ML20093K476
| ML20093K476 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick, 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1984 |
| From: | Fitti C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Robinson L NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20093C457 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8407310096 | |
| Download: ML20093K476 (11) | |
Text
.
d pe ncuq f.
- - 't UNITED STATES f' D N 1 E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{i[ h / f ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL T.cp 4/
W ASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 April 18, 1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Linda Robinson, FOIA
'EY - N 3
f,
/
/
FROM:
Charles J. Fitti Executive Secretary
SUBJECT:
F0IA-84-267 Listed below are copies of various documents and handwritten notes which we located in response to Robert R. Belairs's FOIA request of April 9, 1984.
David Prestemon, ASLBP Legal Counsel, who also attended the F0IA session on April 10, as _I did, pointed out there a.re items in the list which have to do with the Office of the Chainnan.
Accordingly, those items should not be sent without checking with the Chairman's Office.
Those items are numbered 5-10 below.
1.
Copy: Memorandum and Order Scheduling Hearing on LILCO's Supplemental Motion For Low-Power Operating License.
Hand-written notes are Judge Lazo's.
~
2.
Judge Cotter's copy of the notice of the establishment of the Shoreham Board.
3.
Judge Cotter's draft copy of his order responding to " Supplemental Motion for Low Powr Operator License."
4.
March 15,1984 memorandum from David Prestemon to Judge Cotter:
Impacted Plants.
5.
Judge Cotter's notes of meeting with Chairman Palladino.
6.
Slides and handout prepared by NRR for a meeting of the Chairman, Dircks, Denton and Cotter.
7.
8.
Judge Cotter's copy of Chairman Palladino's April 4, 1984 memo to the Connission with a copy of Judge Cotter's draft order (item 3) and a copy of the Chairman's working paper (items 9 & 10).
9.
Coay of Chairman Palladino's working paper with notes by Judge
)
Cotter.
4 8407310096 840713 i.
PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
4 2-10.
Copy of Chairman's Palladino's working paper with notes by Judge Cotter..
11.
Judge Cotter's copy of a note from Judges Brenner and Morris on "LILCO Supplemental Motion for Low Power Operating License (dated March 20, 1984) with Judge Cotter's notes.
12.
Ditto above, without Judge Cotter's hand-written notes.
13.
Statement prepared by Judge Miller to be read by his secretary to parties of the proceeding with a hand-written note by Judge Miller to Judge Cotter.
14.
Copy of Judge Lazo's hand-written telephone notes, 3/30/84.
15.
Copy of Judge Lazo's hand-written telephone notes, 4/2/84.
16.
Copy of Judge Cotter's hand-written notes.
17.
Copy of Judge Cotter's hand-written notes.
18.
Copy of hearing status report - Limerick.
~
19.
Copy of hearing status report - Shoreham.
20.
Copy of file-card - Limerick.
21.
Copy of file-card - Shoreman.
22.
Copy of file-card - Limerick, cc:
R. M. Lazo E. W. Leins B. Paul Cotter, Jr.
e f
I l
.. -. 4.e.w.,-.,,.. :,,...,._...=..
.. - - ~.n... :..
L 3/23/84-l l
3 E59 e
ORDER I
On March 20,1984,. LILCO fiTed with the Licensing Board a "Suppiemental Motion for Low Power Operating License". LILCO has requested the Board either to refer the motion imediately to the Comission for decisiori or to decide the motion on an expedited basis j
and to certify its decision to the Comission pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
I 2.730(f) (1983)
As discussec Selow, the Comission has rtniewed LILCO's motion and has concluded thv..'ferral at this time would be inappropriate. We agree, however, that a decision on certain issues raised by-the Applicant should be expedited to the extent possible j
consistent with the development of a sound record.
In the exercise of the Comission's inherent authority over the conduct of our adjudicatory i
proceedings,. we hereby grant that portion of LILCO's motion that requests art expedited proceeding. To that end,. we direct the Chief:
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, in consideratfort of the existing schedule and case! cad of the Panel's members,. to appoint an Atomic-Safety and Licensing Board to hear and decida LILCD's supplementai motion irt accordance with the procedures and schedule outlined. below.
b r.
