ML20031E990
| ML20031E990 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1981 |
| From: | Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-CPA, ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8110190003 | |
| Download: ML20031E990 (26) | |
Text
[
10/15/81 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S
02 9
b BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 007 v r 0198fg Q T u.s, k %
V di In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY I
Do::ket No. 50-322 (CPA)
/ N
)'
Docket No. 50-322(0L)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
)
Unit 1)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO SHOREHAM OPPONENTS C0ALITION'S STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION PROCEEDING AND MOTION TO ADD LATE CONTENTIONS TO THE OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING I.
INTRODUCTION On September 24, 1981, the Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC) filed a two part document. The first part is a statement of its proposed con-tentions with respect to the application for a construction permit (CP) extension filed by Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO or Applicant) on November 26,1980.M The second part is a motion made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714, to add late contentions to the proceedings on the i
application for en operating license (0L).
In this filing the NRC Staff responds to both parts of the 50C document.
Briefly, the Staff takes the position that 50C has failed to j
If The CP extention request is the secor.d such application filed by LILCO. A copy of the NRC Staff Order granting the first LILC0 request on Dacember 18, 1978 is attached to this pleading as
" Attachment A".
L.
l DESIGNATED ORIGINAL Cortified By
//
N
/~
'9110190003 811015
$DRADOCK05000 l
$0l
c i
raise at least one contention litigable under 10 C.F.R. ! 50.55(b) in a CP extention proceeding, and therefore, that no hearing is required.
Secondly, the Staff takes the position that the 50C motion to add late contentions to the OL proceeding should be denied as not meeting the criteria for late filed contentions under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 and not setting forth contentions cognizible in these proceedings.
II. BACKGROUND To put SOC's current requests into proper context it is important to retrace the origins of SOC's participation in these proceedings. On January 24, 1980, S0C filed a petition requesting, among other things, admission as a late Intervenor in the OL proceeding.E On March 5, 1980, the Board granted the request but because of SOC's late entry, limited SOC's participation "to new issues relating to the accident at TMI or to recently discovered constructior, defects" (Order Ruling on Petition of Shoreham Opponents Coalition, March 5, 1980, at 12).
On November 26, 1980, the Applicant requested an extension of the latest completion date in the CP (from December 31, 1980, to March 31, 1983). On January 23, 1981. SOC filed a " Petition... to Ins;itute Proceedings on Whether Good Cause Exists to Extend the Completion Date of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station." The petition requested a hearing on the Applicant's CP extension request. Additionally, it sought to have i
y The OL application filed by LILCO was noticed in the Federal Register on March 18, 1976. 41 Fed. Reg. 11367 (1976).
1 l
I l
I
the Shoreham CP suspended, revoked, or "in the alternative reissue (d)
... subject to... conditions."
The second part of the 50C Petition was treated by the Director.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as a request under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 for suspension of construction at t.oreham pending a hearing.
In a Director's Decision (DD) dated June 26, 1981, this 9 2.206 request was denied because SOC had alleged only that operation, and not continued construction of the plant, could endanger the public health and safety or be envirun-mentally unsound (DD 81-9, 13 NRC
, 46 Fed. Reg. 34786 (1981)). It was and is the Staff's position that questions involving safety of operation and environmental issues related to operation properly are to be neard at the OL application proceeding presently pending before this Licensing Board, and not at a CP extension hearing when the facility is well over 80 percent complete.
SOC's request for a hearing on the CP extension was referred by the Director to the Commission.
On July 22, 1981, the Commission found that S0C had standing to request a hearing on the CP extension application and granted SOC's hearing request " subject to the petitioner advancing at least one litigable contention" (Order, July 22, 1981, at 2). S0C nas filed its present proposed Statement of Contentions for a CP extension hearing in order to meet the Commission's requirement. The Commission has referrec to this Board the question of whether S0C has raised issues litigable in the CP extension proceeding, and, if so, to decide the issues on the.rerits.
III. DISCUSSION A.
50C HAS FAILED TO ADVANCE AT LEAST ONE CONTENTION WHICH IS LITIbABLE IN A CP EXTENSION PROCEEDING 1.
Scope of a CP emiension hearing.
As noted above, S0C originally sought to intervene in the OL proceeding three and one-half years after the noticed time for intervention had expired. Although this Board found that S0C had met the standards for late intervention prescribe in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714, it limited SOC's participation to THI-related issues and claims of new construction defects that could not have been issued before.
" Contentions which duplicate those of existing parties or otherwise plow old ground, or which relate to utters that properly could have been raised at the onset of the proceedirig [in 1976]
will be denied" (Ordei %11ng on Petition of Shoreham Opponents Coalition, March 5, ifs 0s at 12). Many of the contentions that S0C proposed were rejected on this basis (Jd., at 13-24), Now, in the conte..:t of a CP ex-tension proceeding, S0C is attempting to circumvent the limitation on its OL participation, and has resurrected previously rejected contentions.N y
See for example, Order, March 5,1980, at 13 (site suitability r.on-tention dismissed), at 23 (Class 9 accident analyses contention dismissed). See also in this regard the July 30, 1981 Answer of the NRC filed by the Commission's Office of General Counsel in Shoreham Opponents Coalition v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission No. 81-3044, (2nd Cir.1981), fn.17, at 14, noting the similarity between SOC's January 1980 OL puition aad its January 1981 CP extention petition.
Fo? the convenience of the Board a copy of this brief is attached as
" Attachment B".. The other parties already have a copy. The September 1981 Statement proposes virtually the same conter.tions.
. i These resurrected issues lack a proper nexus to a CP extension application and should be denied admission as contentions.
Section 185 of the Atomic Energy Act as amendeo, 42 U.S.C. 5 2235, provides that, should construction of a nuclear facility not be completed by the prescribed date in a construction permit "the construction permit shall expire, and all rights thereunder be forfeited, unless upon good cause shown, the Commission extends the completion date" (emphasis supplied).
This proviso, is implemented in NRC regulations. 10 C.F.R. 9 50.55(b) states:
If the proposed construction or modification of the facility is not completed by the latest completion date, the permit shall expire and all rights there-under shall be forfeited:
Provided however, that upon good cause shown the Connission will extend the completion date for a reasonable period of time. The Commission will recognize, among other things, developmental problems attributable to the experimental nature of the facility or fire, flood, explosion, strike, sabotage, domestic violence, enemy action, an act of the elements, and other acts beyond the control of the permit holder, as a basis for extending the completion date.
