ML19209B244

Order Supplementing ASLB 790806 Order Granting Util 790511 Motion for Summary Disposition.No Genuine Issue of Matl Fact.Util Is Entitled to Decision for Summary Disposition as Matter of Law

ML19209B244
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	08/24/1979
From:	Deale V Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
References
NUDOCS 7910090372
Download: ML19209B244 (23)

Text

-

S merm UNITED STATES OF A1IERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COSIAIISSION g

AUG 2 41973 p,(

~ =

Com.e.c % D

• "'" Q ATO11IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4

y In the 11atter of

)

)

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER )

Docket Nos.50-338SP COSIPANY (VEPCO)

)50-339SP

)

(North Anna Power Station

)

Proposed Amendment to Units 1 and 2)

)

Operating License NPF-4 Order Granting VEPCO's IIotion for Summary Discosition 1.

This Order follows up the Board Decisiens, dated August 6, 1979, Wherein the Board granted VEPCO's motion for summary disposi-tien and stated that the reascns supporting its decision would be forth-coming in a Board Order shortly. This is such Board order.

BACKGROUND 2.

On IIay 11, 1979, VEPCO filed its IIotion for Summary Disposition. At the time, the scheduled date for a hearing was June 26, 1979, as had been set by the Beard's Notice of Hearing, dated IIay 4, 1979. VEPCO's motien thus met the time-ci-filing requirement, as specified by the Ccomissica regulatien 10 CFR 52. 749(a), of at least forty-five (45) days before the time fixed for hearing.

3.

In keeping with 10 CFR 5 2. 749(a), VEPCO annexed to its

=cticn proper its " Statement of 11aterial Facts As To Which There Is 1114 066

'4 q.y0090 G7

No Genuine Issue To Be Heard" and three supporting affidavits alcng with statements of qualifications of the affiants. The Statement of Material Facts enumerated one hundred seventy-nine (179) factual statements broken down according to the contentions previously accepted by the Board for hearing. This Statement was largely based on VEPCO's Summary of Proposed Modifications to the Spent Fuel Storage Pool Associated with Increasing Storage Capacity, as amended. The truth and correctness of this Summary was attested to in one of the three VEPCO affidavits, namely, the affidavit of H. Stephen McKay, VEPCO's Project Engineer responsible from the design and installaticn of the high density spent fuel racks for North Anna 1 and 2.

A copy of VEPCO'-

Summary is attached to Mr. McKay's affidavit. Other supporting refer-ences than VIPCO's Summary relating to a material fact in VEPCO's Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Geanine Issue To Be Heard are noted therein.

4.

Besides attesting to the truths and correctnes:: cf VCPCO's Summary, Mr. McKay's affidavit also attested to some si:cty-sic statements supplementary to VEPCO's Summary and bearing en one or ancther centention which had been scheduled for hearing. VEPCO's two other affidavits by qualified affiants, namely, Dr. Morris L.

Brehmer and Robert W. Calder, =ainly ccncerned Intervencrs' con-tentiens, on Thermal Effects and Corrosion respectively.

1114 067

5.

The cententions designated for hearing by the Board were spelled out in the Board's Order Granting Intervention, Providing for a Hearing and Designating Cententions of Intervenors, dated April 21, 19 79, and in the Board's amendment to said order dated June 6,1979. These conten-tions are briefly identified as follows:

THERMAL EFFECTS RADIOACTIVE EMISSION a) Accidents b) Normal Operation MISSILE ACCIDENTS MATERIALS INTEGRITY CORROSION OCCUPATIONAL EXPCSURE ALTERNATIVES SERVICE WATER COOLING SYSTEM 6.

