ML19209A621
| ML19209A621 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 08/24/1979 |
| From: | Deale V Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910050077 | |
| Download: ML19209A621 (23) | |
Text
Tic 00 pppn m
u m. <.
nsiv
=ecmm UNITED STATES OF A31ERICt.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C01IIIISSION g
AUG2 41973 >
M e,%., % %
- Q%
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD dr W y
In the SIatter of
)
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER )
Docket Nos.50-338SP COMPANY (VEPCO)
)50-339SP
)
(North Anna Power Statica
)
Proposed Amandment to Units 1 and 2)
)
Operating License NPF-4 Order Granting VEPCO's XIcticn for Summary Discosition 1.
This Order fo11cws up the Ec,1rd Decisicas, dated _-lugust 6, 1979, wherein the Board g anted VIPCO's =ction for svmmn y disposi-tien and stated that the reascns suppcrting its decisicn wculd be forth-coming in a Scard Order shortly. This is such Board order.
BACKGROUND 2.
On 3Iay 11,1979, VEPCO filed its IIction for St-- ' 7 Disposition. At the ti=e, the scheduled date fcr a hearing was June 26, 1979, as had been set by the Board's Notice of Hearing, dated Stay 4 1979. VEPCO's =ction thus =et the time-of-filing require =.ent, as specified by the Cc=missicn regulation 10 CFR 52. 749(a), c:f a: leas:
fcr y-fire (45) days before the t =e fixed for hearing.
3.
In keeping with 10 CFR $2. 749(a), VIFCO anner.ed to its
=cticn proper its " State =ent cf IIaterial Facts As To '.Tnich There Is 791005067M W
46 Cb
. No Genuine Issue To Be Heard" and three supporting affidavits alcng with statements cf qualifications of the affiants. The Statement cf Material Facts enumerated cne hundred seventy-ni=e (179) factual statements breken down according to the cententiens previously accepted by the Board for hearing. This Statement was largely based on VEPCO's Sum ary cf Proposed Mcdificaticns to the Spent Fuel Storage Pool Associated with Increasing Storage Capacity, as a=. ended. Pe truth and correctness c' Sis Su==ary was a: tested to in ene cf the three VZFCO affidavits, namely, the affidavi: cf E. Stephen McKay. VEPCO's Project Engineer respcnsible frc= the design and i=stalla:ica cf the high densi:y spent fuel racks for Nort Anna 1 and 2.
A ccpy of VEPCO's Su==ary is attached to Mr. McKay's affidavit. OSer suppcrting refer-ences than VIPCO's Su==ary relating to a material fac: in VEPCO's Statement cf Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To se Heard are noted therein.
4.
Besides attesting to the truds and correc: ness cf VIPCO's Su==ary, Mr. McKay's affidavit also attested to sc=e sir:7-six statements supplementary to VEPCO's Su==ary e
- bearing en one or another ccatentics which had been scheduled for hearing. VIPCO's two other affidavi:s by qualified affian s, namely, Dr. Morris L.
3:eh=er and Ecber-W. Cal:ier. =ainly ccncerned Intervencrs' cen-
- en:icns en Ther.al Effects and Ccrresicn respec-irely.
1109 214
The cententions designated for hearing by the Board were spelled out in the Board's Order Granting Interventien, P:roviding for a Hearing and Designating Contentions of Intervenors, dated _ April 21. 1979, and in the Board's amendment to said order dated June 6,1979. These centen-tiens are briefly identified as follows:
THERSIAL EFFECTS RADIOACTIVE E31ISSION a) Accidents b) Normal Opera:ica IIISSILE ACCIDENTS LIATERLC INTEGRITY CORRCSION OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ALTERNATIVES SERVICE WATER CCOLING SYSTEM 6.
The NRC Staff supported VEPCO's = otic = f or sv-ary disposi-tien. The NRC Staff's answer to VEPCO's motica w:as in two parts, as fellows: firs:, its Response to VEPCO Su==ary Disposition AIotien, da:ed June 5,1979, together with :wo affidavits en Tner=lal Effects, one affidavit en Radicactive E=issien, one affidavit on 1<Iaterials Incegrity and Corrosien, one affidavit en Occupational Ennosure, one affidavit en Alternatives and one affidavit correcting a figure in. the Safety Evalua:icn, as well as statements cf each affiant's cualifica:icns; and seccnd, its Supple =en:al Respcnse to VEPCC Sr-ary Dispcsi.:icn.TIcticn, dated June 25,1979, with $ree affidavits en Radicactive 'Emissica (Accidents),
ene affidavi: en IIissile Acciden:s, anc cne affida,-in en Service Wa:er Cccling Syste=, alcng rii statements cf cueF#icaci cns of the affiants 1109 215
P00R~0R 8ML 7.