Thus, the question to be decided by the Board is the scope of issues which may be heard in a proceeding to determine whether " good cause" exists for amending the construction permit for the Shoreham facility to I
axtead the time for completion of construction.
Under the approach taken by SOC, the CP extension hearing would become nearly as inclusive as the OLhearing.S/ The Staff takes the position that this would be a misreading f/
This of course is exactly what S0C needs in order to circumvent the Boa'rd-lmposed limitations on its pa ticipation at the OL stage.
of the p ecedents relied on by S0C which limit construction permit extension proceedings to questions of " good cause" under the standards of the statute and regulation.
In fiorthern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, fluclear 1), ALAB-619, 12 14RC 558, at 568 (1980), the Appeal Board set forth the established two-prong test for admission of contentions in a CP extension hearing:
... [I]ntervenors could litigate only those safety or environmental issues which both (1) arose from the reasons assigned in justification of the request for a construction permit extension; and (2) could not, consistent with the protection of the interests of the intervenors or the public interest, " appropriately abide the event of the environmental review - facility operating license hearing." Indiana and Michigan Electric Co. (Donald C. Cook iduclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-129, 6 AEC 414, 420-421 (1973).
The first prong of this test requires a showing that there is nexes between the issues to be considered and the Applicant's reasons for construction delay.
The second prong is whether the issues could await litigation in the operating license proceedinc'. To this prong the Appeal Board in Bailly added the test of whether there was another vehicle for a petitioner to raise the concerns it wished to have considered in the construction permit extension proceeding. Finding that an avenue was open for the petitioner in that proceeding to raise their concerns through a petition under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 to seek a halt of construction, the Board concluded that issues which had nothing to do with the need for a construction permit extension 1
did not provide a basis for intervention in the construction permit extension proceeding.
12 NRC at 575-573.
SOC has not attempted to show any nexus between the issues it seeks to raise in the construction permit extension proceeding and their relation to whether good cause exists to extend the construction permit.
In Bailly, supra, at 573, the Appeal Board stated:
[AJ permit extension proceeding is not convened for the purpose of conducting an open-ended inquiry into the safety and environmental aspects of reactor construction and operation.
Yet that is precisely what the proceeding would become were an open invitation given to those in petitioners' situation to freight it unnecessarily with matters far removed from those events which led to its commencement.
[ Footnote omitted.J Petitioners make a similar attempt here. The issues sought to be raised, as we shall detail, are unrelated to the questions to be considered under 10 C.F.R. 9 50.55(b), and may not be raised in this proceeding.
S0C has no good contentions related to " good cause" for the construction permit extension, and its petition to intervene must be denied.
Moreover, whether SOC has a remedy under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 is immaterial.
In Bailly, supra at 570, the Appeal Board stressed the imperative of "looking at the ' totality of the circumstances' and a ' common sense' approach in determining the scope of the ' good cause' inquiry in the specific case." The key factor in the Bailly case weighing in favor of a broad interpretation of " good cause" for admission of contentions in a CP extension hearing was that virtually no construction had taken place at I
the Bailly site and.that any 01. hearing was far in the future. At that early stage'of construction the Appeal Board took the view that it might l
l l
l
be unduly prejudicial to defer site suitability issues until the OL hearings if in opportunity for hearing existed before that time.M The factual setting at Shoreham is far different than that at Bailly.
At the time of 50C's original January,1981 petition to intervene in the CP extension proceeding. construction at Shoreham was more than 80 percent complete. The OL hearing will start within the next several months.O Under y
In Bailly the Appeal Board did not allow consideration of contentions unrelated to the licensee's reasons for delay.
It stated that issues, not related to the " good cause" test in 10 C.F.R. 6 50.55(b) for con-struction permit extension were mor appropriately the subject of a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.206.
It further stated that where an issue "has r.c af scernable relationship to any other pending pro-ceeding h.,c, one concerned with permit extension), the Section e
2.206 remedy must be regarded as exclusive." Northern Indiana Public Service Co. supra, at 570.
In this case S0C had already requested a suspension of construction pending a hearing under 10 C.F.R. 9 2.206 (Petition, January 23,1981). This was denied by the Director on June 26, 1981 partly on the ground that any proper contentions could be heard in the proximate OL proceeding.
Directors Decision 81-9, 13 NRC (June 26, 1981, slip op. 5). The Commission did not review that decision. That decision is final.
y The OL hearings in this case are expected to begin during the Winter, 1982.
As a practical matter any CP extension hearing held should be consolidated with the OL hearings, further eliminating the need for a separate hearing. See, Staff Paper to the Commission,
" Disposition of the Petition of the Shoreham Opponents Coalition (SOC) to Institute Proceedings on Whether Good Cause Exists to Extend the Completion Date of the Shoreham Huclear Power Station, Unit 1,"
June 26, 1981, a copy of which has previously been served on the Board and the parties.
0
,e
_g.
Bailly, supra, and under Cook, supra, the nearness of the OL hearing prevents the raising of the subject coritentions in the CP extension proceeding.E SOC's proposed CP extention contentions, to the extent they raise litigable issues at all could easily abide those OL hearings.8f 2.
SOC's CP extension contentions.
An examination of SOC's proposed contentions reveals that all four are clearly inappropriate for admission in a CP extension request hearing.
1.
Class 9 Accidents SOC's first contention (Statement, p.6-11) asserts that the Shoreham SER and FES are inadequate essentially because they do not include a7 analysis of the consequences of a Class 9 accident. This issue has no relation to whether the Applicant has " good cause" to seek extension of its construction permit and must be rejected for that reason alone. Moreover, this Class 9 issue had previously been been raised by SOC in its petition JJ If S0C cannot raise any issue at the OL hearings, that is a result of its own tardiness in intervening in the OL process and S0C should not benefit thereby.
Cf., Nuclear Fuel Services. Inc., and New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority, (West Valley Reprocessing Plant), CL1-75-4, 1 HRC 273, 276 (1975).
8f Applicant at p. 6 of its subject pleading states that "those issues which car.not abide until the operating license review should be explored now."
