee Valley Authority (Hartsville Nuclear Plant, Units lA, 2A, 1B and 2B), ALAB-554, 10 N.R.C.
15,.20 n.17 (1979).
Where, as here, a motion for summary disposition is properly supported pursuant to the NRC's Rules of prac-tice, a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of its answers.
A party can-not avoid summary disposition on the basis of guesses or suspicions, or on the hope that at the hearing the mov-ant's evidence may be discredited or that "something may turn up."
Gulf States Utilities Company (River Bend Sta-tion, Units 1 and 2), LBp-75-10, 1 N.R.C. 246, 248 (1975).
Rather, an opposing party must set forth specific facts showing that a genuine issue of fact remains.
10 C.F.R.
S 2.749(b).
Where the movant has made a proper showing for summary discosition and has supported his motion by affidavit, the opposing party must proffer countering evidentiary material or an affidavit explaining why it is impractical to do so.
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-32A, 17 N.R.C.
1170, 1174 n.4 (1983), citing Adickes v.
Kress & Co.,
398 U.S.
144, 160-61 (1970).
The Commission and its adjudicatory boards have encouraged the use of the summary disposition process where the proponent of a contention cannot establish that a genuine issue exists so that evidentiary hearing time is not unnecessarily devoted to such issues.
Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 N.R.C.
452, 457 (1981); see also Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-590, 11 N.R.C.
542, 550 (1980) ("[T]he Sec-tion 2.749 summary disposition procedures provide in real-ity as well as in theory an efficacious means of avoiding unnecessary and possibly time-consuming hearings on demon-strably insubstantial issues.")
III. Argument.
The affidavit of Joel Kitchens, which is attached 4
hereto, discusses the research performed by Sandia that provided the basis for Joint Intervenors' Contention 10.3.
While that research did identify one type of multiconduc-tor cable that suffered greater damage under loss-of-coolant accident ("LOCA") conditions in a multiconductor configuration than in a single conductor configuration, none of that type of multiconductor cable has been used at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant ("VEGP"), and that research does not call into question the adequacy of the qualification testing performed on other types multicon-ductor cable used at VEGP.
A.
The Past Industry Practices.
In the nuclear industry, qualification testing for multiconductor cable types has commonly been performed on single conductors taken from a sample of the particular - --
multiconductor cable being tested.
Such a testing approach has been considered within the industry to be more conservative than testing samples of the multicon-ductor itself since multiconductor cables generally have jacketing material or additional insulation or both sur-rounding the insulated single conductors comprising the multiconductor that should provide additional protection from adverse environmental conditions not available to a single conductor.
Kitchens Affidavit at 13.
Regulatory Guide 1.131 condones this practice by endorsing IEEE Standard 383-1974.
Table 1 of that stan-dard authorizes the use of either single conductor or multiconductor samples in qualification testing of multi-conductor cables.
Id.
B.
The Sandia Research.
Sandia has performed two studies in which it compared the performance of multiconductor cable samples tested under simulated LOCA conditions to that of single conduc-
_ tors obtained by dissassembling the multiconductor.
Id.
at 114-11.
In the first study, reported in L.
D.
- Bustard, The Effect of LOCA Simulation Procedures on Ethylene-Pro-pylene Rubber's Mechanical and Electrical Properties, SAND 83-1258, NUREG/CR-3538, October 1983, Sandia tested five multiconductor cable products that utilized ethylene-propylene rubber (EPR) as an insulating material.
Kitchens Affidavit at T4.
One of the multiconductors tested showed greater degradation in the multiconductor configuration than in
.the single conductor configuration.
Id. at 16.
That multiconductor, which was manufactured by Anaconda Wire and Cable Company, had EPR insulation on the individual conductors and an outer thermoplastic jacket of chlori-i nated polyethylene ("CPE").
The other four multiconductor cable products tested had chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE) (also known as Hypalon) outer jackets.
None of those multiconductors, which included two manufactured by Anaconda Wire and Cable Company, showed significantly greater degradation in a multiconductor configuration than in a single conductor.
Id. at 114-6.
The Sandia researchers surmised that the greater degradation shown by the multiconductor having the CPE outer jacket was due to an interaction between that jacket and the insulation around the single conductors comprising h
4 that multiconductor cable.
Id. at 117-8.
While only that one type of multiconductor cable experienced greater degradation in the multiconductor configuration, Sandia questioned whether single conductor test specimens should be used in testing performed to establish the environmen-tal qualification of multiconductor cables.
Id. at 19.
A second study conducted by Sandia specifically addressed that question with regard to multiconductor 1,
_.-____-,-.v..
,.,w
cables utilizing cross-linked polyolefin (XLPO) as an insulating material.
That study is reported in L.D.
Bustard, The Effect of LOCA Simulation Procedures on Cross-Linked Polyolefin Cable's Performance, SAND 83-2406, NUREG/CR-3588, April 1984.
The multiconductor cable prod-ucts tested in that study all had XLPO insulation around each conductor and thermosetting Hypalon or Neoprene outer jackets.
Kitchens Affidavit at T19-10.
The results found by Sandia in the second study demon-strated that the effect of the simulated LOCA conditions upon the cable products tested did not differ depending upon whether a multiconductor configuration or a single conductor configuration was tested.
With respect to the two cable products tested in both multiconductor and sin-gle conductor configurations, the second Sandia report concluded that the electrical properties retained by those cable products following exposure to simulated LOCA condi-tions "did not depend on whether single conductor or multiconductor testing was performed."
Id. at 111.
C.
The Sandia Research Does Not Call Into Question the Use of Single Conductor Configurations in the Qualification Testing of the Types of Multicon-ductor Cable Used at VEGP.
While the Joint Intervenors did not identify the par-ticular Sandia study upon which they predicated the basis for Contention l'.3, that study clearly was the first O
Sandia study described above in which the multiconductor cable with the CPE jacket showed greater degradation in a multiconductor configuration.1' That particular cable product is the only multiconductor out of the several types tested by Sandia that suffered greater damage in a multiconductor configuration than in a single conductor
~
configuration.
Id. at T12.
That effect, which the Sandia researchers believe results from a jacket-insulation interaction, has been found only with a multiconductor cable having a thermoplastic CPE outer jacket.
The other multiconductor cables tested by Sandia all had outer jackets of a different material and showed no greater degradation in a multiconductor configuration thaq in a single conductor configuration.
Id.
Viewed in conjunction, the two Sandia studies do not suggest, as the Joint Intervenors contend, that the use of single conductor test specimens in the qualification l'
In response to discovery requests from the Appli-cants and the NRC staff, the Joint Intervenors identified a Sandia' report entitled "An Overview of Equipment Surviv-ability Studies at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL)" as the report on which they base Contention 10.3.
CPG /GANE's lesponse to Applicants' First Set of Interrogatories and dequest for Production of Documents (Dec.
5, 1984) at (unnumbered pages) 16-17; CPG /GANE's Response to NRC Staff's Interrogatories (Dec. 10, 1984) at 4-5.
That report, while referencing an earlier version of the first Sandia report described in Mr. Kitchens' Affidavit, does not document the results of any study performed by Sandia; instead it simply cursorily summarizes several ongoing research programs being conducted by Sandia...
-- ~. -.. -
testing of all multiconductor cables is inappropriate.
.Instead, those studies show that only cables having a thermoplastic CpE jacket are likely to suffer greater degradation when tested in a multiconductor configuration than in a single conductor configuration.
Id. at 113.
Moreover, the Joint Intervenors have not provided any information in response to the Applicants' discovery requests that even suggests that this effect is not lim-ited to multiconductor cable having a CpE outer jacket.1' Neither Tim Johnson nor Dr. Howard Deutsch, the only per-sons identified by the Joint Intervenors in their discovery responses as having knowledge of subject matters relevant to Contention 10.3, could identify any other type of l'
The Joint Intervenors initially stated that they (1) would provide the Applicants with a list of those multiconductors that have performed worse in qualification testing than did the corresponding single conductors, (2) would describe the chemical or physical nechanism that produced that effect, and (3) would identify any insulat-ing or jacketing material other than chlorinated polyethy-lene that they claimed would produce a similar effect.
cpg /GANE's Response to Applicants' First Set of Interroga-tories and Request for production of Documents (Dec.
5, 1984)'at (unnumbered pages) 17-19.
No such information has been provided to the Applicants, and the Joint Inter-venors subsequently acknowledged that they were unaware of any multiconductor cable that has performed worse in a multiconductor configuration during qualification testing other than the cable manufactured by Anaconda Wire and Cable Company having EPR insulation and a chlorinated polyethylene outer jacket.
Letter from T.
Johnson to J.
Joiner (Feb.
7.
1985) (enclosing Supplemental information from Howard Deutsch in response to Applicants' Third Set of Interrogatories) at (unnumbered page)
- 1.
multiconductor cable that had performed worse in a multi-conductor configuration than in the corresponding single conductor configuration in environmental qualification testing.
Deposition of Howard Deutsch (March 25, 1985) at 45-46; Deposition of Tim Johnson (March 12, 1985) at 151.
As outlined in Mr. Kitchens' Affidavit, the Applicants have tot used any multiconductor. cable at VEGP having a thermoplastic CPE jacket.
Kitchens
- Affidavit at 113.
Instead, all electrical cable utilized at VEGP has either a chlorosulfonated polyethylene (Hypalon) or a polychlo-roprene (Neoprene) outer jacket.
Multiconductor cable procacts having outer jackets of these materials were tested in the Sandia studies and showed no greater degra-dation following exposure to simulated LOCA conditions when tested in a multiconductor configuration rather than the corresponding single conductor configuration.
Id. at 415, 10, 13.
Thus, the use of single conductor samples in
~the qualification testing of the multiconductor cable products used at VEGP is adequate to qualify those multi-conductors.
IV.
Conclusion.
For the reasons stated above, no genuine issue of material fact exists to be heard with respect to Conten-tion 10.3.
The Applicants have demonstrated that the basis of Joint Intervenors' Contention 10.3 challenging the environmental qualification of multiconductor cable.
used at VEGP lacks merit.-
Therefore, the Applicants respectfully' request that the Board ~ grant their motion for summary disposition of Contention 10.3.
Respectfully submitted, O
Q'jp}LV) yNM 1 J/ gas E. Jo ine d,/ P. C.
Ch1rles W. Whitney Kevin C. Greene Hugh M. Davenport TROUTMAN, SANDERS, LOCKERMAN
& ASilMORE George F. Trowbridge, P.C.
Bruce W.
Churchill, P.C.
David R. Lewis SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS
& TROWBRIDGE Counsel for Applicants Dated:
July 1, 1985.
e 00CdETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- 85 JUL -3 A10:16 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BO4RDCE OF sient7As --
unAETihG & SERVIr.1' BRANCH In the Matter of
~
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et al.
Docket Nos. 50-424 50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Joint Intervenors' Contention 10.3, dated July 1, 1985, were served upon those persons on the attached Service List by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, or where indicated by an asterisk (*)
by hand delivery, this 1st day of July, 1985.
hvNM
[f(4%)
J Qgs E. Joiney)
At6rney for Apf icants Dated:
July 1, 1985 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
GEORGIA POWER COMPANY, et kl.
)
Docket Nos. 50-424
)
50-425 (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, )
Units 1 and 2)
)
SERVICE LIST i
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman
- Douglas C. Teper Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1253 Lenox Circle U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30306 Washington, D. C. 20555
- Laurie Fowler Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Legal Environmental Assistance Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Foundation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 218 Flora Avenue, N. E.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30307 Dr. Oscar H. Paris
- Tim Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 175 Trinity Avenue, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20555 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esquire Docketing and Service Section Office of Executive Legal Director Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D. C. 20555 Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board Panel Bradley Jones, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regional Counsel Washington, D. C. 20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Suite 3100 Appeal Board Panel 101 Marietta Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Washington, D. C. 20555 a,,.
--