The NRC Staff supported VEPCO's motici.. for summary disposi-tien. The NRC Staff's answer to VEPCO's motion was in two parts, as follows: first, its Response to VEPCO Summary Disposition Motion, dated June 5,1979, together with two affidavits on Thermal Effects, one affidavit en Radicactive Emissien, one affidavit on Materials Integrity and Corrosion, cne affidavit en Occupational Exposure, one affidavit en Alternatives and cne affidavit correcting a figure in the Safety Evaluation, as well as statements of each affiant's qualificatiens; and seccnd, its Supplemental Respcase to VEPCO Summary Dispositien Moticn, dated June 25,1979, with three affidavits en Radioactive Emission (Accidents),

one affidavit en Missile Accidents, and cne affidavit en Service Water Cooling Syst

, alcng with statements cf qualifications of the affiants.

1114 068

_4 7.

Intervenors Potomac Alliance and Citizens' Energy Forum (CEF),

which were later consolidated, each opposed VEPCO's motion for sum-mary disposition. Potomac Alliance's answer to the motion was in three parts: first, its Answer to VEPCO's 3Iotion for Summary Disposition, dated June 5,1979, together with its Statement cf AIaterial Facts As To Which There Is A Genuine Issue To Be Heard, dated June 5,1979, plus a supporting affidavit of the same date by Potomac Alliance's attorney:

second, its Supplemental Answer to VEPCO's AIotion for Summary Disposi-tion, dated June 25, 1979; and third, its Second Supplemental Answer to VEPCO's AIotion for Summary Dispositica, dated July 23, 1979, plus an affidavit by Phillip AI. Weitzman cf ti.e same date along with a statement of the affiant's qualifice.tions. CEF's separate answer to VEPCO's motion prior to consolidation with Potomac Alliance consisted of its Response to VEPCO's SIotion for Summary Disposition and its Staten.ent of Facts As To Which There Exists A Genuine Issue To Be Heard -- both dated June 5,19 79.

8.

By its Order Partially Granting VEPCO's AIotien for Summary Disposition, dated June 18, 1979, the Board allowed both the NRC Staff and Potemac Alliance to file further ccmments on or before June 25, 1979 cn that part of VEPCO's motien on which the Beard had act acted. In the June 18 order, it was also noted that under the Board's ecnsolidation order cf June 6,1979, Potomac Alliance also speaks in this prcceeding 1114 069

. for Citizens Energy Forum (CEF), which was the only other intervenor in the proceeding.

9.

Upon receipt et Potomac Alliance's Supplemental Answer to VEPCO's Motion for Summary Disposition, dated June 2 5, 1979, in response to the Board's invitation of June 18, the Board reconsidered Potomac Alliance's position as described in the latter's Supplemental Answer, pp.1-2:

"... While VEPCO's responses to the discovery requests of the A11innce and Citizens Energy Forum (the Intervenors) have been received only within the past few days, the NRC Staff has notified the parties and the Board that it will not be able to submit its responses until several [ days) after the date of this filing. The Alliance has therefore been severely handicapped in attempting to amass the facts neces-sary to develop its case, with the result that it cannot present by affidavit the facts essential to its oppositien to VEPCO's motion. Under such circumstances it is appropriate for the Board to refuse to consider the motien or to deny it. See 10 CFR 5 2. 749(c). "

The same general position had also been advanced by Potomac Alliance and CEF in their June 5 answers to VEPCO's motion for su_: mary disposition.

10. The referenced citation 10 CFR $2. 749(c) is as follows:

"(c) Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motien (i.e., for summary disposition] that he cannot, for reascns stated, present by affidavit facts essential to justify his cppositien, the presiding officer may refuse the application for summary disposition or may order a centinuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or make such other order as is appropriate and a determinaticn to that effect shall be made a matter Cf record. "

n14 070

. 11. As a result of its reconsideration of Potomac Alliance's asserted position of why it could not answer adequately VZFCO's motion for summary disposition, the Board extended de time for Potomac Alliance to supplement its answers to VEPCO's motion. In its Order Allowing Additional Time for Certain Answers and Resetting Time for Hearing, dated June 29, 1979, the Board permitted Potomac Alliance to on or before July 23, 1979 for supple-menting its answers to said motion. At the same time, the Board announced that it would reconsider its order of June 18, 1979 partially granting VEPCO's motion for summary disposition and it rescheduled de Prehearing Conference and Hearing to begin immediately thereafter from July 9 to August 14, 1979.