Nowhere is there any indication that CP extension amendment hearing could take place any sooner than the OL hearing.
b
_j
to intervene in the OL proceeding (Petition January 24, 1980, contention 20(d), at 53).
At that time the Board rejected its admission on the basis of Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Plants), CL1-79-9,10 HRC 257 (1979). (Order Ruling on Petition of Shoreham Opponents Coalition, March 5, 1980, p.23). This decision by the Licensing Board reflected a long standing Commission policy that the consequences of a Class 9 accident need not be considered for land bued reactors.N Having failed once, S0C is again attempting to raise the " Class 9" issue through the vehicle of Applicant's CP extension request.
The Comm4sion's action since the March 5, 1980 Board Order has reinforced the conclusion that consideration of Class 9 accidents would be improper here. On June 13, 1980, the Comission published a " Statement of Interim Policy on Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969".
45 Fed.Rm.40101.N The Staff has previously advised this Board of its position as to the effect of this Policy Statement on the Shoreham plant in the "NRC Staff's Position Regarding Consideration of ' Class 9' Accidents," (December 24, 1980).
9]
This policy was set forth in the proposed Annex to Appendix D to 10 C.F.R. Part 50. The proposed Annex was withdrawn by the 1 ter Comission Class 9 Policy Statement of March 5,1980. 45 Fed. Reg.
e 40101.
10/ This policy was issued after receipt of the communications from CEQ set forth at pp. 9-11 of SOC's motion.
. \\
Basically the Comission's Policy Statement directs that the Staff:
1
- initiate treatments of acc.ident considerations in accordance with [ guidance in the Policy State-ment] in its on-going HEPA reviews, i.e., for any proceeding at a licensing stage where a Final Environmental Impact Statement has not yet been issued.
(Emphasis added) 45 Fed. M. 40101, at
_40103.
The FES for the Shoreham OL was issued in October 1977. The Staff therefore is not required to consider " Class 9" accidents in the Shoreham case. Any contention that " Class 9" accidents must be looked at in a CP extension proceeding where the Final Environmental Impact Statement has been issued is a challenge to the Comission's " Class 9" policy statement, and must be rejected for that reason as well. E ii. Liquid Pathway SOC's second contention concerns the alleged " lack of any specific discussion of the impact on the ' liquid pathway' from a serious accident or potential corrective measures for such an accident" (Statement, at 12). The Staff is of the view that admission of this contention to a CP extension hearing would be inappropriate. No showing is made of any nexus between this issue and whether Applicant has " good cause" to seek extension of its construction permit.
L 11/ As we detailed, the requirement that " Class 9" accident analysis be performed was rejected as a contention in the OL proceeding.
If S0C feels that the policy statement on " Class 9" accidents should not be applicable to the Shoreham facility, its remedy is to seek an exception to that policy for this facility under the procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. Q 2.758. See also Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-80-8, 11 NRC 433 (1980).
_t
Moreover, The Board is already considering this very issue in the context of emergency planning in the OL proceedings. S0C Contention 2, admitted by Board Order dated June 26, 1980, reads as follows:
Intervenors contend that the emergency planning requirenents for the 50-nile (radius) ingestion pathway for the Shoreham facility
..., are inadequate in that they do nct adequately address the effects of releases thrcugh the liquid pathway.
This issue will be resolved in the context of the OL proceeding.
It should not also be litigated in a CP extension. E See, Bailly, supra.
iii. Siting Contentions SOC next asserts a Shoreham siting contention (Statement, p.18-22).
This is an additional example of SOC's attempt to use the vehicle of a CP extension proceeding to raise issues which were previously rejected by the Board. SOC's January 24, 1980 late Petition to Intervene in the OL 1
l proceeding included a site suitability contention (Petition, January 24, 1980, Contention 1, p.37). The contention was rejected by the March 5, 1980 Board Order as "replowing old ground" (Order Ruling on Petition of Shoreham Opponents Coalition. March 5, 1980, p.13). S0C again raised the siting issues in its January 23, 1981 Petition to Intervene in the CP extension proceedin3 (Petition, January 23,1981,p.17-20). Now, in its present Statement of Contentions, S0C has practically repeated verbatim 1_2/ This contention is the subject of a motion for summary disposition.
2 Applicant and Staff liave taken the position that S0C has failed to show special circumstances (such as, for example, those in the Offshore Power case, supra) which would require a complete site-specific liquid pathways analysis. See. Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposition, July 13, 1981, and the NRC Staff Response Supporting Applicant's Motion, September 18, 1981. All the argu-ments against a liquid pathway analysis are equally applicable here.
Its January 23 site suitability contention. The issue is no more appropriate now for a CP extension hearing than it' was when originally asserted by S0C in the OL proceeding. This is particularly so when noted again that the Shoreham facility is substantially completed.
The Staff again emphasizes that the proposed S0C siting contention has no connection with the " good cause" test for a CP extension application set out in 10 C.F.R. ! 50.55(b). 3horeham is factually distinct from the Bailly case.
In Bailly, very little construction had taken place at the time the CP extension application was filed. At Shoreham construction was over 80 percent complete at the time LILC0 sought a CP extention.
Under the " common sense" test in Bailly, supra at 570, 573, no siting issue can be raised where the plant is over 80 percent complete at the subject site. E 13/ The policy incorporated in the Cotraission's new regulation limiting the raising of alternate site issues in OL proceedings mitigates against the raising of any siting issue here on a plant largely complete.
10 C.F.R. 5 51.21, as amended June 21, 1981 (46 Fed. Rg.
28630) provides that "{njo discussion of alternative sites for the proposed plant" is required in the environmental report for an operating license.
In the statement of considerations the Commission stated (41 Fed. Rm. 28631, May 28, 1981):
... This conclusion is grounded in the rationale and basis supporting the proposed rule, i.e., that at some point after issuance of the CP, the al-ternative of siting the nuclear power plant else-where is no longer likely to be a reasonable alternative for the purpose of NEPA. The Commission believes that this point has clearly been reached, if not passed, by the time the OL application has been submitted to the NRC staff for review.
