ML20153H410

Confirms Content of 880303 Telcon Re Numbered Paragraph 2 of FOIA Request 88-63.Paragraph Clarified to Read as Stated. NRC Response to Request Due on 880317.Task Action Plan for Evaluation of Request to Operate Plant at 25% Power Encl

ML20153H410
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/16/1988
From:	Lauren Gibson KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART
To:	Brown N NRC
Shared Package
ML20153H356	List: ML20153H352 ML20153H410
References
FOIA-88-63, FOIA-88-A-34 NUDOCS 8809090169
Download: ML20153H410 (16)

Text

..

s 4 . .. .

KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART

$0LTHLoki- 2*H FLOOR avMW,t,au.

IEC M S M.ti, Nr " " A " "W TASHINGTo% DC 200)e se91 H:e pxN Astwt nun <x :.:: we nux .o e oc u DIVFD 7$$" ,

numu = m m

,, g.

n.uso.m w o.u '8h mar y A enmmn un ,m.

(202) 778-9119 March 16, 1988 Ottis, e n e.

Director, Office of Administration Nuclear Regulatory commission Room 4210 Maryland National Bank Building 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Attention: Ms. Natalie Brown Re:

Freedom of Information Act Recuest. 88-63

Dear Ms. Brown:

This is to confirm the content of our March 3, 1988, telephone conversation concerning numbered paragraph 2 of the above-referenced Freedom of Information Act request. Paragraph 2 is clarified to read as follows:

"All records, not served via the service list in 50-3 2 2-OL-03, 05, or 06 dockets, relating in any way to any other communications during the period March 1987 to the present between LILeo, including any person acting for or on behalf of LILco, and HRC employees, officials, eqents or representatives, which concerned LILco's request to operate Shorehan at 25 percent power, any Federal Emergency Management Agency review of revisions to LILco't. emergency plan, any further exercise of LILco's emergency plan, and any proposed procedures or schedules for any review or exercise of LILco's emergency plan."

ite Nuclear Regulatory commmission's response to this request is due on March 17, 198s. Please call me when the NRC's response is ready, so that I may send a messenger to pick it up.

Thank you for your assistance with this matter.

Sincerely, gy:,@u. C Mfibw >s torraine c. Gibson Paralegal 8809090169 080017 PDR FOIA DEL AIR 80-A-34 PDR

, , 4 , w; . .

- y -

r  ;

- (

Task Iction Plan for Evaluation of 1

Long' Island Lighting Crepany's Request to Operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power T.tation at 251 Power Lead Oroanization: Division of Reactor Proiects I/II, NRR Task Manager: Ronnie Ln -

Project Completion Date: July 8, 1987 4

s 4

l

• f

( i 0 ; g C :' s ' ,

ACTION PLAN I. INTRODUCTION The Long Island Lichting Company (L!LCO) has filed a Motion before the Comission on April 14, 1987, requesting authorization to operate the Shoreham Station at power levels above 5% and up to 25% of full power. In anticipation of a Comission reeuest for a staff review of the Motion and its associated bases, we have prepared this action plan for accomplishing an expeditious review.

The three major elements of this action plan are a description of the relevant background inforration, a description of the review program and a sumary of ,

the recuired staff resources with the corresponding schedules and milestores.

The section on background infonnation will include sumaries on plant status, hearings status and licensing status. The section on our review program will describe the scope of the staff's review of the proposal. It will identify the rature of the various elements of the staff's review effort. The final section of this action plan wil'. prv/ide estimates for the resource requirements in each of the technical review branches that will be participating in this review effort, along with the corresronding schedules and milestones as indicated in a bar-chart. The chart will also identify the interfaces between the various reviewing orpenizations.

A. PLANT STATUS The Shorehan Station is currently in cold shutdown. All the start-up tests that can be accomplished with a St power license, including synchronizatinn of the main generator with the off-site grid, have been completed. LILCO has taken advantage of the protracted period of plant shutdown and has accomplished a number of plant enhancements, including those called for in the ATWS rule. The plant is ready for operations at power levels above 5% of full power.

