ML20024E899

Motion for Summary Disposition of Eddleman Contention 64(f) Re Spent Fuel Shipping Cask Pressure Relief Valve.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact Exists & Util Entitled to Favorable Decision

ML20024E899
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/01/1983
From:	Oneill J CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20024E900	List: ML20024E899 ML20024E903 ML20024E906 ML20024E910 ML20024E915 ML20024E916 ML20024E917 ML20024E919
References
NUDOCS 8309070184
Download: ML20024E899 (12)

Text

_.

7_

e -

- r, )

i.

yy. a s

~' 90CMETED USNRC

~

j3 p~6_61253 l',

.- September 1983

...:., a 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 )

) l (Shearon Harris ~ Nuclear Power )

Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

-DISPOSITION OF INTERVENOR WELLS EDDLEMAN'S CONTENTION 64(f)

(SPENT FUEL SHIPPING CASK PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE)

Puruuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749, Applicants Carolina Power &

Light Company ("CP&L") and North Carolina Eastern Municipal Power Agency hereby move the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for summary disposition of Contention 64(f) advanced by Inter-venor Wells Eddleman. _As demonstrated below, summary disposi-tion is appropriate because there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to Contention 64(f), the issue is moot, and this Board lacks jurisdiction over the mat-ter which Mr. Eddleman seeks to litigate as Contention 64(f).

Accordingly, Applicants are entitled to a decision in their favor on Contention 64(f) as a matter of law.

8309070184 830901 l gDRADOCK 05000400 PDR l

t This Motion is supported by-(1) " Applicants' Statement of

~

Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard on.Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Contention 64(f) (Spent Fuel Shipping Cark Pressure Relief Valve),"~(2) " Applicants' Memorandum of Law in Support'of1 Motions for Summary Disposition on Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Contenti~ons 64(f), 75, 80 and 83/84," and (3) " Affidavit of Louis H. Martin in Support of Summary Disposition of Intervenor Wells Eddleman's Contention 64(f)" (" Martin Affidavit"), all filed simultaneously herewith, as well as the pleadings and other papers filed by the parties in this proceeding.

I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Eddleman Contention 64(f) " alleges that the safety valves on spent fuel casks are likely to unseat or that the plastic components of the valves would melt in a fire." Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Confer- ,

ence), dated September 22, 1982, at 56. Contention 64(f) reads as follows:

There is undue risk to the health and safe-ty of the public since pressure valves on the cask used for spent fuel transport are likely to unseat (e.g. the 4 removed from service by GE in 1981) or the plastic components of such valves could and would melt in a fire less severe than the test basis for spent fuel casks. Open the valve and out comes the coolant -- radioactive contamination -- followed by fuel overheating &

melting, Cs-137 boiling.

4- .

On April 7, 1983, Applicants served interrogatories on Mr. Eddleman. " Applicants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Intervenor Wells Eddleman (Third Set)," dated. April 7, 1983. In Mr. Eddleman's response to Ap-plicants' interrogatories, Applicants learned that Mr. Eddleman's concern was with respect to "any casks used to transport spent fuel to Harris." " Wells Eddleman's Response to Applicants' Interrogatories (Third Set - End 1st Round)

(Eddleman 64(f)_and 67)," dated May 6, 1983, at 2. In response to a request to " identify and describe in detail the pressure valves on spent fuel cask (s) to which you are referring," Mr.

Eddleman replied: " Relief valves and other valves; detailed descriptions require discovery of Applicants." Applicants' April 7 Interrogatories, supra; at 6; Mr. Eddleman's May 6 Re-sponse, supra,-at 2. In response to a request to identify each

" plastic component" which you allege "could and would melt in a fire less severe than the test basis for spent fuel casks," Mr.

Eddleman replied: " Response requires discovery of Applicants."

Id.

Mr. Eddleman availed himself of the discovery process, filing two sets of interrogatories and requests for production

'of documents to which Applicants responded. " Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories and Interrogatories on Contentions 29, 37B, 64 (f) and o f to Applicants Carolina Power & Light et al.