Typically, an operating license ap-plication'is submitted to the NRC staff within 3 years of the estimated construction completion date. Construction is usually about 35-65 percent FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
iv. Financial Considerations SOC's final contention questions the financial qualifications of Applicant due to the delays and asserted cost overruns in the Shoreham construction project (Statement, p.22-25). This contention, however, should be rejected. The Commission's regulations do not require a showing of financial qualifications as a condition precedent to issuance of a CP extencion. They are unrelated to the issue of whether the Applicant has good cause to seek extension of its construction permit. See 10 C.F.R. 9 50.55(b).
Under the language of 10 C.F.R. 9 50.33(f),a showing of financial qualifications are required only prior to the issuance of a CP or an OL.
There is no requirement of a showing in order to complete construction 13/ F00TH0TE CONTINUED FROM PRECEDING PAGE complete at this time (depending upcn the number of units to be built at the site) and a corresponding portion of the total construction costs have already been incurred.... [footnttes omitted]
See in this regard the Seabrook case, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution v. NRC, 582 F.2d 87, 95-96 (1st Cir.1978),
holding that in performing a cost / benefit analysis of altern1tive sites, the Commission may consider the fact that costs have already been incurred at the proposed site.
See also Notice of Proposed Rulemaking " Licensing and Regulatory PoTicy and Procedures for Environmental Protection; Alternative Site Reviews", 45 Fed. Ftjyl.
24168 (April 9,.1980).
k
previously authorized. E Applicant was found to be financially qualified to construct Shoreham by a Licensing Board. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), LP8-73-13, 6 AEC 271, 305 (April 12,1973).E The Licensing Board Initial Decision was affirmed, in all respects, by the Appeals Board. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831 (1973).
Applicant's qualifications to operate Shoreham are properly a subject of the OL proceedings. This matter is addressed in the recently issued Supplement 1 to the Shoreham Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0420, Supp. 1, Sept. 1981). E
_1y In this regard, see also,,(Consumers Power Company (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-458, 7 NRC 155 (1978); Portland General Electric Co., et. al.(Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, 266 (1979Ti VirdinTa Electric and Power Co. (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-584, Il NRC 451, 456-7 (1980).
Although not in the context of CP extensions, these decisions make clear that a further showing is not required in license amendment proceedings to do what had already been authorized in the original issuance of the license.
_1_5] LILCO's fincncial qualifications to construct Shoreham was not a contested issue at the CP stage.
1_6/ A presently pending rulemaking proposes to eliminate the financial qualification requirements for utility companies which seek a CP and/or an OL.
46 Fed. h. 41786 (August 18,1981). Generally Licensing Boards should not become involved in questions pending before the Commission in rulemaking proceedings. See Potomac Electric Co. (Douglas Point Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-218, 8 AEC 79, 85 (1974).
Further, it should be noted that SOC's financial qualifications contention is largely based on testimony from state ratemaking proceedings. This testimony is not available to either the Staff or the Board.
Furthermore, state ratemaking is irrelevant to the NRC's health, safetyi and environmental reviews. Whether or not Applicant is granted a rate increase is strictly a state concern.
i i
. 3.
NEPA requirements for a CP extention.
Much of SOC's Statement of Contentions is premised on the argument that a draft and final supplemental to the FES must be prepared prior to the issuance of a CP extension. However, the National Environmenta; Policy Act of 1960, P.L,.91-190, 42 U.S.C. 94331 et. seq., (NEPA) does not require sucn a statement on a CP extension request.
NEPA provides that an environmental statenent be issued for any major f6deral action significantly affecting the environment. 42 U.S.C.
5 4332(c). Absent a major federal action significantly affecting the environment, no statement is necessary.
S0C argues that the CP extension proceeding is a determination as to whether the Shoreham plant will ever be built.
Just such arguments were rejected in Northern States Power Company, (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 HRC 41, fn. 4, at 46 (1978) ar.d Portland General Electric, et al. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-531, 9 NRC 263, fn. 6, at 266 (1979).
In each case it was argued that because the plant could not operate without the amendment requested, the amendment was a major Federal action significantly affecting the environment.
In each case this argument was rejected on the ground that the original Environmental Statement authorizing the action looked at the action, and this l
task under HEPA need not be repeated. As stated in Prairie Island:
(
The issuance of operating licenses for the two Prairie Island units was preceded by a full en-vironmental review, including the consideration of alternatives.
[ footnotes omitted].
Nothing in HEPA l
t
... dictatr3 that the same ground be wholly re-plowed in connection with a roposed amindment to those 40-year operating licenses. Rather, it seems manifest to us that all that need be undertaken is a consideration of e.hether the amendment itself would bring about significant envirunmental con-sequences beyond those previously assessed...
This is true irrespective of whether, by happen-stance, the amendment is necessary in order to enable continued reactor operation.
Northern States Power Company, supra, at 46, n. 4.
Tne original FES issued prior to the CP looked at whether the Shoreham facility should be built. This review need not be repeated. All that need be reviewed now is the environmental changes caused by the CP extension which were beyond the scope of the original FES.
In the past, it has been the consistent practice of the NRC to issue negative declarations as regards the ex mision of construction permits.b This reflects the Staff view that a CP extension is not a major federal action significantly affecting the environment.
No reason is given to show that a CP extension t.;aendment here would have any environmental effect beyond that of the original construction permit.
No reuen for a new environmental statement or a supplement to the one formerly issued is shown. E IJ7/ Examples of this practice include:
Georgia Power Co. (Alvin W.
Vogtle Nuclear Plant) Order and Negative Declaration of November 5, 1976; Duke Power Co. (William B. McGuire Nuclear Station), Order and Negative Declaration of December 26, 1978; Virginia Electric & Power Co.
(North Anna Power Station, Units 3 and 4), Negative Declaration of 14, 1979, 44 Fed. Je. 29347 (May 21, April 18, 1979, Order of May R
1979); Commonwealth Edison Co. (LaSalle County Station), Negative seclaration of December 26, 1979, Order of January 17, 1980.
1_g/ All environmental effects alleged by SOC in Ws motion, such as tne effect of accidents or problems of emercency evacuation stemming from s'1 ting, do not even come frum construction. An FES on operation has been prepared.
S e NUREG-0420 (Oct. 1977); Supplement No. 1 (Sept. 1981).
6 l
l I i
B.
SOC'S MOTION TO ADD LATE "THI. CONTENTIONS" Sil0VLD BE DENIED 1.
Procedural defects in SOC's Motion.