Intervenors Potomac Alliance and Citizens' Energy Forum (CEF),
which were later consolidated, each opposed VEPCO's motiori for sum-mary disposition. Potomac A1Hnnce's answer to the motion was in three parts: first, its Answer to VEPCO's Motion for Sum ~ng Disposition, dated June 5,1979, together with its Statement of Material Facts As To Which 'niere Is A Genuine Issue To Be Heard, dated June S,1979, plus a supporting affidavit of the same date by Potomac Allinnce's attorney; second, its Supplemental Answer to VIPCO's Mo ion for Su ary Disposi-den, dated June 25,1979; and $1rd, its Second Supplemental Answer to VEPCO's Motien for Summary Disposition, dated July 23, 1979, plus an affidavit by Phillip M. Weit==an cf the same date along with a statement of the affiant's qualifications. CEF's separate answer :o VEPCO's motion prior to consolidation with Potomac Alliance consisced of its Response to VEPCO's Motion for Sum.~.ary Disposition and its Statement of Facts As To Which There Exists A Genuine Issue To Be Heard -- enth &ted June 5,19 79.
8.
By its Order Partially Granting VIPCO's Mcticn for Su-mary Disposition, dated June 18, 1979, the Scard allowed both te NRC Staff and Pctcmac Alliance to file fu ther cc=ments en or before June 25, 1979 en dat par: cf VIPCO's =cticn en which de 3ca d
- not ac:ed. In de June 18 order, it was also noted that under Se Beard's censolidntien crder cf June 6,1979, Pc:c=ac Alliance also speaks in $is preceeding 1109 216
300lF01 GEL 5-for Citizens Energy Fc:.:= (C."), whi:h was Se cnly other intervenor in the proceeding.
9.
Upon receipt of Pctcmac Alliance's Supple =nental Answer to VEPCO's Motica for Summary Disposition, dated June 25,1979, in respense to the Board's :nvitatica of June 18, the Beard recensidered Petemac Alliance's position as described in the lat:er's Supplemen*al Answer, pp.1-2:
"... VTnile VEPCO's respenses to +w discovery requests cf Se AUinnce and Citizens Energy Forum
($e Intervencrs) have teen received c-7y.vithin the pas: few days, $e NRC Staff has notifieci Se parties and te Board dat it will not be able to sub=11t its responses until several (days] after the date cf this fi W g.
The Alliance has therefore been severely handicapped in atte=pting to amass the facts neces-sary to develop its case, wid the rest:lt dat it cannot present by affidavit de facts essential to its cppositicn to VEPCO's =ctien. Under such circu= stances it is appropriate for the Board to refuse to consider de moticn or to de=y it.
See 10 CFR $ 2. 749(c). "
The same general position had also been advanced 'ry Potemac Alliance and CEF in teir June 5 answers :o VEPCO's mo:icn for su==ary disposi: ion.
- 10. The referenced citaticn 10 CFR 52,749(=) is as follows:
"(c) Should it appear frc= $e affida;vits cf 1 par y cpposing de =cticn (i. e., fcr su==arv disposi:icn] hat he cannc:, for reascns sta.:ed, presen: by affidavit fac:s essemial to 7.:stify his cpposi:icn,.he presiding cificer may refuse ie an=lica:ict for summar" disocsiticn or may order ce obtained a ce== nance :: pe: =: a=cav s to.
or =ake such cier order as is apprcpriate and a determina:icn :: is: effec: shall be -ode a ma::er Cf rec e!"i. "
1109 217
a
\\
_g.
As a result of its reconsideration of Poto=.a c Aniance's asserted 11.
position of why it could not answer adequately VIPCC's motion for su==ary disposition, the Board extended the time for Potomac Aniance to supplement its answers to VEPCO's motion. In its Order Anowi=g Additional Time for Certain Answers and Resetting Time for Hearing, da::ed June 29,1979, the Board permitted Potomac Aniance to on or before Jury 23, 1979 for supple-menting its answers to said motion. At the same time, the Board announced dat it would reconsider its ordar of June 13, 1979 pa_-tially granting VIPCO's motion for summary disposition and it rescheduled the Prehearing Conference 1979.
and Hearing to begin immediately thereafter from Jul-- 9 to August 14, The June 29 order also allowed an additional five day:s for the parties to file answers to designated pending motions.
AERITS OF MOTION VIPCO's ti=ely AIotien for Su==ary Dis =ositics, together-12.
wid its Statement cf 11aterie.1 Facts As To V'hich Twe Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard and its tree affidavits, satisfied. de requirements cf a
=ction for su==ary disposition as set ferd in te C ---ission regula:ica Tae mo-10 CFR 52.749 and provided de basis for granting -ine =ction.
tien, together with its attachments, treated each of de contentions of de 5:ervenors scheduled for hearing, de=cnstrated is: dere is no genuine issue of =2:erial fac: wor 67 cf a hearing, and shcw*-ed why each cf -he cen:entiens ought to be resolved in VEPCO's favor.
