ML17275A435

Ack Receipt of NRC Approving Request to Discontinue Certain Aquatic Monitoring & Requesting Copies of Util Submittals to State of Wa Re Water Quality.Nrc Does Not Have Authority to Require Water Quality Filings

ML17275A435
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia, Washington Public Power Supply System
Issue date:	07/14/1980
From:	Renberger D WASHINGTON PUBLIC POWER SUPPLY SYSTEM
To:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8007210392
Download: ML17275A435 (18)

Text

RESULATOR+NFORMATION DISTRIBUTION S EM (RIDE) el"Ig ACCESSION NBR:8007210392 DOC ~ DATE: 80/07/10 NOTARIZED:

NO DO FACIL:50 397 NPPSS Nuclear Projecti Unit 2i Hashington Public Powe 50 060 LSPPSS Nuclear Projecti Unit ii Washington Public Powe 05000460 AUTH'AME AUTHOR AFFILIATION RENBERGERiD ~ LE Washington Public Power Supply System REC IP ~ NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION YOUNGBLOOD<B.J.

Licensing Branch 1

SUBJECT:

ACk receipt of NRC 800030 ltr approving request to discontinue certain aquatic monitoring 8 requesting copies of util submittals to State of HA re water quality ~ NRC does not have authority to require water quality filings'ISTRIBUTION CODE:

A001S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR g ENCL ~ SIZE:~

TITLE: General Distr ibution for after Issuance of Opeiating Lic NOTES:PM:

2 copies of al 1 material.

05000397 RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME ACTION s YOUNGBLOODiB 05 BOURNI A E A ~

INTERNAL: D/DIRiHUM FAC S

I8E 12 OELD 10 01 COPIES LTTR ENCL 1

12 1

RECIPIENT ID CODE/NAME

LYNCHED, DIRiHUM FAC SFY NRC PDR 02 OR ASSESS BR 19 COPIES LTTR ENCL 12 1'XTERNAL:

ACRS NSIC 20 00 16 1

1 LPDR 03

~ut. a2 tg8g 53 o

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIREDs LTTR ~

ENCL

wo H

1 tt P

~'

I'

Washington-Public Power Supply System A JOINT OPERATING AGENCY P, 0. BOX 988 3000 GEO. WASHINOSON WAY RIOHI.jNO, WASHINGTON 99352 PHONE (509) 375.5000 Docket Nos.:

50-397 50-460 50-513 July 14, 1980 Mr. B. J.

Youngblood, Chief Licens ing Branch No.

1 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.. C.

20555

Subject:

WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 1, 2 and 4

Water Use and ualit Re orts

Reference:

Letter, D. L. Renberger from B. J.

Youngblood Dated April 30,'980 This will acknowledge receipt of the above referenced letter.

Your letter approved our request to discontinue certain aquatic monitor-ing.

In addition, however, you ask that in the future:

. copies of all Supply System submittals to the State re-lating to water use and quality regulations be sent to the NRC.

This should include copies of NPDES applications, revisions and renewal requests as well as other reports required under the NPDES permit."

The Supply System believes the NRC to be without authority to require routine filing of these water quality related submittals.

Nevertheless, reserving its right to object to continued filing in the future, the Supply System will voluntarily honor your request.

Our belief concerning the authority of the NRC to require submission of water quality reports filed with EPA and its delegated agencies is based upon recent de'cisions of the NRC Appeal Board which interpret Section 5ll(c}(2) of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33, U.S.C.

1326), culminating with ALAB-569, H. B. Robinson.

1/

gd

d O

Hr.

B. J.

Youngblood Page Two July 14, 1980 Water Use and guality Reports In H. B. Robinson, the Appeal Board reviewed its holdings in Seabrook J2

, Peach Bottom g3 and Yellow Creek 4/ concerning the role of the NRC

~q 1iy~idg f

i fi s pons ibi 1 ities under NEPA.

guoting its earlier opinion in Yellow Creek concerning the role of agencies other than EPA in water quality and pollution control matters, the Appeal Board said:

"Third, those agencies are not to 'second guess'PA by undertaking independent analyses and setting their own standards in this area.

And, finally, given the pointed Congressional comments cited,

NRC, as statutory successor to the AEC, is unmistakably bound by those strictures."

10 NRC at 561 and then, reviewing the holding in Yellow Creek, said:

"On the basis of this analysis, we held squarely 'that NRC may not undercut EPA by undertaking its own analyses and reaching its own conclusions in water quality issues already decided by EPA.'"

