ML20195G852

Forwards Quarterly Status Rept on Emergency Preparedness for Nuclear Power Plants for Jul-Sept 1988.Inability of Commission to Forecast Licensing Schedule for Shoreham & Seabrook Noted

ML20195G852
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook, 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date:	11/10/1988
From:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Breaux J SENATE, ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
References
OL-5, NUDOCS 8811300081
Download: ML20195G852 (5)

Text

. .

l

, mg

'g UNITED STATES gR i t

! o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r 3 I waswimorow.o.c 20ess

\.....j November 10, 1988  !

CHAIRMAN

.s The. Honorable John B. Breaux Chairman  !

Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation  !

Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 j

Dear Mr. Chairman:

I am enclosing NRC's 37th qua<v.rly status report on emergency l preparedness for nuclear power plants, covering the period from

• July 1 to September 30 1988. This report has been coordinated i with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), l The Commission is u1able to forecast the licensing schedule for Shoreham and Seabrook because of the emergency preparedness issues that remain unresolved. On September 9, 1988. FEMA notified the NRC that there is reasonable assurance that off-site emergency i planning and preparedness for Shoreham are adequate to protect the  !

health and safety of the public. On September 23, 1988, the i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board presiding over emergency  ;

planning issues in the Shoreham proceeding issued a Concluding i Initial Decision. The Board found for the licensee, Long Island  !

Lighting Company, on the remaining emergency plan issues and also l

dismissed intervenors from all remaining aspects of the Shoreham  ;

. ' proceeding, including those pending before the OL-5 Board, for i l failure to comply with Board Orders relating to discovery. The i decision was appealed. On October 7, 1988, the Atomic Safety and  ;

Licensing Appeal Board reversed that part of the Licensing Poard's  ;

i September 23, 1988 decision concerning the dismissal of the inter- t venors from the OL-S proceeding relating tc the adequacy of the I 1988 emergency exercise. On November 9, 1998, the Commission issued an Order directing the Appeal Board to certify to the (

Commission the issue concerning whether the intervenors should be

. dismissed from the Shoreha's proceeding. In Seabrook, there remain ;

to be heard issues related to the emergency plan exercise and to t the utility plan for that portion of the emergency planning zone 1 (EPZ) that lies in Massachusetts. }

Please notify us if you require additional information.

l Sincerely. l

,r .m i

% 1l30W.3I k.

l a g,, taneo w. ze .J.

Enclosura: l NRC Ouarterly Status Report l f0b  !

j cc: The Honorable Alan K. Simpson h

o NRC QUARTERLY REPORT Shoreham Only the off-site emergency planning issues remain to be resulved prior to licensing the Shoreham plant.

On September 23, 1988, the OL-3 Licensing Board filed its concluding initial decision c7 emergency planning, In that decision, the Board found for the licensee or the emergency browcast system (EBS), school bus driver, and hospital evacuation time estimate (ETE) issues, and held the intervenor State / local governments in willful default of Board orders on discovery relating to the emergency plan "realism" contentions. As a sanction for defaulting, the Board dismissed the intervenors from the entire proceeding--

that is, both the OL-3 proceeding and the OL-5 proceeding on the results of the 1986 and 1988 emergency exercises. In dictum, the Board noted that it would have found for the licensee on the merits of the "realism" contentions had it not dismissed the intervenors. It therefore authori:ed the NRC staff to issue a full power operating license to the applicant. Judge Shon filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. The decision was appealed by the intervenors based on jurisdictional and substantive grounds.

On October 7,1988, in ALAB-902, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ruled on the jurisdictional issues and reversed that part of the Licensing Board's September 23, 1988 decision that dismissed intervenors from aspects of the overall proceeding pending before other Licensing Boards, principally the OL-5 proceeding relating to the adequacy of the 1988 emergency exercise. It therefore vacated tne Licensing Board's authorization of a full power license.

On December 7, 1987, and February 1, 1988, the OL-5 Licensing Board issued a partial initial decision concluding that the 1986 emergency prepareaness exercise at Shorehan was not inclusive enough to meet the Commission's regulatory reauirements. In ALAB-900, issued September 20, 1988, the Appeal Board affinned the OL-5 Board's December 7,1987 decision on the 1986 emergency preparedness exercise. On May 9, 1988, the OL-3 Licensing Board issued a decision concluding that the licensee's planning basis, traffic plan, reception center locations, monitoring, registration, and decontamination procedures were adequate and satisfied the NRC's regulatory criteria. This decision was appealed, and oral argument was heard by the Appeal Board on September 14, 1988.