VIPCC's 11cticn f er 5n-ary Disposi:ic= was s= cngly 13.
- - "idavi 3.
Tne NEC 5 " agreed supported by te NRC Staff wim i' da: VEPCO ha d accurately s"--ariced per:inen: fr_ cts surrcun:iing -he 1109 218
~
~
contentions, that the contentions ought to be resolved in VEPCO's favor, and that bere is no need for a hearing.
htervenors' answers to VIPCO's motien, namely, both 14.
Potomac Alliance's answer and the respense of CEF prior to consolida-The answers did not co= ply with Cemis-tien, were totally defective.
sien regulation 10 CFR 52.749(b); rather than set forth specific facts showing dere was a genuine issue of fact, Intervenors relied cn :nere denials of VIPCO's clairt $at Sere was no genuine issue about cer:ain
=aterial facts; and Intervenors offered no =eaningful factual da:a cf Withcu raising any genuine issue wordy cf hearing, I.nter-Seir own.
vencrs rested their case agains: VIPCO's motion en generalities of dis-agree =en:, uninformed cpinien and specula:ive argt=nen:2 tion.
In reaching its judg=ent about Foto=ac Alliance's answer, the 15.
Board refers to de following passage of de Co-%sion regulation 10 CFR 5 2. 749(b):
"(b )... When a =ctica f or su==ary decisien is =acie and supported as prcvided in Sis sectien. a party oppos-ing the motion may not res: upcn the =ere allegatiens or denial or denials of his answer; his answer by affi-davits or as otherwise providec in dis sec:icn must set forth specific facts showing $at there is a genuine issue cf facts. If no such answer is filed, the decisicn sought, if apprcpria e, shall be rendered. "
Applying the foregoing standard to Po:ocac Alliance's answer, the Board concluded $a: 2e answer afforded no bas.: for denying VEPCO's mo-tien. In pa:-icular, te firs par: Of Pot;.nac Alliance's answer, which was dated June 5,1979, essen:ial'.y made $e following -.vc poin:s:
(1) Po:o=ac Alliance was a: Se :te nc: ecuippec :o =ake any effective 1109 219
~
I j
answer to VEPCO's =cticn and scught de Board ei har to deny the motica or to give Potomac A11'ince =cre time to respcnd, dnvoking 10 CFR
- 52. 749(c); and (2) with respect to a significant nu=ber cf paragraphs enumerated in VEPCO's Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard, Potomac A11Mm =erely contradicted through its attorney's affidavit VEPCO's position a=1d contended that there was a genuine issue to be heard with respect to the : facts in said paragraphs.
This first part of Poto=ac Alliance's three part answer to VEPCO's =o-tien partially occasioned de Board's later order tn allow Potc=ac Alliance furter time to prepare an answer: however, neithe=- Se first point of the first part of Potomac Alliance's answer nor the sec:end point thereof raised any genuine issue of =aterial fact wordy of trial u= der the standard of ie Co-~ission regulation quoted above.
- 16. CEF's answer cf June 5 to VEPCO's =cnicn for s"-
ary dis-posi:icn focused en three cen entiens, namely, The:r 21 Effects, Radio-active E=ission and Corrosien. The principal:!= =st of its answer was to emphasize CEF's dependence en VIPCO's and NRC Staff's answers to CEF's interrogatories in pending discovery procediure. Tacugh de answer suppcrted :he 3 card's later =ove to allow =cre tinne for preparing an answer to VEPCO's =ctics, CEF's answer cf June 5 itself did acding
~
l109 220
t
,g.
to show why there cught to be a hearing abou: a material fact in genuine dispute. The answer did not satisfy de standard set out at CmHnsion regulatica 10 CFR $2.749(b).
- 17. The second part cf Potomac Alliance's answer, which was dated June 25, 1979, centered cn Potomac Anf ance's plea cf its handicap to do battle with VEPCO cn a factual basis and stressed the sta:us cf Potomac Alliance's discovery endeavors, that is. in.t Pctccac Alliance had just received answers to its interrogatories to VEPCO and it was expected to receive in a few days answers to its interrcgatories to the NRC Staff. The Ecard's order al'.owing Pctc=ac Amn,c:e addi-ticnal time to prepare its answer followed; but de secc=d part. cf Potc=ac Alliance's answer in and cf itself cffered no statement cf mate =ial fact to raise any of Potomac Alliance's dissatisfac: ion with GPCC) to a genuine issue worthy of hearing.
