ML19322B897
| ML19322B897 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1979 |
| From: | Jay Dougherty Potomac Alliance |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19253C817 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7912120197 | |
| Download: ML19322B897 (14) | |
Text
__.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{}
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-338 SP VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
)
50-339 SP
)
(North Anna Power Station,
)
(Proposed Amendment to Units 1 and 2)
)
operating license NPF-4)
MOTION TO AMEND PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE Pursuant to 10 CFR
- 2. 714 (a), the Potomac Alliance (the Alliance) requests leave to amend its petition to intervene by the addition of a new contention, as follows:
Service Water Cooline System The intervenor contends that the service water cooling system for the facility will be inade-quate to support the component cooling system for the spent fuel pool if the proposed modifi-cation of the pool is permitted.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently amended 2.714 of 10 CFR to specifically permit the addition of new contentions.
In so doing it addressed the matter of adding contentions after a petitioner has been admitted as a party.
Statements of Consideration, 43 FR 17798 (September 1, 1978).
The Commission stated that contentions are frequently expanded or amended be-cause of new infcrmation which comes to light after pet-itioners have been admitted,..."
It is therefore clear 7912120l97
1c.
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a policy of permitting such amendments.
The prehearing conference is the time for simplification, clarification, and specification of the issues.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations, 10 CFR 2. 751a (a) (1),
look to the special prehearing conference for the limited purpose of identifying key issues.
The issues to be resolved in the proceeding are not cast in concrete until the pre-hearing conference has been held.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board therefore has authority and discretion to admit additional contentions to those considered at the special prehearing conference.
The parties made clear their desire to permit the Alliance to file new or amended contentions upon a showing of good cause when they so stipulated. (See document entitled,
" Stipulation of Contentions", March 29, 1979).
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should grant the motion to amend the Alliance's petition to intervene after considering the Alliance's. ability to meet the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714 (a) (1) :
(i)
There is good cause for the Alliance failure to raise this contention previously, as the particular facts giving rise to the contention were not known to the petitioner until April 4,
1979, five days after the special pre-hearing conference.
(ii)
There is no other forum available :or 1
l petitioner to protect its interest.
In the Matter of Houston Lighting and Power Co.
(Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, l
Unit 1), No. 50-466, order of The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, April 19, 1979.
(iii) The Alliance may reasonably be expected to assist in developing a sound record on this contention.
The Alliance has at least one member with a doctoral degree relevant to this proceeding and intends to consult with other experts as the need arises.
(iv)
The Alliance interest will not be represented by existing parties since the contention has not been raised by any other party.
I.1 the Matter of Houston Lighting and Power Co.,
supra.
(v)
The admission of this contention will not broaden the issues in dispute nor delay the proceeding which is in the preliminary stage, as it goes specifically to the heart of the 4
licensing decision under consideration and relates directly to the contentions that have already received the Board's approval.
The factual basis for this contention is undisputed; the Board and all parties have received communications from the applicant which indicate that a serious problem exists with respect to the service water cooling system which bears directly on the proposed modification of the spent fuel pool.
The applicant has submitted more than one Licensee Event Report (attached) describing in only the most general terms the nature of the problem.
i 1
The interests of the Alliance in its members' health and safety and in the maintenance of the integrity of the environment as it affects them personally are particularly threatened by the proposed modification in light of this newly discovered problem.
Counsel for the applicant stated in a letter to the Board dated April 4, 1979 that
"...the implications of the increased temperatures on the spent fuel pool cooling system are not yet fully known".
The proposed license amendment should not be granted absent adequate investigation of this problem and proof that it will be resolved in compliance with applicable statutory and regulatory requirements.
The Alliance has met all the criteria enumerated in 10 CFR 2. 714 (a) (1) (d) regarding the Cition of con-tentions.
The proposed contention has been set forth with particularity and with the appropriate factual basis also required under that section.
Respectfully submitted,
./*
e~,
e
' \\g f j
x G-A Cni a t'e Dated at Washington, D.C.
James B.
Doughertv this 9th day of May, 1979 Counsel for the Allkance 6
!!%-w nw Attachment remh
_ _ _ _ _ Potomac Alliance Responses to Vepco's Interrogatories and Request for the Pro-duction of Documents, June 7, 1979 l
6.
(a)
The adequacy of the spent fuel pool cooling system has not been established.
The event described in Licensee Event Report No. 79-044/OlT-0, cited the Alliance's Motion to Amend Petition for Leave to Intervene, demonstrates VEPCO's failure adequately to review the effects of increased service water reservoir and component cooling water temperature.
The Alliance denies that the explicit and implicit assumptions employed in Question 6 (a) are valid.
(b)
The Alliance contends that the capability of keeping the temperature below 140 degrees F and 170 degrees F has not been adequately established.