The June 29 order also allowed an additional five days for the parties to file answers to designated pending =c dons.

SIERITS OF NIOTION

12. VEPCO's timely AIotion for Summary Disposition, together with its Statement of IIaterial Facts As To %nich There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard and its three affidavits, satisfied the requirements of a

=otion for summary dispositicn as set forth in the Commission regulation 10 CFR 52.749 and provided me basis for granting de moticn.

The co-tien, together with its attachments, treated each of de contentions cf the Intervencrs scheduled for hearing, demonstrated dat there is no genuine issue of material fact wordy of a hearing, and showed why each cf de cententions ought to be resolved in VEPCO's favor.

13. VEPCO's AIction for Summary Disposition was strongly supported y th'e NRC Staff with its own affidavits. The NRC Staff agreed b

that VEPCO had accurately summarized pertinent facts surrounding the ll14 071

. contentions, that the contentions ought to be resolved in VEPCO's favor, and that there is no need for a hearing.

14. Intervenors' answers to VEPCO's motion, namely, both Potomac Alliance's answer and the response of CEF prior to consolida-tien, were totally defective. The answers did not comply with Commis-sion regulation 10 CFR 52. 749(b); rather than set forth specific facts showing there was a genuine issue cf fact, Intervenors relied on mere denials of VEPCO's claim that there was no genuine issue about certain

=aterial facts; and Intervenors offered no meaningful factual data of their own. Without raising any genuine issue worthy of hearing, Inter-venors rested their case against VEPCO's motion en generalities of dis-agreement, uninformed opinien and speculative argumentation.

15. In reaching its judgment about Potomac Alliance's answer, the Board refers to the following passage of the Commission regulation 10 CFR 52. 749(b):

"(b)... When a motica for summary decision is made and supported as provided in this section, a party oppos-ing t' a motion may not rest upon the mere allegations or denial or denie.ls cf his answer; his answer by affi-davits or as otherwise provided in this secticn must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue cf facts. If no such answer is filed, the decisicn sought, if appropriate, shall be rendered. "

Applying the foregoing standard to Potomac Alliance's answer, the Board concluded that the answer afforded no basis for denying VEPCO's mo-tion. In particular, the first par: of Potomac Alliance's answer, which was dated June 5,1979, essentially made the following two points:

(1) Potomac Alliance was at the tire not equipped to make any effective 1114 072

. answer to VEPCO's moticn and sought the Board either to deny the motion or to give Potomac Alliance more time to respond. invoking 10 CFR

52. 749(c); and (2) with respect to a significant number of paragraphs enumerated in VEPCO's Statement of Material Facts As To Which There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard, Potomac Alliance merely contradicted through its attorney's affidavit VEPCO's position and contended that there was a genuine issue to be heard with respect to the facts in said paragraphs.

This first part of Potomac Alliance's three part answer to VEPCO's mo-tion partially occasioned the Board's later order to allow Potomac Alliance further time to prepare an answer; however, neither the first point of the first part of Potomac Alliance's answer nor the second point thereof raised any genuine issue of material fact worthy of trial under the standard of the Commission regulation quoted above.

16. CEF's answer cf June 5 to VEPCO's motion for summary dis-position focused on three cententiens, namely, Thermal Effects, Radio-active Emission and Corrosion. The principal thrust of its answer was to emphasize CEF's dependence en VEPCO's and NRC Staff's answers to CEF's interrogatories in pending discovery procedure. Thcugh the answer supported the Board's later move to allow more time for preparing an answer to VEPCO's motion, CEF's answer of June 5 itself did nothing 1114 073 3i

9-to show why there ought to be a hearing about a material fact in genuine dispute. The answer did not satisfy the standard set out at Commission regulation 10 CFR $2. 749(b).