10 NRC at 561

+1 In the Natter of Carolina Power 8 Li ht Com an H.

B. Robinson, Unct No.

2

, v. ALAB-569,"

10 NRC at 557 (1979).

g2 Public Service Com an of New Ham shire, (Seabrook Units 1

5 2

, ALAB-366, 5 NRC 39 1977

, affirmed, CLI-77-8, 5

NRC 503 (1977);

and ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33 (1977).

3/

Philadel hia Electric Com an (Peach Bottom Units 2 5 3, ALAB-216, 8 EC 13.

g4 Tennessee Valle Authorit (Yellow Creek Units 1

5 2

, AL B-515, 8

NRC 702 (1978).

"~

Hr.

B. J.

Youngblood Page Three July 14, 1980 Water Use and guality Reports Finally, in H.

B. Robinson, the Appeal Board concluded:

"If anything, events teach that the staff and Boards can best expend their limited resources by concentrating on those questions which only this Coomission can handle, rather than by duplicating the efforts of a sister agency in a field peculiarly within that agency's competence."

10 NRC at 561 Since the Appeal Board has now made it clear that the NRC staff is bound by Section 511(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act to take EPA water quality decisions at face value, simply factoring them into cost-benefit balanc-ing under NEPA; and'is foreclosed by-that Act from undertaking-indepen-dent analyses; copies of water use and quality submittals can be of no practical use to the NRC staff.

The Supply System contends that a

requirement that copies of these reports be furnished routinely to the NRC staff perpetuates the "needless duplica'tion" of paperwork enjoined by the Clean Water Act and the Appeal Board's decisions.

Since, however, it is understood -that your request involves no more than furnishing NRC with duplicate copies of water quality submittals made to the State of Washington, the Supply System will comply with the request.

The Supply System is willing to do so at this time because it believes that the duplication of documents will'equire only a small additional effort and understands that this undertaking will not require prepara-tion of special reports on these topics specifically for the NRC staff.

Yery truly yours, D. L. Renberger Assistant Director, Technology mch

I

~g REgy 0

Cl0 I

C Dp

+n

~O

+~*<<+

UNITEDSTATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 11, 1980 TO ALL APPLICANTS FOR OPERATING LICENSES AND CONSTRUCTION PERMIT HOLDERS In the process of establishing priorities for the licensing reviews of operating license applications, we rely principally on'he best estimates of the construction completion date of utilities.

In most cases, this date will be confirmed or modified by our Caseload Forecast Panel which usually visits a specific plant site no more than once a year.

Because of a number of recent s'Iippages in applicants'onstruction completion schedules, we believe it is appropriate at this time to request up-to-date schedules from all applicants.

Accordingly, we are requesting you to advise us of your present best estimate of the construction completion date for your facility (faciIities) and fuel load target date so that we may establish our licensing priorities based on the latest available data.

For your information, I have enclosed a listing provided to the House Appropriations Subcommittee of target schedules for those plants seeking operating licenses in the next three years.

Those applicants not listed in the enclosure should provide the date they pl'an to tender their Operating License Application (FSAR and ER) to the NRC.

Upon receipt of your response, we anticipate a potential revision to our present licensing review priorities.

Note that the order of our priorities is somewhat influenced by a hearing which is required for some of the OL applications.

Inasmuch as we are still limited in our casework by our manpower resources, we request that your response be as up-to-date as possible.

Please'provide your response within thirty days of receipt of this letter.

incerely,,

Enclosure:

As Stated re

ssenhut, erector Division o Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ccs w/encl:

Service List

<<a

ENCLOSURE l Plant FSAR Tendere~ocketed TABLE 1 TARGET DATES Of LICENSING STEPS FOR PLANTS SEEKING OPERATING LICENSES IN TNE NEXT THREE YEARS ER SER ~

Itearlnd"

~Const.

Coo."*

ASIII" Ot Tendered Rocketed SER ACRE

~su

> l.

OES FES*

Start

~Coe s.

~A.Est.

RAC Est.

On~talon Issued EAST CENTRAL AREA RELIABILITY COORDINATION AGREEHENT ZIaaner I 5/75 9/75 6/75 9/75 1/79 3/79 10/BOE 10/76 6/77 6/79 12/BOE 8/BOE 2/DIE 2/DIE 2/BIE Fenel 2

10/74 4/75 10/74 4/75 3/81 E 4/81 E 6/81 f 12/SOE 5/BIE 7/DIE 9/01 E 6/BIE 11/81 E 11/81 E 11/81E 6/SIE 8/O'IE r

Hldland 2

8/77 11/77 3/78 4/78 10/82E 11/82E 1/83E 6/BOE 1 1/BOE 2/83E 8/83E 4/84E 4/84E 10/83E 4/84E (1)

Hldland I

8/77 11/77 3/78 4/78 10/82E 11/82E 1/83E 6/SOE 11/BOE 2/83E 8/83E 9/84E 9/84E 10/83E 9/84E

( I )

Harble Hill 6/79 3/82E 6/l9 4/83E I/84E 2/84E 4/84E ll/83E 4/84E 8/84E I/85E 4/82E 4/85E 3/SSE 4/85E (2)

CnTTTanche ELECTRIC RELIABILITYCOUNCIL OF TEXAS 3/78 5/78 3/78 1/79 3/Slf 4/SIE 6/Blf 9/BOE 2/81E 9/SIE 12/BIE 3/BIE 2/82E 2/82E 2/BZE Sooth Texas I

5/78 7/78 5/78 7/78 ll/82E 12/82E 3/83f 4/82E 9/82E 4/83E 7/83E 9/83E 9/83E Saleei 2

Sns ne-anna 8/71 4/78 8/71 7/71 7/71 10/71 7/78 5/78 6/78 2/BIE HID-ATLANTICAREA COUNCIL 2/79 4/BOE(LP) 10/72 4/73 10/BOE(FP)

None Req'd 2/80 4/BOE NA 4/BDC (LP) 10/BDE (Vl')

10/81 E 10/8 I E 3/DIE 3/BIE 5/SIE 6/79 11/BOE 6/BIE 8/SIE 4/81 10/BIE 12/SOE I/Blf Sns oe-hanna 4/78 7/78 5/78 6/78 2/81 E 3/81 E 5/DIE 6/79 ll/BOE 6/Blf 8/Slf 4/82E 4/83E IO/Blf 4/83L 12/BOE I/Blf 3/BIE

I< Iant 2

FSNI Iculcred llackulca Lit Tcndercii t)uckctcd Si it'E)i ACIIS S<< I tl ~

I)L'5 fCSa I)tl)-NdfIt I CA It)Ifit)'t)OL IICT)tt)ttt'.

~lla>>ri ~ '

Start.

~C<NII Sa I:~ i~>al. Cuerr

~n>>.ssl.

Cuc Csl.

ASLOii Ilccicsea OL issued laSalle I

9/16 5/ll lu/16 5/77 9/t)AC li)/Uoc 12/Iiuf 3/lU 11/70 tionc Re<1'>lie 2

~ll ran I

~ll rnn 2 Oral<4<nod 1

lira) di<nnd 2 9/16 5(77 6/78 11/10 6/ill 1 1 /18 6(70 11/18 10/16 5/77 6(78 11/78 9(IIAC IP(AIIE 12/AAE 3/lii 11(lU 10/0l E 11/t)1 f I/02f 2/01$

7(ul f.

6/70 I I/70 lA/GIE 11/0 I C 1/t)2f 2(8 I C 7/Ulf 6/lu 1 I/78 IO/0I E 11/0 I C I/02f I/A3E ts/83E 6/18 I I/78 6/70 11/lU 10/0 If.

11/Ul E I/02c 1/03E (3/03E 2/U2C 4/I)?

L'/OUC lu/i)IL 2/02L 4/t)ZC 6/Ulf li)/I)If.

2/U2E 4/i)2L 7/t)3E 10/03E 2/02C 4/IIZC 1/U3f IU/03C 4/02L 7/82E 4/03L 1/83E 5/03E 6/04E 4/iihC 6/USE

)tone tie<I'd I</OIL 2/02L 6/il?C 12/AIC 6/uzL 12/UIE 6/02C 12/03C 6/OZE 12/03C 2/i)ZL I/Ua'.C I/U3L'/uhC 6/IV~L

~C>>l law I

Cllnlcn I

)0/79 0/t)UE 10/79 12/8of 6/02f 1/Gzc t)/02E 1/01E 12/81E 9/U2E 10/02E lu/uzE 12/79 li)/GAL 12/19 3/Ulf 9/02C 10/02E 11/02C 10/01E 3/02E 12/82E 1/t)3C 4/U2E 12/02E 3/83E 3/03L 3/i)3L 12/02E 12/u2t.

Sl urelsaa 9/15 OuitT))EAST Pt))tftt Ct)uitl)IIIATIIIGCAuHCIL 1/16 9/lg I/75 9/uuE 10/UOE IZ/IIOC 3/ll 10/ll I/ulf 0/Olf 11/OOE lu/GIE SOUTIICASTERII ELECT)IIC REL IAOILITY Cuui)CIL 10/I) If.

10/till ilnrth Anna 2 5/13

~seuu ak 2 I2//3

~5c ua ak I I2//3 1/14 1/14 (3)

(3) 3/19 5/79 5/GIE 10/7) 1/14 tionc 1(14 5/13 6/70 6/10 6/76, I/ll 4/Ai) (LP) 12/12 4/13 I I/16 IO/IIIIC(I'P) 9/75 (3)

(3) 3/19 6/19 2/i)A (LP) 10/71 7/14 tin<i<

9/UOC(EP) 7/Ih 6/1I 9/IS Itc<i 4 I/14

)le<)'. d 7/74 4/OO 4/00 I I/1I 12/15 2/iiu 2/80 ttA 2/15 U/Oi)E 5/UIE IIA 2/15 4/I<II (t I'1 lu/iiul(I I')

2/iui (<<)

9/inu (I i')

5/I)I I.

Plant F SAR Tendere~ocketed ER Tendered Ilocketed SERi llearln< '*

SER ACRS

~~uil.

DES FES*

Start

~om.

ConSt.

CokttP."'nl

. Erssnntt.

nMIEs t.

ASLO Oectston OL Issued HcGulre 1

HcGulre 2 Matts Oar 1

Matts Gar 2 4/74 5/74 4/74 5/74 6/76 10/76 6/76 10/7&

SOUTHEASTERN ELECTRIC RELIABILITYCOUNCIL CON'T 4/74 5/74 3/78 4/78 7/GOE 10/75 4/76 8/78 3/77 8/78 3/77 8/78 4/77 8/78 4/77 5/BOE 11/BOE 1/82E 2/82E (5)

(5)

(5)

(5) 1/81E 2/81 E 4/81 E 1/8'IE

. 2/BIE 4/BIE 6/78 12/78 Hone Req'd 9/BOE 5/81E 6/78 12/78 None Req'd 6/81E 3/82E 4/74 5/74 3/78 4/78 7/GOE 10/75 4/76 4/79 II/BOE (4) 4/79 2/82E (4)

NA 5/BIE NA 3/82E Se ner t 12/76 2/77 12/76 2/77 8/BOE 9/BOE 11/BOE 6/79 9/BOE 12/GOE 2/OIE 12/BOE 12/BOE 10/BOE 12/BOE:

~carte 2

8/13 8/73 Oellefonte I 2/78 6/78 Oellefonte 2

2/78 6/78 6/BOE 7/BOE 7/GOE(LP) 7/74 12/74 12/BOE(FP) 5/75 6/75 None Req'd 8/73 8/73 2/78 6/78 2/81E 7/81E Hone Req'd 7/82E 7/82E 2/BIE 7/BIE None Req'd 6/83E 6/83E 2/82E 3/82E 6/82E 2/78 6/78 2/82E 3/82E 6/BZE Catawba 1

3/79 10/BOE 3/79 10/BOE 8/82E 9/82E 10/82E 5/82E 9/82E 12/82E 2/83E 4/83E 4/83E 4/81E 4/BIE 2/GIE NA 7/BQE(LP) 12/BOE(fP)

NA 7/BZE NA 6/83E 4/83E 4/83E Grand CuTf I Materford 3 Molf Creek SOUTHMEST POMER POOL 4/78 6/78 4/78 6/78 5/BIE 6/BIE 8/BIE 2/81E 7/81E None Req'd 9/BIE 9/81E NA 9/BIE 9/78 12/78 9/78 12/78 5/BIE 6/81E 8/81E 3/BIE 8/81 E 9/81 E 12/81E 10/81 E 2/82E 2/82E 2/BZE 2/80 3/BIE 2/80 10/81E I/83E 2/83E 4/83E 5/82E 10/82E 7/83E 8/83E 10/BZE 10/83E 10/83E

\\0/83K 0labio 7~an on t Oiablo i~an on 2

'0/73 10/73 10/73 10/73 MESTERN SYSTEHS COORDINATING COUNCIL 8/71 8/71 10/74 7/78 5/GOE(LP) 12/72 5/73 10/77 8/GOE 5/BOE 5/BOE 1/81 (FP) 12/76 12/76 8/71 8/71 10/74 7!78 I/81 (FP) 12/72 5/73

'IO/7'I 8/BOE 3/BIE 3/81E 12/76 12/76 10/GOE 10/BUI.(LP)

I/OIl(fit) 10/BOE 3/8 Il

(slant I'Sh))

Senlere~ocksted Cll Yenilered Ilackaled St'I(

~

)(earing" SCII

~CIIS

~Ku>>I.

OES FES~

Start

~Cnd>>.

Cnn St ~

Cdk~kr>>> ~

~ll ~t. sl.

ISIC ksl ~

hSLU' AL oc'cCCnn lssuud Ssln (Ienrra d

MESTC((rl SIS ICNS L'UAIIAI((hl)I(A CUU(ICIL Cl)>>'7 I I/76 3/77 I I/76 3

7 3/7 7 0/AAE 9(OAE 12/UAE 1 I/70 10/OUE I/0I C 0/I)II.

11/UUE 6/OIL 10/UOE l)/UUC I

6/0) C 6/UIL I/UIC Ssldl nnalra 3

)I>>sld lnIUtnA Hdde 1 e~dr I I/76 3/77 11/76 3/77 0/OAE

'7/AUE 12/OAE 3/70 6/70 12/76 1/77 3/OZE 0/f52C

~/UZE II/78 10/OOE I/Olf 4/01 E 10/UAC ll/UAE I/0 I C 5/UZE I/0I E 6/8 I E

((one Ileq' 7/02L'/02E llh 7/UZL Id/UlC 5/02L I/AIC Pa)n VKrhe IA)79 l2/OAE

$Z/79 1 g/OOC f/82E 5/82E 7/l)ZE 7/OIE 12/Olf 0/02E )0/02E 11/UZC 1Z/UZE 12/02E 12/UZL

ASSUllPTIONS USED FOR PROJECTING TARGET SCHEDULES Coamission decision on full-power NTOL requirements made in June-1980.

Commission decision on treatment of Class 9 accidents in NEPA statements adopts staff recommendation in SECY 80-131 and is made in June 1980.

Projected safety reviews are generally scheduled to start 33 months prior to construction completion dates including time for ACRS review and hearings.

Projected environmental reviews are generally scheduled to start 24 months prior to construction completion dates including time for hearing.

For plants with construction completion dates before the end of 1982 the target schedules for OL review were developed, based on the NRC construction completion dates, on a plant specific basis to minimize delays in OL issuance.

FOOTNOTES-FOR TABLE 1

E Oenotes estimated date Oate entered is for last supplement to SER/FES issued.

Mhere two entries are made, first entry concerns radiological safety matters and second concerns environmental matters.

A single entry indicates Hearing and/or ASLB decision considered both radiological and safety matters.

The difference in estimates for construction completion, be-tween the applicant and NRC, is attributable to an independent assessment by the NRC staff of factors affecting construction completion.

Generally, the NRC staff estimates are more con-servative (i.e., later completion dates) and are based upon actual experience in constructing similar plants.

Second unit of a dual unit facility is usually completed about 18 months after first unit.

(LP) denotes low power (FP) denotes full power (2)

(4)

Applicant construction schedule slipped from 11/80 to 4/84 due to foundation problems with auxiliary building and financial considerations.

Mork stoppage order issued by NRC in August 1979 for gA-related problems on safety portions of facility.

NRC estimates about 18 months before full-sca1e construction will resume.

Thus, the large difference in construction complete dates.

Environmental reviews for Sequoyah 1 and 2 were conducted under a lead agency agreement with TVA.

TVA's final environmental statements (FES) incorporated and addressed the AEC's contents on the respective draft statements.

The FES's were then accepted as the NEPA statements for the project.

Schedule shown assumes hearing record will not be reopened for THI-2 issues.

lf ASLB reopens

record, fu11 power OL issuance may be delayed.

TVA's FES for Matts Bar 1 and 2 were consider ed to be the environmental report submitted to NRC.

NRC then issued its own OES and FES for project.