Assuming the spent fuel cooling system has once been approved, 5
the continued validity of such approval has been drawn into serious question, totally apart from the proposed modification.
The Licensee Event Report referred to in (a) shows that the capability of the spent fuel cooling system is unknown.
See Regulatory Guide 1.142 (c) (9)
(April 1978) ; 10 CFR Part 50, App. A, criterion 61. The proposed modification would magnify the risks which were recently uncovered.
(c)
The Alliance objects to this question on relevancy grounds.
Speculation as to the general parameters of a hypothetically acceptable spent fuel pool is not likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information.
Potomac Alliance Responses to Vepco's Interrogatories and Request for the Pro-duction of Documents, June 7,
1979 7.
At this time, the Alliance has yet to secure firm commitments
(
from qualified experts regarding participation in this proceeding.
If and when this occurs the parties will be notified pursuant to 10 CFR S2.740(e).
8.
Contention 3(Missile Accidents), Interrogatory No. 2:
- Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation of the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (June 1976) (NUREG-0053)
(hereinafter NUREG-0053).
- Final Safety Analysis Report, North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (May 1973), (as amended) (Hereihafter FSAR).
- Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relating to Modification of the Spent Fuel Storage Backs, Facility Operating License NPF-4, Virginia Electric and Power Co., North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (January 29, 1979) (Hereinafter SE).
-Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel (March 1978)
(Hereinafter NUREG-0404).
-Environmental Impact Appraisal of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Relative to a Proposed Increase in Storage Capacity of the Spent Fuel Pool, North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2 (April 2, 1979) (Hereinafter EIA).
Contention 4 (Materials Integrity), Interrogatory No. 3:
- NUREG-0404.
(
Summary of Proposed Modifications to the Spent Fuel Storage Pool Associated with Increasing Sorage Capacity for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Virginia Electric and Power Company Potomac Allianco Second Supplo-mental Answar to Vepco's Motion for Summary Disposition, July 23, 19 79 the. environment. VEPCO's and the Staff's rough-hewn " estimates" of the costs and benefits of the alternatives propounded by the Alliance have been evaluated by a qualified economist and "found inadequate to support a professional judgment as to their merit.
See attached' affidavit of Phillip M.
Weitzman.
There are many genuir.e issues of fact and law embodied in this contention.
SERVICE WATER COOLING SYSTEM VEPCO has recently notified the parties of the discovery l
of new information to the effect that previous calculations relating to the ability of the service water cooling system to the support the SFP cooling system were erroneous, and that it may now be impossible under certain circumstances to maintain the termperature of the SFP coolant belok the limit set forth in the technical specifications for the plant. No clear explanation for this error has been offerred.
Instead of making necessary improvements in the cooling system, VEPCO has simply revised the design basis criteria in order to give the system the appearance of adequacy.
Interrogatories directed to VEPCO have failed'to illuminate the gaping questions which remain unanswered.
It is' essential tha't the Board understand the nature and implications of the recent developments before allowing VEPCO to add more spent. fuel to the pool and'thereby strain the cooling system even further.
0 9
e E
e 4
e
Potomac Allianca Second Supple-
-11 mental Answnr to Vepco's Motion for Summary. Disposition, July 23, 1979 Similarly, it is essential that this cpntention be raised in an adversary hearing at which the Intervenors can assist the Board in drawing out VEPCO's and the Staff's views on the matter.
There are potentially grav.e issues of material fact here which must not be summarily dismissed at this premature stage.
~
" Ok Conclusion As shown above, VEPCO's submissions on each of the contentions in this proceeding is subject to major factual gaps.
In several cases the factual issues to be resolved have been expanded by the recent opinion of the D.C.
Circuit.
in Minnesota v.
NRC, s_upra.
It is imperative that the Board heed its -duty to draw all permissib'le inferences in favor of the Intervenors and withold judgment on these complex questions until they have been explored in an adversary hearing.
VEPCO's motion must be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
)l 4 A 4%,/
Of counsel:
Doughofty
/
Jah4s.3.
Gloria M.
Gilman, Esq.
Lawrence S.
Lempert, Esq.
Counsel for the Intervenors Dated this.23d day of July, 1979 d
e G
9 9
O Appendix H Informal Discovery Letters
HuxTox & WitLIAxs 707 East MAIN s Ta ctT P. o. Box 153 5 Rr cux o wn, VIRGI.VIA 2 0 c 12 TcLcowo m e 2 0 4) 788-9200 Ca e tt HustwaNo WASHINGTON, D. C. Orrrcz 1730 ACNNSYLVANIA Avt.N. W. 20036 April 13, 1970
,S * ' '
- u..c aau 2 3 7.oo V-8-50-20-41-1
,tc s e.
omeer omu ~o..e., 7..- 8 3 68 James B. Dougherty, Esquire Potomac Alliance 307 Eleventh Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002 North Anna Scent Fuel Fool
Dear Jim:
You asked for the Licensee Event Report about the effect of the increased service water and component cooling water temperatures on the spent fuel pool.