17. The second part of Potomac Alliance's answer, which was dated June 25, 1979, centered en Potomac Alliance's plea of its handicap to do battle with VEPCO on a factual basis and stressed the status of Potomac Alliance's discovery endeavors, that is, that Potomac Alliance had just received answers to its interrogatories to VEPCO and it was expected to receive in a few days answers to its interrogatories to the NRC Staff. The Board's order allowing Potomac Alliazice addi-ticnal time to prepare its answer followed; but the second part cf Potomac Alliance's answer in and of itself effered no statement of material fact to raise any of Potomac Alliance's dissatisfaction with VEPCO to a genuine issue worthy of hearing.

18. The third and final part of Potomac Alliance's answer to VEPCO's motion, dated July 23, 1979, addressed each cf the contentions which had been scheduled for hearing and en which, according to VIPCO's motion, there is no need for a hearing as they involve no genuine issue t

1114 074 l

0

.. s f.,,

of material facts. Intervenors' contentions and the Scard's conclusions concerning the relation of these cententiens to VEPCO's motion for sum-mary disposition follow.

19. THERSIAL EFFECTS CONTENTION. Intervenor contends that the possible consequences caused by the additicnal heat to be dis-charged as a result of the proposed modifications have not been adequately addressed by the NRC Staff and the Applicant. This contention embraces the rate of temperature rise in the spent fuel storage facility as a result of an accidentalleak in the spent fuel pool. It further includes the affirmaticn that the spent fuel pool cooling system will be inadequate to prevent " hot spots" and possible boiling.

20.

The foregoing Thermal Effects contention which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO cn the basis of its moticn for summary dispositicn along with the NRC Staff's answer to the motion. Pertinent considerations follow:

VEPCO, with the support cf Dr. 3Iorris L.

Brehmer's affidavit, has concluded that the addi-ticnal heat to be discharged from the spent fuel pool because of the preocsed scdification is extremely limited and would have no significant effect upon the environment. The NRC Staff's EnvironmentalImpact Appraisal of April 2,1979 is in agreement.

1114 075

Further, in its Statement of AIaterial Facts As To Wnich There Is No Genuine Issue To Be Heard, VIPCO set forth 53 material facts bearing on the contention of thermal effects; these facts embrace such subordinate subjects as discharge of heat to the environment, spent fuel pool cooling system analysis, leakage, and thermal hydraulic analysis. In its answer to VEPCO's motion, dated June 5,1979, the NRC Staff, at page 4, concluded that VEPCO's state-ments of 53 material facts " accurately summarice the salient facts not open to dispute. "

Potomac Alliance did not present a single spe-cific factual allegation which placed any one of VEPCO's supported allegations concerning the Thermal Effects centention in genuine issue.

Potomac Alliance's mere reference to a study of Sandia Laboratories (SAND-77-1372 (1978)), ap-parently on spent fuel pool coolant leakage, without, however, showing a specific relation of the study to VEPCO's spent fuel pool is of no account.

Similarly, Potomac Alliance's attempt to intro-duce censiderations arising out of AIinnesota v. NRC, Nos. 78-1269, 78-2032 (D. C. Cir.1979) is re-jected as irrelevant to this prcceeding. See Board's Order Denying Intervenors' Motion To Amend Petition To Intervene, August 17, 19 79, pp. 1 -4.

The Board concluded that the additional heat to be discharged as a result of the proposed modifica-tien is not environmentally significant.

21. RADIOACTIVE EMISSION CONTENTION (a): Intervenor con-tends &at VEPCO has neglected to address the additional licuid and gasecus radioactive emissiens which will result from theincreased fuel storage and de effects Sereof. In CEF's [Intervenor's] cpinion, applicant's analysis of radiation released, and cf possible releases, in 6e event cf &ose acci-dents cens:dered in Secticn 9.1 Srough 9.4 of de application, are super-ficial and insubstantial in the Summary cf de Proposed IIcdificaticns.