Part II of SOC's September 24 filing is a motion made pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 to add late "THI-related" contentions to the OL proceeding (Motion p. 25). The Staff believes that SOC's Motion fails to meet the requirements of 52.714 and must be denied.
When a contention is filed late in a proceeding, its admissability must be judged by a balancing of the five factors listed in 10 C.F.R. 2.714(a)(i)(1-v).1E/ The Commission has made it clear that the requirements of 52.714 are to be applied to late TMI-related contentions, just as to any other late contentions. See, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5,13 NRC 362, 364 (April 1,1981).2p/ Furthermore, it is incumbent upon a proponent of a late contention to address the factors to be balanced, and to affirmatively demonstrate that its contentions should be admitted.
Duke Power Company, 19/ These factors are:
1.
Good cause for failure to file on time.
2.
The availability of other means to protect petitioner's interests.
3.
The extent to which petitioner would assist in developing a sound record.
4.
The extent to which petitioner's interests may be represented by other parties.
5.
The extent the issues would be broadened or the pro-coedings delayed.
22/ This portion was originally established by the Commission in "Further Commission Guida9ce for Power Reactor Operation Licenses - Revised Statement of Policy," 45 Fed. flejt 85236 (December 24,1980).
(Ptrkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-615,12 NRC 350, 352 (1980).
It must be stressed that, contrary to this requirement, SOC in its Motion has not even addressed the factors of 9 2.714 much less made an af-firmative showing that its contentions are entitled to a favorable balance.
The Staff urges that 50C's Motion be dismissed for failure to comply with the Commission's regulations. b 2.
Substantive defects in 50C's TMI contentions.
Even if SOC's three TMI r? lated contentions were raised in a timely fashion, or could be admitted late under a 6 2.714 balance, the Staff would oppose their admissability. The Commission has established a separate policy to determine which TM1 issues may be litigated in operating license proceedings. Under this test, SOC's proposed contentions are not proper 2_1/ Even assuming that SOC had followed proper procedure in its late contention motion, the Staff believes that the three proposed con-tentions could not be admitted under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714. There is no new information involved which would give S0C cause for not filing the contentions earlier. For example, NUREG-0600, "The TMI Action Plan," and other reports stemming from the TMI accident, on which the allegedly new contentions are premised, were published in late 1979 or the first half of 1980.
Furthermore, SOC's proposed new contentions are all of a generic nature and contrary to established rules or policies of the Commission, making petitions under 10 C.F.R. 5 2.802 or 9 2.758 as other appropriate means of protecting SOC's interests. The Commission has specifically invited such petitions in the context of actions required as a result of the TMI accident.
See NRC Statement of Policy Further Commission Guidance for Operating Licenses.
45 Fed. R_eg. 85236, December 24, 1980. The addition of i
these issues would undoubtedly broaden and delay the proceeding.
Thus, on balance there is no cause to admit them as late filed con-tentions. See Duke Power Co. (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2
& 3), ALAB-615, 12 HRC 350, 352 (1980); Detroit Edison Co. (Greenwood E.nergy Center, Units 2 & 3), ALAB-476, 7 HRC 759, 754 (1978).
THI issues. They are unrelated to the THI requirements for new operating licenses as set forth in NUREG-0737, and are therefore not litigable in i
the OL process.
On October 28, 1980, the Comaission approved NUREG-0737, " Clarification of THI Action Plan Requirements." This document sets out the TMI related requirements to be completed by applicants for new operating licenses.
I On December 18, 1980, the Commission issued a Revised Statement of Policy.
"Further Commission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses," 45 Fed.
R_eg. 85236 (December 24,1980), addressing litigation of TMI issues in OL proceedings.E The Comission concluded:
[TJhe list of TMI-related requirements for new operating licenses found in NUREG-0737 can provide a basis for responding to the THI-2 accident.
The Commission has decided that current operating license applications should be measured by the NRC Staff against the regulations, as augmented by these requirements [ footnote ommitted].
In general, the remaining items of the Action Plan should be addressed through the normal process for development ind adoption of new requirements rather than through immediate impostion on pending applications.
Jd.at6.
The basic policy, therefore, M established by the Commission, is that only TMI contentions related to a specific NUREG-0737 requirement may be litigated in an OL proceeding. A party may question compliance with a 1
TMI requirement, or challenge the necessity for, or sufficiency of the i
l l
requirement.
In challenging the -sufficirney of a TMI requirement, however, the scope of the inquiry is very narrow. The Commission clarified its 22/ The TMI requirements established in NUREG-0737 superseded the NUREG-0694
" Requirements for New Operating Licenses," originally approved May 15, 1980.'. The Rev'ised Statement of Policy of December 18, 1981, on NUREG-0737 superseded the "Further Comission Guidance for Power Reactor Operating Licenses; Statement of Policy," published on June 20, 1980, 45 Fed. R_eg. 41738.
l position in Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon fluclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5,13 NRC 361, 364-65 (April 1,1981):
What we had in mind was allowing a party to focus on the same safety concern that formed the basis for the fiUREG requirement and litigate the issue of whether the fiUREG "reguirement" is a sufficient response to that concern [ footnote ommited].
Contentions which address a safety concern not considered in NUREG-0694 and 0737 shall not be entertained as challenges to the sufficiency of those requirements.
The contentions raised by SOC are based on safety concerns which never resulted in a HUREG requirement. These contentions in effect seek further TMI requirements and as such are not litigable in a licensing proceeding.
i 50C's first proposed THI contention (Motion, p. 27), calls for a Shoreham-specific Interim Reliability Evaluation Program (IREP) analysis.
SOC relies on TMI Action Plan Item II.C.1. as identifying a need for an improved systems - oriented approach to safety review. However, no TMI requirement has ever been adopted on IREP. This is exactly the type of contention the Commission intended to remove from the licensing process through its policy statement. The contention represents no more than a statement of SOC's opinion that a new TMI requirement is necessary.
There is no showing of special circumstances that would justify singling out Shoreham for an IREP analysis.13/
The situation is exactly the same for SOC's second proposed contention.
In that contention SOC calls for a Systems Interaction (SI) analysis of the Shoreham design (Motion, p. 31). While this may be the subject of an Unresolved Safety Issue, fiUREG-0737 established no SI requirement. The 23/ g. 10 C.F.R. 9 2.758.