LILCO's Motion t
LILCO asserts that the Shoreham plant is essentiaTTy complete and, by its motion, seeks authority to conduct four phases of low power activities,.namely:
~
__g y.- ej u. r~i..y :..
.~...,':g
.e.
w _1>.g;;
2-Phase I-tuel load and precriticality testing; Phase. II:
cold criticality testing;.
Phase III: heatup and low. power testing to rated pressure / temperature conditions (approximately 1% rated power); and Phase IV: low power testing (1-51 rated power).
Despite pending litigation concerning. the emergency dieseT generators' reTiahiTity, LILCO assertsfin its'. motion:
(1) the generators are not needed to protect the public heaith and safety for Phases I and II;.
~
(2) the generators have been tested and are adequa.te to protect the pubTic-health and safety during. Phases III and IV,. even: though litigatiorr of-their reliabil.ity has. not been completed;. and (3) ample alternate sources of AC power are available sufficient to assure no undue risk to the public health and safety from low power operation of the plant during Phases III and IV.
i II
Background
j Of some 122. safety contentions originally filed in this. proceeding all but three have beert resolved (The-settlement.of a fourth issue has been presented to the Board for approval)
The three remaining i
-.w-m e.--e<
c
,y
&-e Tw---
v
+-g e
-w.-y,,e
-- +
g-me-9--ev.i.---
pm-e-nrqueyw----,e m---.m--sr->,,------ei.,
v.-
-**m-
.-.. -I:. y..a. %7:. ~ w..,..
.c....-,n...s
..c.
n..
e l
3-contentions concern the reliability of emergency diesel generators at the facility.
LILCO's motion supplemented a June 3,1983 motion for a low-power license. After the motion was filed,. however, additional problems developed with the emergency dieseT generators, and the hearing on their reliabf Tity scheduled to consnence August 29, 1983 was deferred pending completion of LILCQ's. assessment and the NRC Staff safety evaluation.
In a. partial initiai decision-issued. September 21,. 1983, the Licensing Board decided a number of safety issues in favor of operation up to. 5%
of rated power but declined to authorize fuel load and low power 4
operation untiT' the then pending diesel generator contention was resolved The Staff SER fr presently scheduled for issuance in June 1984,. Titigation of the three diesel generator contentions is scheduled 2
to conmence in-July 1984, and arr initial decision is projected for issuance in December 1984.
r Suffolk County fiTed four amended contentions on the generators,.
and on February 2Z,1984, the Board admitted three of them in a ruling on the record. Tr. 21,612 el seq. Although the Board could not find, on the state of the record at that time, that the generators could l
reliably perfonn their needed function even as to low. power, the Board noted that LILCO was not precluded from proposing other methods by which the standards of 10 C.F.R. 50.57(c) could be met short. of litigating the contentions, or seeking a waiver under Section 2.758, or any other
. l l
-y,-- -,., -
.,c.
,,-.i--m-.m
g-y-gs y-e--,,.m.
w---.r~.--r, e
r--
e+
m--
--w
' r %
1., - a...
e.".'.
%.. z
.J'a.'--y
.. d,
w pl h.-s :.;*f gX ' ;,
- g Nn=.
e
. procedure. Tr. 21,616,. 21,630-633. Apparently in response to that ruling LILCO filed its March 20, 1984 supplemental motion.
(
As noted, Applicant has requested that its supplemental motion be-referred directly to the Comission for decision. The Comission is l
fully apprised of the contents of tha.t motion and is of the opinion that certairr issues. presented require a factual evaluation that can be-accomplished. more promptly and efficiently by a licensing board than by the-Comission directly. Accordingly,. referral to the Comission at this time would be inappropriate. However, the present schedule for Titigation of contentions related to the TDI diesel generators does present the potentiaT for delay inimical to the public interest given the apparent physical completion-of the Shorehant factlity within the meaning of 10 C.F.R. l' 50.57(a) (1983) and. the enonnous financial investment involved If the aTternativer proposed by Applicant in its motion are sufficient to pennit low-power operation and testing with assurance that the public health and safety are adequately protected, that matter ought to be determined as expeditiously as possible.
The Comission has inherent supervisory authority over the conduct of its adjudicatory proceedings,. including specific authority under its rules to ' establish reasonable adjudication time tables.
See The U.S.
Energy Research and Development Administration, Project Manaaement Corporation, Tennessee Valley Authority (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), CLI-76-13, 4 NRC 67 (1976), and 10 C.F.R. 9 2.711 (1983).