B. HEARINGS STATUS Public hearings on all issues but those dealing with selected areas of the ecergency plan have been completed with decisions rendered in favor of LILCO.

There are currently two licensing Boards scheduled to hold hearings during much of 1987 on the remaining issues relating to the emergency plan. These hearings are not likely to be completed for at least several months.

1 i C. LICliNSING STATUS I

LILC0 has an application for a full power license which is currently pending I before the Comission. Under authority delegated to it by the Comission.

The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has issued first a license author-izing fuel loading and criticality testing (.001% power) and later a license l authorizing operations up to a power level of 5% of full power. The 5%

license is currently in effect.

t

{

t l

i

2 The staff's licensing reviews have been completed for all issues that require resolution prior to authorizing coerations above 5% of full power, except for a selected number of issues dealing with the emergency plen, which are currentiv under litigetion before two licensing Boards. In addition, a finding by the Regional Administrator, that the Shoreham Station is ready for operations above 5% of full power is also pending. ,

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM The 1.!LCO request to operate Shoreham at 25% power is based on the provisions of 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1) which states that if the emergency planning standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.47ib) are not met, the applicant would still have an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Comission that:

1) deficiencies in the (emergencyl plans are not significant for the Shoreham Station;

2) adequate interim compensating measures have been or will be taken promptly; of

3) there are other compelling reasons to pemit plant operation.

LILCO claims that all three elements of 10 CFR 47(c)(1) are satisfactorily demonstrated by the analysis contained in its request.

In order for the Comission to consider the LILCO. request, an evaluation by the staff is necessary to examine the technical me'rits of LILCO's assertions under 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1). The probabilities, the severities and the durations of accident development for 25% power are significantly different from those associated with accidents that could occur during full power operation. The staff's evaluation should show if the conditions for operating Shoreham at 25% power are such that in the event of an accident involving offsite releases, the demands on the EP are substantially reduced in comparison with operation at 100% power. Tha evaluation should determine if offsite protective measures, when necessary, can be implemented with reasonable assurance. The evaluation should include an assessment of the "other compelling reasons," 1.e., the need for power and the use of foreign oil. The staff evaluation and recomendation for Comission action will be sumarized in a report to the Comission.

!!!. SCOPE OF REVIEW PROGRAM The staff actions to evaluate the LILCO request are divided into five subtasks I as follows:

A, SilBTASK 1 - ACCIDENT ASSESSMENT FOR SHOREHAM OPERATING AT 25% POWER An accident assessment will be performed to evaluate the following:

(1) The probabilities, relative to the Shoreham PRA analyted for full power operation, of accident sequences that would require offsite protective measures is be taken.

l l

i

, . . i. .' ~

I 3

(ii) For each of those accidet seouances evaluated in (i), evaluate the dose (whnle-body, thyroid) profiles as a function of distance.

' Compare the dose profiles soainst NUREG-0396 dose-probability vs.

distance calculations for the corresponding accident sequences, i.e.  !

most core-melt secuences and the worse core-melt sequenc'es.

(iii)Evaluatethetimeeierentinaccidentdevelopmentandrelease scenarios. Corresponding to each release category, evaluate the probabilities for the need of quick offsite response (less than 2 hrs.), extended response (5-10 hrs.) and delayed response (greater than 24 hrs.).

The staff has perfomed a review of the Shoreham PRA for 100% power.

This subtask consists of applying the parameters unique to the LILCO request in the accident evaluation. Some of the key input considera-tions are: (1) Those effects arising frori the 255 power limitation in comparison with 100% power: 1.e..; reduced fission product inventory; reduced demands en the safety systems; increased tim available for actions to mitigate the accident; and the availability of main condenser as heat sink with full turbine bypass for ATWS events; and (2) These factors related to physical and procedural changes that were not considered in the 100% power PPA; e.g.,

additional on-site AC power which significantly precludes station black-out accidents; improved Standby Liquid Control s which is eouivalent to about 200% of the 10 CFR 50.62(ystem capability cH4) require-ment for mitigation of ATWS events; Automatic Depressuritation System improvenent for accident control; elternate HPCI water source (from Condensate Storage Tank) to provide redundant water sources; procedural change to lower reactor water level setpoint for MSIY closure to 4

reduce challenges to the SRV and demands on suppression pool.