- 13. The third and final par: cf Pctccac Alliance's answer to VEPCO's =otion, dated July 23, 1979, addressed each cf de ::enten:icns which had been scheduled for hearing and en which, acccrding: :o VEPCC's
=ctien, $ere is no need for a hearing as tey involve no gentine issue 1109 221
P00R BR8El..
of material facts. Intervenors' cententiens and Se 3 card's cccclusions concerning the relation of these cententiens to VEPCO's motica for sum-
=ary disposition follow.
- 19. THERMAL EFFECTS CONTENTION. r=tervenor contends that the possible ecnsequences caused by the addiH-1 heat to be dis-charged as a result cf the proposed modificaticas he not been adequately addressed by Se NRC Staff and Se Applicant. Tais.contentien embraces
&e rate of temperature rise in Se spent fuel stcram facility as a result of an accidentalleak in Se spent fuel pool. It fr'--r includes Se affirmaticn dat Se spent fuel pool cooling system =ill be inadequate to preven: "het spots" and possible boiling.
20.
The foregoing Tner=al Effects cententic= which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in faver of VEPCC cn the basis cf its
=otien for su==ary dispositien alcng wid de NRC : Staff's answer to the
=ction. Pertinent cerlideratiens follow:
VEPCO, with the support cf Dr..'.Io=ris L.
Brehmer's affidavit, has concluded thar the addi-tional heat to be discharged frc= the speent fuel poc1 because of the proposed =cdification is e.ce=ely limited and would have no significant effiect upcn Se enviren=ent. The NRC Staff's Envi cr~ ental!= pact Appraisal cf April 2,1979 is in agreement.
1109 222 Further, in its Statement cf.'Ia:erial Facts As Te Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Ee Hea.~d.
VEPCO set forth 53 =aterial fac:s beari=g en the cententien of the. al effects; Sese facts embrace such subordinate subjects as discharge af hear to the environment, spent fuel pool cooling sysce:n analysis, leakage, and thermal hydraulic analysis. In its answer to VEPCO's motien, dated June 5,1979, the NRC Staff, at page 4, concluded that VEPCO's state-ments cf 53 =aterial facts " accurately smarize the salient facts not open to dispute. "
Potomac Allianca did not present a si=gle spe-cific factual allegaticn which placed any c=e of VIPCC's supported allegatiens conce." g Se Thermal Effects cententien in genuine issue.
Foto=ac Alliance's =ere reference to a study cf Sandia Laboratories (SAND-77-1372 (1978)), ap-parently en spent fuel pocl ecolan: leakage, withcu.
however, showing a specific rela:icn of $e s:udy
- o VEPCO's spen: fuel pool is of no accc en:.
Similarly, Pctomac Alliance's atte=pc to incro-duce censiderations arising out of Minnesota v.
N~>.C.
Nos. 78-1269, 78-2032 (D.C. Cir.1979) is re-jected as irrelevan: to Sis proceeding. See Board's Order Denying Intervenors' AIo:ica To A=end Pe:ition To Intervene, August 17, 19 79, pp. 1 -4.
The 3 card cencluded Sa: Se additicm' heat :o be discharged as a result cf the proposed =cdifica-icn is no: envirencentally significant.
- 21. RADIOACTIVE ESIISSION CONTENTION (a): Intervence cen-tends dat VEPCO has neglected to address $e additicnal licuid and gaseous radioac:ive emissiens which will result frc= 6einereased fuel s:crage and de effec:s derecf. In C17's (In:artencr's! cpinien, applicanc's analysis ci radia:icn released, and cf possible releases, in -he even: cf $ose acci-den:s censidered in Sec:icn 9.1 ircugh 9. 4 cf.he z.pplica:icn, are super-ficial and insubsta.:ial in de Su==arv cf ie Prep csed I.Icdificaticns.
I109 223
- 22. The foregoing Radioactive Emissica centen:icn (a) whinh had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VZFCO cn the ' oasis cf its =ctica for summary dispositics along with the 2 CRC Staff's answer to the motion. Pertinent censiderations follow:
There are a part a) and a part b) to Se centen-tion of Radicactive Emission, with the fomer relating to accidents and the latter to normal oper=:ica.
VEPCO analyzed a nu=ber cf potential accidents, namely, the Icss of de spen: fuel pec1 ccN'ag system, leakage, ear $ quakes and tornadces, and fuel drcp accidents, and in acne of these accidents, did VEPCO's analysis show unacceptable resul:s. The NRC Staff's independent evaluation reached de same ncnclusicn.
Paragraphs 87 thrcugh 114 cf VIPCC's Statement of 3,Isterial Facts per:2in to par a) of de Radicactive E=issica centention and acccrding to $e NRC Staff, such paragraphs " accurately sv-arize.te salient facts not cpen to dispute. " NRC Staff Sunple=en:21 Respcase to VEPCO's Sn ary Dispositinn =cticn, da:ed June 25, 1979, p. 2.