1114 076

. 22. The foregoing Radioactive Emission centention (a) which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO cn the basis of its motion for summary disposition along with the NRC Staff's answer to the motion. Pertinent cnsiderations follow:

There are a part a) and a part b) to the conten-tion of Radica;tive Emission, with the former relating tc accidents and the latter to normal operation.

VEPCO analyzed a number of potential accidents, namely, the loss of the spent fuel pool cooling system, leakage, earthquakes and tornadoes, and fuel drop accidents, and in acne of these accidents, did VEPCO's analysis show unacceptable results. The NRC Staff's independent evaluation reached the same conclusion.

Paragraphs 87 through 114 cf VEPCO's Statement of IIaterial Facts pertain to part a) of the Radioactive Emissien contentien and according to the NRC Staff, such paragraphs " accurately summarize the salient facts not open to dispute." NRC Staff Supplemental Respcnse to VEPCO's Summary Disposition motien, dated June 25, 1979, p. 2.

Potomac Alliance did not place a single VEPCO statement pertinent to part a) cf the subject conten-tien into genuine issue. Again, its reliance en censiderations flowi;.g frcm IIinnesota v. NRC is misplaced in this proceeding.

The Board concluded that ncne of the accidents analyzed by VEPCO and the NRC Staff wculd have unacceptable ccnsequences.

23. RADIOACTIVE ESIISSION CONTENTION (b): Intervenor ccn-tends that the Applicant has failed to analyze adequately the liquid and gasecus radioactive emissicns that will result frc= the prcpcsed increase 1114 077 k*

a e

- in fuel storage capacity, and has failed to demonstrate that significant

~

adverse environmental effects will not result from such emissions.

24.

The foregoing Radioactive Emission contentien (b) which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO cn the basis of its motion for summary disposition along with the NRC Staff's answer to the motion. Pertinent censiderations follow:

In its Statement of Material Facts, VEPCO enumerated 33 material facts, paragraphs 54 through 86, pertinent to part b) cf the Radioactive Emission contentien. The NRC Staff states that these material facts " accurately summari::e the salient facts not open to dispute. " NRC Staff Response to VEPCO Summary Disposition Motion, dated June 5,1979, p. 6.

Again, Potomac Alliance did not place a single VEPCO statement cf material fact into genuine issue; it relied en an argumentative position and misplaced emphasis upon Minnesota v. NRC in this proceeding.

The Beard is satisfied that the potential effsite radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed mcdification are environmentallyinsignificant.

25.

MISSILE ACCIDENT CONTENTION: Intervenor contends that the proposed modificatien of the spent fuel pool will increase the cense-quences of an accident involving missiles, and that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the pool, as modified, will wi$ stand such accidents widin the limits set fcrth in NRC Regulations.

26. The foregoing Missile Accident cententien which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO en the basis cf its 1114 078

. motien for summary disposition along with the NRC Staff's answer to the motion. Pertinent censiderations follow:

VEPCO has analyzed the risk of a tornado missile impacting the sper.t fuel pool and concluded it would not result in radiation doses exceeding the limits of 10 CFR Part 100. VEPCO also analyzed the risk of a turbine missile and found it to be extremely small.

The NRC Staff analyses yield the same conclusions.

Paragraphs 116-117,121-123, and 126 of VEPCO's Statement of 11aterial Facts are relevant to the IIissile Accidents contention, and according to the Staff, they

" accurately summarize the salient facts not open to dispute. " NRC Staff Supplemental Respense to VEPCO Summary Dispositien AIotion, dated June 25, 1979, p. 3.

While Potemac Alliance generally insists that there is "need for a hearing of this contentien" and that "the technical positiens of VEPCO and the NRC Staff be subjected to verification in the crucible of a public and adjudicatory hearing," Potomac Alliance did nothing to place a material fact in genuine issue. General references to past pleadings and general argumentative pcstures are not enough to meet the standard cf the Commissicn regulation 10 CFR $2. 749(b).

