ML19224D606
| ML19224D606 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1979 |
| From: | Swanson D NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907130130 | |
| Download: ML19224D606 (8) | |
Text
.
6/6/79
-W fp UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COTtISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SACETY AND LICENSING APPEAL S0ARD In the Matter of
)
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-338 CL
[% 1
.,j
'/ '
COMPANY
}
50-339 OL I
4 (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, )
C
..c y,
Unics 1 and 2)
)
/c u
j J.
- U;;
'.3 7 3 > N
.~
O~.' "E
\\ C',2 NRC STAFF ANSWER TO VEPC0 MOTION g.f FOR INTERIM TECH'lICAL SPECIFIC? TION CHANGE
-Q m; M1*
INTRODUCTION On May 17, 1979, the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO) submitted "VEPC0 Motion for Interim Technical specification Change" (Motion), in which VEPC0 moved the Appeal Board to direct the NRC Staff to increase the allow-1 able service water pumphouse settlement limits in North Anna 1 and 2 Technical Specifications to the extent the Staff thinks justified on the basis of the Staff's own safety review.
In t1e alternative, VEPC0 asked the Appeal Board to authorize the Sta?f to increase the allowable settlement limits pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.717(b).
VEPC0 indicated in its Motion that the requested change would be effective only in the interin until the settle-ment issue in ti.is proceeding is resolved by the Appeal Board. Motion at 5.
1/
Although VEPC0 seeks direction or authorization from the Apoeal Board to the Staff to increase the settlement limits for both Units 1 and 2, only Unit 1 currently has an operating 'icense.
There are no relevant settlement limits incorporated into the constrt. ion permit for Unit 2.
Any operating license issued for Unit 2 would of course have the same pumphouse settlement limits as would ex-ist for Unit 1, since the sane pumphouse serves both units.
369 013 7 9 071 n n \\bb b^l
t In response to the present motion the Staff interposes its ob.iection upon the grounds that the relief sought is improper under the provisions of 10 CFR 5 2.717(b).
BACKGRC1ND On June 13,1978, VEPC0 requested a license amendment which would increase the allowable settlement of the service water pumphouse.
The Staff reviewed the amendment request and concluded that the allowable settlement could safely be increased, although to limits different from what VEPC0 had pro-posed.
In a letter to the Appeal 3 card dated Decc.raber 22, 1978, the Staff set out its conclusion as to the amendment request and attached a copy of its safety evaluation upon which its conclusion had been based.E Fu rthe r, tne Staff stated that it believed that it had jurisdicticn pursuant to 10 CFR Q 2.717(b), to issue a license amendment authorizing revised technical specifications for Unit 1, but that the amendment was not imme' iately d
requirad, and that the Staff accordingly would not take any action on the license amendment request until the Appeal Board had expressed its opinion on the subject.
2/
In the Staff's revised safety evaluation which was attached to the letter from Daniel Swanson to the Appeal Board, dated January 9,1979, the Staff concluded that there are no significant hazards considerations involved in the requested license amendmeni..
Accordingly, a Notice of Opportunity to request a hearing need not be published prior to issuance of the amendment.
369 014
e VEPC0 asserts that there now exists an imminent need for an increase in the allowable limits for settlement of the service water pumphouse.
Although the amount of settlement over the past 29 months has been gradual and within technical specification limits, VEPC0 states that recent surveys indicate that the existing pumphouse settlement technical specification limit for Unit 1 is being approached and may be reached before this proceeding can be concluded.
If that limit is reached, the ?acility would have to be shut i
down pursuant to Technical Specification Q 3.7.12.1.
In order to guard against a potential shutdown, VEPC0, on the basis of the Staff's and it's conclusions that the settlement limits can be safely raised, requests the Appeal Board to direct or, in the alternative, fto authorize, the Staff to increase the settlement limits for Units 1 and 2.1/ Motion at 4, 5.
VEPCO'S MOTION FOR AN OP7ER DIRECTING THE STAFF TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE PUMPHOUSE FETTLEMENT LIMITS IS WITHOUT LEGAL AUTHORITY I.
~ '
The Directors of either the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) or the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS), as appropriate, may issue an order to take any otherwise proper adminis-trative action with respect to a licensee who is a party to a pending proceeding.
10 CFR 9 2.717(b). And under the express provisions of this regulation, the Director of NRR could, during the pendency of the present proceeding, issue the requested amendment to the operating license 3/
See n. 1 above.
369 015
t for Unit 1 increasing the allowable settlement limits for the service water pumphcuse; recognizing, of course, tnat any action taken concerning the issuance of the license amendment could be modified by the Appeal Board for the purpose of this prcceeding.
10 CFR 9 2.717(b).O Thus, it is clear that it is the requirements of 10 CFR Q 2.717(b) rather than the mand:tes of this Board which--in the first instance--are controlling upon the question of the proper proced're to be followed in the event that u
the Director of NRR is prepared to issue a license amendment with respect to a matter which is the subject of the pending proceeding.
For under this regt lation, the Director of NRR has the initial jurisdiction to issue th'e amendent, and it is only after the Director has acted that 10 CFR s 2.717(b) authorizes the Board to take appropriate acticn including the modification of the Staff's licensing action.
See, Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and z), ALAB-143, 6 AEC 623, 625 (1973). ( Appeal Board indicated that necessary administrative actions by Staff should continue while a proceeding is being adjudicated, but that the presiding body and
-4/
See, e,c., Vermont Yankee fluclear Power Coro. (Ver.,ont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-214,7 AEC 1001,1002 (1974).
369 016
. other parties should be informed of any changes which are material and rele-vant to the proceeding).5_/
Therefore, in the present proceeding the relief sought by VEPC0 in requesting an order from this Board prior to any action by the Director of flRR on the proposed amendment is clearly improper, and upon the authority of 10 CFR
$ 2.7U(b).hould be denied, o
II.
Moreover, upon the facts of the present case the requested relief is unneces-s a ry.
In light of the changed circumstances cited by VEPCO in support of the need for prompt action with respect to its reque:,t for an increase in the allow-able settlement limits for the pumphouse, the Staff no longer feels that it is prudent to delay issuance o# the license amendme.t until completion of the pending proceeding. However, upon the facts as now known to the Staff, there is not an irmediate need for the proposed amendment. Accordingly, while the Director of NRR is now prepared to issue a license amendment which will increase 5/
Cf., Consolicated Edison Co. of New York, Inc., P.A.S.N.Y. (Indian Point Station, Units 1, 2 anc 3), ALAB-357, 4 NRC da2, da6 (1976).
The Con-mission initiated a special proceet. Mg, in which it granted to the Appeal Board full authority to achieve a conprehensive resolution of the seismic issues raised with respect to the Indian Point site.
During the pendency of the soecial proceeding, the licensee moved the presiding Appeal Board to issue an order mcdifying a condition of the license relating to a seismic natter.
Under the circunstances of that special proceeding, the Appeal Board determined that it was appropriate for the purpose of the proceeding for it to rule on the requested license amendment before the Staff had acted on the natter.
These circumstances are distinguishable from the instant proceeding where the Appeal Soard is looking into the punphouse settlement matter on its own motion pursuant to 10 CFR 5 2.785(b)(2) and not under any special direction or mandate of the Comission.
369 017
~ the allowable settlement of the. service water pumphouse in accordance with the evaluation attached to the Staff's January 9,1979 letter, as supplemented by "NRC Staff Testimony Regarding Pumphouse Settlement," dated April 27, 1979 and the supplement thereto dated May 4,1979,b he nonetheless believes that the need for the proposed amendment is no+ of such a pressing nature as to preclude an opportunity for appropriate consideration of this issue by the Appeal Coard.
Therefore, notwithstanding the authority placed in the Director under 5 2.717(b),
the Director will defer any action on this amendment for a period of 20 days to permit an opportunity for consideration of this matter by ti.a Appeal Board.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Staff urges the Appeal Board to deny' the Motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/!U[
w Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of June,1979 6/
The basis for tne Director's decision to increase the allowable settlement limit for the scrvice water pumphouse is set forth in Section 6 of the Staff Testimony (pp. 35-43).
The limiting value for differential settle-ment of 0.22 feet since July 1977 between either carner of the north side of the pumphouse and the exposed ends of the pipes that are buried in the gravel filter portion of the dike fill is as set forth in the proposed technical specification attached to the Staff's January 9,1979 letter to the Appeal Board, as modi fied by its January 29, 1979 letter.
The only substantive change from that proposed technical sceci fication, as dis-cussed in Section 6(d) of the Staff Testimony (pp. 42, 43), is that the frequency of monitoring settlement of the pumphouse will be increased from once every six months to once every 31 days until Unit I has been in operation for at least five years. As stated in the Staff Testimony, the settlement limit of 0.22 feet will ensure that the stress limits of the service water pipes and the flexible couplings will not be exceeded during plant operation, and hence that a loss of the use of the service water system will not result.
369 018
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-338 OL
)
50-339 OL (North Anna Nuclear Power Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF ANSWER TO VEPC0 MOTION FOR INTERIM TECHNICAL SPECIFICATION CHANGE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 6th day of June, 1979.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Paul W. Purdom, Directo'r Atomic St.fety and Licensing Appeal Environmental Studies Institute Board Drexel University U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 32nd & Chestnut S reets Washington, DC 20555 Philadelphia, PA 19104 Dr. John Buck
- Mr. R. B. Briggs Atomic Safcty and Licensing Appeal 110 Evans Lane Board Oak Ridge, TN 37830 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Michael W. Maupin,' Esq.
Hunton & Williams-Michael C. Farrar, Esq.*
P. O. Box 1535 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Richmond, VA 23212 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richard Foster, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 1908 A Lewis Mountain Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.
Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman Mr. James M. Torson
& Weiss 501 Leroy 1725 I Street, N.W.
Socorro, NM 87801 Suite 506 Washington, DC 20006 Mrs. James C. Arnold Box 3951 Charlottesville, VA 22903 369 019 0
- 2 ' --
William H. Rodgers, Jr., Esq.
Mr. Dean P. Agee Georgetown University Law Center Executi.ve Secretary 600 New Jersey Avenua, N.W.
Board of Supervisors Washington, DC 2U001 Louisa Courthouse Louisa, VA 23090 Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom Assistant Dean Atomic Safety and Licensing Board College of Engineering Panel
- Oklahoma State University U.S. Nuclear Regele.-. :ommission Stillwater, OK 74074 Washington, DC 20555 Anthony Gambardella, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Office of the Attorney General Panel (5)*
11 South 12th Street Room 308 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, VA 23219 Washington, DC 20555 Mrs. June Allen Docketing and Service Section (4)*
412 Owens Drive Office of the Secretary Huntsville, AL 35801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mrs. Margaret Dietrich Route 2, Box 568 Gordonsville, VA 22C-2
,p/
A p, A / 5.
@ = ^ =-
Daniel T. Swanson Counsel for NRC Staff o
369 020
-mm wwwn
.e m
S