. IlVREG-0737 THI requirements represent the culmination of a long decision-making process. Many factual, legal,'and policy determinations had to be made in deciding exactly what requirements to issue and what to leave out. A reconsideration of the whole process would be impossible in an individual licensing proceeding, and for that reason contentions requesting such a reconsideration may not be admitted.
SOC's final "THI-related" contention requests a documentation of deviations between the standards used to review the Shoreham design and current regulatory standards (Motion, p. 31). There is currently no regulation or tiUREG-0737 item requiring such a documentation. The con-tention lacks any nexus witn a safety concern addressed in the TMI requirements. This contention, as the previous two, effectively requests a new requirement, and as such is not litigable in an OL proceeding.
Documentation of deviations, however, is currently the subject of a pro-posed rulemaking. See, " Plan to Require Licensees and Applicants to Document Deviations From the Standard Review Plan - tiotice of Proposed Rulemaking," 45 Fed. R_eg. 67099 (October 9, 1980). Rulemaking is the e
proper approach to this generic issue.b If and when a final documen-tation of deviations regulation is promulgated, those requirements, to the extent they are applicable, will be complied with for the Shoreham 1
plant.
,24/ See Potomac Edison Co. supra; Sacramento Municipal Utility District TRanchoSecoituelearGeneratingStation),ALAB-655,1414RC (slip op. at 32, October 7, 1981).
. IV. CONCLUSION 1.
S0C has failed to raise at least one contention litigable in a construction permit extension proceeding. Therefore, no hearing is required.
If a hearing were required, it must at this stage of the proceedings be merged, as a practical matter, with the operating license hearings.
2.
SOC has failed to make an affirmative demonstration pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714 that its motion to add late contentions should be granted.
Furthermore, the TMI contentions proposed are of a type not litigable in an operating license proceeding. For either of these reasons, 50C's new "THI" contentions must be denied.
Respectfully submitted.
Edwin J. Ret Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of October,1981.
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE AT0 HIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 (CPA)
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
)
Unit 1)
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the captioned matter.
In accordance with 9 2.713, 10 C.F.R. Part 2, the following information is provided:
Name
- Edwin J. Rets Address
- Office of ten Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Telephone Number
- Area Code 301-492-7505 Admissions
- Court of Appeals for the State of New York District Court for the District of Columbia Nare of Party
- NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 M
Edwin J. Reis '
Assistant CF ef Hearing Counsel Vated at Bethesda, Maryland this 15th day of October,1981.
UNITED STATES OF AtlERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of LONG ISLANU LIGHTING COMPANY DocketNo.50-322(CPA)
)
Docket No. 50-322 (OL)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
)
Unit 1)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESP 0:4SE TO SHOREHAM OPPONENTS C0ALITION'S STATEMENT OF CONTENTIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EXTENSION PROCEEDING AND MOTION TO ADD LATE CONTENTIONS TO THE OPERATING LICENSE PROCEEDING" and " NOTICE OF APPEARANCE" of Edwin J. Reis 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 Comission's internal mail system, this 15th day of October,1981:
Louis J. Carter Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Administrative Judge Canner and Shapiro 23 Wiltshire Road No. 9 East 40th Street Philadelphia, PA 19151 New York, NY 10016 Dr. Uscar H. Paris
- Administrative Judge Howard L. Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 217 Newbridge Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Hicksville, NY 11801 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Frederick J. Shon,*
W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Administrative Judge Hunton & Williams Atomic Safety and Licensing Boarci P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Richmond, VA 23212 Washington, DC 20555 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Deputy Connissioner and Counsel General Counsel New York State Energy Office I
Long Island Lighting Company Agency Building 2 250 Old County Road Empire State Plaza Mineola, NY 11501 Albany, NY 12223 Jeffrey L. Futter, Esq.
Long Is' land Lighting Company 250 Old'Co0nty Road' Mineola, NY 11501 6
l Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Mr. Brian McCaffrey Twomey, Latham & Schmitt Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Attorneys at Law P.O. Box 618 P.O. Box 398 Nurth Country Road 33 West Second Street Wading River, NY 11792 Riverhead, NY 11901 MHB Technical Associates Energy Research Group, Inc.
1723 Hamilton Avenue 400-1 Totten Pond Road Suite K Waltham, MA 02154 San Jose, CA 95125 Joel Blau, Esq.
Hon. Peter Cohalan New York Public Service Commission Suffolk County Executive i
The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
building Veteran's Memorial Highway Empire State Plaza Hauppauge, NY 11788 Albany, NY 12223 Ezra 1. Bialik, Esq.
David H. Gilmartin, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Suffolk County Attorney General Environmental Protection Bureau County Executive / Legislative Bldg.
New York State Department of Law Veteran's Memorial Highway 2 World Trade Center Hauppauge, NY 11788 New York, NY 10047 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
- Appeal Board
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 1
Docketing arid Service Sectien*
Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 k Nt_
Edwin J. Reis Assistant C f Hearing Counsel i
t
ATTACHMENT A
['
UNITED STATES
- g. N
-'t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON j,.!'"l j
WASHINGTON, D. C. 205S5
/
N 1 ; ": ;
t Docket No.: 50-322 Mr. Andrew W. Wofford, Vice President Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE - SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION In response to your request of December 18, 1978, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued an order extending the construction completion date for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
In lieu of the latest completion date of May 1, 1979, as specified previously in Construction Permit No. CPPR-95, the latest completion date has been extended to December 31,1980.
A copy of the Order, the staff safety evaluation, the r:egative declaration, and the environmental impact appraisal are enclosed for your infortnation. The Order and the negative declaration have been transmitted to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
- gncerely, L
he.
t e\\
Steven A. Varga, Ch f Light Water Reactor Branch No. 4 Division of Project Management
Enclosures:
l 1.
Order Extending Completion Date 2.
Staff Safety Evaluation 3.
Negative Declaration 4.
Environmental Impact Appraisal cc: See next page t
I l
i Cgwg 79#71'2J)24N9
Long Island Lighting Company ccs:
Howard L. Blau Blau and Cohn, P.C.
380 North Broadway Jericho, New York 11753 Jeffrey Cohen, Esq.
Deputy Commissioner and Counsel New York State Energy Office Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Energy Research Group, Inc.
400-1 Totten Pond Road Waltham, Mas.s. 02154 Irving Like, Esq.