Fotomac Alliance did not place a single VEPCO statement pertinent to par: a) of de subject centen-tien into genuine issue. Agai., its reli=~ e en c onsideratiens flowing frc= 3I!nnesota v. NRC is
=isplaced in this proceeding.
The Board concluded that none of Se ancidents analyzed by VEPCO and the NRC Staff wculd have unacceptable censecuences.
- 23. RADIOACTIVE E:.IISSION CONTENT:CN feh Imer-e=.or e en-
- ends $2: Se Applicam has failed to analy:e adecun:ely $e licc.f.d and
- asecus radioac-ive emissiens da
- wdl resul: frc= Se proposec increase 1109 224
PBBR BRIBlWL
~"~
in fuel s:crage capacity, and has failed to demonstrate that significant adverse enviren= ental effects will not result frc= such emissicas.
24.
The foregoing Radioactive Emission centention (b) which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO en the basis of its motica for s"~mm dispcsition alcng with te NRC Staff's answer to the motion. Pertinent ccasiderations follow:
In its Statement cf AIaterial Facts, VZPCO enumerated 33 =aterial fac:s, parag sphs 54 through 86, pertinent to part b) cf the Radioaccive E=issica cententicn. The NRC Staff states that these material facts " accurately s"~~arice $e salient f. acts no: coen
- c dispute. " NRC Staff Respcnse to VZFCO Sn--a~f Dispositicn IIotien, dated June 5,1979, p. 6.
Again, Pctc=ac Allissce did net place a. single VEPCO statemen: cf =aterial fact inco genuine issue; it relied en an argumentative positicn anr2 =isplaced emphasis upcn AIinnesota v. NRC in +4 proceeding.
The Board is satisfied dat ie potential cifsite radiological enviren= ental impac:s asscc iated wid te prcpesed =cdification are enviren=en" -rinsignificant.
25.
3IISSILE ACCDENT CONTENTION: Intervenor cen: ends ta:
Se prcposed =cdificatien of the spen: fuel pool wil!. increase Se cense-cuences of an accident involving missiles, and thac Se Applica=: has not de=cnstrated that ee pccl, as =cdified, will wi.hsisnd such acciden:s wiiin ie "~i s se: f crd in NRC Regula:icns.
25.
ne foregoing AIissile Accide= cc=entinn which hac 'ceen scheduled f or hea-ing is decided in f avcr of VZPCC en 5e 'casis of i:s i109 225
i}OOE~00l0lNN P i
=c:ica for so--ary dispositicn alene, wii de NRC Staff's ans ser to the m otien. Pertinent censiderations follow:
VEPCO has analyced the risk cf a tornado -Nsi'e impacting the spent fuel pool and concluded it would not result in radiation doses exceeding the limits of 10 CFR Part 100. VEPCO also analyced the ri.sk cf' a turbine missile and found it to be extremely==TT-The NRC Staff analyses yield the same conclusions.
Paragraphs 116-117,121-123, and 126 cf VEPCO's Statement of Material Facts a.re relevant to the Miss:ile Accidents cententien, anu accercing to Se Staff, Sey
" accurately su==arice Se salien: facts not cpen :o dispute. " NRC Staff Suppl. =e.,:al Respense to VEPCO S"~~ary Dispositien.'.Iction, dated. Tune 25, 19 79, p:. 3.
While Potemac Alliance generally insists that the:re is "need for a hearing of tis cententicn" and Sa: "dhe technical positions cf VIPCO and de NRC S*df be subjected to verifica:icn in Se crucible of a public a=d adjudicatory hearing, " Pctc=ac Alliance did no^" g-
- o place a material fac: in gem:ine issue. General references to past pleadings and general argumenta:iive pcstures are not encugh to meet ne s andard cf ie Cor--ission regula:ica 10 CFR 3 2. 749(b).
The Beard is persuaded da: possible missile ace:1-dents relating to de proposed =ccifica:icn cf the spent fuel pool do not aSrd an acceptable reasca for denyrng the proposed =cdifica:icn.
- 27. MATERIAI.S INTEGRITY CONENTION: Intervenor.centends da: increasing de inven: cry ci radicac-ive ma:erials in de spe=: fuel pcci will increase te corrosion ci, $e stress upen, and resulta=: prob-le=s ccncerning de cc=penents a.d cen:en:s ci de pool. Tne :applican:
has nc: adecus:ely addressed such pc:en-ial prcblems vi.h resp-ecc :0:
1109 226
- la,-
(a) de fuel cladding, as a result of e:cposure to decay heat and increased radiatica levels during er:anded periods of pool storage-and (b) the racks and poolliner, as a result cf exposure to higher levels of radiation during pool storage.
2'.
