ML19246B775
| ML19246B775 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1979 |
| From: | Rinaca J HUNTON & WILLIAMS |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7907180591 | |
| Download: ML19246B775 (27) | |
Text
.
June 18, 1979 W Rocy se 4x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 8
{\\
y n.o NUCLEAR REGULATORY GCMMISSION usnac JUN21 B73
- q_.\\
u--
BEFORE THE ATCMIt SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARC s
In the Matter of
)
)
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND PCWER CCMPANY
) Doc. Nos. 50-338 SP
)
50-339 SP
)
(North Anna Po we r Station,
) (Proposed Amendment to Units 1 and 2)
) Operating License NPF-4)
VE PC O ' S MOTION FOR INTERIM RELIEF The applicant in this proceeding, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Vepco), hereoy asks the Atomic Safety anc Licensing Board (ASLB or Board) to authorize the immediate installation of new high-density spent fuel storage racks and their use for tne storage ot up to 243 spent fuel assemblies, under tne conditions stated later in this motion, until the contested issues in this proceeding are resolved.
There are compelling reasons why the Board shou'.d grant this interim relief, as we shall explain below.
I.
THE FROBLEM Vepco requested the operating license amendment that would permit the installation and use of tne new nign-density spent fuel storage racks on May 1, 19/3.
The company now finds u,. /i 790718csy44 038
itself in June 19/9 with a public evidentiary hearing scneculed for July 9.
The NRC Start, Appeal Board, and ASLB have done their best to move tnis proceeding along promptly, it seems to us.
Nevertheless, unless we have a greatly aboreviated schedule for posthearing cleadings, or unless the Board grants summary disposition of all tne issues, it seems unlikely that an initial decision can be had betore August or September.
As Vepco explained in ene Af t1 davit ot E.
Ashoy Baum attached to Vepco's Response to Motions by NRC Statt anc Intervenors to Reschedule Hearing, May 30, 19/9, spent tuel from North Anna Unit 1 will need to be stored in September, and so spent fuel storage racks ot some kind must be already installed by then.
Moreover, there is a pressing need to use the spent fuel racks to store fresn fuel for botn Unit 1 and Unit 2 temporarily.
In an attempt to solve tne problem, Vepco asked tne otner par ties to agree to an interim solution such as that described below in this motion.
Vepco suomitted a wr itten proposal to CEF and tne Potomac Alliance on May 14, 1979.
Counsel for tne Alliance has now intormed Vepco counsel nat the Alliance finds tne proposal unacceptable.
As stated in the Baum atridavit cited aoove, it is 1/ Fifty days are required atter hearing for filing proposed findings, 10 CFR S 2.7b4(a)(2) and (3), anc 35 days is tne time winnin wnicn tne Bo ar c is expectec to render its initial decision, 10 CFM Part 2, App.
A, VI(d) (19/3).
2 344 039
important tnat the new racks be installed in the pool before any irradiated fuel is stored there.
At present, since ir r ad ia ted fuel has never been stored in the pool, the new racks can be installed while the pool contains no water, the workers will not be exposed to any radiation, and the old racks can be removed and disposed of without any special precautions.
If Vepco has to install tne racks after irradiated tuel nas been stored in tne po o l, they will have to be installed with cne assistance of divers wnlle the pool is full of water.
In addition, the workers will be exposed to radiation; based on our experience witn tne replacement of the Surry spent fuel racks, Vepco expects these workers to receive approximately 13 man-rems.
The old racks will also have been exposed to radioactive contaminants and will have to be disposed of in accordance with NRC regulations for the disposal of radioactive wastes.
Finally, we estimate that the additional cost to Vepco and its customers could be as much as $400,000.
II.
PROPOSED SOLUTION What Vepco proposes to do, then, is install tne high-density spent fuel storage racks that are the suoject of tais licensing proceeding with certain temporary restriutions on their use sucn tnat no more than 243 storage cells may ce used -- fewer tnan are now permitted.
Installation of -he rac ks would be at Vepco 's own risk.