..m..n. -e.
v..
.a ::. ;-:....y...
<~
. III. Issue's to be Reard Accordingly, absent settlement, we direct that the following issues be adjudicated on an expedited basis:
L Whether the work described. in Phases I and II of LILCO's motion can be perfomed without the need. for the presently installed onsita emergency dieseT generators; i
Z Whether the alternate sources of AC power available to Shorehant are adequate to protect the public health and safety by perfaming' the function that the presently installed onsite emergency diesel generators would have perfomed during any or all. of Phases I, II,. III, or IV; What requirements. for testing or other demonstration of the 3.
i avaiTability and effectiveness of the Shoreham alternate power sources should be required as a precondition-to the issuance of any license permitting operation at up to 57. of rated power.
4.
Whether, in consideration of the Board's findings on the above issues and assuming all other regulatory requirements have been satisfied, LILC0 should be granted a. low power license to
_ ~~ -n _t~.-;
-a%
~ -,>..
- %-e. -
,......x.
- ~..
j j perform the work described in any or all of Phases I, II, III, or IT.
The Ticensing board constituted pursuant to this. order is authorized to conford the statement of the above issues. to the evidence relevant to LILCO's motion and this order. The licensing board shall not consider the operability and reliabiTity of the TDL diesel generators currently onsite. These matters are presently the subject of an extensive Staff review and will be f0lly a[ffudicated wher. the results of the Staff's review are availabTe.
IV. Froceeding-Schedule The Licensing Board constituted pursuant to this order is directed ta certify itsInitial Decision on these questions to the Comission 60 calendar days after the Staff fiTer its SER on the technical asp'ects of the LILCO motion. To that end,. the following expedited schedule is recomended to the Board and the parties:
Day -7 Comission Order Day I Staff and parties file response to i
substantive aspects of LILCO's motion Day 1 Staff files SER on technical aspects of LILC0~ SuppTemental Motion for Low Power Operating Licensa and serves the SER on the parties Day Z Discovery comences.
.... n.g :.,L.w.,.
.z.
Y
.c.,...a.
a..
. Day 18 Discovery is completed Day 25 Testimony is filed Day 30 Hearing comences Day 40 Hearing concludes Day 60 Board issues decision The Licens.ing Board constituted pursuant to this order is authorized to adopt, take official notice, or otherwise incorporate any portforr of the existing record in this proceeding as it sees fit. The Board shalT cTosely monitor and assist in the discovery process, limit the number of pages in any filing if necessary,. alter,. revise or modify any of the intennediate dates or sequences set out above, and otherwise facilitate the expedited completion of the proceeding in the full exercise of its authority. See, g Statement of Policy on Conduct cf Licensing Proceedings,.13. NRC 452' (CLT-81-8,.1981).
Steps-1.
3/26:
Comission issues brief notice. to parties suspending parties response time to LILCO's motion 2.
3/26:
Comission orders Staff' to prepare SER by April 7 3.
3/30:
Comission issues expedited hearing order l
4.
ca. 6/7:
Board decision l
~n.~..-: u ;; ~.t,.,
,s.
l Some Considerations 1.
Excellent Staff SER is critical to success of this expedited proceeding: Total systems analysis required or Boards and Comission will look bad.
a.
Staff should be formally notified to bdgin work timediately b.
Staff SER issuance on day-L assumes they have already comenced to prepare it, and this order won't issue until Mareft 30 Z
Sixty day schedule is brutally tight. Definitely not recomended but possibly achievable 3.
Very importantto give Licensing Board flexibility to refonnulate' issues within overall guidance should evidence shift the nature or emphasis of'the issue.
4.
Boards comitted to hearings or partial or initial decision writing in April and May include Catawba,3manche Peak, Shearon Harris, LimeHek, Midland, Shoreham, and Wolf Creek kf
.;......-:~~s,-
,,.. -o ~ :.
D..'.c.--
+cs ;.L:-
,Q..lp.,s....,...
s
.p j
s i, - o,
=:::.
m l
t I l s
l
- Need to avoid Comission debate on Board membership (cf.
Indian Point) 5.
Phase I and 11 issue may be resolved by agreement of parties which would make possible PID authorizing that work i
THIS DRAFTING SERVICE FURNISHED "AS IS":
1 10 WARRANTIES EXPRESS OR IMPLIED h
i w
\\
i 4
'4
/
... _ -., _. - ~.. - - -.-
,_..--__.y-.