A full participation exercise of the Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO's) on-site and off-site emergency plan was conducted on June 7, 8 and 9, 1988.

On September 9, 1988. FEMA provided the NRC with a finding of reaserable assurance on the off-site portion of the exercise. On September 13, 1988, the intervenors filed a motion with the Appeal Board asking that it appoint a licensing board to hear issues related to the June 1988 exercise. In a deci-sion issued September 20, 1988 (ALAB-901), the Appeal Board concluded that, in light of the appeal then pending before it of the 1986 exercise decision, it l

l l

l

[

2 had jurisdiction over new exercise-related issues, and it remanded the matter to the OL-5 Board, subject to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Chairman's authority to reconstitute that board. On September 22, 1988, the i OL-5 Licensing Board set a schedule calling for the submission of contentions on this exercise by October 17, 1988, and a prehearing conference on November 16, 1988. However, as discussed previously, the intervenors were dismissed from all proceedings by the OL-3 Licensing Board, but then reinstated in the OL-5 proceeding as a result of ALAB-902. Contentions were filed by the inter-venors on October 24, 1988, and a prehearing conference has been set for November 23,198R. at Bethesda, Maryland. As of November 1,1988, LILCO had petitioned the Commission for review of ALAB-900. ALAB-901, and ALAB-902. In addition, LILCO, on October 21, 19S8, asked the OL-3 Licensing Board to authorize issuance of a 25% power operating license.

During the week of June 12, 1988, the New York State Governor and LILCO's Board of Directors signed an agreement in principle for the State to purchase the Shoreham plant. Once sold, the plant would be closed and decommissioned.

Although the agreement in principle has been signed, LILC0 in its June 1, 1988 letter to the NRC noted that a number of contingencies still have to be resolved prior to completion of the sale. In the interim, LILC0 indicated its intention and desire to continue the Shoreham licensing process.

i i

l

)

i

0 3

Seabrook Low Power The Comission amended its regulations effective October 24, 1988, to establish more clearly what emergency planning requirements are neede:1 for fuel loading and low power testing of nuclear power plants. The requirement for an alert and notification system (ANS) for a low power testing license was eliminated by the rule change. By Order CLI-88-08 of October 7,1988, the litigation of the Massachusetts ANS will be needed for full power rather than for low power operation.

Before a low power license can be issued, anly the followir.g items need to be addressed:

1) Resolution is needed on a non-confoming materials issue raised in NRC Bulletin 88-05. A report describing the applicants' evaluation of this issue was received on August 26, 1988. The staff has reviewed the report and has asked the applicant to provide additional infomation. The applicant submitted the requested infomation on October 17, 1988, and the staff is presently completing its review.

2) In an Order (CLI-88-07) itsued September 22, 1986, the Comission required Public Service Company of New Hampshire to show with reasonable assurance, prinr to the grant of a low power license, that funds for decomissioning will be available should low power operation occur and a full power license not be issued. Specifically, the Comission directed the applicant to file, within thirty days, its plan for decomissioning and appropriate comitments under the plan to provide the requested reasonable assurance. The applicants' response to the Order was received on October 21, 1988. The Comission intends to resolve this issue on an expedited basis and therefore requested that any motions and contentions on this issue be filed within 10 days after service of the applicant's filing.

The Comission reserved for itself the decision whether reasonable assurance of decomissioning funds exist. The Comission has under consideration the certified petition of the Comonwealth of Massachusetts for a rule waiver that would pemit a review of the applicants' financial cualifications to conduct low-power operations in light of a joint owner's bankruptcy problem and another joint owner's discontinuing its 12%

contribution to the Seabrook Project.

. r 4

Full Power The following items are prerequisites to issuance of a full power license:  !

1) The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) must render a decision on the i New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP). The hearing -

record was closed on June 16, 1988.

2) Litigation of the Seabrook Plan for the Nassachusetts comunities and litigation of the full participation graded exercise must be completed.

The ASLB has thus far established the schedule for discovery. The schedule for the hea-ing has yet to be announced.

3) Litigation of the environmental qualification of RG58 coaxial electrical instrument cable must be completed. Applicants have filed a motion for sumary disposition.

4) The Advisory Comittee en Reactor Safeguards must review emergency planning.

5) The ASLBP must render a decision on the applicants' motion for sumary disposition of the MASS AG contention that was filed on September 17, 1988. .

l l

f l

l l

t h

I l

l i

i-

-. .- - . ._. .