(iv) Coordinate with the Subtask 3 assessment which is detailed below.

B. SUBTASK 2 - ASSESSMENT OF 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING NECESSARY FOR 5HOREHAM OPERATING AT 25% POWER.

i The assessment will consist of the following elements:

(1) A preliminary review of the inadecuacies of the LILCO's plan and exercise results as identified by FEMA and those issues pending before the ASLBs for full power operation in consideration of 25%

power and whether they are pertinent.

(ii) Assess the significance of those FEMA identified inadequacies in the event of an accident during 25% that would require offsite protective measures. Key elements for consideration are the results of Subtask I

1 assessment pertaining to: (a) Selection of accident sequences that would result in offsite doses requirino protective measures (i.e. above PAG dose levels); (b) The site of area and population

4 involved; (d) The Cominion in CLf-86-13 has determined that an ad hoc participation of State and local governments can be assumed in the event of an accident at Shnreham. The time elements in accident development and release scenarios evaluated in Subtask (1)(iii) is an important consideration in evaluating the adecuacies of preparation for those ad hoc re1ponses. -

C. SURTASK 3 - SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF PROLONGED OPERATION AT 25% P0k'Fp A review will be perfcmed to exanine the equipment and operational characteristics of protracted off-nnnnal operation of the Shoreham plant at 25% power that may have safety implications. Modifications to the plant and other compensating design features will also be evaluated to assess the potential benefit offered in support of operation at the reauested power level. This review will be as indicated below.

Subtask 3a Review all the transients end accidents as given in the SRP to assure that operation of the plant up to 25% powar will be bounded by the Chapter 15 analysis perfomed for full power. Evaluate whether any special pro-cedures or operator actions are required to mitigate transients or accidents which may occur in low power conditions. Evaluate whether the time available for the operator to take action to prevent core vulnerable states from occurring will be significantly longer than would be the case for full power. Evaluate ATWS mitigation capabilities during the low power conditions. Assess the modifications to the SLC. the ADS and the HPCI system and provide an assessment of impacts on accident mitigation.

Evaluate the corium ring for effectiveness for its intended function in the event of a severe core melt accident. The design and installatier will also be evaluated to assure its placement has net impacted the safety function of other systems. Identify control systems which are to be rut en ' Manual" rather than "Automatic" due to low power conditions. Evaluate safety implications of manual operation actions. Also assess the stability of the recirculation system, feedwater system and control system for pro-longed eperation at these inw power levels.

Subtask 3b The present desion of the onsite AC power systems will be assessed to identify the additional onsite AC power capability heyond that recuired by the Standard Review Plan. The relative effectiveness of the present AC power system will be assessed and ue likely impact this system would have on the likelihood nf station blackout will be addressed.

D. SURTASK 4 - ASSFSSMENT OF NRC REGlfLATIONS APPLICABLE TO LILCO'S REQUEST TO OPERATE SHOREHAM AT 25% POWER This assessrent will provide the legal frame work for the staff's recom-rendation to the Comission on the request. The assessment will provide the staff with guidance on the applicability of the Comission's

regulations to the LILCO request and address varinus procedural issues raised.

E.

SUBTASK 5 - REVIEW OPERATE SHOREHDi AT OF 25%OTHER POWER _ COMPELLING REASONS F This if therereview are otherwill compelling enablereasons the staff to50.47(c)(1) under make a recomendation that the LILCO's tc the request should be granted.

Shoreham at 265 power because of the need for power in the area and the dependence on foreton oil in LILCO's genarating facilities.