,,,,,.y---,
.,,..--,-m
w d'N UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O
Y O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD A
Before Administrative Judges gSAAA44)
Marshall E. Miller, Chainnan Glenn O. Bright Elfrabeth B. Johnson
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No S0-322-OL )
(Low Power)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTINE COMPANY
)
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Generating PTant,.
Unf t 1.)
Aprtl E,.1984
' MEMORANDUM ANa ORDER SCHEDULING' HEARINE ON. LILCUfS SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR LOW-POWER OPERATING LICENSE On Marctr 20,1984,. LILCO' filett its Supplemental Motion for Low Power Operating License.
Suffolk County responded with its preliminary views on scheduling-in this matter on March 26,. and submitted a suppTement to those views on March 30.
The State-of New York and the NRC Staff' ffTed their responses to the LILCO Motion on March 28 and 30, 1
respectively.
On March-30, 1984, via telephonic notic'e to the-parties confirmed by a written Order of the same date,. we scheduled a conference of l
counseT for the purpose-of hearing oral arguments of the parties on "the-issuer that had be'en raised. by~ the parties in their filings, as well as a schedule for their expedited cons.ideration and determination."
(Order 4M M'b N t> {f 0
4 at 1)
New York State then filed a Motion, dated April 3, in which it aske'd that the provision in our March'30 Order mandating " expedited consideration-and determinatico" of the fssues in the LILC0 Motion be de.leted as lacking in any valid basis.
~
The conference of counsel was held on April 4,1984, in the NRC Hearing Room at Bethesda, Maryland.
Attorneys attending the conference were:
W. Taylor Reveley, III; Anthony F. Earley and Robert M. Rolfe for LILCO Alan R.4Dynner, Herbert H. Brown and
- Lawrence Coe Lanpher for Suffolk County Fabian Palomino for New York State s
Edwin Reis and Robert Perli"; for NRC Staff Lid [0'sMotionasksustograntalow-poweroperatinglicenseto its Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, pursuant to 10 CFR 550.57(c).
It characterizes the present motion.as Supplemental" to the earlier motion for a -low-power license which it had filed on Jr > 8,1983.
In ruling fon that motion, the Licensibg Board indicated Car 't had resolved all contentions relevant to issuance of a low-pcor ), ese for Shoreham in LILCO's favor except for' certain recently-admitted contentions regarding reliability of diesel generators at the site.
("TDI's" or "TDI diesels",,so called because of the manufacturer's name, Transamerica pelaval,Inc.).
No low-power license could be-1,ssued, that Board said, "until such time as that.pottien of Suffolk County's recently admitted emergency diesel generator contention may be resolved in LILCO's favor, y
~
4
' at least insofar as necessary to support a finding of reasonable assurance that Shoreham can be operated at levels up to five percent of rated power without endangering the health and safety of the public."
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-83-57,18 NRC 445, 634 (1983).
LILCO's Motion of March 20, 1984, purports to show that the pending diesel issues related to high-power operations need not be resolved prior to the granting of a low-power license for Shoreham.
At the conference of counsel, counsel for LILCO indicated that the TDIs are assumed not to operate in the accident analyses LILC0 offers in support of its motion (Tr. 20).
Therefore, LILCO's counsel agreed with the Board that no discussion of, the TDI's possible or potential use in an emergency would be relevant.
LILCO. frames the issues to be heard regarding its motion as one major is' sue with three factors thereunder.
Issue:
Whether emergency power sources available are sufficient to ensure public health and safety during low-power testing one 20 megawatt gas turbine (deadline blackstart) four mobile diesel engines (deadline blackstart)
- n. calculations regarding the amount of time available to react to certain events.1 Suffolk County argued against the LILCO motion.
The County quoted the " law of the case" -- specifically the statement made on the record (Tr. 21,631) by the original Licensing Board in this matter that the usefulness or effectiveness of the 'DI's is uncertain.
The County pointed out that there is no qualified onsite AC power system at Shoreham, and that General. Design Criterion (GDC) 17 specifically requires both an onsite and an offsite power system.
Thus, the County argued, LILCO's efforts to disregard the requirements of GDC-17 --
absent any petition for waiver thereof -- was nothing more than an impermissible challenge to NRC regulations.
