ML20154N568

Discusses Schedular Impact of Recent Commission Order for Decommissioning Info.Nrc Will Continue Working W/Schedule Discussed on 880922 in Spite of T Murley Request to Postpone Meeting Scheduled for 881011

ML20154N568
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/23/1988
From:	Nerses V Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
IEB-88-005, IEB-88-5, NUDOCS 8809290342
Download: ML20154N568 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ ______-_- ____ _.

. [M %,),, '

UNITWD STATES

! u g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. -e W ASHINoToN, D. C. 206H '

• t,,*****) September 23, 1988 TO: Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Peactor Projects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactien Regulation THRU: ichard H. Wessman, Director d roje:t Directorate I-3

\ Division of Peactor Projects I/II j

FROM: Victor Nerses, Project Manager Pro.iect Directorate I-3 J Division of Reacter Projects 1/Il i

SUBJECT:

SCHECULAR IMPACT OF PECENT COMMISSION ORDER FOR SCABROOK DECOMMISSIONING INFORMATION a

On Thursday, Septerber 22, 1988, Wessman, Wiggins (Region I), Haverkarrp (Region !) and I visited Seabrook to discuss the applicants' schedule for [

carrying out their self-assessment program and how this schedule was  ;

integrated with their activities related to a 0% license such as heat-up l preparations, heatup, Icw power testing (assuming they received a 5% license)

' and subsequent layup. We arrived at an understanding of how their schedule of L activities and our schedule of activities (which we needed to perform for issuing a 5% license) will mesh. We also cbserved in-plant activities [

(maintenance, surveillances, etc.) that irdicates the applicants are actively  ;

i going ahead to get the facility ready. We mutually agreed that a Seabrook l management briefing (on readiness status) to NRC Senior managers was i

! appropriately scheduled for October 11,19P8, and that a target 5% license  !

l date of October 28, 1988 was achievable. I i

We subsequently learned that the Comission issued an order on the same day of 1 our visit requiring the applicants to submit infernation on cost for i decomissioning, etc. (copy enclosed). The applicants feel that they will be t able to respend within 15 days, and they intend to maintain their plant and t self-assessment activities schedule which they presented to us in the l September 22, 1988 visit. <

Following T. Murley's request to postpone the proposed Seabrook management meeting of October 11, 1988 Wessman, Brinkman and I informed the applicants I (T. Feigenbaum, VP.) on September 23, 1988 that the meeting is now being postponed but that the NRR staff will continue wort'eg to the schedule we ,

discussed on Septerber 27, 1988 (In other words, keep the work going and on f schedule ir spite of any impact the Cerroission order may possibly have on the i schedule for 51 license issuance). i l

I k B80923 O F4L P 05000443 PNu th l

O

'. e 2

The pacing technical issue in NRR is NRC Eulletin 88 05.

Original signed by:

Victor Nerses. Project Manager Project Directorate I.3 Division of Reactor Projects 1/II

Enclosure:

As stated cc: D. Crutchfield F. Miraglia L. Shao T. Murley F. Congel J. Roe P. Gritnes J. Wiggins Rgn.I DISTRIBUTION: Docket File. P.C & Local PCRS. PDI-3 r/f PBoger. SVarga.

VNersos. RWesstran PRushbrook i 7 UTC : PD :DIR/PDI.3  :  :  :  :  :

NAME,pr ps.....:.... ....:............:............:............:............:...........

V 3bs :stw :RWes. an  :  :  :  :  :

DATE :09/ *,'/88 :09 M /f>8  ?  :  :  :  :

eg i

I l

3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!0N 4

'88 SEP 22 4147

. t COMM!$$!ONERST rs , , . . . , . g .3 Lando W. Zech, Jr. , Chairman #'

Thomas M. Roberts Kenneth M. Carr Kenneth C. Rogers g'N MP 2 2 M l

In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF [

Docket Nos. 50 443-OL 1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ~et- al.

50 444-OL 1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 (Onsite Emergency Planning y and 2) and Safety Issues) N

.Y t l >

ORDER Ct.I- 8 8-07 (

) The Comission has under consideration the views of the parties on the certified petition for waiver of certain aspects of its financial qualification rules. See this docket, Memorandum and Order ALAB-895 I July 5, 1988. The Comission intends to address the rule waiver issue directly in a subsequent memorandum and order.

I While the matter has been pending, the Comission's decorsnissioning  ;

rule became effective on July 27, 1988. See 53 Fed. Reg. 24018 (June 27, 1988). The potential effect of that rule on aspects of the relief sought [

by petitioners was noted by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board  !

I in ALAB 895. The Appeal Board held that "all consideration of L decomissioning funding should be eliminated from financial qualification l

review and instead be considered under the . . . decomissioning j regulations." Slip op at 36 n.66.

• l asd42.w>p -

3pp .

\

g We agree with the Appeal Board in this regard.I Moreover, since the t

I funds required to decomission safely after low power operation has occurredwou!gippeartobesubstantiallymorethanthefundsrequiredto conduct low power testing and training safely, we have given initial j consideration to this issue.

In the decomissioning rulemaking the Comission detennined that j

public health and safety could best be protected by promulgating a rule requiring reasonable assurance that, at the time of termination of l

operations, adequate funds are available so that decomissioning can be carried out in a safe and timely manner and that lack of funds does not result in delays that may cause potential health and safety problems, j 53 Fed. Reg. at 24037.

We believe that this reasoning, when applied to the unique and i

unusual circumstances of this case, requires that before low power may be j -

authorized, applicants provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds j will be available so that safe decomissioning will be reasonably assured

in the event that low power operation has occurred and a full power j license is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1.

Applicants have not yet provided such assurance. Thus, the first j step in resolution of this question of assurance of adequate funding for i

)

deccmissioning is to request applicants to provide the basis on which a i finding of the necessary reasonable assurance, as stated above, might be

! made. We request that within 30 days of the date of this Order J

l 1

As a :trict matter, this means that financial qualifications or 4

assurance of funding for cecomissioning after low power operation has

, occurred falls outside of the scope of the rule sought to be waived in

! the petition for waiver certified to us by the Appeal Board. Mcwever,

! the matter is before us on review of ALAB-895 and, of course, we also may take up the issue sua sponte.

I t

r--------------

3 applicants provide us adequate documentation of their plan and appropriate comitments under that plan to provide reasonable assurance that adequattfunding for decomissioning will be available in the event

~

that a full pewer license is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1.

The procedural posture of this case reflects that the record is closed for the consideration of new issues and litigation on this issue may only be pursued if a motion to reopen is granted and at least one late-filed contention is admitted. The Comission intends to resolve any such motion on an expedited basis. Thus, within ten (10) days after service of applicants' filing the parties must file, with the Comission, any motions and late-filed contentions based on applicants' plan to fund the decomissioning of the plant in the event that a full power license is not granted. All oppositions to any such motion must be filed within ten (10) days of service of the motion. All filing and service shall be by personal delivery or express mail. After receipt and consideration of the parties' filings, the Comission itJelf will either decide that the requisite reasonable assurance has been provided or will direct what additional steps are necessary to permit a determination that the requisite reisenable assurance has been demonstrated.

It is g g E, RED. p 2

F the Com ls Lie

[ ' N N

0 'i ,

\/

ao,f,.'y(- y gI @a c. 5AMUEL J. CHILK

< T9 / [ Secretary of t he Commission Dated akgc .'W' II 'eJRaryland this M ay of N '7 , 1988 I

2 Chairman Zech was not present for the affirmation of this order, which he would have approved had he been present.