The foregoing Materials Integrity cente= tion. which had been d
scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO on the basis of its
=c:icn for su==ary disposition alcng with NRC S:nif's answer to the mo:icn. Fer:inen: censideratiens f cllow:
VEPCO cites Licensing Board and A-meal Bcard decisions to the effect that Zircaloy-clad. fuel can be safely stcred under water, and VEPCO does not e:c-pect de racks and pool liner to suffer "
cceptable s: ess er cerrosien over de life of de power statien.
The 33C Staff cffers dat li::le if any eWet will be produced upon $e spent fuel assemblies or stainless steel pool components. In de NRC Sw' view, since only mini =al general corrosien wil' occ=r,.he struc-tural in:eg-ity of $e spent fuel pool cc cnents is not a
degraded.
- n its Statement cf Material Fac:s, priragraphs 78 through 36 and 137 Srcugh 134 bear upc= bcth the above centention on Materials Integrity smd.he follow-ing centention en Cerrosion.
ine NRC Staff takes de positica Sa: such paragraphs "accun ately sum-
=ari::e the salient facts not cpen to dispute. " NRC Staff's Respcnse to VIPCO's S-ary Disposition Motien, dated June 5,1979, page 7.
Cn pa: ncular intere st, Paragr. a 127 states: " Storing 966 ins ead cf 400 hel assemblies in ie spen fuel Joci will not
=a:erial'y increase ie corresion ci, - -a :--ass upen, er cier resul: ant prcble=s w'*" -% #"el cladding, de racks, er Se poci liner due :c higher radiation
'_evels. '
i109 227 Cnce = ore, ?ctc=ac A_lliance dces not specify information which balances de VEPCO's sta:emenes of =aterial facts.
The Board is satisfied as to the integrity cf VEPCO's materials.
- 29. CORROSION CONTENTION. Intervenor contends that there has been inadequate examination of the problems that.=ay arise due to a potential incre= ental increase in the a=ount cf co= osion upcn the spen: fuel asse=blies and racks over the duraticn of nhe storage of fuel in Se pool, including their eventual re=cval frc= the pool. Such prcb-le=s include, bu: are not li=ited to, de ability of $e spen fuel purifica-
-im system :o remove any potential incremental i=p=-i:ies.
- 30. The foregoing Corrosion centen:ica which dead been scheduled fcr hearing is decided in favor cf VEPCO cn de basiss of its =ction for s-~~1ry dispositien alcng with de NRC Staff's 1.s ter :o the motion.
Pertinen: censiderations follow:
The r.vo cen:entions of.TIa:erial Integ-ity an:i Cerrosien cover essentially $e sa=e gr::und, an:i Pc:cmac A11h ce and the NRC 5taff rea the =
- cgeber.
In citing the Staff's Safety Evaluatien which s: esses adherence of de spen:iuel s:Or age rack
=aterial to ec--only accepted =a:erial stan-dards, ~iEPCO notes iere is nei.her re2scn ner evidence for supposing 22: de prcposec =cdifien-
- icn will significantly increase cerrosic=. *lEP C O,
ii Se benefit of its encerience a: Sur: y, also in-
-.r,e.e 2,.;,,..,c: "...'.e.'
a..'. ~- ^.' "- " ". m.' ^..
a
-m-
...e. a. - _...s 3.,ad.
j-.,_
w 1109 228
! The affidavit of Messrs. Georgiev, Ho nsten a.nd Wer=lel, presented with the NRC Staff's a:nswer of June 5,1979 to VEPCO's motien for sn-ary dis-positica, is in point. It covers the centen.icns of
~ both Materials Integrity and Corrosian and while dealing specifically wii fuel cladding integrity and racks and poolliner, it also covers corrcsica and the spent fuelpoolpurification system. 'Ehe affi-davit reinforces VIPCO's position.
Potomac Alliance's Second Supplement:0.
Answer To VEPCO's IIoticn for Summary Dis-positien, dated July 23, 1979, had nothing spe-cific to cffer by way cf raising a genuine issue cf a =aterial fact which would be wordy cf a hearing.
The Scard ccncluded dere is no fcundsnien for the centention en Corrosion.
- 31. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE CO. TENTIC'N. Intervencr cen-T tends dat de Applicant has not de=cns:ra:ed dat it ::21 prevent de in-creasec cccupational radiatica levels which will resu!: frc= Se spen:
fuel pool modifica:icn frc= leading to occupaticnal drses in excess cf dcse per~itted under NRC Regula:icns.
32.
The foregoing Occupational Exposure cen =-:icn which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VIPCO c:n de basis cf its motica fer sv-ary disposition along wii Se NRC Staff's answer to 2e =ction. Per:inen censicera-icns follow:
VEPCO has concluded Sa: cccupaticn:21 en-pesures will nct enceed NRC li=i:s. In agreement wid VIPCO, te NRC Staff ccncluded Sa: Se %' '-
effects of increme=al increase in sc=e radia:icn ex csure c plar pers::=el wculc be negligible.