The Staff believes that the regulations have to be read as a whole, and that GDC-17 should be read in conjunction with our low-power license provision, 10 CFR 950.57(c).
The Staff would thus view the requirements for full-power activities (e.g., GDC-17) as not totally applicable when the issue is whether low-oower activities should be authorized.
4 1
In regard to the time question, LILCO's stated position, supported by affidavit, was that in the event of a loss-of-coolant accident while the plant was operating at five percent power, plant operators would have at least 55 minutes to restore coolant.
The same calculation, when performed without some of the i
"conservatisms" that had been built into it, would show that-operators had,110 minutes p/ three hours in which to restore
- coolant, c4 g
. New York State, as an interested state, argued that 10 CFR 52.758 which prohibits attack on the other regulations specifically prohibits looking to the intent of a regulation rather than its explicit requirements, as the Staff would have us do with GDC-17.
In addition, in its written response of March 28 it argued that LILC0 had failed to comply not only with DGC-17, but also with GDC's 4, 5, 18, 19 and with 10 CFR 50, App. B.
All parties were heard on oral arguments by counsel regarding LILCO's motion for lov-power operations at the hearing held April 4, 1984.
Extensive arguments on all aspects of the low-power motion and the responses thereto enabled the Board to probe the underlying reasoning of the diverse views resented by the parties.
Based upon a consideration of the LILCO motion and the facts alleged in its attached affidavits,2 the matters contained in the responsive filings of the other parties and the arguments of counsel in depth, the Board concludes as follows:
1.
LILC0 has made a sufficient preliminary showing to justify holding a Section 50.57(c) limited hearing.3 2
Affidavits concerning the alleged facts and expert opinion were filed by Jack A. Notaro and William E. Gunther, Jr.; William G.
Schiffmacher; Dr. Glenn G. Sherwood, Dr. Atambir S. Rao and Mr.
Eugene C. Eckert; and William J. Museler.
3 0 CFR 950.57(c) provides:
5 (FootnoteContinued)
- . 2.
The Board will be required to determine whether there is reasonable assurance that the activities associated with LILCO's request for a low-power license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, in the absence of resolution by ar.other licensing board of the emergency diesel generator contentions related to full-power operation.
3.
The provisions of Section 50.57 regarding low-power.
operations must be read together with the requirements of (Footnote Continued)
An ' applicant may, in a case where a hearing is held in connection with a pending proceeding under this section make a motion in writing, pursuant to this paragraph (c), for an J
operating license authorizing low-power testing (operation at not more than 1 percent of full power for the purpose of testing the facility), and further operations short of full power operation.
Action on such a motion by the presiding officer shall be taken with due regard to the rights of the parties to the proceedings, including the right of any party to De heard to the extent that his contentions are relevant to the activity to be authorized.
Prior to taking any action on such a motion which any party opposes, the presiding officer shall make findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section as to which there is a controversy, in the form of an initial decision with respect to the contested activity sought to be authorized.
The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will make findings on all other matters
.specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
If no party opposes the motion, the presiding officer will issue an order pursuant to 62.730(e) of this chapter, authorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to mak'e appropriate findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this section and to issue a license for the requested operation.
l
GDC 17 concerning emergency power needs for full-power operations.
4.
If the evidence shows that the protection afforded to the public at low power levels withodt the diesel generators required for full-power operations, is equivalent to (or greater than) the protection afforded to the public at full-power operations with approved generators, then LILCO's motion should be granted.
5.
In making such determinations, the record should establish the following:
(a) Assuming an accident such as a LOCA at five percent power, how much time wailld plant operators have before emergency core cooling was necessary, and (b)
Could such core cooling be suppl:ed within that time.
6.
An expedited hearing should be held on the discrete issues described above, to the extent that such matters are reasonably relevant to a low-power license.
4 GDC 17 requires that electric power systems assure that in the absence of either the onsite or offsite power system, (1) specified acceptable fuel design limits and design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded as a result of anticipated operational occurrences and (2) the core is cooled and containment integrity and other vital functions are maintained in the event of postulated accidents.
S
. Authority for the_ issuance of low-power licenses is contained in 10 CFR 550.37(c), as described above.
Motions for a low-power operating license should be ruled on promptly, while decisions on full-power issues not associated with such operations may be resolved at a later time.5 In ruling upon Section 50.57(c) motions, a clear distinction must always be made between low-power operations and full-power operations.
At the threshold, the Board must consider and resolve the 4
question of whether the factual record arguably supports the requirement of reasonable assurance that proposed low-power operations can be conducted without endangering public health and safety.
In this case LILCO's motion requested approval for the following activities:
(a)
Phase I:
fuel load and precriticality testing; (b)
Phase II:
cold criticality testing; (c)
Phase III: heatup and low power testing to rated pressure /
temperature conditions (approximately 1% rated power);and l
(d)
Phase IV:
low power testing (1-5% rated power).
The original Licensing Board which issued a Partial Initial Decision on September 21, 1983, decided all issues before it except that 5
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361, 3C2 (1981).
l
- 6 involving the adequacy of the emergency diesel generattrs.
That matter remains pending in adjudicatory proceeding involving full-power licensing being concurrently conducted by that Board.
The jurisdiction of these two boards is separate and independent, and the instant low-power proceeding is not intended to duplicate or relitigate the massive record compiled in the extensive hearings preceding the issuance of the Partial Initial Decision.
Other licensing boards have considered the comparative risks associated with low-power versus full-power operations.
It has been noted that the Commission endorsed the general proposition that fuel loading and low-power testing
" involve minimal risk to'the public health and safety, in view of the limited powen level and correspondingly limited amounts of fission products and decay heat, and greater time available to take any7necessary corrective action in the event of an accident."
It has been held that the emergency planning measures required for low-power licenses are not the same as those required for full-power operation, but that the level of planning for a low-power license must be sufficient to provide the same level of protection to the public as 1
0 LBP-83-57, 18 NRC 445, 634 (1983).
7 l
Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating l
Station, Units 2 and 3), LBP-82-3, 18 NRC 61, 188, 190 (1982).
l l
~ !-
afforded by full compliance with the regulations at full-power operation.0 Without passing upon the ultimate merits of LILCO's supporting affidavits at this time, we observe that taken together they furnish sufficient analyses and data to provide a preliminkry record to justify holding a limited evidentiary hearing on matters in controversy regarding low-power operations.
The Affidavit of Jack A. Nataro and William E. Gunther, Jr.
describes in some detail the steps involved in each of LILCO's Phases-I through IV.
The affidavit of William G. Schiffmacher lists and describes all the normal and additional sources of offsite emergency AC power available to support the Shoreham plant.
The affidavit of Dr.
Glenn G. Sherwood, Dr. Atambir S. Rao and Mr. Eugene C. Eckert presents the results of the affiants' revirw of postulated accidents and transient events which must be ac;ommodated by the Shoreham plant to demonstrate compliance with NRC regulations (Chapter 15, FSAR).
The review specifically addressed the risk to public health and safety during low-power operations, taking into account such factors as reduced fission product inventory, increased time available for operators to take corrective or mitigating action, and the reduction in required
.8 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-81-21, 14 NRC 107, 120-23 (1981). See also another decision in the same proceeding, LBP-81-5, 13 NRC 27if at"270 (1981).
, 1 l
capacity for mitigating systems at less than five percent of rated power.
Included were findings as to the time in which lost AC power would have to be restored to prevent exceeding the regulatory limits in the event of a concurrent loss of cooling accident (LOCA).
Lastly, the affidavit of William J. Museler sets forth LILCO's comitment to effect reactor shutdown in the event of hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes or similar happenings, or of power transmission line or onsite backup power problems.
In passing upon LILCO's motion', it is necessary to consider two NRC rules together, and seek to harmonize them in order to reach a sensible j
result and respect the purposes of both. GDC-17, as discussed above,9 contains requirements for fulT-)ower operation regarding the absence of either the onsite or offsite power system.
It also sets forth the intent of assuring that fuel design limits and design conditions of the reactor coolant pressure boundary are not exceeded by anticipated operational 3ccurrences, and that the core is cooled and containment integrity and other vital functions are maintained in the event of postulated accidents.
The 'GDC-17 requirements, which govern full-power operation, must be read in light of the low-power operation provisions of Section 9
See footnote 3, pages 5-6, suora.
. 50.57(c).10 That regulation gives applicants the right to seek a low-power license by a written motion, in cases where licensing proceedings are pending but uncompleted.