The staff will solicit the inputs fron DOE which has recently addressed similar by LILCO issues on anon a request unrelated by the Department of Comerce for a petition subject.

IV. PRINCIPAL NRC STAFF ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED A.

Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects I/II. Has overall lead responsibility in managing the task and coordinating the staff efforts in the evaluation as well as inputs frm other agencies, e.g., DOE, if needed.

will be sumarized in a report to the Results of the staff evaluation Comission.

Manpower Estimate: 0.2 man-year FY 1987 P.

Risk Application Branch, Division of Radiatinn Protection and Emergency Preparedness.

and risk assessment reviews as discussed in Subtask 1.Has the re Manpower Estimate: 0.3 man-year FY 1087 C.

Emergency Preparedness Branch, Division of Radiation Protectinn and Emergency Preparedness.

Has the responsibility of performing an assessment of the scope of offsite protective neasures reouired and the adecuacy of LILCO's plan. The elements of this assessment is d,iscussed in Subtask 2.

Manpower Estinate: 0.2 man-year FY 1987 D.

Reactor Systems Branch, Mechanical Engineering Branch, Division of Engineering and System Technology. Have the responsibility ef examining any safety fr.pitcations of prolonged operation at 75%

power as discussed in Subtask 3.

Hanpower Estimate: 0.3 man-year FY 1987 E.

Electrical Systems Branch, Division of Engineering and System Tech-nology. Has the responsibility for evaluating reliability of on site eriergancy power system taking into account availability of the T01 diesels, the Colt diesels, the EMD diesels and the gas turbires, as

( described in subtask 3b.

Manpower Estimate: 0.1 man-year FY 1987

6-F. Instrumentation and Cnntrol Systens Branch, Division of Engineering and Systen Teclinology. Is responsible for providing support for Subtask 3a in assessing the stability of plant control systems and the adequacy of instrumentation for operation at 255 power.

Manpower Estimate: 0.1 man-year FY 1987 .

G. Plant Systems Branch, Division of Engineering and Systems Technology.

Has the responsibility in assessing the accident mitigatinn features of the corium ring and the relative effectiveness of this feature. ,

Hanpower Estimate: 0.1 man-year FY 1987 H. Division of Reactor Projects, Region 1. Has the responsibility of evaluating the licensee and its facility, operator training for readiness to operate at 25% power and identify any need for Tech Spec changes.

Manpower Estimate: 0.1 man-ye n FY 1987

!. Reactor Licensing Branch, Office of the General Counsel. Has the responsibility to provide guidance to the staff on regulatory and legal issues related to LILCO's request.

Manpower Estimate: 0.15 man-year FY 1987 I

i

I l l 1 l!iI i i 1jl llI l ll lIj 8

/ T 7 N 1

/

7 %

4 _

2

/

6 i

1 f 3 7

1

/ @ @ @ 5 3 1 f

L 6

0 .

1

/

6 3

/

6 8 @ @ _

7 2

/

5 R _ @ @

0 2

/

5 3

1

/

5 6

/

S 9

?

/

G' -

4 R

2 D

2

/

4

)

")

) )

) ) )

A

(

B C D E

(

F

( ( ( (

e l

u d P P I e E E e P P g C r R R e G -

S 2 D D R O k I . T . . .

s 1 B S P 8 -

a D P E R L .

T P E D D R .

~

. : '. ' . .I - . ., ' : - -  ; . . * . - * *

[ .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .m.~ . . . . . . . . . . .

'A (1) Issue Task Action Pla7 (2) Reauest 00E for subtask 5 input (3) Receive DOE input (4) Start draft report (5) Complete draft report (6) Receive coments on draf t report 7)Startfinalreport -

8) Corplete final report

9) NRR approved final report .