344 040 The temporary restrictions we propose would be to administratively control the use of the racks such that alternating rows of storage cells would ot be used at all and such that in the intervening rows only alternate cells would be used.'
This arrangement can be illustrated as follows (with the unshaded squares representing the unused storage cells):
In this manner the capacity of the spent fuel pool would be limited to 243 fuel assemblies (instead of the now-licensed 416) spaced a nominal 28 inches apart center-to-center (instead of the now-permitted 21 inches).
This arrangement would in every respect be more conservative than wnat is permitted under the present operating license.
Vepco sould install the new racks at its own risk.
That is, it would agree that if any cost-benefit balancing is to be done it snould be done as of the time installation beg ins, so that resources investec in installi-1e new racks 2/There is a full-time NRC resident inspector at Noren Anna, anc he could ocserve fuel loading operations to ensure tnat tne fuel assemclies were stored more than 21 inches apart.
344 041
will not be exclucec from tne costs or leaving the racxs in place permanently.
If Vepco ultimately is d(nied permission to expand tne capacity or tne fuel pool, tnen it will nave to live with a capacity ot only 243 assemolles, replace tne hign-density racks witn tne low-density ones or (after any required NRC approval) witn racks ot some dirterent design, or apply to the NRC at some time in the future to use more than 243 storage cells.3 We will set out below tne legal anc factual basis for tnis proposed solution.
III.
ORDER AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND SHORT-TExM USE ONLY The relevant Tecnnical Specitications now reac as follows:
CRITICALITY 5.6.1 The spent fuel storage racks containing new anc/or spent fuel are designed anc sna11 be maintained with a nominal 21 inen center-to-center distance between fuel assemolles placac in tne spent fuel storage rac<s to ensure a kett equivalent or
<0.93 witn :ne storage pool fillec witn uncorated water.
The kett ot <0.95 incluces a 3/Cne acvantage ot enis interim reller is its flextolitty.
If the ASLB snoulc dec11ne to license One nig n-density rac <3 anc 7epco snould nevertneless leave tnem in place witn their use limitec to 24) cells, anc it circumstances were to change in ene future so as to maxe a greater capact y licensatie, tnen Vepco coulc simply apply at enat time for an easing or tais restriction. 344 042
conservative allowance of 2.6%
ak/k for uncertainties as described in Section 9.1 of the FSAR.
If fresh fuel is stored dry for a first core loading in the spent fuel racks with a nominal 21 inch center-to-center distance between new fuel assemblies, then, on a best estimate basis, keff will not exceed.98 with fuel of the highest anticipated enrichment in place assuming optimum moderation.4 CAPACITY 5.C.3 The fuel storage pool is designec and shall be maintained with a storage capacity limited to no more than 416 fuel assemblies.
For the reasons set out above, Vepco hereby asks the Board to authorize a shor t-term amendment to these Technical Specifications.
To be specitic, Ve pco asks the Board to issue an order authorizing the Staff to approve an interim Technical Specification that authorizes interim storage in accordance with the proposed solution in section II above; a proposed interim Technical Specification is attached to this motion.
It has been approvec by the Station Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee and th e System Nuclear Safety and Operating Committee.
It has been determined tnat the change does not involve an unreviewed safety question.
Nor does tne proposed interim Technical Specification enange the technical intent of 4/E.g., an aqueous foam envelopment as tne result at fire f ig h ting. 344 043
the present Technical Specification.
The Board's order should specify that the interim Technical Specitication would be in effect only until such time as either (1) the Board issues an initial decision denying approval of the requested amendment or (2) until the Staff, with the Board's approval, issues the amendment.
Vepco asks the Board to make, in suppor t of such an order, whatever findings may be necessary to authorize the installation and short-term use of the new racks, again with the number of usable cells to be limited by administrative controls.
Vepco believes that this Board has the authority to make such interim findings wnen the public interest so requires.
A licensing board has the jurisdiction and powe: that the NRC has delegated to it.
Public Service Co. of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1& 2), ALAB-316, NRCI-76/3 167 (March 3, 1976).