Reilly, Like and Schnieder 200 West Main Street Babylong, New York 11702 J. P. Novarro Project Manager l
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P. O. Box 618 Wading River, New Ycrk 11792 W. Taylor Reveley, !!!, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, VA 23212 Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Cammer & Shapiro No. 9 East 40th Street l
New York, New York 10016 Edward J. Walsh, Esq.
General Attorney Long Island Lightir.g Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 t
f Long Island Lighting Company if,'y i ; ---
~
ces (continued)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency' Region 11 Office Attn: EIS Coordinator 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10007 Mr. John V. N. Klein County Executive Suffolk County Center Hauppauge, New York 11787 Mr. John F. Randolph Supervisor, Town of Brookhaven Town Hall South Ocean Avenue Patchogue, New York 11772 Mr. Allen M. Smith Supervisor, Town of Riverhead 220 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 10007 e
O i
j#'"'%I umreo srATes t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY cOMMisslON yg g,)
W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20SSS
%,..v.../
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING C0tPANY SHOREHAM NUCLE'AR P0KR STATION DOCKET N0. 50-372 ORDER EXTENDING CONSTRUCTION C0FPLET!ON DATE Long Island Lighting Company is the holder of Construction Permit No. CPPR-95, issued by the Atomic Energy Comission* on April 14, 1973, for construction of the Shoreham Nclear Power Station. This facility is presently under construction at the applicant's site on the north shore of Long Island in the town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York.
On December 18, 1978, the applicant requested an extension of the latest completion date because construction has been delayed by the following events beyond its control:
1.
strikes 2.
insufficient craft manpower i
l 3.
severe weather conditions 4.
regulatory changes 5.
late delivery of critical equipment This action involves no significant hazards consideration; good cause has been shown for delay; and the extension is for a reasonable period, the bases for which are set forth in an tRC staff evaluation dated May 14, 1979, The preparation of an environmental impact statement for this parti-cular action is not warranted because there will be no environmental in-
' pact ttrjbutable to the action authorized by the Order other than that
- Ef fective January 19, 1975, the Atomic Energy Comission became the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and pennits in effect on that day were continued under the authority of the Nclear Regulatory Comission.
& CY 7g f71NLLl- _ _
g
. which has already been predicted and described in the Commission's F1:s31 Environmental Statement-Operating License Stage for the Shoreham facility, published in October 1977 and the Final Environmental Statement - Con-struction Permit Stage published in September 1972. A negative declara-tion and an environmental impact appraisal have been prepared and are available, as are the above stated docunents, for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
20555 and at the Shoreham-Wading River Public Library, Route 25A, Shoreham, New York 11786.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the latest completion date for Construction Permit No. CPPR-95 is extended from May 1,1979 to December 31, 1980.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS5 ION
^
Roger S.
yd, Direct M Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance:
May 14, 1979
,e c---
n e
~
[
UNITED $TATES 8%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
=-[,'( DJ ) j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 EVALUATION OF A REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PROVISIONAL CONSTRUCTION PERMIT N0.~ CPPR-95
_SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION - DOCKET NO. 50-322 I ntroduction A provisional construction permit was issued to long Island Lighting Company (applicant) on April 14, 1973 for construction of the Shoreham Nuclear Powr Station (facility) on the north shore of Long Island in the town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York. The construction permit l
specified May 1,1979 as the latest date for completion of construction of the facility.
In a
- ter dated December 18,1978 (SNRC-348), the applicant requested ar.
- nsion of the latest completion date pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.55(b).
The applicant requested that construction per-mit No. CPPR-95 be amended to extend the latest date for completion from May 1,1979 to July 1,1980.
Discussion The applicant's letter (SNRC-348) stated that the delay in completion of construction of the Shoreham Station was due to the following factors which were beyond the control of Long Island Lighting Company:
1.
STRIKES The site underent a 10-week steamfitters strike in 1975 at the beginning of the piping installation effort. This strike, occurring as it did at the very start of the piping installation, effectively delayed that effort. Also it resulted in additional, though unquantifiable, delays due to the necessary ramobilization of the large steamfitter work force after the strike. While this steamfitter strike has been the only major prolonged strike during the construction of the Shoreham plant, the applicant also experienced numerous short-term work actions by boilermakers, iron workers, and dock builders, as well as steamfitters, which cunulatively have resulted in significant aoditional delays.
2.
INSUFFICIENT CRAFT MANPOER Since October 1977 there has been a shortage of qualified steam-fitters. Since the piping and pipe support installation effort is on the critical path to fuel load, the absense of these craftsman has had a direct impact on the schedule.
The appli-cant estimate's that this situation alone has resulted in a 25-w'eek delay' Further, while not directly related to a deficiency in n%npower, progress on the critical path to fuel rs '
2-load was delayed due to the inability to institute a second shift on the jobsite. The construction schedule had called for a second shift to begin in 1975. However, due to pro-longed contractual negotiations on this matter with the labor unions involved, the second shift was, in fact, not initiated until August of 1977. An additi6nal factor that has contri-buted to the schedule delay has been lower than projected craft utilization rates.
3.
SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS Severe weather during the winters of 1976 and 1977 caused signi-ficant delays in the construction schedule because the reactor building had not yet been fully enclosed. Construction work on the upper elevation of the reactor building cease 1 for several weeks during those years due to unsafe werking condi-tions caused by ice, snow, and high winds. Heavy ice and snow storms during the winter of 1978 resulted in several weeks of far below normal craft management attendance resulting in further delays in that year.
4.
REGULATORY CHANGES Primarily because of the four-year time span between the filing of the original Shoreham Application and the granting of the Construction Permit in April of 1973, Shoreham has been exposed to a far greater number of regulatory changes than would a plant which had not experienced such a delay in licensing. During this period the NRC Staff revised a number of safety standards that resulted in significant design changes with the attendant delays in specifying, procuring, and installing new or modified equipuent.
In addition, there have been regulatory changes that have occurred during the construction phase of the Shoreham plant that have also caused delays. Changes due to the Mark II Containment pcol swell and Safety Relief Valve discharge phenomena have been extensive. For example, bracing for the 86 downcomers in the suppression pool has been modified and the Safety Relief Valve discharge devices, which had already been installed, are currently being removed and replaced with the "T" quencher devices.
u
=
r
-,-g v-es'e-------
w-w-,e y-
-v--,-,-v-ee-s-
.--e
--,---w,e-T w-
--rg=mre.