B (1) Start sijbtask 1 Input progress to EPR (2) Coordinate with EPB a subtask 2 (31 Coordinate with DEST a subtask 3 (4) Complete draf t subtask I report (5) Review draft report complete C (Il Start subtask 2 Coordinate with RAB

(?) Complete subtask 2 inputs (3) Review draf t report complete 0 (1) Start subtask 3 Coordinate with RAB

. (2) Complete subtask 3 report inputs (3) Review draft report complete E (1) Start Dlant readiness, Tech Specs and training review Review complete, provice inputs to report or..problen areas Review draft report complete F (1) Infom Comission of Action Plan (2) Inputs to draf t report complete (3) Review draft report complete

• This schedule assumes no major iterative reviews that may become necessary as the staff review progress, "SICB, SPLB, SRIB, SELB, EMEB

I Wknd s ( \

, . t

.. \

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION -

In the Matter of )

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Udt1) )

AFFIDAVIT OF DR. RONNIE LO I, Dr. Ronnie Lo, being duly sworn, affirm as follows:

1. I am a nuclear enrineer in Project Directorate I-2. Division of Reactor Projects 1/II. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation and am NRC Project Manager for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1. In that role, I am responsible for coordinating the NRC Staff review of Long ,

Island Lighting Comp any's ("LILCO") Request for Authorization to increase Power to 25% ("Request").

2. The Staff has prepared an action plan for the expedited review of LILCO's R equest. Such expedited consideration of the R,equest is warranted by the current state of readiness of the Shoreham plant.

3. A determination of plant readiness to exceed 5% power based on a scheduled program of inspections will be made at the appropriate t..ne by the Region ! Aderinistrator. However, the Staff is presently unaware of any physical plant or operating personnel deficiencies that would represent an obstacle to authorizing LILCO to operate Shoreham at power l levels up to 25%. During 1985 and 1986. LILCO completed two periods of '

,, ,. Iow-power operations. All the scheduled testing that can be accomplished i at low-power and all operator training programs have been comp!eted.

S7@f#kf!3..t..m.

The main generator was synchronized with the off-site grid to produce a small amount of commercial power for a short period in August,1986 In addithn, since the issuance of the 5% license in July 3, 1985,* the Staff and LILCO have satisfactorily resolved all the outstanding technical issues that need to be resolved prior to authorizing operations above M '>ower.

4. The purpose of the Staff action plan is to evaluate whes. 'r, in the Staff's view, LILCO has made a satisfactory showing under 10 C.F.R.

I 50.47(c)(1) that, notwithstanding alleged failure to meet all of the standards in 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b),

(1) def'.ciencies in the emergency plans are not signif3 cant for the Shoreham Station, (2) adequate interim compensating measures have been or will be taken promptly, or (3) there are other compel]Ing reasons to permit plant operation.

A principal purpose of review is to determine whether the probabilities, severities, and durations of accident development for 251 power operation of Shorehm tre such that in the event of an accident involving offsite releases, appropriate regulatory findings can be made with respect to emergency planning, no' withstanding the pendency of emergency planning issues with respect to operation at 100% power.

5. The Staff review will be divided in four main subtasks:

(1) accident assessment for Shoreham . operating at 25% power. -

(2) assessment of offsite protective measures necessary for Shoreham operating at 251 power, (3) safety implications of prolonged operation at 25% nower, considering recent design modifications not previously relied upon in the Staff's full power review, and (4) review of the showing of

cocipelling reasons for operation of Shoreham at 25% power, notwithstand-ing any deficiencies in meeting the planning standards in 10 C.F.R.

I 50.47(b). *

6. Subtask (1), in summary, w!!! evaluate the following:

(a) the probabilities, relative to the Shoreham PRA analyzed for full power operation, of accident sequences that would require offsite protective measures to be taken; *

(b) for each of the sequences evaluated in (a), evaluate the dose profiles as a function of distance, and compare those dose profiles against HUREG-0396 dose probability '.ersus distance calculations for the corresponding accident sequences; (c) based on the evaluations in (a) and (b) above, with respect to full power operation, evaluate the corresponding offsite distances within which protective measures should be necessary in the event of an accident during 25% power operation; and (d) evaluato the time element in accident development and release scenarios -- i.e. , for each release category, evaluate the probabilities for needing quick offsite response, extended response, and delayed response.