The very purpose of this regulation is to permit motions for low-power operations where, as here, the licensing proceedings are not completed because of pending hearings on the satisfaction of all of the requirements of GDC-17, among others.
Looking at the provisions of GDC-17 is only the first step, not the last or only step, as urged by the State of New York and Suffolk County.
It is unreasonable to refuse to consider the terms of Section 50.57 as applied to the requirements of GDC-17.
This is_ also true of the findings required by subsection (c) of Section 50.57 on the matters specified in paragraph (a) ofthat section "as to which there is a controversy."
The operation of the facility in conformity with the rules and regulations of the Commission includes the possibility of low-power operations equal to the full-power requirements of GDC-17, provided that (as the Staff states), it can be found by the Board that there is reasonable assurance that the low-power activities can be conducted with the protection to the public at least equal to the protection afforded at full-power operations with the approved diesel generators.
The purpose of the limited evidentiary hearing established i
l 10 See footnote 2, page 5, suora.
l l
/
, by the Board is to detennine whether or not there is such " reasonable assurance. "
Although LILCO's motion for a low-power license could probably be 11 ruled upon without further evidentiary hearings upon affidavits and counteraffidavits, the Board believes that the record would be more complete by granting a limited evidentiary hearing on an expedited basis.
The issues should only be those relevant to low-power operations as set forth above.12 There is no need to reinvent the wheel or to go 4
into a mass of nonrelevant matters.
A very substantial record has already been compiled by the Board which issued the Partial Initial Decision (18 NRC 445, suora).
Any significant and relevant portions of that record may be used in this limited motion hearing, provided that such testimony or exhibits are specifically identified in advance and proffered in this proceeding.
The Board has also concluded that the taking of evidence on this Section 50.57 motion should be upon an expedited basis.
That section itself contemplates prompt action on the motion, prior to the conclusion of the pending evidentiary hearings.
The nature of and the risks associated with low-power operations are significantly different from 11 Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-5, 13 NRC 361 at 362 (1981).
12
_Id.
- full-power operations.
Where the construction of any large electric generating facility has been substantially completed and it is ready for testing, it would make no sense not to rule speedily and expeditiously on motions for low-por.::r activities.
Expedited proceedings do not prejudge the issues, as the decision on the motion can go either way depending upon the quality of the relevant evidence adduced by the parties.
But no party has a right to delay for its own sake, or to engage in dilatory practices.
The motion of the State of New York objecting to expeditious consideration, filed on the date of arguments (April 4, 1984), is denied.
Even in cases where power plants have not been completed, licensing proceedings should be conducte4 expeditiously.
The Comission has published a Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings, CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981) to aid licensing boards in expediting hearings.
Therein, the Commission said that "the actions consistent with applicable rules, which may be taken to conduct an efficient hearing are limited primarily by the good sense, judgment, and managerial skills of a presiding board which is dedicated to seeing that the process moves along at an expeditious pace, consistent with the demands of fairness." M.at453.
Our own Rules of Practice also permit the use of Expedited procedures.
For example,10 CFR 52.711 gives a presiding officer the power to reduce established time limits when there is good cause for so doing, and $2.118 gives him all powers necessary "to conduct a fair and
~
t impartial hearing according to law, to take appropriate action to avoid delay, and ta maintain order."
The Conutss' ion has also said that "as a general matter when expedition is necessary, the Rules of Practice are sufficiently flexible to permit it by ordering such steps as shortening -- even drastically in some circumstances - the various "me limits for the party's filings and limiting the time for, and types of, discovery."
Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile. Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1)
CLI-82-32, if NRC 1245,1263 (1982).
Scheduling The Boant heard the opinions of all the parties upon scheduling of any hearing dich might be hem. LILCO suggested a time frame in which testimony would be filed by all the parties on April 17 or 19,1984, and hearings would comence on April 24.
Hearings on this motion, LILCO submitted, should last no more than one week (Tr.99-101).
The NRC Staff stood by the suggested schedule that it had presented in its written respase (at footnote 3, pages 5-6):
that LILCO's testimony sh'ould be filed on April 13, the testimony of the Intervenors and the Staff on April 23, and the hearing' itself should commence by the end of April (Tr.15-08).
Suffolk County proposed a schedule which would j
include a lengthy discovery period to permit exploration of "a plethora of new, substantive, factual issues" (Tr.114-17).