-- ---* - - -. -- -- ---,- = - - --- -*.- *
. 5.
LATE DELIVERY OF CRITICAL EC:UIPPENT The late delivery of certain critical components, and the "out-of-sequence" delivery of others, caused major delays and in-efficiencies in the construction process. This situation was most vividly illustrated by the serious delays encountered in t' e procurement of nuclear-grade valves and large bore n
piping. The reasons for tha late deliveries fall into the following general categories:
a.
Code changes due to both regulatory developments and industry requirements ( ASME Section III for example).
b.
Delays in the placement of orders caused by the re-quirement for re-engineering and upgrading specifi-cations to accommodate new codes and standards.
c.
Intense completion for piping and valves during the period 1974 through 1976 caused by a spurt in re-finery construction ar.J oil exploration as well as in utility orders.
Based on our review of the applicant's request, we find that the above factors were beyond the applicant's control and constitute good cause for the delay in completion of construction. However, we believe that the applicant's revised estimate for completion of construction of the Shoreham facility may be optimistic. During a review of construction progress at the Shoreha.n site by the NRC Caseload Forecast Panel in January 1979,* the applicant projected a fuel load date of June 1980.
The Caseload Forecest Panel arrived at a more conservative estimate for a nominal fuel load date at Shoreham of October 1980.
In order to provide a suitable margin for completion of Shoreham, which takes in-to account a reasonable allowance for additional delays from the same or similar delaying factors cited above, the latest date for completion of the facility should be extended from May 1,1979 to December 31, 1980.
As a result of our review of the Shoreham Final Safety Analysis Report to date and considering the nature of the delays, we have identified no sig-nificant hazards considerations in connection with the extension of the construction completion date. In addition, we find that the only change i
l i
- A summary of this meeting, dated January 22, 1979, was distributed to the public document room and all parties of the 55oreham proceeding.
[
l l
4 9-w--+
y v
w m,
w em m
m-rw w---w-n
. proposed by the applicant to the existing construction permit is an-extension of the latest completion.date. This extension will not allow any work to be performed involving new safety information of a type not considered by a previous Commission safety review of the facility and that is not already allowed by the existing construction permit.
There-fore, we find that (1) this action does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (2) prior public notice of this action is not required, (3) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by extension of the construction conpletion date, and (4) good cause exists for issuance of an Order extending the comple-tion date.
Conclusions Accordingly, issuance of an Order extending the latest completion date for construction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to December 31, 1980 is reasonable and should be authorized.
A.'r
, Jerry. Wilson, Project Manager 4tevenA.hbg Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4 Light Water Reacto Branch No. 4 8
Division of Project Management Division of Project Management Dated: May 14, 1979 i
i I
7590-01 NEGATIVE DECLARATION SUPPORTING EXTEN'SION OF CONSTRUCTION _
PERMIT NO. CPPR-95 EXPIRATION DATE FOR SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-322 The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has reviewed the Long Island Lighting Company (permittee) request to extend the expiration date of the construction pennit for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (CPPR-95) which is located in Suffolk County in the state of New York. The pemittee requested a 14 month extension to allow for completion of construction of the plant.
The Comission's Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis has prepared an environmental impact appraisal relative to this change to CPPR-95. Based on this appraisal, the Commission has concluded that an environmental impact statement for this particular action is not warranted because there will be no environmental impact attributable to the proposed action other than that which has already been described in the Comission's Final Environmental Statements (FES) which have been issued at both the construction permit and operating license stages.
(While an operating license has yet to be issued for the Shoreham facility, the FES concerning operation was issued in October 1977.)
1 7
77.lh 19)
7590-01
. The environmental impact appraisal is available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room,1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and at the Shoreham-Wading River Public Library, Route 25A, Shoreham, New York.
Oated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 14th day of May,1979.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U
Wm. H. Regan, Jri, Chief Environmental Projects Branch 2 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
- ~,
-v-e w
w
+
---w e,
,,,,w-
--,,--,----,r
--m,-
-n--
May 14,1979 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT _ APPRAISAL BY THE DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUPPORTING EXTENSION OF' CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-95 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR. POWER STATION, UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-322 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL Description of Proposed Action By letter dated December 18, 1978, the applicant, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), filed a request with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to extend the completion date specified in Construction Permit CPPR-95 for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
The action proposed is the issuance of an order providing for an extension of the latest completion date of Construction.Pennit CPPR-95 from May 1,1979 to July 1, 1980. The NRC staff has reviewed the application and found that good cause has been shown for the requested extension of the completion date specified in Construction Permit CPPR-95 for Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (see attached Safety Evaluation by the NRC staff).
Environmental Impa_ct of the Pr_oposed Action A.
_Need for Power The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 is now scheduled to begin commercial operation in November 1980. As part of the operating license review of this plant, the staff has followed LILCO's need for generating capacity. Examination of the most recent information regarding loads and. resources indicates that the conclusion reached in the Final Environmental Statement-Operating License stage (FES-OL) published in October 1977 regarding need for this plant is still valid.
The overall staff's conclusion that the plant should be con-structed is unaffected by the extension of the construction permits.
B.
Cgganity and Economi_c Impact i'he Final Environmental Statement-Construction Permit stage (FES-CP) for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 includes ar w :sment of potential environmental, economic andcommunjtyimpactsduetositepreparationandplant construction.
l w hzczo9 j
2-
'Ir addition, the staff did not identify any substantial itpacts on the surrounding community resulting from plant construction during a visit to the local area held at the time of preparation of the FES-OL. The only effects possibly resulting from the requested extension would be those due to transposing the impacts in time or extending the total time the local community is subjected to temoctary construction impacts. This in the staff's view will not result in any significant additional impact. The staff concludes that environmental impacts associated with construction of the plant described in the FES-CP, are not affected by the proposed extension..Thus, no significant change in impact is expected to result from the extension.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative _ Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis and the NRC staff evaluation, it is concluded that there will be no environmental impact attributable to the proposed action other than that already predicted and described in the Commission's FES-CP issued September 1972 and in the FES-OL issued in October, 1977. Having made this conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no environmental it.ipact statement for the proposed action need be prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
l l
...