(Second Set)," dated April 22, 1983; " Applicants' Response to l

i w., - - - - - - - - , - - - . - - . . , - , , - - , . , - - - - . - , - . - - - - - , , , -

~

~ Wells Eddleman's General Interrogatories'and Interrogatories on Contentions'64(f) and 67 to Applicants-Carolina Power & Light 1

Company, ' et all (Second Set)," dated :May 27, 1983;'" Wells. ,

Eddleman's General Interrogatories arxi Interrogatories.on Con- .

tentions 75, 80,.83/84,.64f and 67fto Applicants Carolina Power

~

-& Light,.et al'. (Third Set)", dated July'2, 1983; " Applicants' Answers tx> Wells Eddleman's . General Interrogatories ~ and '

- ' Interrogatories on Contentions 64(f), 67-and 80 to Applicants Carolina Power &. Light Company et al. (Third Set)'," dated July

~ '

4 29, 1983. 'Mr. Eddleman also reviewed'the Cask Safety Analysis

'i Report for CP&L's IF-3OO rail shipping cask and other related documents. produced by Applicants and had copias made of a sig-nificant number of the documents produced. Furthermore, Appli-1

- cants and Mr. Eddleman were engaged in settlement negotiations regarding Contention 64(f), during which Applicants provided

- additional informal discovery to Mr. Eddleman. However, the parties were-unable to reach agreement regarding the withdrawal of Contention 64(f). See Certification of Counsel dated July 29, 1983.

i Mr. Eddleman has filed a " Motion to Compel Discovery re

! . Original Applicants' Responsec on 64(f), 67, and G8 and G9" dated August 8, 1983, and a " Motion to Compel Discovery re 2d

round Interrogatories on Eddleman 64(f), 67,-and 80" dated ,

i August 19, 1983. Applicants filed a response on August 31,

• 1983. -Since Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition herein I _4_

ij i 4

i is based on arguments of mootness and lack of jurisdiction,_the Board need not defer its' ruling on this Motion pending resolu-tion of the motion to compel. Indeed, the mootness of the issue also moots the motions to compel discovery.1/

. II. ARGUMENT A. The Issue Raised In Contention 64(f) Is Moot.

Applicant CP&L owns an IF-3OO stainless steel encased, de-pleted uranium shielded rail shipping cask ("IF-3OO cask") ,

manufactured by General Electric Company and licensed by the NRC for shipment of spent nuclear fuel. See Martin Affidavit at 1 2, Exhibit B. The IF-3OO cask is the cask used thus far by CP&L to ship spent fuel from its Robinson Plant to its Brunswick Plant without incident. Id. at 13. In the event Applicants are authorized to store spent fuel from CP&L's Rob-inson'and Brunswick Plants at the Harris Plant, such shipments to the Harris Plant in the foreseeable future are likely to be made in CP&L's IF-3OO cask. Id. at 1 4.

! 1/ Furthermore, independent of Applicants' mootness argument,

! this Motion should not be deferred or denied because of re-l maining discovery disputes raised by Mr. Eddleman. Discovery on Contention 64(f) has been available since September 22, 1982, and the presence of discovery disputes at this stage of the proceeding is attributable solely to the fact that Mr.

Eddleman elected to begin his discovery of Applicants on April l

22, 1983 -- seven months later.

I l

e 4

The IF-300 cask is equipped with one pr, essure relief valve connected to=the cask cavity. The purpose of the pressure re-lief valve is to provide controlled venting under design basis accident conditions for wet shipments and to be leak tight at all other times. Id. at 1 5. The pressure relief valve pres-ently installed on the IF-300 cask was manufactured by the Tar-get Rock Corporation (" Target Rock 73-J pressure relief valve"). In 1981, General Electric Company was notified by the Target Rock Corporation that a spare 73-J pressure relief valve 4

fabricated for use on an IF-300 cask had failed to meet all of the specified leakage requirements following an operational test performed at the Target Rock Corporation. General Electric Company notified CP&L of the failure of the Target Rock 73-J pressure relief valvd to meet certain test specifica-tions, and on June 24, 1981, CP&L informed the NRC and withdrew its IF-300 cask from wet shipment service.2/

Certificate of Compliance 9001 was amended on April 6, 1982, to permit only dry shipments with the IF-300 casks.

