ML20148A188

Vepco'S Response to Ucs Request to File Reply Brief.Vepco Opposes the Union of Concerned Scientists'Request Re Issue of Turbine Missiles

ML20148A188
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	12/04/1978
From:	Christman J VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:
References
NUDOCS 7812280259
Download: ML20148A188 (7)

Text

_ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _-

. ,71 sq, a December 4, 1978

.% BLIC DOCU:.;5yi, RCC32

,!j j,3- ,

8lf)?,.Q s -

~

/' '

' h[r+

. ~ 1) S UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (f' g g s c' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

)

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CONTANY ) Docket Nos. 50-338 OL

) 339 OL (North Anna Power Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

VEPCO'S RESPONSE TO UCS REQUEST TO FILE' REPLY BRIEF On November 30, 1978, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) asked to submit a reply brief on the issue of turbine missiln at North Anna 1 and.2

(" Union of Concerned Scientists Request for Leave to File Reply Brief"). The Secretary to the Appeal Board phoned Vepco's counsel cn December 1 and asked if Vepco opposed the UCS request. Counsel responded that Vepco does oppose the request, and the Appeal Board directed us to have this written response in the mail by December 4 The ASL3 decided the contested issues in this proceeding, plus several that it had entertained on its own account, in its initial decision of December 13, 1977, 6 NRC 1127, and its memorandum and order of February 27, 1978, 7 NRC 295. No one filed exceptions to the decision.

The Appeal Board affirmed the licensing board's resolution I

1 1

7812280 M

l l

of the contested issues on August 25, 1978, ALAB-491, j but retained jurisdiction on, among other things, the question of turbine missiles. The Appeal Board indicated 1

that it needed further information from the NRC Staff to be able to decide if the issue had "been taken into account in a manner that is at least plausible and that, if proven to be of substance, would-be adequate to justify

. operation," ALAB-491, slip op at 6 n.7. The Staff filed that information.on September 15 (" Response to Atomic

. Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's Request for Information.

on the North Anna Units 1 and 2 Regarding Missiles").

Then came the UCS, asking to file an amicus brief on the turbine missile issue -- specifically, on the ge-neric legal issue whether the Staff had improperly relied on WASH-1400. mi the face of it, UCS appeared to have both an interest in resolving that issue and some expertise re-levant to it. Vepco did not object to the filing of that brief, UCS filed it, and the parties responded.

But now UCS asks to file a second brief. The Staff and Vepco having shown that the Staff has not relied on a

WASH-1400 at.all, it looks to Vepco as though the ent basis for UCS's participation as amicus has been de .ed

.and that. wha ~c UCS now wants to do is shift ground and argue the merits of the turbine missile issue, a factual site-specific issue as to which there is little reason to believe UCS can be helpful. This tactic-should not be allowed.

3_

To justify the filing of supplementary submissions, the person wanting to file, even if he is a party to the proceeding, must set forth " good reasons" why the'sub-stance of the submission couldn't have been furnished earlier, Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units-l & 2),

UCS's asserted reason.is that

~

ALAB-ll5, 6'AEC 257 (1973).

the NRC Staff changed its story when it filed its response to the amicus brief. Formerly,.says UCS (citing a Staff affidavit of November 23, 1977),'the Staff believed the risk of turbine missile damage was sufficiently low' to allow North Anna 1 and 2 to operate only until the ge-neric study was completed. But the Staff in its November.

16, 1978 response to the UCS brief, UCS continues, said that the North Anna safety analysis is not dependent on the generic study at all:

[T]he Staff does not consider the turbine missile risk analysis for North Anna Units 1 and 2 to be dependent on Task A-37, and concludes the matter to be resolved for North Anna Units 1 and 2.

(NRC Staff's Response to UCS Brief Amicus Curiae at 3).

Therefore, argues-UCS, there is an inconsistency shout which UCS should be allowed to comment.

This alleged change in position by the Staff,*I -

however, is by no means a good reason for an additional-brief. The Staff said as early as its September 15 re- '

sponse that the evaluation of North Anna 1 and 2 did no:

• / '

- If the Staff really has changed its position, the change is doubtless the result of additional review performed between the November 23, 1977, affidavit and the November- 16, 1978, response.

. , _ , . . . _ - , _ . . , - . , , - , _ . _ . _ . - ~. .. _ ._. _ .-.1 . _ _ .- - - - - - - - - -

depend on the generic study:

These measures, in the Staff's view, con-stitute an acceptable level of protection for North Anna. In the case of North Anna, j it is the Staff's view that completion of - -

. Task A-37 will.not result in additional re-quirements for that facility and we consider the matter resolved.

As noted in Section 3 of the Task Action Plan A-37, the current licensing requirements, coupled with the low probability of unaccept-able damage to essential systems by turbine _

missiles, provide the basis for allowing con-tinued operation of the existing LWRs. In that regard, Task Action Plan A-37 represents an effort to improve guidance to applicants, licensees or staff reviewers in.the area-of turbine missile risk evaluation.

(Staff Response at 6.) UCS had ample opportunity to address the issue in its first amicus brief.

This proceeding has been, as the Appeal Board said in ALAB-491 (p. 1), a lengthy one. The first hearing was held in November 1976, and the ASLB reached its decision almost a year ago. No exceptions have been filed. UCS, though not a party, has had the. opportunity to be heard. There is no " good reason" why it needs to be heard still another time.

Legal proceedings are supposed to come to an end eventually, and there is no reason to make an exception here.*/ Vepco opposes the UCS request.

• / Vepco recognizes, of course, that the proceeding will not end altogether until the Staff has submitted more information on the service water pumphouse settlemenc.

A meeting on that subject between the Staff and Vepco has been set for December 5.

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

Respectfully submitted, VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY By /s/ James N. Christman James N. Christman Of Counsel

~

Michael W. Maupin James N. Christman James M. Rinaca Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 4, 1978

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

'I certify that I have served a copy of Vepco's Response to UCS Request to File Reply Brief on each of the persons named below by first-class mail:

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -

ATTENTION: Chief Docketing & Service Section Daniel T. Swanson, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Richard M. Foster, Esquire 1908-A Lewis Mountain Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 Anthony J. Ganbardella, Esquire Office of the Accorney General Suite 308 11 South 12th Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Alan S. Rosenthal, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire Sheldon, Harmon & Roisman 1025 25th Street, N.W. l Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 l

l 1

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 N. Christman James N. Christman, Counsel for Virginia' Electric and Power Company DATED: December 4, 1978

- -