In the present case the Board has been deleg ated authority by the Appeal Board to conduct whatever proceedings are necessary.
See Virginia Electric and Power Co.
(North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAS -5 5 2, 9
NRC (Jan. 26, 1979); 43 Fed. P.e g. 29634 (July 10, 1978).
A.
Legal Basis for Interim Findings Section 50.91 of 10 CFR says tnat tne issuance of an amendment to an operating license is analogcos to the issuance of tne license itself:
Sec. 50.91.
Issuance of Amend m e n t. -- In deter.nining whether an amendment to a license or construction 344 044
_7
permit will be issued to the applicant the Commission will be guided by the considerations which govern the issuance of initial licenses or construction permits to the extent applicable and appropriate.
This means we must turn to the reg ula tio ns for the issuance of operating licenses.
In a contested operating license proceeding, insofar as radiological health and safety issues are concerned, the licensing board is to decide the issues put in controversy by the parties, 10 CFR Part 2, App.
A, S VIII(b).
As we shall demonstrate below, the contested issues in this proceeding involve the incremental effects of storing large amounts of fuel for long periods of time;6 those effects will not occur during the brief period of interim relief Vepco requests.
Installation and short-term use of the high-density racks are not matters in controversy in this proceeding.
That being the case, the Board can simply make the necessary findings based on the Staff's Safety Evaluation and the af fidavits and pleadings that have already been filed by Vepco and tne Statf.
Since the considerations that govern issuance of an 5/Even in construction permit proceedings, the ASLS may rely on uncontradicted Start and applicant ev id enc e for uncontested matters.
Consumers Power Co.
(Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2), A LA B -l z 3, 6 AEC 331, 334-35 (19/3); Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station),
ALAB-3 3, WASH-1218 (Supp. 1) 552, 550-b6 (Dec.
4, 19/2),
att'd, CCS v.
AEC, 499 F.2d 10e9 (D.C. Cir. 19/4).
6/A possicle excepelon is CEF's contention tnat local bolling and hot spots will occur.
We accress this question below.
_g_
344 045
amendment are the same ones that govern issuance of a license, it is appropriate to turn to 10 CFR S 50.57(c), which allows a licensing board to issue an interim operating license before all the issues of the operating license stage have been resolved:
(c)
An applicant may, in a case where a hearing is held in connection with a pending proceeding under this section make a motion in writing, pursuant to this paragraph (c), for an operating license authorizing low-power testing (operation at not more than 1 percent of f ull power for the purpose of testing the facility),
and further operations short of full power operation.
Action on such a motion by the presiding of ficer shall be taken with due regard to the rights of the parties to the proceedings, including the right of any party to be heard to the extent that his contentions are relevant to the activity to be authorized.
Prior to taking any action on such a motion which any party opposes, tne presiding of ficer shall make findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section as to which there is a controversy, in the form of an initial decision with respect to the contested activity sought to be authorized.
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will make findings on all other matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
If no party opposes the motion, the presiding officer will issue an order pursuant to S 2.730(e) of this chapter, autnorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make appropriate findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section and to issue a license for the requested operation.
There is an analogous set of provisions in the case of the construction permit.
A licensing board designated to decide wnether a construction permit may be issuec is empowered to first issue a " limited wor k author ization" based only on tne resolution of site suitability issues.
See 10 CFR SS 2.101(a-1), 2.600-2.606, 50.10(e)
In essence the reg ulations provide for a stepwise decision process, with the 344 Q4f ASLB authorizing the initial stages of the work separately from the entire proposed action.
B.
Prairie Island The issue of an ASLB's authority to grant interim relief in a spent fuel pool proceeding was raised in the Prairie Island proceeding, but it was mooted and expressly left undecided by the Appeal Board.
Northern States Power Co.
(Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 & 2),
LBP-77-33, 5 NRC 1267 (1977), motion for directed certification denied, ALAB-419, 6 NRC 3 (1977).
In Prairie Island the licensee asked permission to install its new spent fuel racks in the smaller of the two compartments of its spent fuel pool, basing its request on the same regulations Vepco has cited above, 10 CFR SS 50.57(c) and 50.91.