Discovery, according to Suffolk County's proposed schedule, would continue through May 30.
Specification of issues would be on June 15, responses thereto on
- .. ' June 25, and prehearing conference on July 5.
After submission of testimony on July 20, hearing would commence on August 5 (Tr.113-14).
The Board considered the suggestions in light of the issues as we have framed them.
We exercise our judgment on scheduling in accordance with our decision above.
We find that the expedited schedule set forth below will not prejudice any party to this proceeding.
Date Event 1.
April 6-16,1984.
Discovery April 19,1984 NRC Staff supplemental SER j
April 20,1984 All direct written testimony filed April 24-28, Hearing 30 through May 5, T984 No further adjudicatory hearing days will be scheduled in this matter.
Discovery shall be limited to documents and depositions.
We expect the parties to exercise the maximum cooperation in this regard.
All prefiled written testimony must be in question / answer fonnat.
Testimony filed April 20, including that for Judge Johnson, shall be sent to the Bethesda Office.
All filings shall be hand delivered or expedited delivery, and no additional time shall be allowed for mailing.
All filings shall be in the hands of the Board not later than 3:30 p.m. on the date due.
Parties to this proceeding are reminded that they have an affirmative duty to promptly inform the Board of any and all changes in
0 circumstances which might impact upon our hearing on the issues before it.
Standards of practice have been established by the Commission governing the " appearance and practice in adjudicatory proceedings."13 The Rules of Practice expressly provide that parties and their representatives "are expected to conduct themselves with honor, dignity, and decorum as they should before a court of law" (Id.).
Counsel and parties have always conducted themselves with propriety and decorum in the past, and the Board is confident that orderly and expeditious procedures will continue to be followed.
Hearing will commence at 9:00 a.m., local time, on Tuesday, at Courtroom l'jState Office Building, Veterans Memorial April 24,1984 i
Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11787.
1 9
i 13 10 CFR 62.713.
.---,,---e.-.----,,-----.,.,.--e
-e v.---.
r
= This decision was fully participated in ty Judge Elizabeth B.
Johnson, who concurs in the foregoing Order bt. was unavailable to sign it when issued.
THE ATOMIC 5AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0-
/6 bN - 2 P G1eMi 0. Br gnt, ~ Member g ADMINIS RAEVE JUDGE
{,
Martnal i E. Miller, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE.1UDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of April,1984. ';
t
- - - - - - - - - - - -. - ~ -
?
rp:/r.
UNITED STATES OF AIERICA' NUCLEAR REGULATORY CD: MISSION LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (DocketNo. 50-3224L1 N
[ASLBPNo. 77-347-81C OL]
d ESTABLISHMENT OF ATOMIC SAFETY DID LICENSING BOARD TO PRESIDE IN PROCiEDING Pursuan,t to delegation by the Comission dated December 29, 1972, l
published in the Federal Register, 37 F.R. 28710 (1972), and Sections 2.105, 2.700, 2.702, 2.714, 2.714a, 2.717 ed 2.721 of the Comission's Regulations, all as amended, and pursuant 2 the Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Proceedings,13 N.R.C. 452 (1981), and.the advice from the present Atomic Safety and Licensig Board in this operating license proceeding with jurisdiction over-en-emergency planning matters that two of its members are heavily committed to work on another operating license proceeding, a separate Aicmic Safety and Licensing Board is being established to hear and decide Long Island Lighting Company's March 20,.1984 " Supplemental Motion for Low Power Operating License."
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (Low Power)
Construction Permit NL CPPR-95 This Board is being established pursumt to a notice published by the Commission on March 18, 1976 in the Feeral Register entitled,
}-h '
t a
l-
, t
" Receipt of Application for Facility Operating License, Availability of Applicane's Environmental Report; Consideration of Issuance of Facility Operating License; Opportunity 'for Hearing." 41 Fed. Reg. 11367-68 i
(1976).
l The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:
I l
Marshall E. Miller, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, D.C.
20555 Glenn O. Bright l
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission j
Washington, D.C.
20555 Elizabeth B. Johnson Oak Ridge National Laboratory P.O. Box X, Building 3500 Dak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 a
ChiefAdministr[ative B. Paul Cotter Jr.
Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Issued ~at Bethesda, Maryland, this 30th day of March, 1984.
l i
i
- -