Ii09 229
P00RBRGINill
,S-In VEPCO's Statement cf Facts, paragraph 2.35 through 156 " accurately summarice," according to the NRC Staff, "the salient facts not open to dispute. "
NRC Staff Respense to VEPCO Summary Disposi-tien motica, dated June 5,1979, p. 8.
Rather than specificany centrovert any of VEPCO's st:atements of fact, Potomac A11hnce persisted in its argumenta-tive posture cf general criticism, e.g., "No serious attempt has been made to quantify the expected -
radiation levels at North Anna, or to show how the admitted increases in radiation will be bonne by the work force. " Potomac A1"=".ce Seccad Supple-mental 3.nswer to VEPCO's Mc:ica for S ary Dispositien, " dated July 23, i979, p. 9.
The 3 card is =cved to accept VEPCOs position, which is s:rengly supported by the NRC Staff, that the proposed modificatien in the spent fue2. pool will not result in occupational exposure to radiation in excess of "~its prescribed by NRC regulations.
33.
d.I. TERN >.TIVES CON TENTION. Intervenor ec=tends ha neider de A.pplicant acr Se Staff has adequately ec=sidered alternatives to $e prcposed action. The alternatives chich shcul:i be considered are:
(2) the cens:=cticn of a new spent fuel pool en site: Ob) the physical ex-pansien of Se existing spent fuel pool: (c) the use cf he spent fuel poc1 a: Neri ).nna, Units 3 and 4 (including de completic=. cf ecnstruc-icn cf such pool, if necessary) for s:crage cf spent fuel fr-Units i and 2.
- 34. The foregoing A.Iterna: ires conten-icn which had been scheduled f:r hea-ing is decided in faror cf VIPCO en ie basis cf i:s =c:icn for su==ar-* disposi:icn along with $e NRC Staff's ans ver to the =c:icn.
Per:inen: ::nsidera:icns iol'ow:
ii09 230
VIPCO finds alternative (a) unacceptable ac this tim e because cf the high cost, de need for dcuble handling the fuel, and the time required to design, license and construct such a facility.
VEPCO finds alternative (b) as i= practicable be-cause there exist on all fcur sides of the existing pool structures necessary to the pool's operation, and alternative (b) would require their movement.
Also, alternative (b) would necessitate movement of spent fuel already in the pool with all ensuing e c=plications.
Si-M'-ly, VEPCO notes that alternative (c), that is, use cf the spent fuel pool at North Anna 3 and 4, would be unworkable be-cause of $e timing. VEPCO's IIcticn for St
=ar y Disposition, dated SIay 11, 1979, p. 20. VEPCO also addresses de A1:ernatives contention in its State =ent cf Facts, frc= paragraphs 157 through 179.
The NRC Staff, which considered alternatives suggested in de contentien and others, concluded dat the alternatives enec=passec cy the ec=entic=
"are unavailable within de necessary time-fr =~e, are more expensive and effer no environmen al ad-vamage ever the prcposed action. " NRC 5## Res cense to VIPCO Su==ary Disposition mo: ion, da:ed June 5, 1979, p. 9.
Phillip 11. Weit==an's affidavit, accc=panyi g Potomac Alliance Seccnd Supple = ental Answer to VIPCO's IIction for 5"--ary Dispositica (July 23,
'1979), pressed de positicn $a: de =aterials sub-
=itted by VEPCO di" act provide an adecuate "fac-
- ual and analytical basis on which to determine whe-der VEPCO's proposed =cdifica:icn of the spent fMel pool a: North Anna Uni:s 1 and 2 is ecenc=ica'_ly =ncre advan:ageous tan any cf 6e $ ee alterna:ive prcposals c:=sined in Se Pctcmac
"e ce's centention labeled
.- 1:erna:ives'. " Affidavi:, da:ed July 23, 19 7 9, p. 2.
P ct cmac '. " '-- a avide=ly =ade no atte=pt n secu e de:sils abo = VT m' = x-i a es du =g.he ex ra :ime allowed by de E c'-
i i-= Crde e
29, 1979. Tne NRC 5:sif raised no cuesticn abcun 1l09 231
4 P00R~0R GINAL VEPCO's esti=ates. In any eve =, Potc=ac Alliance did not =eet the Co= mission regulatory requirement that its " answer... must set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue cf fact,"