The ASLB denied the licensee's motion, having concluded that licensing boards lack authority to grant such relief.
The licensee then asked the Appeal Board for directed certification under 10 CFR S 2.718(i).
The question it sought to have certified was whether a licensing board has " authority to grant interim authority for those portions of operating license amendment activities which do not involve matters in controversy."
6 NRC at 5.
After the motion for certification was filed, however, the ASLB ruled tnat there were at least two matters in controversy tnat related to tne installation of One racks in 344 047
tne small compartment:
(1) the " occupational exposures of the workers who would be involved in that activity" (it appears that the Prairie Island licensee had spent fuel already stored in the pool and had therefore to rerack underwater); and (2) the " necessity for the staft to prepare an environmental impact statement before the proposed modifications were approved" (this issue was ultimately decided ag ain s t the intervenor, as it has been in every decided case).
With these find ing s, said the Appeal Boarc, the issue that a licensee wanted certified had become an abstract questior, and so it denied the certification motion.
In the North Anna fuel pool proceeding, on the other hand, the installation nd short-term use of the fuel racks are 2
nct matters in controversy, as we shall demonstrate below.
The Prairie Island licensing board's decision is not binding on the No r tn Anna ASLB, and the question left unresolved by the Appeal Board in Prairie Islanc should (despite the licensing board's contrary finding), be resolved in favor of interim relief in this proceeding.
It chould be so decided in this proceeding in particular because, as we will now show, a failure to do so will result in higher occupational ractation doses than ne;essary.
Le t us take the intervenors' contentions one at a time to show ena eney are not affected )y the proposed interim relief. 344 048
IV.
EFFECT ON THE MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY This proposal would not affect the ultimate resolution of the intervenors' contention.
The intervenors have said that they wish to litigate only the incremental effects of the requested license amendment, and those effects will not result from Vepco's interim proposal, because the storage time will be short and tne number of assemblies few.
Moreover, if the intervenors should succeed in convincing the Board that the high-density racks should not te aporoved, Vepco could remove them and install the original low-density racks, or (with NRC approval if required) racks of some ditferent design.
Let us consider each of the contentions in turn, as arranged in the Board's Order Granting Intervention of April 21, 1979.
Thermal Etfects (CEF)
In its first contention CEF raises the possibility that "the additional 6 MBtu/hr ot heat to be discharged as a result of the proposed moditication" may cause unacceptacle environmental impacts.
The additional 6 MBtu/hr, of course, is for 966 fuel assemblies.
Until more than the presently authorized 416 assemblies are stored in the pool, there can be 7/Vepco wisnes to reserve tne 1gnt to install tne now-licensed low-density rac<s in ene tuture it tne Board saould ultimately reruse to license tne full use or tne hign-density rac ks. 344 049
no " additional" neat.
Accordingly, Ve pc o ' s interim proposai has no effect on this contention.
CEF also argues that the effect of a crack in the pool liner would be more severe "In lig ht of the additional fuel to be stored in the pool."
Again, during the interim period Vepco does not propose to store any " additional" spent tuel over and above the now-authorized 416 assemblies.
CEF contends that the increase in storage capacity mig ht cause " hot spots" and loca11:ed boiling.
This contention involves allegations about the flow-restricting effects of increased corrosion and the increased heat resulting from the additional fuel asse blies that will be stored.
It may be that the intervenors also take the position that the new racks have inadequate flow characteristics even with only 243 or fewer assemblies stored in the configuration described above.
If so, then this is perhaps the single instance in which a contention is relevant to short-term interim storage, and a Board finding may be necessary.
A hydre.ulic analysis of the h ig h-d e n s i ty r ac <s has been pe r to rmed, summarized in section 6. 6 of Vepco's Summary or Proposed Modifications and also addressed in Vepco 's Motion for Summary Cisposition.
It shows that local boiling will not occur.