Attached is the notice that was telecopied to the NRC on April 4.
Be aware, though, that this is not the final report; a followup report is sent, I believe, 14 days after the initial report.
I'll send you a copy of that followup when I get it.
Sincerely, James N. Christman ec:
Citizens' Energy Forum, Inc.
Steven C. Goldberg, Esquire AttacFaent
o H uxTox & WILLIAMS 707 EAST M AIN s TR E ET P. o. Box 1535 l
RIcnx oNo, VIROINIA 2 0 212 TE LE P wo N E (804) 788-8200 Caste HUNTWANO WAmMINGTON, D. C. Orrten April 27, 1979 p o "eo,"iJa$'o*'^ ^'" *
- Tcktswont (20U 393-7400 V-8-50-20-41-1 mc o.
ei a ecT o,.c ~ o. <a o *> 788-8368 James B. Dougherty, Esquire Potomac Alliance 307 Eleventh Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C.
20002 North Anna Spent Fuel Pool Proceeding
Dear Jim:
Enclosed is the Licensee Event Report on the effect of the increased service water and component cooling water temperature on the spent fuel cooling system.
Sincerely,
)
-W James N. Christman 126/625 Enclosure cc:
Citizens' Energy Forum, Inc.
Steven C. Goldberg, Esquire
a HuxTo x & WIL LI A.x s a
- P. o. Box 1535 Rxc2rxonn. VIRGINIA 2 0212 Tc Le pw o N c 804 788-8200 Caste HU N TWA No VAssinorort D.C orrics 1919 PENNsV(VANIA AVC. N.W. 2003 6 P.o.8cx1923o July 13' 1979 V08-50-20-29-14 V08-50-20-29-18 m e o.
.o.,s.
8368 o,.cc7 o, At James B. Dougherty, Esq.
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 627 Washington',
D.C.
20036 Tornado Missile Documents
Dear ~ Jim:
Enclosed are excerpts from the documents you asked me to provide.
First, you asked for the EPRI study entitled
" Full-Scale Tornado-Pissile Impact Tests" (EPRI NP-440) and for a Sandia Laboratories report, Research Proj ect 399, Code No. SAND 77-ll66.
They are one and the same.
I am enclosing the title page, the table of contents, the abstract (page v),
section 3.1 entitled " Utility Pole," and Tables B-6 and B-7.
Those are the sections of the report that seem to be referred to on page 3 of the NRC-Staff's Affidavit of Kazimieras N.
Campe, which is where I understand you got the reference in the first place.
I'm having the full report xeroxed, and I'll send you the copy when it 's finished.
The other document you wanted was the one Fred Millar asked for when he phoned me this past Monday, the
" field studies" that I referred to in my letter to the Board of July 3.
The basis of the statement about " field studies,"
which I got from Stone & Webster, is the enclosed Figure A.3.1-4, which comes from a Stone & Webster technical report entitled " Tornado-Facility Interaction" (EMTR-800-0, Decem-ber 23, 1976).
I am also enclosing Figures A.3.1-5 and A.3.4-5, which are related to Figure A.3.1-4.
You're welcome to examine the full report if you want.
i
HUNTON & WILLI AM S 707 EAST MAIN STREET P. o. Box 153 5 RIcumone. VIRGINIA 2 0212 TE Ls pN o N C 804 788-8200 CAmoc HUNTWA ND WA R HINGTO N D. C. Orrica 1919 PENNSYLVANIA Avt. N.W. 20036 P. O. Box 1923o July 16, 1979 rete o c zoa aas-sew V-08-50-20-29-14
,,m,,.
V-08-50-20-29-1!
o acer o,At ~o
.o.7s. 8368 James B. Dougherty, Esq.
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 627 Washington, D.C.
20036 EPRI Tornado Missile Imaact Studv
Dear Jim:
Enclosed is the EPRI study I promised you, " Full-Scale Tornado-Missile Impact Tests," EPRI NP-440, Project 399, July 1977.
Yours very truly, ames N. Chriseman 126/621 Enclosure cc:
Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
Anthony J. Gambardella, Esq.
Citizens' Energy Forum, Inc.
I
cs HuxTox & WILLIAxs..
Let me know if you have quescions.
And please give me a few days' notice if you decide to come to Richmond to examine documents.
Yours very truly, e
James N.
Chriseman 126/334 Enclosures cc:
Steven C. Goldberg, Esq.
Anthony J. Gambardella, Esq..
Citizens' Energy Forum, Inc.
i t
b