10 CFR 52. 749(b).
Regarding the contention en Alternatives, the Beard refers to the Appeal Board's view that in spent fuel pool modification cases there is a limi-tation upon the NEPA mandate of exploring alter-
=atives -- which limitation appears applicable here:
"[The intervenor] is ccnfrented with -J=e fant
. hat the evidence establishes withou ec-adicticn 2at the process cf inst,m g de new rar-1" i--%:
pool and the cperaticn of the pool with i:s expanded capaci:y will neither (1) entail mere tha=. negligible enviren= ental i= pac:s; nor (2) involve += cc-"-it-
=en: cf available resources respecting T3,ich. Sere are unresolved ccnflicts.... As we ead i.t. the NN andate Sat al:ernatives to the p:: cposed licensing actica be ex=1ored and evaluate:S dces not ec=e imo play in such circumstances -- in shcr:,
dere is no obligation to search cut poss#'=le alterna-
-ires to a course which itself will not ei"er "' =
-he envi c==ent er bring i.=c sericus que.stien de
=anner to which Sis ccun y's rescurces are being ex ended." Per-land General Electric Co. (' Trojan Nuclear Pla=}, A1.AB-531, 9 NRC
- .TIarch 21, 1979) (slip cpinien at 4-5; foc=ote c=inesi).
- 35. SIRVICE WATER CCOLING SYSTE3I CON A_:.NTION. The imer ener centends iat Se service water cooling system for Se facili:7 will be inadequa:e to suppor-de cc=pene= cooTM sysce= for Se spene fuel peel i' :he prcpesed =cdifica:icn cf de pcci is pe_ _.J,ned.
I109 232
P00RORBINhl 35. The foregoing Service Water Cooling Syste= cententien.vhich had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor cif VZPCO on the basis cf its motion for su= mary disposition along with the NRC Staff's answer to the moticn. Pertinent considerations fonow:
In its Statement of Facts under the subheading Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System Analysis, para-graphs 17 to 40, inclusive, VIPCO indicated how it analyzed its spent fuel ccoling system., *** g into account the~ proposed increase in fuel storage c apacity. It reported that resulting fuel pool tem-peratures were found to be within ie Ti-its cf 140*F for the normal case and 170*F for Se ab-normal case if cne fuel pool cooling sysr.e= pu=p and tvio coclers are used. Tne NRC S*' ar:-iveci a: de same conclusion, and went furier to =cte dat should only one cooler be avnihble du-ing the specified peak 1 cad period, the resulting pool water temperatures cf 148*F for the normal cea.se and l'77*F fcr de abnormal case "are cnly slightly abcve the previously established limits and win not result in unacceptable operating conditiens nor a:iversely af-feet the health and safety cf Se public [~?.eference critted]. " NRC Staff Supple = ental Respense to VEPCO Summary Dispositicn IIction, d;ated June 25, 19 79, pp. 4-5.
Once more, Potemac Alliance did =ct cf'er a single fact, by affidavit or otherwise, which vcu2d place its Service Water Cooling System centemtien into ge:.uine issue wordy cf a hearing. Pc: cmac _W,nce's persistent position in dealing wii its e ententicas im-pressed the Scard that it simply wanteci a hearing in de nature of a public forum so da-VE PCO and the NRC Staff waald be put to the task of explaining over again $eir various premises en de occasion of ex-amination by Potomac Alliance under e i-~
s-"~=
where Potomac Alliance would have sp eculative cuestiens to ask and no specific mater.21 f ac s :n c all upcn.
I109 233
1 The Scard finds dat VZFCO's service,xater ecoling syste= is acceptable.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
- 37. Pursuant to the Com=ission regulatica 10 CFR 52. 749, the Board concludes on the basis of the record in the proceeding that there is no genuine issue of any material fact and that h.sCO is entitled as a
=atter cf law to a decisicn g aming its =cticn of w=ary disposition.
- 33. Accordingly, it is hereby crdered dat VuCO's =ction for su==ary dispositica is ranted, da: the hearing previcusiv. schedule i s
fer dree s(;arate dates cencerning de ' reposed Amendment Tc Facility Operating License NPF-4 To Pc. =it Storage Pool Mcdificatica is permane=ly cancelled, and tat de NRC Staff is au2crized to per _it VEPCO's prcposed spent fuel s:crage =cdificatien and :o adcpc i ple-
=enting measures necessary or convenien :cward enabling VIPCO to effec: such =ccifica:icn in a timely manner.
- 39. The :wo technical members of de Scard namely, D:.
Quen:in J. Stober and Ernest E. Hill, participated in mis decisic=, firs:
3 ~~.arily announced in Scard Decisiens, dated A'.cgust 6,1979, and in
". ".. e a. c --e_"_..i. al d is..'.e _ _
..., ' - C. ". a..- a..'.--._.'.....s...e"e..'.=.'~..
- s. _
and :i=e censidera:icns, Dr. 5:cber and Mr. Hill.rculd have jn:ned de
.-.s._i
..,4.=. C. " e..
c.. a._,.z 1109 234
i jj Done :his kh day of August 1979 at Washington, D.C.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
~
I By ff 4 is /n ValentiEe ~B.1 Safe, thEir: dan
~
1109 2P