With the fuel assemblies stored in the interim even farther apart enan nos authorized and with no T. ore than 243 of tnem stored, there is all the more reason to celieve that One enermal problems CEF envisions cannot arise. 344 050
Rad ioactive Emissions (CEF)
CEF and the Alliance raise the issue of the additional
" liquid and gaseous radioactive emissions" that will result from the increased fuel storage.
The emissions will not be increased, of course, until more than 416 assemblies are stored in the pool.
Vepco proposes to store no more than 243 pending further authorization.
Miss11e Accidents (Potomac Aillance)
Potomac Alliance, in its first contention, argues that the use et the high-density racks will increase "both the liKellhood and the consequences ot an accident involving turbine or tornado missiles."
We understand the Alliance to te saying that a missile may hit a greater number of tuel assemblies once the assemblies are stored only 14 inches apart.
Using the Alliance 's reasoning, with the assemblies stored 28 incnes apart under Vepco's interim proposal, the consequences of a missile accident should be less.
Materials Integrity (Potomac Alliance)
The Alliance argues tnat " increasing the inventory of radioactive materials in the spent fuel pool" will increase corrosion and resulting problems.
During tr.e interim, nowever, Vepco does not propose to increase the inventory of radioactive materials ever tne 416 assemblies already authorized.
Corrosion (CEF)
CEF raises the issue of a "po tential incremental 344 051
increase in the amount of corrosion upon the spent fuel assemblies and racks," suggesting both that the fuel may be stored longer because of the proposed modification and that
" inc r emen tal impurities" may be produced by the additional assemblies.
The interim relief requested by Vepco, of course, will involve storage for only a short period of time (until the Board can finally resolve the issues) and storage of only a small number of assemblies, much fewer than the now-authorized 416.
Occupational Exposure (Potomac Alliance)
The Alliance wishes to litigate the " increased occupational radiation levels which will result from the spent fuel pool modification."
Until more than 416 assembies are stored in the pool, however, there can be no increased radiation levels.
Alternatives (Potomac Alliance)
The Bo ar d has accepted as admissible issues three of the Alliance's proposed six alternatives to the high-density racks:
(a)
The construction of a new spent fuel pool on site; (c)
Tne pnysical expansion of the existing fuel pool; and (c)
The use of the spent fuel pool at North Anna Units 3 and 4,
(including the completion of construction ot such pool, if necessary) for storage of spent fuel from Units 1 and 2.
These alternatives are not affected by the proposed interim 344 052
relief; Vepco could still construct a new spent fuel pool onsite, for e x am pl e, after it had installed the new racks.
Re v ised Component Cooling Water Temperature (Potomac Alliance)
The Potomac Alliance has proposed the following additional contention:
Service Water Cooling System.
The intervenor contends tnat the 1ervice water cooling system for the facility will be inadequate to support the component cooling system for the spent fuel pool if the proposed modification of the pool is permitted.
This new contention is prompted by the recently revised maximum service water tem pe r a tur e.
The effect of the increased service water temperature on tne spent fuel pool cooling system was reported to the NRC as a Licensee Event Re po r t (LER 79-44) dated April 4, 1979.
As a result of the estimated increased service water temperature, the component cooling water used to cool the fuel pool coolers will increase to a calculated maximum of ll3.2"F.
- However, Vepco's Motion for Summary Disposition takes into account the revised temperatures and snows maximum calculatec spent tuel pool temperatures ot 135.4*F for tne normal case and 154.2'?
for the abnormal case.
Also, the conditions described in LER 79-44 necessary to achieve the elevated service water temperatures involve four units in operation.
Nortn Anna Units 3 and 4, however, will not go into service untti at least the mid-1980's.
Theretore, for tne purpose of this interim proposal enere is no cnange from tne intormation presently in 344 053
the FSAR and tne original high-density spent tuel rack licensing submittal.
V.
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION To tia extent tnat tne interim relief Vepco requests does cear on the matters put into controversy by the intervenors, tnere is a way to resolve tne attected issues quickly:
summary disposition under 10 CFR S 2.749.
Summary disposition may be used in license amendment proceedings.
Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Station, Unit 1), A LA B-191, 7 AEC 417 (1974).
Vepco has already moved for summary disposition on all the issues, and the NRC Statf has supported tne motion as to the Thermal Effects, Radioactive Emissions (in part), Materials Integrity, Corrosion, Occupational Exposure, and Alternatives contentions.
Vepco herecy moves tot summary disposition ot any matters tnat tne Board may decide are in controversy and may be attectec by interim relief.
VI.
PUBLIC INTERE3T The cost ot preventing Vepco from Installing the nig n-density racks is of course tne risk tnat tne old recks will have to be used before enis licensing proceeding is finished and tnat uney will thereby become contaminated.
If the outcome of tne proceeding is tnereafter to permit tne use of tne hign-density rac<s, tnen tnose racks will nave to be installed in a contaminated pool, and tne wor < will nave to ce done uncer 344 054
water with tne assistance ot worxers in divers' suits.
The stored tuel will tnen hTve to be transterrec from the old tacks to rne new ones.
Finally, tne contaminated low-density racks will have to be disposed or as radioactive waste inscead of as
^rdinary scrap.
The NRC Statt's Environmental Impact Appraisal says that approximately 2695 cuolc feet or low-level radwaste woulc tnus be created (Environmental Impact Appraisal, page 26).
Based on Vepco's experience at Surry, the occupational exposure resulting from installing tne racks in a contaminated pool can be expected to be about 13 man-rem.8 The adcitional cost to Vepco coulc be as mucn as 5400,000.
No one would benefit from these increased costs.
In deciding wnetner Vepco's interim proposal is a wise course to fcilow, it is important to assess tne 11xelinood tnat tne hig n-density rac ks will be approved at tne conclusion of this proceeding.
As or November 19/7 twenty applications to expand at-reactor spent fuel storage capacity nad teen approved, acccccing to NUREG-0404, tne Drart Generic Env ir o nmen tal Impact Statement on Hancting and 5torage of Spent Lig nt Water Power Reactor Fuel (page ES-5).
That f ig u r e is now 8/In Prairie Islanc tne estimatec occupational exposure d ur ing removal or tne olc rac<s ana installation of tne new ones was 28 man-rems, 6 NRC at 2/d-19.
(The Prairie Island decision cites exposures at otner plants r ang ing from 2.62 to 20 man-rems for tr.e e n t t r e replacement 300, 6 NRC at 219).
344 055 3-
at least 31.
Four sucn applications have reacnen tne Appeal Board and been approved.
Duquesne Light Co. (Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 1), A LAB-4 0 4, 7 NRC 984 (June 7, 1970);
Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 anc 2) anc Vermont Yankee Power Corp. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Statior.), ALAB-4 3 3, 7 NRC 41 (Jan. 27, 19/8) remanded, Minnesota v.
- NRC, F.2d (D.C. Cir., Nos.
78-1269 & 78-2032, May 23, 19/9); Portland General Electric Co.
(Tro] an Nuclear Plant), ALAJ-5J1, 9 NRC (Mar. 21, 19/9).
! ]ne tnat we know or has been denlec.
As for No r tn Anna 1 and 2,
tne NRC Statt nas concluced tnat tne license amencmen t snoulc be approved.
The Commission has a ducy to serve tne puolic interest, anc tnat duty implieu a duty to make tne wisest possiole decision.
Also, the Commiss.:n's po11cy favoring a prompt resolution or contested issues, comcIned witn its "as low as is reasonably acnievable" (ALARA) policy, may very well require tne Board to grant interim rellet wnen it is timely requested anc acequately supported.
The ALA RA Policy is emooclec in 10 CFR S 20.l(c):
(P] ersons engac ec in activities uncer licenses issuec by tne Nuclear Reg ulato ry Comm 2 -~.on should, in accition to complying witn ene quirements set tortn in tnis part, make every reasonacle errort to maintain ractation exposures as low as is reasonaoly acnievaole.
We nave snown :nat Vepco can avoic occupational exposure to 13 man-rem merely by getting permission to insts11 ene 344 056 high-density racks early (assuming, as is more likely than not, that the hign-density racks are ultimately approved).
In such a case the Commission would be violating one of the tundamental principles ot its own regulations it it were to deny interim relief.
This idea is reinforced by the many provisions in the NRC Rules of Practice calling tot promptness in 11 censing proceedings.
In matters ot scneduling the parcmount consideration is the public interest.
The puolic interest is usually served by as rapid a decision as is possicle consistent with everyone's opportunity to be heard, Potomac Electric Co.
(Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 & 2),
ALAB-2 7 7, 1 NRC 539 (1975).
This policy is most evident in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 2.
Consider, tor example, V(d)(4) of that Appe nd ix :
The proceedings [tnat is, the hearing] should be conducted as expeditiously as practicable, without impairing the development of a clear and adequate record.
Likewise section V begins by saying:
The board should use its powers under 55 2.713 and 2.757 to assure tnat a hearing is tocused upon the matters in controversy among the parties and tnat tne hearing process for the resolution or controverted matters is conducted as expeditiously as possicle, consistent with tne development of an adequate decisional record.
These goals are exactly wnat woe be accomplished by granting 7epco's request for interim relief.
separating tne matter at installation from the matters ot long-term storage would "tocus 344 057
-2o-
tne hearing upon the matters in controversy" and, by removing the time pressure from tne parties, allow the development of an adequate decisional record.
Vll.
EXEM PT IOt?
In the alternative, Vepco petitions for a waiver of the Commission's rules pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.750(b).
Tne regulations tnat snould be waived are such ot those or 10 CFR SS 2.100-2.106 and 10 CFR Part 50 tnat tne Board determines may, singly or in combination, require tne conclusion of the public nearing or tne rendering or an initial decision betore interim re11et may be granted.
Vepco suomits tnat the attidavits already sucmittea in tnis proceeding are sutticient to make tne showing required by 10 CFR S 2.758(b).
VIII.
INSTALLATION OF ORIGINAL RAC KS As a result or delays in tnis proceeding and tne operating license proceeding, Vepco teels it is necessary to proceed with tne installation or sutticient low-density storage racks to accommodate tne new fuel enat w111 de ar r iv ing at tne Nor tn Anna site in the near future.
This new fuel consists of reload assemblies for tne seneduleu rette11ng of No r tn Anna Unit 1.
Also, enough additional low-density rac;<s will te installed to accommodate a full core discnarge snould it cecome necessary during tne retueling.
In the remaining space, Vepco will install enougn of 344 058
the new high-denstty racks to bring the total capacity of the pool up to the presently authorized 416, but it will not use them to store fuel without further NRC approval.
In this way Vepco hopes to minimize the exposure and additional cost which will be suffered when, as Vepco believes will surely happen, the high-density racks are finally licensed.
The installation of these racks will be in accordance with 10 CFR S 50.59 in that Vepco will not store fuel in these racks until a decision in this proceeding is rendered by the Board.
It is our feeling that proceeding in this manner is in keeping with the NRC's guidelines for maintaining exposures as low as reasonably achievable ( ALARA ).
Unless otherwise direct;d by the Board or the NRC Staff within 20 days, Vepco will proceed with the installation of the high-density racks as described in this section VIII.
IX.
CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Vepco asks the Board to grant interin relief in accordance with this motion. 344 059
Respectfully suomitted, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND PCWER CCMPANY By /s/ James M.
Rinaca James M.
R1naca, Counsel for Virginia Electric and Power Company Of Counsel Michael W.
Maupin, Esquire James N.
Cnristman, Esquire James M.
R1naca, Esquire Hunton & Williams 707 E.
Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Ricnmond, VA 23212 DATED:
June 18, 1979 344 060
i
(
e 2. cd
=r_m, m_u c =..e m=--
1.
In acc:rdanca with the code recuirements s ecified in 2ecticn 5.2 of the F5AR, wi:n allowance for ncr al cegcacnion pur-suan t: the acplicable Sur eillance Requiremen s, b.
For a pressure of 245 psig, and c.
For a tem erature of 550*F, excect for the pressuri:er whicn is 550*F.
'/ C. Ln_'a.c 5.1.2 T'ne t:tal water and staam vclume of the reacter c: alan: system is 9957 - 10 cuoic feet at a ncminal 7 of 525'F.
avs 5.5 METEGRCLCGICAL TC'L:R LCCATICt!
t 3. a.1 ine metacrological t:wer shal..ce,iccate, as snewn en rigure
- 3. r -
1.
C 5.5 FUEL STCFJGE
,,3 fyg
,g q g ga CRITICALITY o.o.i ine spen fuel s: rage racks c:ntaining new and/cr spent ruet snall be maintained with a mini =um 21 inch center-to-center distance ber een fuel assemblies placed in the spen fuel storage racks
- ensure a k,,, ecuivalent of < 0.95 wi n the s:: rage scal filled wi:n un: orated wa:ar'. T'1e k,,, of < 0.95 inciucas a consertative alicwanca of 2.5". ak/k for uncaruintias as cesc-ited in Section 9.1 cf the F5AR.
Ele new fuei ci st: rage racks are designed and shall be maintained witn a nominal 21 inc.t centar-t:-centar cis:2nca betvean new fuel assem lies such that, en a 'es estimata basis, k,., will nc: exceed.98 witn fuei t
Of the highes: 'nticipated snricrman: in'placa assuming :: imum mcdernien.'
If fresa fuel is st: red dry for a first : re leading in tne s:ent fuel racks witn a sinicus 21 incn cantar-::-centar ciscanca terveen new fuei l
assemclies, then, On a best estimate casis, k,,, mil n : excaec.22 I
with fuei of :na nignes anticipa:ad enric.- ed!'in ? aca assuming :::imum
- cerni cn. '
" '...., an acu.:. 2 7:aa enveicc ent as the resul: c...-- e 71 gr ; ng.
r
. ~ -.....
jff -
.wr.-
.- n d.,.
,..... i
CE5I3t =DTURE5 CRAI: RAGE 5.5.2 The s;:en fuel :i: is designed and shall be maintained :: ::rev en-inaever:ent draining of the ;cci belcw elevation 253.33 fee Meen Sea Levei, USGS datum.
CA P a C IT'!
5.5.3 ine tuei s:Orage ::coi shall be maintained with a l
storage ca acity limitec a no acre : nan 415 fuel assem:: lies.
5.7 COMPONENT CYCLIC cr TR.aftSIE:17 LIMIT 5.7.1 The c m;cnents identified in Table 5.7-i are designed and shall be maintained wi hin the cyclic or transient limits of Table 5.7-i.
9 P
b j
i t
4
.i Il N
I
.l t,3. -
-.,.,m =,,... -,
.-C
- 43
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
' certify tnat I have served a copy of Vepco's Motion for Interim Relief on each of the persons named below by first-class mail, postage prepaid:
Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing to n,
D.C.
20555 Attention:
Chief, Docketing & Service Section Valentine B.
Deale, Esquire 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Dr. Cuentin J.
Stober Fisherles Researcn Institute University ot Washington Seattle, Washing ton 98195 Mr. Ernest E.
Hill Lawrence Livermore Laboratory University of California Livermore, California 94550 Mr. Irwin B.
Kroot Citizen's Energy Forum, Inc.
P.
O.
Box 138 Mc Le an, Virginia 22101 James B.
Dougherty, Esquire 307 Eleventh Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.
20777 Gloria M.
Gilman, Esq':i r e 1508 28tn Street, N.W.
Wasnington, D.C.
20007 Steven C. Goldberg, Esquire U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wasn ing to n,
D.C.
20555 344 063 Anthony J.
Gamcardella, Esquire Office at the Attorney General Suite 308 11 South Tweltth Street Ricnmond, Virginia 23219 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 By /s/ James M.
Rinaca James M.
Rinaca, Counsel for Virginia Electric anc Power Company DATED:
June 18, 19 ~/ 9 344 064