7. The Subtask (1) evaluation W uld take into consideration differences in plant conditions arising from differences in power levels, as well as additional enhancements to plant systems and procedures not relied upon in the PRA performed for 100% power operation.

8. Subtesk (2) wiu evaluate the need for offsite protective measures in light of the results of dose-distance and time findings from

l

(

l 4-Subtask (1). This evaluation will focus on inadequacies found by FEMA in LILCO's offsite emergency plans and issues currently outstanding before the Licensing Board.

9. Subtask (3) will examine the equipment and operational characteristics of protracted off-normal operation of the Shoreham plant at 25% power that may have safety implications. Modifications to the plant and other design features not already considered in the PRA performed for 100% power operations will also be evaluated. If items of safety significance are identifled, these would be further considered in the ,

Subtask (1) accident probability evaluation.-

10. Subtask (4) will examine the merits of operating Shoreham at 25% power because of need for power in the LILCO service area and dependence on foreign oil in LILCO's generating fac!!!tles.

11. The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation projects completion and approval of the foregoing evaluations by July 8,1987.

The above information is true to the best of my personal knowledge and belief.

Am Ronnie Lo Subscribed and sworn to before me this c?gd day of MW/(. 1987 b' ) s.

Notary Public My commission expires: July 1, 1990

1 ,

~

huxh -

E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION

' I

) .

)

In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)

)

LONG ISLAND LIOHTING ) COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Udt1)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE HAM AT 25% OF FULL POWER TO LILCO MOTION TO AUTHORIZE OPERATION OF SH

!. INTRODUCTION _

Company (LILCO) served by Long Island Lighting On April 14. 1987 se Power to 25%" ("Request")

hand a "Request for Authorization Expedited Commission to increa Consideration" "Motion for with a together I.

("Motion") of that Request. the Motion and Request i

Athough not styled as such, the Staff v ews contemplated by 10 C.F.R.

as seeking a form of Commission license actionauthorizing low-power i

See.

I 50.57(c) -- a motion "for an operat nghort of full power operati Station, Unit testing . . . and further operations s Valley Power (Beaver Duquesne Light Company, et al. The Staff takes no position at (1976).

No.1), LBP-74-23, 3 NRC 711 ther the Commission should grant the this time on the medts as to whe t up to 25% of full power; howe request for operation of Shoreham f a as it seeks expedited considerat the Staff supports the Motion insoThe ar Ctaff has provided with its Staff of by the Commission of the Request.

schedule for expedited review by the response a proposed LILCO's Request.

II. DISCUSSION L'.100 bases its Motion for Expedited Commission Consideration on four arguments:

(1) there la 2tt!c prospect for early resolution of the full power emergency planning proceeding, now pending before two Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards, and the Commissions

( ', ' %ng Island has an immediate need for Shoreham's powers (3.) vg 05% powcr. the r emaining full power emergency planning issue; become insignificant (4) 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(c) provides a regulatory ba Fis for authorizing 25% power operation notwithstanding LILCO's failure to meet some aspects of 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b).

Motion , at 1-3.

As noted above, there is both authority and precedent for the Commission to grant, upon tootion , a rt.q ue st for authorization of operation short of full power in the context of an ongoing proceeding on an application for a full power operating Ilcense. 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(c) states:

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 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 inotion by the presiding officer shall be taken with due regard to the rights of the parties to the proceedings, including the right of any i party to be 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 carty 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 authorf red. The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation will make findings on all other matters I

specified in paragraph (a) of this section. If no party opposes the motion, the presiding officer will issue an order pursuant to i 2.730(e) of this chapter, authorizing the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to make appropriate findings on the matters specified in paragraph (a) of this .

section and to issue a license for the requested operation.

in Beaver Valley, the Licensing Board based on applic.ints' motion and evidence developed on the record, issued a Supplemental Initial Decision authorizing operation of the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit

• No.1, at up to 35 percent of full power without limitation as to time.