The Board is persuaded that possible missile acci-dents relating to the preposed modificaticn of the spent fuel pool do not afbrd an acceptable reascn for denying the proposed modificaticn.

27. IIATERIAI S INTEGRITY CONTENTION: Intervenor centends dat increasing the inventory of radioactive materials in the spent fuel pool will increase the corrosion of,the stress upen, and resultant prcb-lems cencerning the compcnents and centents of the pool. The applicant has not adequately addressed such potential problems with respect to:

1114 C/9

(a) the fuel cladding, as a result of exposure to decay heat and increased radiatica levels during extended pericds of pool storage; and (b) the racks and poolliner, as a result cf exposure to higher levels of radiation during pool storage.

28.

The foregoing Materials Integrity contention which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO on the basis of its motion for summary dispositien along with NRC Staff's answer to the motion. Pertinent considerations follow:

VEPCO cites Licensing Board and Appeal Scard decisions to the effect that Zircaloy-clad fuel can be safely stored under water, and VEPCO does not ex-pect the racks and pool liner to suffer unacceptable stress or corrosien over the life of the power staticn.

The NRC Staff offers that little if any effect will be produced upon the spent fuel assemblies or stainless steel pool components. In the NRC Staff view, since only minimal general corrosien will occur, the struc-turalintegrity of the spent fuel pool components is not degraded.

In its Statement of IIaterial Facts, paragraphs 78 thrcugh 86 and 127 through 134 bear upcn both the above cententien en IIaterials Integrity and the fcllow-ing cententien en Corrosicn.

Ane NRC Staff takes the positien that such paragraphs " accurately sum-marize the salient facts not cpen to dispute. " NRC Staff's Response to VEPCO's Summary Disposition AIotien, dated June 5,1979, page 7.

Of particular interest, Paragraph 127 states: " Storing 966 instead of 400 fuel assemblies in the spent fuel pool will not caterially increase the corrosien of, the stress upon, or other resultant problems with'the fuel cladding, the racks, or the pool liner due to higher radiation levels. "

1114 080

Cnce more, Potomac Alliance does not specify information which balances the VEPCO's statements of material facts.

The Board is satisfied as to the integrity of VEPCO's materials.

29. CORROSION CONTENTION. Intervenor contends that there has been inadequate examination of the problems that may arise due to a potential incremental increase in the amount of corrosien upcn the spent fuel assemblies and racks over the duration of the storage of fuel in ie pool, including their eventual removal from the poc1. Such prob-lems include, but are not limited to, the ability of the spent fuel purifica-tien system to remove any potential incremental impurities.

30. The foregoing Corrosien contentien which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO cn the basis of its motion for summary dispositien along with the NRC Staff's answer to the motion.

Pertinent considerations follow:

The two contentiens of Material htegrity and Corrosien cover essentially the same ground, and Potomac Alliance and the NRC Staff treat them together.

In citing the Staff's Safety Evaluaticn which stresses adherence of the spent fuel s:crage rack material to commonly accepted material stan-dards, VEPCO notes tere is neither reascn nor evidence for supposing that the prepcsed modifica-tien will significantly increase corrosion. VEPCO, with the benefit of its experience at Surry, also.in-dicates the adecuacy of the fuel pec1 purification system to hancle its load.

1114 081 3

_ _ _ l The affidavit of AIessrs. Georgiev, Housten and Wermiel, presented with the NRC Staff's answer of June 5,1979 to VEPCO's motion for summary dis-positicn, is Ln point. It covers the cententions of both AIaterials Integrity and Corrosien and while dealing specifically with fuel cladding integrity and racks and poolliner, it also covers corrosion and The affi-the spent fuelpool purification system.

davit reinforces VEPCO's position.

Potomac Alliance's Second Supplemental Answer To VEPCO's AIotion for Summary Dis-position, dated July 23, 1979, had nothing spe-cific to offer by way of raising a genuine issue of a material fact which would be worthy of a hearing.

The Board concluded there is no foundation for the centention en Corrosion.

31. OCCUS \\TIONAL EXPOSURE CONTENTION. Intervenor cct-tends that the Applicant has not demenstrated that it will prevent the in-creased occupational radiatien levels which will result from the spent fuel pool modification from leading to occupational doses in excess cf these permitted under NRC Regulaticns.

32.

The foregoing Occupational Exposure centention which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO cn the basis of its motion for summary disposition along with $e NRC Staff's answer to the motion. Pertinent censiderations follow:

VEPCO has concluded that occupational ex-posures will not exceed NRC limits. In agreement with VEPCO, the NRC Staff concluded that the heald effects of incremental increase in some radiation exposure to plant persennel would be negligible.

1114 082

In VEPCO's Statement of Facts, paragraph 135 through 156 " accurately summarize," according to the NRC Staff, "the salient facts not open to dispute. "

NRC Staff Response to VEPCO Summary Disposi-tien motion, dated June 5,1979, p. 8.

Rather than specifically controvert any of VEPCO's statements of fact, Potomac Alliance persisted in its argumenta-tive posture of 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 borne by the work force. " Potomac Alliance Second Supple-mental Answer to VEPCO's Motien for Summary Disposition," dated July 23, 1979, p. 9.

The Board is moved to accept VEPCO's positicn, which is strcngly supported by the NRC Staff, that the proposed modificaticn in the spent fuel pool will not result in occupational exposure to radiation in excess of limits prescribed by NRC regulations.

33. ALTERNATIVES CONTENTION. Intervenor centends that neither the Applicant nor the Staff has adequately censidered alternatives to the proposed action. The alternatives which shculd be considered are:

(a) the construction cf a new spent fuel pool on site; (b) the physical ex-pansion of the existing spent fuel pool; (c) the use of the spent fuel pool at North Anna Units 3 and 4 ' including the completion of ccustructicn of such pool, if necessary) for storage cf spent fuel from Units 1 and 2.

34. The foregoing Alternatives contention which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO cn the basis of its n otion for summary dispositicn along with the NRC Staff's answer to the motion.

Pertinent considerations follow:

1114 083

. VEPCO finds alternative (a) unacceptable at this time because of the high cost, the need for double handling the fuel, and the time required to design, license and construct such a facility.

VEPCO finds alternative (b) as impracticable be-cause there exist on all four 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 c omplications. Simthrly, VEPCO notes that alternative (c), that is, use of the spent fuel pool at North Anna 3 and 4, would be unworkable be-cause of the timing. VEPCO's Motien for Summary Disposition, dated May 11, 1979, p. 20. VEPCO also addresses the Alternatives contention in its Statement of Facts, from paragraphs 157 through 179.

The NRC Staff, which considered alternat;ves suggested in the contention and others, concluded that the alternatives encompassed by the contention "are unavailable within the necessary time-frame, are more expensive and offer no environmental ad-vantage over the proposed action. " NRC Staff Respense to VEPCO Summary Dispositien motica, dated June 5, 19 79, p. 9.

Phillip M. Weitzman's affidavit, accompanying Potomac Alliance Second Supplemental Answer to VEPCO's Motion for Summary Disposition (July 23, 1979), pressed the position that the materials sub-mitted by VEPCO did not provide an adequate "fac-tual and analytical " asis en which to decer=ine The-ther VEPCO's proposed modification of the spen fuel pool at North Anna Units 1 and 2 is economically rcore advamagecus than any of the three alternative preposals centained in the Potomac Alliance's contention labeled

' Alternatives'. " Affidavit, datec Tuly 23, 1979, p. 2.

Pctcmac Alliance evidently nade no attempt to secure details about VIPCO's estimates during the extra time allowed by the Beard in its Orcer cf June 29, 1979. The NRC Staff raised no question abcut 1114 084

VEPCO's estimates. In any event, Potomac Alliance did not meet the Commission regulatory requirement that its " answer... must set forth facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact,"

10 CFR 32. 743(b).

Regarding the centention en Alternatives, the Board refers to the Appeal Board's view that in spent fuel pool modification cases there is a limi-tation upon the NEPA mandate cf exploring alter-natives -- which limitatien appears applicable here:

"[The intervenor) is confrented with the fact that the evidence establishes without contradiction that the process of installing the new racks in that pool and the operation of the pool with its expanded capacity will neither (1) entail more than negligible environmental impacts; nor (2) involve the commit-ment of available resources respecting which there are unresolved conflicts.... As we read it, the NEPA mandate that alternatires to the proposed licensing act'en be explored ar.d evaluated does not come into play in such circumstances -- in short, there is no cbligation to search cut possible alterna-tives to a course which itself will not either harm the envi-mment or bring into serious questien the manner to which this ccuntry's rescurces are being expended. " Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC (AIarch 21, 1979) (slip cpinion at 4-5; footnote omitted).

35. SERVICE WATER CCOLING SYSTESI CONTENTION. The intervenor centends that the service water cooling system for the facility will be inadequate to support the compcnent cooling system for the spent fuel p001 if the proposed modifintion of the pool is permitted.

Il14 085

. 36. The foregoing Service Water Cooling System contention which had been scheduled for hearing is decided in favor of VEPCO on the basis of its motion for summary disposition along with the NRC Staff's answer to the motion. Pertinent considerations follow:

In its Statement of Facts under the subheading Spent Fuel Pool Cooling System Analysis, para-graphs 17 to 40, inclusive, VEPCO indicated how it analyced its spent fuel cooling sys_ tem, taking into account the~ proposed increase in fuel storage capacity. It reported that resulting fuel pool tem-peratures were found to be within the limits of 140*F for the normal case and 170*F for the ab-normal case if cne fuel pool cooling system pump and two coolers are used. The NRC Staff arrived at the same conclusion, and went further to note that should only cne cooler be available during the specified peak load period, the resulting pool water temperatures of 148'F for the normal case and 177*F for the abnormal case "are only slightly above the previously established limits and will not result in unacceptable operating conditiens nor adversely af-feet the health and safety of the public [ Reference omitted]. " NRC Staff Supplemental Response to VEPCO Summary Disposition Motion, dated June 25, 1979, pp. 4-5.

Once more, Potomac Alliance did not offer a single fact, by affidavit or otberwise, which would place its Service Water Cooling System contentien into genuine issue worthy cf a hearing. Potomac Alliance's persistent position in dealing with its cententions im-pressed the Board that it simply wanted a hearing in the nature of a public forum so that VEPCO and the NRC Staff walld be put to the task of explaining over again their various premises on the occasion of ex-amination by Potomac Alliance under circumstances where Potomac Alliance would have speculative questions to ask and no specific material facts to call upen.

1114 086

, c

.. ~

The Board finds that VEPCO's service water coonng system is acceptable.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 37.

Pursuant to the Commission regulation 10 CFR $2. 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 VEPCO is entitled as a

~

matter of law to a decisicn grantihg its motion oI' summary disposition.

38. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that VEPCO's motion for summary dispositicn is granted, that the hearing previously scheduled for three separate dates concerning the Preposed Amendment To Facility Operating License NPF-4 To Permit Storage Pool Modificaticn is permanently cancelled, and that the NRC Staff is authori::ed to permit VEPCO's proposed spent fuel storage modificatien and to adopt imple-menting measures necessary or convenient toward enabling VEPCO to effect such modification in a timely manner.

39. The two technical members of the Board, namely, Dr.

Quentin J. Stober and Ernest E. Hill, participated in this decisien, first summarily announced in Board Decisiens, dated August 6,1979, and in this Order explaining the decision. But for geographical distances and time censideraticns, Dr. Stober and Mr. Hill wculd have joined the ChairmaIl in signing this Order.

~

1114 087

,- Done this kh day of August 1979 at Washington, D.C.

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

By, h

's /m

~ leittide B.' Deal'e,lhhir: dan Va

.s, 1114 088