Martin Affidavit at U 7. An alternative pressure relief system must be developed and approved by the NRC before the 2/ Four IF-300 casks are licensed pursuant to Certificate of Compliance 9001. Applicants presume that the reference in Con-tention 64(f) to "the 4 removed from service by GE in 1981" refers to voluntary removal of IF-300 casks from wet shipment (i.e. with a coolant in the cavity) by General Electric Company and CP&L in 1981.

j

c:

Certificate of Compliance could be amended to permit wet shipments again. Because CP&L has a significant inventory of spent fuel which nas been discharged from a reactor and

" cooled" for three years or more, dry _ shipments of spent fuel are adequate to meet CP&L's requirements for the foreseeable future. CP&L is not, at the present time, pursuing an amend-ment to its cask Certificate of Compliance to permit wet ship-ments. Id. at 1 11..

The need for a pressure relief valve has been obviated.

CP&L intends prior to any future spent fuel shipment to remove the Target Rock 73-J pressure relief valve and replace it with a " rupture disk."3/ CP&L does not intend to use the Target Rock 73-J pressure relief valve or another valve of that particular design on its IF-300 cask in the future. Id. at 1 8.

3/ The purpose of the " rupture disk" is to provide a leak tight barrier at the penetration provided for the pressure re-lief valve. It is not designed to rupture during postulated accident conditions. The rupture disk is made of nickel material and marked per ASME Code Section VIII, Division I re-quirements. The stamped bursting pressure of the rupture disk is between 350 and 400 psig, which is over 100 psig in excess of the maximum cavity pressure generated under accident conditions for dry shipments. Martin Affidavit at 1 9. The integrity of the rupture disk is not at issue in Contention 64(f), but was raised in new contentions submitted by Mr.

Eddleman in a pleading dated August 4, 1983. See " Applicants' Response to 'New Contentions re Spent Fuel Cask Safety' by Wells Eddleman," dated August 24, 1983.

4

r .

t Finally,'neithhr the' rupture disk nor any other. component.

which servesLas an integral. barrier to the IF-300' cash cavity

. , b-utilizes c

any " plastic component.". Id. at 1 10.

e .

=

Thus, the_ issues. raised-in Contention 64(f) are moot. The pressure relief valve is not "likely to unseat" because no pressure relief valve will be utilized. The concern with pres-sure relief valves unseating relates to' wet shipments in any

' event. CP&L's Certificate of Compliance for CP&L's IF-300-cask now only permits dry shipments. CP&L has no intention of ship-ping. spent fuel in the manner and with the valve uhich led to Mr. Eddleman's concerns as expressed in Contention 64(f).4/

9 4/ Mr. Eddleman has countered, in discussions with Appli-cants, that there is nothing to prevent Applicants from ob-taining an amendment to the Certificate of Compliance for the IF-3CO cask to ship wet or to utilize a different cask. Any amendment to a Certificate of Compliance for a spent fuel ship-ping cask or a license for a new cask must be approved by the l NRC after a safety review. Applicants do not reject the possi-i bility that some years in the future new casks of improved design will be developed and licensed. Applicants can only i

state their intentions for the foreseeable future. Because CP&L has a significant inventory of spent fuel which has been discharged from a reactor for three years or more, dry ship-ments in CP&L's IF-300 cask are adequate to meet CP&L's ship-ping requirements. As we discussed supra, CP&L is not pursuing an amendment to ship spent fuel wet in the IF-300 cask. An al-ternative pressure relief system would have to be developed and approved before such an amendment could be applied for. Martin Affidavit at 11. The concerns raised by Mr. Eddleman in Con-tention 64(f) were resolved in 1981. Applicants intend to remove the Target Rock 73-J pressure relief valve (which serves only as a leak tight barrier for dry shipments) prior to any future spent fuel shipments and have no intention of using that valve or one of the same design again. No issue remains to litigate.

)

r ej -

Nor does CP&L utilize any plastic component in its IF-300 cask which serves as an integral boundary to the cask cavity and thus could melt, releasing " radioactive contamination."

There is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to Contention 64(f). Applicants are entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law.

B. This Board Lacks Jurisdiction To' Adjudicate Contentions Regarding Issues Of Health And Safety In Transporting Spent Fuel From Carolina Power & Light Company's Licensed Facilities To The Harris Plant In Shipping Containers Already Licensed By The NRC.

Contention 64(f) seeks to litigate health and safety issues involved in transporting spent fuel from CP&L's licensed

^

nuclear facilities to the Harris Plant. This is clear from the wording of the contention -- which alleges an " undue risk to the health and safety of the public"E/ -- and from Mr.

Eddleman's response to Applicants' interrogatories. As noted supra at p. 2, Mr. Eddleman has through his response to Appli-cants' interrogatories confined his object of concern to "any casks used to transport spent fuel to Harris."s/

E/ See " Memorandum and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Fol-lowing Second Prehearing Conference)," dated March 10, 1983, at 7 (denominating safety contentions).

E/ Shipments of spent fuel from Harris will be performed by the Department of Energy pursuant to a contract with Applicants for disposal of spent nuclear fuel and/or high-level radioac-tive wastes. Martin Affidavit at 1 12.

_9

O

, a' -

This Board has alLQady ruled that it has no jurisdiction over health and safety issues involved in the transportation of-Memorandum-spent fuel from Brunswick and Robinson to Harris.

- and Order (Reflecting Decisions Made Following Prehearing Con-ference), dated September 22, 1982, at 57 (Contention 64(k)).

This ruling is supported by substantial authority which holds that health and safety issues involving the transportation of spent fuel are not subject to case by case resolution in operating license proceedings. See Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Plant, Unit No. 2), ALAB-31, 4 A.E.C. 689, 693, 697 (Contention 32) (1971); Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, ALAB-50, 4 A.E.C. 849, 863 (1972); Pennsylvania Power and Light Co. (Susquehanna Steam 291, 315 Electric Station, Units 1 and 2'), LBP-79-6, 9 N.R.C.

(1979); Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 N.R.C. 1423, 1501 (1982); cf.

Cincinnati Gas & Electric, (William H. Zimmer Nuclear Station),

LBP-81-2, 13 N.R.C. 36, 42-3 (1981) (atomic safety and licens-ing boards in an operating license proceeding have no ju-risdiction over public health and safety aspects of a transpor-tation plan for spent fuel).

Thus, Contention 64(f), which is limited to health and safety issues in the transportation of spent fuel from Robinson and Brunswick to Harris, is clearly outside this Board's ju-risdiction.

i m- --- ---- - - - - -

p P+ +

Furthermore, Contention 64(f) seeks to litigate-issues that challenge the findings of_the NRC in its issuance of a license to General Electric Company.for shipments with the IF-300 shipping cask.2/ ' The jurisdiction of this Board does not extend to General Electric Company's cask license or to CP&L's license to transport spent fuel.8/

III. CONCLUSION Contention 64(f) raises concerns about the components and operation of a pressure relief valve during wet shipments of spent fuel.

CP&L only has authority to ship spent fuel dry in intends to remove the Target its IF-300 cask and, in any event, Rock 73-J pressure relief valve that led to the safety concerns Dry shipmenta in that served as the basis of Contention 64(f).

the IF-300 cask will be adequate to meet CP&L's requirements The issue raised by Mr. Eddleman for the foreseeable future.

is thereby moot and there is no genuine issue to be heard with 2/ See Certificate of Compliance 9001, attached to the Martin l Affidavit as Exhibit B.

8/

The transportation of spent fuel from Brunswick operating and Rob-inson involves licenses other than Applicants'Such transportation would be license for thebyHarris one ofPlant.

accomplished the Applicants in this proceeding, CP&L, pursuant to authority granted to CP&L alone in connunction with Cer-its licenses to operate the Brunswick and Robinson units.

tificate of Compliance No. 9001, governing the use of the IF-3OO spent fuel shipping cask, was issued to General Electric Company and covers four IF-300 casks -- three owned by General Electric and one owned by CP&L.

t I

- , - _ _ _ _ ~ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - , _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - - _ _ . - _ . . _ _ _ _ - . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . .

..a sl'

• respect to Contention 64(f). Because Mr. Eddleman has limited the focus of Contention 64(f) to shipments of spent fuel-from CP&L's Robinson and Brunswick Plants to the Harris Plant, this Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the health and safety issues raised thereby. Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposi-tion should be granted.

spe tfull submi tted, Ol Tho as A. Baxter, P.C.' ()

Y.

John H. O'Neill, Jr. V SHAW PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE 18 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 822-1090 Richard E. Jones Samantha F. Flynn CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY P.O. Box 1551 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 (919) 836-7707 Counsel for Applicants Dated: September 1, 1983 l

, - - - - - _ . . _ .