Beaver Valley, LBP-76-23, supra, . ./RC at 712-716, 722-723.

Under 10 C.F.R. I 50.57(c), where the motion is opposed, as the Staff anticipates this motion will be, the presiding officer must make findings on the matters spect' led in 5 50.57(a), including subparagraph (1) thereof, thct there is "reasonable asturance (1) that the activities authorized by the operating Ilcense can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the regulations in this chapter . . ." as to those matters which are in controversy. Where the I $0.57(c) motion is contested, the Commission, or such other presiding officer as may be delegated that responsibility, would be obliged , prior to granting the motion, to determine as to any emergency planning issues pending in the on-going proceeding, (1) whether such issues are relevant to operation at 25% power, and (2) if relevant, whether, notwithstanding those issues, the requisite 1 50.57(a) findings can be made with respect to activity

sought to be authorized. ,

The "reasonable assurance" finding under I $0.57(a)(3) necessarily implies compliance with 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(a)(1). which requires with

3

~

d respect to emergency plans, "that there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency."

LILCO's Request and Motion do not address 150.57(a) or (c), and do not address the interrelationship of *.hese provisions with I 50.47.

LILCO has argued that "I 50.47(c) furnishes a clear regulatory basis for authori Ing Shoreham to operate at 251 power." Motion, at 2. However, 5 50.47(c)(1) expressly provides that failure of applicant to meet the standards in 1 50.47(b) need not necessarily result in denial of an operating license where the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate that (1) deficiencies in emergency plans are not significant for the plant in question, (2) interim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or (3) there are other compelling reasons to perrait plant operation. Section 50.47(c)(1) does not obviate the requirements for a finding of "reasonable assurance" under I 50.47(a)(1). LILCO appears to recognize this. See, Request, at 10. Thus, were applicant here to be able to satisfactorily demonstrate that one or more of the three I 50.47(c) findings is warranted, the Commission would still be required to make findings pursuant to I 50.47(a)(1) and I 50.57(a) and (c), prior to granting LILCO's Request.

In sum, though not expressly filed pursuant to the provisions of I 50.57(c), LILCO's Request is proper under Commission regulations, and must be considered.

LILCO's Motion for expedited consideration of its request to be allowed to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station at 25% of full power should be granted. Construction of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station has

r been completeed and all necessary findings to support low power operation were made prior to issuance of the $1 license on July 3, 1985. See Attached Affidavit of Ronnie k, dated April . 1987. The, plant has not been licensed to operate at higher power levels because of on-going adjudicatory proceedings involving the sufficiency of off-site emergency planning for full power operation. LlLCO alleges that there is an immediate need to operate that plant at a lower power level pending the conclusion of the adjudicatory proceedings, it is, therefore, appropriate determine whether there is a benefit to the public in permitting operation of the plant at a 25% power level and whether such operation can be conducted under the Commis sion's regulations and in accord with the public health and safety.

The attached Affidavit of Ronnie M. NRC Project Manager for the Shoreham plant, also describes the scope and objectives of the Staff's contemplated review of the LlLCO Request, together with an anticipated earliest date of completion. The Staff is prepared to review the Request on an expedited bass. aiming at completion of the review and report to the Commission within 90 days. II therefore, the Staff supports granting of LILCO's Motion for expedited consideration of the LlLCO Request and recommends adoption of procedures consistent with the time period needed by the Staff to perform an expedited review.

~

1/ the Staff is seeking the advice of the Department of Energy on the arguments made by LILCO relating to the need for power and need to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

-c.

f III. CONCLUSION LILCO'c Request for authorization of operation at 25% of full power is properly fUed, and its consideration should be expedited on a schedule  !

corisistent with the time needed for Staff review of the LILCO Request. '

LILCO's Motion to expedite should therefore be granted.  ;

Respectfully submitted, George E. Johnson Counsel for NRC Staff l Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this day of April,1987 a

e i

i 4

k i

l

_ , _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . . , _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . _ . . . __._