ML20206G861

New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Motion for Stay of Low Power Operation Pending Full Power Decision or Appellate Review.*

ML20206G861
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	04/08/1987
From:	Curran D, Ferster A, Weiss E HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20206G838	List: ML20206G834 ML20206G861
References
OL, NUDOCS 8704150179
Download: ML20206G861 (33)

Text

-. - -. . - .. - - . - - ._. - _ __. - _ - - - --

l .

April 8,f,bD ' '

USNRC.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL'hlDAR 13 P4:63 l ~ In the Matter of )

[0 k '

) iW !:c-Public Service Conpany of )

i New Hampshire, et al. )' Docket Nos. 50-443 OL j ) 50-444 OL l (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Onsite Emergency

) Planning & Technical

! Issues

)

l NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S j MOTION FCR A STAY OF A LOW PCEER OPERATION PENDING FULL POWER DECISION OR APPELLATE REVIEW .<

I. INTRODUCTION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.788, the New England Coalition on Duclear Pollution ("NECNP") seeks a stay of the effectiveness of i

the Licensing Board's Partial Intial Decision ("PID") 'of March.

25, 1987, which authorizes the operation of the Seabrook nuclear l power plant at up to and including 5% of rated power. NECNP asks k

that the Appeal Board stay the ef fectivness of the PID pending a l Commission decision on the full power license for the Seabrook plant. In the alternative, NECNP requests a stay for the brief period necessary to file a stay petition with the Commission.1 NECNP also requests that, pursuant to 10 C .F.R. S 2.788(g),

j the Appeal Board immediately issue a temporary stay of the PID to 1

1 By order of January 9,1987, the Commission stayed low power operation pending its decision on ALAB-853. However, the NRC's.

,{ rules apparently require NECNP to file this stay motion within i ten days after issuance of the PID. 10 C.F.R. 5 2.788(a) . 'More-i over, we have been informed by the Secretary's Of fice that a Com-

mission decisi.on on ALAB-853 is expected this week. We file this.

i stay motion to preserve our rights should the Commission decide

, to lift its stay of low power operation.

i 9

l

- i 4 _

2'-  !

4 I

preserve the status quo pending the receipt of responses by parties opposing this motion. 'I Under S 2.788(d),. other parties are given 10 days in which to file : responses to stay motions. q i

t

_. This case presents the extraordinary circumstance contemklated by

~

S 2.788(g) in' that the Seabrook plant may be licensed and 1 started, with resultant irreparable harm, before responses to this motion can lue received and the motion ruled on.2 q

? 1 s

II. GROUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF A STAY j A. Substantial Probability of Success on-the Merits In opposing Applicants' motion for authorization to' operate at low power, NECNP and other Intervenors have asserted substan-i tial grounds for denial of a license authorizing low power opera-i tion. Those arguments are reiterated below 3

1. Violations-of Atomic Energy'Act.

J Under 10 C .F. R. S 50.57(c), Licensing 3o tels coutinely defer l the resolution of some licensing issues until after the granting

! of a low power license. In particular, the Commission's regula-tions at 10 C .F.R. S 50.47(d) waive the requirement for approval 2

Victor Nersis, Project Manager for Seabrook, has informed counsel for NECNP that the Staf f may be prepared to issue a low -

power license within a few days af ter the Commission's decision.

3 See New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Opposition to AppIIcants' Motion for Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Authorizing Low Power Operation," dated July 2,1986.-

It is attached for the Appeal Board's convenience as Exhibit 1.

NECNP reminds this Board that, due to 10 C.F.R. 5. 2.78,8,(b) 's 10-page limit on applications for stays, it is-not possible to thoroughly brief the. complex legal arguments and authorities that demonstrate a strong likelihood that NECNP will prevail on the'

merits.

i

I l

3-of offsite emergency plans at the low power authorization stage. i NECNP contends that these regulatory practices violate its right under the Atomic Energy Act, 4 2 U.S.C. S 2239(a), to litigate all issues material to a full power operating license decision, before the Seabrook plant is allowed to operate at any power level.

The Atomic Energy Act makes no distinction between low power and full power licensing requirements, nor does its legislative history support a conclusion that Congress intended to allow low power operation before all issues relevant to full power are resolved in Section 189(a) hearings. On the two prior occasions when Congress perceived a need to permit low power operation i before licensing hearings were complete, it gave the Commission only temporary authority to do so.4 Moreover, although Congress has amended Section 189(a) to permit the Commission to waive the prior hearing requirement for license amendments that pose "no l significant hazard," it has not included original'11 censes within the ambit of that authority. It is clear that Congress did not intend to allow the initial operation of a nuclear power plant at any power level, with its accompanying irreversible impacts and raised risk to the public health and safety, before completion of hearings on cl1 issues that arg material to the full power licensing of the plant. Before Seabrook can be licensed for low power operation, NECNP is entitled to full hearings on the ade-4 See 1972 and 1983 versions of 42 U.S.C. S 2242, which expired October 30, 1973 and December 31, 1983, respectively. The com-plete text of these provisions is attached as Exhibits 2 and 3.

d l

J

~

~ 14 -

quacy of offsite emergency' planning for'Seabrook and to take an

~

~

agency appeal of the full power licensing decision, as guaranteed

_. by 10.C .F.R. Pa r t 2. 5 s ,.

[ 2. Violations of Emergency Planning Rules. .

Even if Section 50.47(d) could be considered valid, certain i .> a of fsite emergency planning requirements must'be net before~ a low -

'() ,

power license-can~isnue. Fi rst, - NRC r egulation 10 C .F.R. S 50.33(g) requires the submission of emergency response. plans by state and local governments within the EPZ prior to the issuance of a license to operate at any level of power. Neither - the Conn. I E

d monwealth of Massachusettsc nor the six local Massachusetts governments within the EPZ have submitted emergency response l plans.6 To waive compliance with S 50.33(g) would render that.

regulation a nullity in violation of the well-established rule of regulatory interpretation that regulations must be given their I

full effect; would illegally shift to intervenors the burden of .l '

\ ih &

proving that compliance with a regulatica wes necessary for J (continued)

,! ~

5 It should be noted that, simultaneous with this stay motion, NECNP has filed a Notice of Appeal of the Licensing Board's Par-tial Initial Decision. NECNP's appe,al brief will raise n'umerous and substantial errors by the Licensing Board inc the technical

_ and onsite planning phase of this proceeding, including wrongful denial of contentions and errors in the Licensing Board's PID *

regarding environmental qualification .< s of electrical equiprent. l

., y 6

, We note that on April. 7,s1987, Applicants filed a " Suggestion of Mootness and Request for Vacation of Stay," asking the Commis-sion to lift its stay of low power' operation on the ground t, hat Applicants plan to submit a utility plan for the Massachussetts

~

sector of the EPZ on April 8. The-filing of a utility plan does not moot the controversy, ~ however, because 5 50.33(g) does not ,.

contemplate the filing of utility plans, but rather-requires the filing of state and local government plans.

I

5-licensing; and would violate the principle that agencies should' i apply their rules in a regular and consistent manner.7 Second, as the Appeal Board has ruled, "the Statement of Considerations accompanying 10 CFR S_ 50.47(d) makes clear that

- review of applicant's on-site response mechanism . necessarily involves aspects of some of f-site elements:' communications, notification, assistance agreements, fire protection a'nd medical organization, and the' like." Pacific Gas & Electric Company, ALAB-728,17 NRC 7 77, 790-91 (1983). No such offsite planning elements exist for .the Massachussets sector of the Seabrook EPZ .

Hence, as a matter of, law, there is insufficient basis for a finding .that onsite emergency planning at Seabrook' is adequate for purposes of low power operation.

3. Violations of National Environmental Policy Act.

The Licensing Board violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by authorizing low power operation without hav-ing required the preparation of either a new Final Environmental Statement (EIS) or a supplement to the 1982 EIS weighing the costs against the benefits of low power-operation at Seabrook 7

The Commission is now considering whether Applicants' failure to comply with 5 50.33(g) constitutes a bar to low power oper-tion. In the" event that the Commission rules in favor of Applicants, NECNP will appeal the decision. For a'more. detailed discussion of this' issue, see NECNP's briefs to-the Commission on ALAB-853, dated January 20 -and February 4,1987. Although-the.

Appeal Board has -interpreted Commission precedent to 'provids' that 3 compliance with 5 50.33(g) is not a requirement ^for low power operation, NECNP contends that the Board must 'give independent consideration as to whether 'NECNP has make. a ~ showing that it will ultimately prevail on the issue in a federal court.

Station.- lThe'1982 EIS, which was premised upon the assumption that Seabrook would ultimately be operated at full power, con-

)

_ cluded-that the the benefits.of electricity generation outweighed the environmental impacts and costs.of Seabrook operation. H,ow-i ever, the 1982 EIS did not consider the possibility that the' Seabrook plant may never operate at full power --- a situation that became highly probable when the Commonwealth of- Massachu--

setts unequivocally refused to submit emergency plans for the Massachussetts sector of the 10-mile EPZ ' around Seabrook, making it impossible for there to be compliance with the NRC's mandatory emergency planning requirements.8 Given Massachussetts' uncon-ditional refusal to participate in NRC's emergency planning for Seabrook, and Applicants' failure to present any other reasonably '

plausible means of meeting the Commission's current emergency J

planning regulations, there is currently a high likelihood that Applicants will never qualify for an operating license for Seabrook.9 Moreover, in its latested Form 10-K' f or the ' fiscal 8

Follawing a careful study of emergency planning at- Seabrook, the Governer of Massachussetts announced that Massachussetts will submit no plans for the Seabrook EPZ , due to grave concerns that emergency plans "could not constitute appropriate protective

, measures adequate to protect the public health and safety in the-event of a radiological emergency, as federal law requires." See September 20, 1986 Statement of Governer Michael S. Du kakis j Pegarding the 'Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, at 15. The State-menc ic attached to NECNP's Motion to Hold Of fsite Emergency Planning Proceeding in Abeyance,' filed with the offsite Licensing Board on October 28, 1986.

9 4

While the Applicants have proposed to circumvent Massa'chus-4 setts' nonparticipation by petitioning for a waiver to the Conc  !

mission's regulations requiring emergency planning for an EPZ of i 10 miles, and thereby removing Massachusetts from the EPZ i altogether, this proposal is both technically and legally insup-4 portable. See "NECNP's Opposition to Applicants' Petition Under

.l

~

~

. year ending December 31, 1986, PSNH admits that.Seabrook would become economically unviable given a prolonged delay in'licens-

~ ing. Part 1 at 2. The strong likelihood that Seabrook will never become licensed to operate at full power.thus constitutes a 1

significant new circumstance relevant 'to environmental concerns, rendering it necessary to file a supplement to the 1982 Final EIS

>l pursuant to 10.C.F.R. S 51.92 before either a low or full power-license may be issued.

NECNP f urther argues that the issuance of a low power license is, under the unique circumstances in this' case, a sepa-- '

rate f ederal action having a significant environmental impact, f triggering the NRC's duty under NEPA and 10 C.F.R. S 51.20 to Given the. lack of any reasonable pros-

+

prepare a separate EIS.

pect that Seabrook will be licensed to operate at full power, the costs and benefits of low power operation can no longer tue said 4

to be subsumed in the EIS prepared for the full power license.

Thus, NEPA mandates that the costs and benefits. of operating only l

(continued) 10 C . F.R. S 2.758 and 10 C.F.R. 50.47(c) for waiver of Ten-Mile Emergency Planning' Zone," filed with offsite Licensing Board on February 2,1987. A copy is attached for the Appeal Board's con-venience as Exhibit 4. At this point, the petition'does not even j have initici licensing Board approval. Should Applicants' 1 request nonetheless be granted, it is highly unlikely that such an order will be sustained on review. l The Commission's recent proposal-to amend the emergency planning rules to waive the preparedness-requirements where state .

and local governments have.refuced to particpate in emergency

, planning [52 Fed. Re g . 6 980 (Ma rch 6,1987)] is also legally deficient'and would not survive judicial review. See analyris of proposal in letter from Diane Curran and Ellyn Weiss to 'Commis-sioners, dated February 20, 1987. ' A copy'is attached as Exhibit 5.

8-at low power be separately evaluated, and weighed in an EIS before the issuance of a low power license. Failure to prepare

_ an EIS does violence to the letter and spirit of NEPA, and leaves the Commission to make a critically important decision involving significant environmental impacts without a valid decisionmaking tool.10 B. Irreparable Injury to NECNP.

As indicated by the affidavits of Dale G. Bridenbaugh and Gordon R. Thompson, PhD., attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Commonwealth of Massachussetts' stay motion before the Appeal Board, even temporary operation at low power will result in irre-versible plant cont mination caused by radiation of the reactor and its component parts, as well as worker exposure to harmful radiation and the creation of high-level radioactive waste.

Operation at low power will also pose a risk to the public health l 1

and safety. Should a radiological accident occur at the Seabrook plant, it could cause irreversible health damage to the popula- 1 10 A decision that either a supplemental or new EIS is mandated prior to issuance of a low power license is fully consistent with, and even supported by, the decision in Cuomo v. NRC, 772 l F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1985). In that case, the court specifically l noted that actions of the counties suggested the possibility of '

county cooperation in an emergency plan, and therefore concluded that "we do not think that the. facts of the case would clearly justify such a conclusion [that there is a substantial likelihood that a final license will not be granted) ." 772 F.2d at 976.

Here, by contrast, Massachusetts has unequivocally and publicly refused to submit emergency plans. Moreover, in Shoreham, the Licensing Board had issued a decision that found that an adequate emergency plan was achievable. No such finding exists in the present case. In contrast to Shoreham, even the most rudimentary indications that Applicants may eventually satisfy the Commis-sion's emergency planning regulations are missing here.

)

~

h

, tion around the plant.11 Moreover, in failing to extend Sholly' l

. Amendment's ~ "no ~ significant hazards" exemption to original

- licensing . decisions, Congress has made it clear that it intended t

l

~

to prohibit the incursion of irreversible consequences, no ma,tter -j

! l how insignificant, until all licensing. issues were resolved in 'j prior adjudicatory hearings.- To deny NECNP's stay motion would 4

~

be ' to allow precisely the hnrm that Congress intended to prevent. )

in enacting Section 189(a) ' of the Atomic Energy Act. See Common-wealth of Massachussetts v.-Watt, 716 F.2d 946, 952 (1st Cir.

1983). Finally, the NRC's failure to make a complete, informed '

l decision under NEPA regarding the costs and benefits of low power operation at Seabrook constitutes irreparable injury. Id., and citations therein.

~

C. The Grant of A Stay Will Not Harm Applicants.

Each of the benefits of low power operation -- early dis-covery and correction of possible problems which may prevent or delay full power operation, and providing operater and plant-l staff experience on the actual plant -- are all premised on the assumption that operation at full power, with its attendant bene- l l

fits of electricity generation, will, at some point, occur. 'How- l ever, given the lack of any reasonable prospect that this plant will ever operate at full power, these alleged benefits of low l

1 I

I f

11 Although the Commission considers this. risk to be insig-' '

! nificant, the risk does exist. See Letter f rom Nunzio J. Pal-t ladino to Edward J. 'Markey, dated June 15, 1984, Enclosure 1, attached as Exhibit 6. Moreover, the health consequences of a radiological release at Seabrook would be irreparable, l i

)

, . 1

. .- I power operation disappear. Thus, the Applicants will in no way be harmed by denial of the license. In fact, Applicants will

_. avoid an unecessary expenditure of time and money. If, at some later point, the serious issues surrounding the adequacy of t,he emergency planning process are resolved, and full power operation becomes viable, Applicants are free to renew their application for a low power license.

D. The Public Interest Favors Issuance of A Stay The public can only benefit from being spared the risks of low power operation, which in and of itself has no benefits, where the possibility of obtaining the benefits of full power operation is so remote. Moreover, the issues raised here are important and of first impression. The balance of equities clearly favors the grant of a stay which would preserve the status quo pending a decision on the full power license or fur-ther review.

spectfully bmitted, Adh, '

, b =Y Diane Curran Andrea Ferster Ellyn R. Weiss Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 328-3500 April 8,1987

.-.n .*

. r

• 4 v. ..s$,. .

N: ~ *; a u:+,._ u .:%.

~

' -

• EXHIBIT 2 -

.' s . ~: e, Ch 23 ATomC ENERGY 42 52242 .

5 2242. Temporary operating licenws for nucle =r power _

reactors-Prerequisiles for filing applications; affidadta; hearing ' *- , , _

f a) In any proseeiling upon an application for an operating 11 cense for a nuclear power reactor, in which a hearing is othessi.e

• required pursuant to section 2230(a) of this title, the applicant may

' petition the Commission for a temporary operating license authoria.

Ing operation of the facility pending final action by the Commisalon on the application. Such petition may be filed at any tirr.e after fil-ing of: (1) the report of the Advisory Committee on Reattor Safe.

guards required by section 2232sb) of this titic; (2) the safety evaluation of the application 1,y the CommisAnon's regul tory staff; and 43: the regulatory staf f's final detailed statement on the ents.

Fonm(ntal impact of the facility prepared pursui:nt tu ecction f 332 2 tC) of this title or. in the ca.e of an application for r, prat.

Ine beense filed on or before Septemtaer 9.1971. if the regulatory staff's final detailed stattment required under section C:;2:21 C) of this title is not compl6ted. the Comnussion must aatisfy the appli-l cat,te r..quisements of the .N'ational Environmental Policy .ht t.rtor to igauinst any temporarv operating license uncer this arction. The l t otation hall 1,e accompanied by an atfadavit or antidasita arttine forth the f acts tipon which the petitioner relic's to justif y issu.ince of the temporary operatinir license. Any party' to the Irotteding may file af fidavits in support of, or opposition to, she petition with- ,

an fourteen ds.ss atter tee filing of sucn petition, or within auch ud.

ditional time not to execed ten days as may be fixed by the Commis-sion. The Commission shall hold a hearing after ten d.sys' notice asid pulilication once in the Federal P.eenster on any much petition and sunt,ortine mattrial filed under this scetion ar.d the ucciaion of the Commission with respect to the issuance of a temporary opernt-ing license following auch hearing, shall be on the basis of landings on the matters spesified in subsection ibe of this section. The imar-ing re4tiired by this section and the decision of the Commission on the petition hall be conducted with expedited I.rowdorr. a the Commission may by rule, regulation, or order deem mpf.rupriate for -

a full disclosure of material facts on all substantial issues raised in - -

connection with the proposed temporary operatisig license.

an s.ie, re dies. .e re..i ... eee=. ..d e.eens .e se= ,...rrsi . e s.aies.:e.esew ..

- (b) With respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection ta)

of this section, the Commission shall issue a temporary operating li. .

eense upon finding that: c. w. - .r

,c lt.c. M ,

. .. d. 6 .

. :... (1) the provisions of section 2235 of this title have been met c.

g t.p g '.(c,,.y~.;i g g-C c, p W J

.' ',{,-

j*[**,{M 1! ; # W} with respect to the temporary q'operatiag kJ .qJ ,jy 1 .

-' 17,<,;., trary operating license la accordance with its terma and condi- .:' it. a

-.~

Qqh & , .- ' U,':' t ~. '"-

=. s

&"l,'*V..gl~L,f. ~ T '.e.'?f T. *Y'W'

'*;.. ~ , . . w. -

m c d

~

[ .

42 I 2242 PhDLIC HEALTH AND WELFAllE

~. .

Ch. 23 P

'1 1

- 'f tions will provide adequate protection of the environment d2c. ..

ing the period of the temporary operating license: and .

. . . . '(31' operation of the facility in aceerdance with the term t - -

• 'l and conditions of the temporary opera!!ng license is essential -

toward insuring that the power generatier capacity of a utility system or power pool is at, or is restored to, the level, required to assure the adequacy and reliability of the power supply, tak.

Ing into consideration factors which include, but need not 1, limited to, alternative available sources of supply, historical re.

serve requirements for the systems involved to function relia.

• t,1y. the possible endangerment to the public health and safety 4

in the event of puwer shortages. and data from uppropriat.

3 Federal and State sovernmental bodies which have official re.

sponsibility to assure an adequate and reliable power supply, j The temporary license shall contain such terme and consistions ,,

the Comtniesion may deem necessary, includent the duratinn of tle licenae and anc provision for the extension therrof. and the requir,.

ment that the licensee not retire or dismantic any of its existing

{1- generatine tapacity on the tround of the availal.ility of the capacity from the facility w hich it riperatinr under the temporary hechs,'

Any dec 9 on. or other document author:2ine the issuance of any temporary license rur=uant to this section shall recite with spt.cific, ity the rea.aons justifyinr the issuance. The decision of the Com.

mission with respett to the issuance of a temporary operatint li.

cense shall be subject to judicial review pur=uant to the Act of De.

cember 29, ID*20, as amended (ch. 1189. 64 Stat.11291. ,

s woo.. .e ... er ne...

, tel The hearing on the application for the final operatine licen..

otherwise required pursuant to section 2230(a) of this title shall1, , .

concluded as promptly as practienhle. The Commission .= hall vacat. j the ternporary operating license if it finds that the applicant is ,,,,t I

1. tra=ctuting the application for the final cperating license with due l diligence. Issuance of a temporary operating license pursuant to l l subsection ib) cf this section shall be without prejudice to the posj.

tion of any party to the proceeding in which a hearing is othermi.. )

required rurauant to section 2230(a) of this title; and failure to an.

sert any ground for denial or limitation of a temporary olerating I;. *

, cense shall not bar the assertion of such ground in connection sith the issuance of a subsequent final operating license. ,

l ,

u .s .e . a. .r . :< . s u ;,

t

. a$, %:4 1  :.+. - . u . . . e 4

I .! .9.f . ,7 -(d) The.,,authority e. under this section shall expire on October 30- eg i a. '

.3, s. ,

• Y . *. e, . g g73, o e. .;f. >,f5

.~ > - y . 6 . : . ,' F. a

. s e.' . .

va 'a i.  ; 9 4.*;..* * .y,' ~ te v;

• 4}g.,.

t . '.tw~

e%. A,r.. a. . >

h 3 .h a . k ,'Wh. 39k4. f. T2[ l 192,'as added Jon' s 2.1972. Pub'.L. 3322 ct,[q ' f#d,*;

C#[ ('

I*I.a . s ' *..,,ih . . :l 8N'yE $,*I

• t*h. # j , d./. < Y ' .h, ' 's - . f;0, h

j

.; f ,e4.** .. 4 -

U,, . o' '. w, a.U .

• N.

a

+... -

t ' . *

• C *3f, m' ogsh, . ..ts@ c f . l, ,g.

• (v.'.y . ,, vg +c. 4 \.'

a _ %~' ~. ,k- k 4

.(' 7.t - fy' . ,q ;pgf..p._ ,. Y, J.s 3Q eh C

.. 3 F;. gM," W i.\v .r 4 gy . '1' Qf% % R 'Q yL; j

~, ]j,.hT'b:,3.$.k[f,,*~@M. D'hl; _. k.lp@f f?

, . Q Q*f W{? .$.$

. , r 7

h( ,

f ..df-4 M g,.C -

%g5. pg;;j n. .

. ,,q. p ,- .. t - .

p.~ n -.n, , se%.f kp g%.,l &v.,

m , ,

1 E

}4 ,

f If,If( 'hff

EXHIBIT 3 _

(2:42. Temporary operating lleenne sai r es s d.ne. inone. .d .,ee nen .4 eme p..ee smh penu.a. .md iii et.

In any proceedirig upon an application for an operatir:g license for a utilir.auon 5 facility evguired to be hcensed unoer secuan 2133 or 2134ebt of this title, in w hich a haarmg is otherwise required pursuant to section 221Nai of this utle, the appheant

• may peution the Commi*sion for a temporary operating licen e for such facihty suthontine fuel !uadinr. testing, and operauon at a spacific power level to te -

detern med by the Commission. pnding final actiun by the Commissson on the appheation. The iritial petition for a temporary operaung license for each such facihty, and any ternporary operating license issued for such facility tased upon the inical peution, shall be linated to power levela not to exceed 5 percent of rated full thermal power. Following inuance by the Commission of the temporary operstme i license for each such facihty the licensee may file peutions with the Commission to a

amend the license to allow facihty operauon m staged increases at specific power

. lesels, to be determmed by the Commission, exceeding 5 percent of rated fu!!

thermal power. The mit:41 petruon fur a temporary operaung license for esch such facihty may be fifed at any time after the fihnt of: (11 the report of the Advi*orv Committee on Reacter dafeguaras required by secuon C2fbe of this utle; #3 the fang of ti.e mina18afety Evataauon Reoort by the Nuclear Reruiators Commissnn staff and tne Nuclear Rerutatory Commissxm staffs first supplement to tne report prepared m re purse to the report c,f the Advisory Committee en Reactor Lfe-guards fur the facihty; 13) tr.e Nuciear Regulatory Commission statf's final cet.sned 4

c.tcreent e,n tre enuronmental impact of the facihty trepared pursuant to secuon 4 :32 tut.l of thin tit!*; ano ais a ST.e. lucal. or utihty emergency iretiaredness pian fur tr.c f acihty. i'etiuans fe>r the issuance of a trmporary crerating i: cense. or for an a*rrn iment to sen a irense niinwing cperatsun at a specific leer e-vei errater trin that autr.oritest in the initial terat,or:try operaurir heente, snaii be accomtiantevi ty an af fidant nr atfednits setting fortn the specific f acts upon w rach the petit.e ner

r. .ws to p>tif t e uane.e cf tf c twntiorary cyraung l. cense or tne amer.. ment tweeto. The t'ommmion shall run.ish rouce of eacn sucn peut.on in the em tal P..gisier and in mn (tiae or rmus ruolmations as the Comtmssion neems attr'tre ate to cise reasonaine nnuce to persons u no mirnt have a Mtential mieref t m the grant of suen tempcrars cperaung i: cense or amendment thereto. Any person mar fJe affidavits or statements m suiport of, or m oppoution to the peution withm thirty da3s after the puohennon of such notice in the Federal Register.

Ibl Opereilan at eresser power level: criteria. effect,terine and e nditlene, eteJ procedures apphe nble i

With rest *ct to any tetition filed pursuant to subsection (a) of this seet:on. the Commissmn rnay tesue a temputary operstmg license, or ameno the pcense to a#nre temporary operauon at each specific Mwer lesel greater than that autne*

n:ed in the m:ual temporary operaung license, as determmed by tne Commissnn.

u in find:nc that-til m all resweta other than the conduct or completion of any required hearmg. the requirements of law are met:

821 m accordance with such requirements, there is reasonable assurance that operauon of the fae6ty daring the penod of the temporary operaung bcense m accordance with its terms and ennditions alli provide adequate protecuon to the public health and safety and the environment dunng the period of temporary operation: and

83) denial of such temporary eperating license will result in delay between the date on which construeuon of the facility is sufficiently comp:eted, m the judgment of the Commtssion, to permit issuance of the temporary operaung license, and the date when auch facility would otherwise receive a fmal operat-ing heerse pursuant to this chapter.

. l e ,

a m _

o ,

42 {2242 PUllLIC llEALTI! AND WELFARE IC The temporary operating license shall become effective upon hauance and sha" contam such terms and conditanns as the Commimon may deem necessary. includ;rg the duration of the beense and any provision for the extension thereof. Any fma;

• order authonzing the issuance or amendment of any temporary operstmg licen*

pursuant to this secuon shall recite with specificity the facta and reasons justifyme the fmdmes under this suusecuon. and shall be transmitted upon sucti assuance te the Committees on Interior and insular Affairs and Energy and Commerce of tnv r

House of Representauves and the Committee on Environment and Pubhc Works n the Senate. The final croer of the Commission with respect to the issuance or amendment of a temocrary operatmr 1. cense shall be subject to ludicial review pursuant to chaoter 1.% of Title 28 The reovirementa of secuon 223 man of this ute with resocct to the issuance or amenoment of facihty licenses snail not apply to tt...

assunnee or amenoment of a temporary operaung beense under this section.

sei Heerme for final operating beenee: ewesenseen. 6eevance eempliance. etc., with tempa rery operating beense .

Any heanne on tne sopheation for the fmal operating licenne for a fae hts recurred oursuant to section 22% sat of this title snalt be concluded as prompur n-praeucaole. Tne Commasmn snail susoeno tne temporary coerstmr license if fmas tnat tne arpneant is r.ot rrosecuunt tne arpheaunn for tne fman voerauer heense wita <tae cuirence. !=euance of a temonrary coeratine beense under sunn--

taon abs of tr.is s*cunn snalt t e witnout trenuonee tn tre r:cnt of any party to rai-.

any issue in a r.eant.c re-suited pursuant to secuon #23$36 of tha title; ano fasiure tn assert any groun<a for o*nias or limitauon of a temtorary opersung steense snar.

not bar the asserunn of suen grouno m connection mitn the psuance of a suosecuen*

fmal operaunt incense. Any r arty t. a nestme

• ou:re 1 our=uant to secuon =1W:.-

3 of tais utie en tne (mai oteraunr reense for a facihty for wnsen a temonrar.

onersune 1 cense nas t**en nsueo unoer suosecuon the of this section. ano ars memoer of tee Atomie .*afety and I,icename Board conductme suen neanne, anal. j

' prnmotiv noufv tne rammissen nf any mformauon mdicaunt that tne terms anc ennoitions of the temnnrary ricernune i. cense are not bemr met or tnat suen term-i ano co%tions are ont suffseient to comply witn the ).rovisions of parairrapn 125 ed I

suosecuon (b) of this secuon. l (d) Mministrotne remedsee for minimisatsen of need fee beense The Commission is autnonted and directed to adopt such admmistrative remedies ,

as the Commission ocems appronnate to mmimize tne need for issuance of temte .

rurv operstmr hcenses pursuant to this secuon.

see Espereuen of leemine authority The at.thnnty to issue new tarnporary nperaung beentes under this section shall expire on December 31. I'Jb3. , ]

4Aa amended Jas 4.1983. Pubt M-415, i 11,96 Stat. 20711 l l

4 e

4

.g -

i ~ , . , =.. . .... . - . - . . . , . - . ..- . , . _ - . - _ _ _

- . .)

~

e - EXHIBIT'5 - -

HARMON 8c WEISS ' , r t -2006 $ STRECT, N.W.

suite 43o 1 WAsuzworow, D.C. soooo-nes l GAJL McGREEVY HARMON ..

TELEPHONE ELLYN R. WEISS (202)328 3500

_ DIANE CURRAN 1- DCAN R. TOUSLEY -

ANDREA C. FERSTER . Fe bruary 20,-1987.

't Lando W. zech, Jr. , Chairman

. Thomas M. Roberts

James ~K. Asselstine L Frederick M. Be rnthal Kenneth M. Carr i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555 l '

i

Dear Commissioners:

i

! We understand that. on February 23, you will be meeting -to consider the promulgation of an amendment to the emergency plan-ning rule whose sole purpose is to clear the way for the licens-ing of the Shoreham and Seabrook reactors, as well as any other i

reactors for which responsible state and local governments have j refused to participate in the preparation and testing of emer -

gency-plans because they do not'believe that the public health j and safety can be adequately protected in the event of.a ~

i radiological emergency. To achieve that end, the NRC Staff

{ proposes to violate the Atomic Energy Act and to abandon the ~

vital principles of emergency planning that grew out of the Three i

Mile Island accident. On behalf of the Union of Concerned

}

j Scientists and ' the New' England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, j

we urge you to reject the NRC Staff's emergency planning rulemak-ing proposal.

j In violation of the Atomic Energy Act, the proposal would elevate considerations'of the cost of compliance with the emer-

'[ gency planning rules over the safety of nuclear power plants.

Instead of requiring a showing that " adequate protective measures can and will be taken" during a nuclear reactor accident at these plants, the Commission would only ask those utilities'to i

! demonstrate that they have taken'* reasonable" and " feasible" i s

(i.e. not too expensive) compensatory measures to make up for the ,

y lack of state or local plans. The proposal would allow the NRC

]

to exempt those operating license applicants from any or all of the safety requirements for offsite emergency planning,;as Long t

l as they could show they had attempted to meet the requirements.

By substituting a "best effort" standard for a safety stan-

~

l dard, the proposal makes a mockery of the emergency planning rule and violates the principle that costs to licensees may not be i

4 6

- . _ - - - - - . - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - . . . - . . , - - , - . - . - .-. - .1

4

=

\

4 i

a HAnxon & Wziss

?

NRC Commissioners February 20, 1987 Page 2 considered in making safety determinations. See Power Reactor Development Corp. v. International Union, 367 U.S. 396, 408-409

(1961). All plants were given construction permits on the L explicit condition that the utilities build "at their own risk."

j' The NRC has said time and again that r$t consideration.of utility t

costs will be permitted when plants come up for operating licenses -- that if all Commission rules aren't1 met, the license will be denied. Now the NRC is proposing to reverse 30 years of precedent. The NRC Staff is recommending to the Commission that -

4 it abandon'a regulation -- one which only seven years ago the .

j comission decided was necesary for the protection of the public

-- rather than deny an operating license. The emergency planning

}

j rules are not claimed to be any less "necessary." Instead, pub-lic protection is being traded off for the economic interests of

) the utilities.

I' By clearing a broad path for noncompliance with the emer-j' gency planning regulations, the proposal essentially guts the rule. Above all, the proposal utterly repudiates the principle i of preparedness. Under the current rule, the mere existence of a written emergency plan is not enough -- the Commission must i

determine that the plan "can and will" be implemented. That j principle is abandoned in the Staff's proposal, which_ explicitly a celetes the requirement for the exercise of offsite plans by i state or local governments, and which implicitly. waives the requirement for training of government officials. The proposed

} rule assumes that state and local governments will " cooperate" curing an accident -- but contains no explanation of how those j officials will be able to respond quickly and effectively without the benefit of previous training or exercises. .Thus, the-

] proposal would take the NRC back to the days of ad hoc emergency response that proved so chaotic -- and potentially disastrous --

at Three Mile Island. As the Commission recognized six years ago

, when it promulgated the emergency planning rule, the mere exis-tence of a piece of paper provides no reasonable assurance that

,. the public health and safety can be protected during an accident.

j The additional vital importance of preparedness should be even-i more ingrained in the Commission's conscience af ter the Chernobyl j disaster.

l The rationale put forth by the Staff for this rule grossly 4

misstates the emergency planning rulemaking record. the j Staff claims that at the time the rule was promulgated,First, theDom-

! mission did not anticipate that a state might refuse to submit an j emergency plan. On the contrary, one of the main complaints j raised by the nuclear industry's comments on the rule was that i

I I

1

.-. - - - . . . . . ~ . .. - . - .. - - - ._.

r l ~-

bW b b 2dioners c February 20, 1987 Page 3-I' the rule gave states a de facto veto over plant operation.

~ Fed. Re g . at 55,405, CoIT 1. 45 The Commission responded:

l.

1 The Commission recognizes there is a possibility that '

the operation of some reactors may be affected by this 1

rule through inaction of State and local governments or

] an inability to comply with these rules. The Commis-sion believes that the potential restriction of plant operation by State and local officials is not sig-3 nificantly different~in kind or effect from the means i

already available under existing law to prohibit reac-

! tor operation, such as zoning and land use laws, certi- -

t fication of public convenience and necessity, State i.

financial and rate considerations... and Federal

{ environmental laws.

i 45-Fed. Reg. at 55,404, Col. l.. It is clear that the Commission celiberately decided that the overriding importance-to safety of i

emergency preparedness outweiched the risk that some plants might j

te prevented by state action from operating. As noted by the Staff, the Commission stated its " belief" that " State and local

}

officials as partners to this undertaking will endeavor to pro-vide fully for public protection."

i Id . . That is exactly what Massachussetts and New York have done, based upon their findings, af ter responsible study, that the location of these plants makes

{ c-f fective emergency action impossible. The problem is that the l Commission does not want " partners." It wants only passive sub-i ordinates.

1 Second, the Staff argues that emergency preparedness is not as important as engineered safety, basing this claim upon the fact that utilities were given time "to phase 'into compliance with the new rules. The argument is disingenuous. In fact, the emer-

{

cency planning rules were considered so important that they were "backfitted," that is applied to all operating reactors and not Just new ones -- a relatively rare event in nuclear reactor regulation. In such cases, where a new rule is appliedLto licensed reactors, some time is always given for compliance. No inference can be drawn from this phase-in that the rule 1:s Hof -

j secondary importance. Indeed, the importance of the new emer-1 gency planning rule -- and the preparedness component which this proposal would gut -- was stressed repeatedly by the Commission:

1 In order to discharge effectively its statutory i

responsibilities, the Commission must know ... that ,,

i adequate protective actions in response to actual or

! anticipated conditions can and will be taken.

4' I

1

- - - . - _ . ~ ~ . _ ..-.... _ _~ _ ,_._ _..._ _ - _ , _ , . . ... _ _ .--~ _-.. . . - . , . - . . _ . - . . _ . - , _ , _ , , _ _

HAnxow & Warss NRC Commissioners February 20, 1987

--Page 4 --

45 Fed. Reg. at 55,403, Col. 3 (emphasis added).

When it promulgated the existing emergency planning rules, the Commission recognized that the stringency of the rules might result in the denial of some operating license applications. The Commission refused then to compromise its safety regulations on economic grounds, and it must not do so now. This desperate bid to create a licensing loophole for Shoreham and Seabrook -- where the affected state governments have determined, after careful and responsible study, that it is impossible to assure the safety of the public during a radiological accident -- must be rejected.

Ke urge the Commission to reaffirm its commitment to the princi-r.les established in the 1980 emergency planning rule by rejecting this proposal. i Sincerely, Diane Curran .

i 11ynkl. Weiss Counsel for Union of Concerned ,

Scientists and i New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ,

l i

l

' L _, .* . .

.. EXHIBIT 6 -

I p puey L.E -

.% . umTro sfAm ,

_-[.A.___.__3.)$_

z

>.r:

.wn .

CEAR REGUCATORY COMMISSION

• n .' nm amo.c.== - -

o a k, - ' T .: L:

%,..u y June 15. 1984 CHAIR M AN

~~ . ..

~he Honorable Edward J. Mar. key. Chair..an 5ct::mittee on Oversight and Investigations C:mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs trited States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.20515

• ear Congressman Markey:

veur letter of Mar:h 30, 1984 re uested an ex:lanati:n of the risks assectated with icw c:vea coeration at c erarcial nu: lear pe er rea:::-s.

• n acettien, y:u raised five s:e:ific questions whicn we nave res::nced t:

- in Atta:n=ent 1 to th1,s . letter. .

W1th regard to the risks asse:iated with is ::see ::erati:n, Atta:n e-t 2 s a 0: mission oa:er ceveloped by the staff a :ress:r.; tr.:s issue. As ndi:ated by this :s:er, the overall con:hsien that tne staff cast rea:n

' r fuel loadin; and 1:w : ve.* testing c: t: 5 ce-:e .: ;;we , is tra: tre-e f

's r: un:ve risk t: the healte and safety cf the :::li: f:- tne limtte:

eratiens auth rized. In practice, the staf' has enveic:ed anaivses tnat ~

indicate tnat tre rists cf 5 per:ent 0:wer e: ration ca . be er.0"~~ *- be '

a::re:: ably less tnan the risks of 100 per:ent ?:wer c:eratien.

-  ;: .issicner Gilinsky did n:: Oarti:i ate in the p :aratien :f this reely.

'. e trust that this info- .stien is responsive t: ycur cen: errs.

Sincerely ,

l ,r Udl ~n . g#"

e liunzio J. P:lladino AttacbM nts:

As stated cc: Rep. Ron Marlenet

• B40 6M0054 8 40615 ----

PDR COMMS NRCC

---a--ommnue on. .

_ .~ m. - _. _ .._ . . . _ _

/e.

,/

• g_

o ,

.c.

n.

i.  ; s l' I 4 1

%

• 4 5

r

+-

V .

a h

1 s

l l

i ENCLOSURE T.

i t

i t

I 6

4 9

8 i

9 6

9 1_

e 4

9 i

i a o 3 a- . -- -, , _ _ _ _ __ __

- - . - - _- _- . . .- .. ._ _ _ _ D -~'

wa.---m ,7.. ,

n 3 i

Q y.-

t i

i OUESTION 1: What studies, reports or "NUREG" document has the Commission

published concerning the risk of low power operation.

ANSWER NRC staff estimates of the relative risks of low power versus 100% power operation have been made in recent operating license cases based on consideration of important accident sequences from the Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400). These risk estimates are discussed in supplements to the NRC staff safety evaluation reports for seversi plants including the following:

(A) DiabloCanyonUnits1and2(NUREG-0675,SupplementNo.10, i August 1980)

(B) San Onofre Units 2 and 3 (NUREG-0712 Supplement No. 4, j January 1982)

(C) Summer Nuclear Station Unit 1 (NUREG-0717, Supplement No. 4,

{

January 1982) -

4 I (D) LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-0519, Supplement j No. 3, April 1982)

! (E) Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NUREG-0831, Supplement No. 2 j June 1982) i (F) SusquehannaStation, Units 1and2(NUREG-0776,SupplementNo.2, 4 June 1982).

1 l

~

i

)

5 1

9

.__ - . . _ . , _ _ . _ _ _ . . ~ . _ _ . _ . - _ , _ , _ . . _ . . . . , _ - , _ , _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ ,, _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _

• f. D ,

c . . ,

s QUESTION 2: What would be the accumulation of radioactive fission '

products after 30, 60 and 120 days of 5 percent operation at I a typical bWR and at a typical PWR7 l ANSWER.

l 1

! Low power testing of a new power reactor would not typically result in as l

! much radioactive fission products as 30 days of continuous operation at the i maximum permitted power. Low power testing could be described as a period f

of final adjustment of many plant systems, punctuated by ascensions to the

minimum power needed to perfonn each series of tests. The assumption of

continuous operation at constant power, however, is usually made in '

. computing radioactive investories in order to simplify the equations of I

{ growth and decay and to provide an upper bound analysis of risks.

i j The distributions of fission products differ somewhat between BWR and PWR I j' cores mainly due to differences in the relative amounts of fissions j occurring 1E3getinides (the series of elements beginning with actinium)

other than U. These other actinides are not present in new fuel, but

they build up slowly over time through a series of reactions. These other actinides accumulate at different rates in the twg3gypes of cores, and have i fission product years which differ from those of U. During low power- 1

testing with new fuel, very little generation of other fissile actinides

would occur, and the early accumfgtion of fission products in both BWR and

PWR cores would be dominated by U fissions. A single estimate of

accumulation of fission products, therefore, is considered applicable to  !

j both reactor types. 1 i

j While sufficient information is available for the estimation of 937 isotopes

{ that may be generated in a reactor core, the bulk of these have very short i

half-lives, are stable isotopes, or are made in very small amounts. The )

i Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400), identified 43 fission products and 11  :

l 4 actinides and other activation products which were judged responsible for

! virtually all radiological risk, and the staff uses only these radio-1 isotopes as a simplification in computing accident consequences. No i detailed computer calculations of a core inventory at any of the durations i of operation are available, and such calculations require lengthy i preparations and significant expense. The requested accumulations,

therefore, have been calculated from an existing computer-generated

inventory using the equations of radioactive growth and decay to correct )

that inventory to approximate the requested conditions. The inventory l i selected was the new fuel region at 91 days of operation in case IIA 2, l

described in the report " Extended Burnup Calculations for Operating Reactor  !

i Reload Reviews", NUREG/CR-3108, February 1983. Only the 43 risk-dominant 1 fission products were corrected to the requested conditions. ,

! l i

i I

i

! 1

. ~ - - - - - - - . _ _ _ , _ _ . - _ _ - _ _.. _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _- ~ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ l

, q p

. ., e f 4 Of the 43 risk-dominant fission products, 25 have half-lives sufficiently short that they would closely approach secular equilibrium with a continuous

_. source in 30 days or less. At equilibrium, the decay rate of a radioisotope

' equals its rate of production, and no further accumulation occurs: Four of '

' these shorter-lived fission products however, have at least fractional parentage from longer-lived isomers or isotopes with which they are in-

]

transient equilibrium. At transient equilibrium, the decay rate of a i daughter isotope equals the rate at which its parent decays. In Table 2.1, the megacuries of 21 shorter-lived fission products at secular equilibrium with a continuous source of 150 megawatts of fission have been listed.18I '"9 '

with the half-life of each isotope. A megacurie is a rate of 3.7 x 10 nuclear disintegrations per second. For comparison,150 megawatts (which is

! close to 5% of current generation reactor core pcwer levels) is the power 4

generated by 126 megacuries of fission. During low power testing of a new

! core, the 21 fission products would be removed from secular equilibrium by l

variations in power level or periods of shut-down, but would approach j secular equilibrium at any power level within several d depending upon j half-life. For example, the longest-lived Table entry, gg, would I be at 50%

l of its equilibrium value at 8.1 days of continuous operation, and at 98% at i 30 days. -

y

}

i The remaining 22 risk-dominant fission products accumulated after 30, 60, l and 120 days in a continuous source of 150 megawatts of fission have been i listgginTab1 I3)Cs .2,alog The entries I for Rb, and and g with the half-life of each Zr include estimated contributions from activation isotope.

as well as fission yield, ang3} heir estimates' are correspondingly less accurat'e. The radioisotope Cs is not included, since it if3got a fission

' product, but an activation product of stable fission product Cs. It is ggimated that a 150 megawatt core would accumulate about 1000 curies of Cs in 30 days, with further accumulation to about 6000 curies at 120 1

. days.

l In addition to the 43 risk-dominant fission products listed, there are

several hundred short-lived fission products accounting for several hundred

{ megacuries in a 150 megawatt core.. These are in approximate secular equi-librium within minutes of operation at any power level, but are too short-lived to be transported off-site in any accident.-

i Again, the actual amounts of the isotopes identified in Table 2.2 would vary ,

j in an extremely complex manner during variations of core power.

i, ,

O e

0 4

i

- . _ , _ . - - - - _ . . - , - - . . . - . _ , - , . - _ _ . - , - _ - - - ~ _ - . . - _ _ - . . . - . . - - . . . _ _ - - . - . . _ _ . _ _ . - ~ . - - - . _ _ - - .

e_- .

. n-9 TA8LE 2.1 Megacuries In Secular Equilibrium With 150 Megawatts Of Fission At A Typical Light Water Reactor Fission Product Megacuries Half-life (Days) 85m 0.18 Kr 1.5 87 3.0 - 0.053 Kr 88 4.1 0.12 Kr 133 8.4 5.3 Xe 135 2.7 0.38 Xe 131 3.7 8.1 I

132 0.096 1 5.5 133 0.88 1 8.4 134

• 0.037 I # 9.6 135 0.28 1 7.9 131m 1.3 re 0.52 132 5.5 3.3 Te 127 3.9 5b 0.18 129 0.18 5b 1.0 91 0.40 Sr 7.0 99 7.6 2.8 Mo 9Dc 6.7 0.25

• 105 1.8 0.19 Ru 105 1.5 i Rh 1.7 97 7.3 0.71 2r 143 7.2 1.4 Ce i

l I

,,,-,-.,m,- - - - -

.-- - - , - ,v we ,,w- vvm , w,vm-

g ._ _

-^

Q

, , )

s- .

TABLE 2.2 Megacuries At Various Durations In a Typical LWR At 150 Megawatts

Fission Product 30 Days 60 Days 120 Davs 1/2 Life (Days)

' 00 3950.

Kr .0016 .0033 .0066 86 18.7 Rb .00024 .00031 .00035 136 13.0 Cs .015 .018 .019 137 11000. I Cs .014 .027 .055 127 .391 Te .12 .13 .13 4 1275e .0028 .0051 .0084 109.

129 .048 Te .83 .86 .88

12De .075 115 . .15 34.

89 5r 1.9 3.0 4.4 52.1 90 Sr .013 .026 .051 11030.

140 Ba 6.2 - 7.4 7.7 12.8 103 Ru 1.7 2.6 3.6 39.5 106

, Ru .042 .083 .16 366.

1 90 Y .013 .026 .051 2.67 91 l Y 2.0 3.4 5.1 59.0 95 Zr 2.1 3.6 .5.5 65.2 95 Nb 1.5 2.3 3.0 35.0 140

. La 6.2 7.4 7.7 1.67 i 141 j Ce 3.3 5.0 ' 6.3 32.3 144 l Ce .44 .85 1.6 284.

143 7.1 Pr 5.5 6.7 13.7 I47 2.4 2.7 2.8 11.1 J

Nb i

j ,

1 .

i

-9

_______,_-_.,m.._ _-

q g

l .

QUESTION 3: What could be the off-site consequences of an accident at low

~

power assuming the accumulation of fission products after 30,

! 60, and 120 days of 5 percent operation at a typical BWR and

at a typical PWR7 Specifically, what, if any, source tem

{ assumptions does the NRC use for judging the risk of low-

power operation?

! ANSWER

The staff's Safety Evaluation Reports for proposed operating licenses j consider a variety of postulated reactor accidents, all of which assume the i reactor to have been at 105% of design power. The off-site consequences i estimated in these reports are doses to hypothetical individuals at specific

. locations downwind from the plant, which are compared to the dose guidelines l in 10 CFR Part 100. Analyses to estimate off-site consequences for power 1 less than 105% of design are not perfomed since such consequence estimates would necessarily be lower.

The purpose of the postulated accident analyses in Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) is to assess the perfomance of the plant during postulated accidents and to demonstrate that the radiological consequences of the postulated i accidents, when evaluated using conservative assumptions, remain below the

guideline dose values of 10 CFR 100.

For the large break loss of coolant accident, (LOCA) the most severe reactor j accident considered in the Safety Evaluation Reports, it is assumed that

100% of the noble gases, krypton and zenon, and 25% of the iodine in the core are dispersed into the containment, while 50% of the iodine is dis-solved in the emergency cooling water. The source tem, i.e., the amounts

of these fission products escaping into the environment, is conservatively computed by modeling the containment leakage paths, leakage and dispersal of cooling water from the emergency cooling system, and operation of additional

! engineered safety features, all of which vary from plant to plant.

As shown in the response to the second question, the noble gas and iodine

. fission products are predominantly at secular equilibrium after 30 days of operation. Were the release assumed in Safety Evaluation Reports for the

{ 1arge break LOCA to occur during 55 power operation, the dose consequences

! estimated would be 4.8% of those reported for 1055 power operation. Since i these doses are estimated conservatively, no diminution by radioactive decay of the source tem is accounted for, and the worst possible dose would be i somewhat less. For typical BWR and PWR plants, this would result in dose

!' estimates of several REM to the thyroid and a few hundred millirem whole body to an individual spending the first two hours of the source ters' emission directly downwind at the exclusion area boundary during a period of extremely unfavorable weather, while breathing heavily. It should be noted

) that the staff's methods of computing thyroid dose also assume that iodine j remains as elemental iodine during its transport.

I e

l .

G 7

. g -

4

As noted in the response to Question 2, the core inventory during low power testing would be expected to vary greatly due to fluctug{ons in power

-level. The thyroid dose calculations are dominated by I, due to the nature of g radiation emitted by its decay, such that a similar number.of curies of I pose more risk than a larger number of curies of the other

, {ginefissionproductscombined. For a typical low power testing period, j I would not be expected to accumulate to more than a fraction of its

equilibrium value.

Under a Consnission policy statement of June 1980, the staff and utilities have also assessed accident consequences and probabilities of very low 4

probability accidents from an environmental as well as a safety point of view. These accidents are sometimes referred to as beyond design basis or j Class 9 accidents. The staff has published Environmental Impact Statements j covering such events for all license applications submitted after July 1 1980. In addition, the staff has also assessed the risks (probability times i consequences) from such accidents for such purposes as siting criteria

studies, probabilistic risk assessment reviews of specific reactors and for l generic studies. All of these assessments have been made for reactors

! operating at full power. No specific offsite consequences have been 1

assessed for reactors operating at low powdr levels.

1 i

i

.i . l i

i

. l l

i -

l .

l t

,.,.-nr. ,,c ---m._,. . - - , - , ----,--,,----,-,,g,c. ,,,..,,,m,-.,_ w,m.. - - - _,~-g.--,-.e,.-._.,,,en --,-,---,--,,,,,-----,-,----,n -.,,,-, - --,,,- - - - , .

.n. .. . q< q-

\ . .

l i

QUESTION 4: What does the NRC believe to be the probability of accidents

, at a typical BWR and at a typical PWR during low power operation? Identify the dominant accident sequences that

~

l i could lead to core damage, core melting, or offsite releases, j Additionally, please indicate whether the Comunission believes i 1 that the probability of mishaps and accidents is higher or lower for plants with a low power license than for plants l

with a full power license. Please also indicate what has been the history of operating experience for plants with low i power license and provide any studies or memoranda conceraing this subject.

l ANSWER.

1 i Estimates of risk reduction were made in recent operating license cases (See i Guestion 1) based on dominant sequences from the Reactor Safety Study l fWASH-1400). For PWRS and BWRS the important sequences are small i

Loss-of-Coolant accidents and transients, with the addition of the j Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM sequence for BWRS. The following major i

factors contribute to a substantial reductfon in risk at low power operation i compared to equilibrium full power operation: ,

!' A. The reduced decay heat from low power operation results in a significant reduction in the response required to mitigate potential severe accidents and therefore a reduction in the likelihood of core damage. For example, passive heat sinks within 4

i the system may be sufficient to delay the need for operator i

remedial action for several hours before core damage would be a

threat, similarly, the cooling water flow rates required to j dissipate the low decay heat are reduced by a factor of 20 or more so that numerous small pumps available at a plant may be i sufficient to provide adequate cooling in the event that the primary safety systems failed to function.

,i 8. The fission product inventory from operation at low power is significantly reduced and therefore the potential risk to the public is also reduced.

f ..

l 4

I l

4

o

'J 3-i *

• i f

Regarding minor malfunctions of normally operating systems, there may or may not be a greater number during this initial shakedown period. In any case,

! - because of the factors discussed above, it is less likely that a " mishap" at  !

low power operation would lead to a sequence resulting in core damage. With

respect to the history of operating experience with low power licenses.,

~

attached please find SALP reports covering the first year operating l experience for the following plants licensed since the three Mile Island incident: .

1. North Anna Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, dated November 3,1982

2. Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, dated April 13, 1983

3. Farley Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2. dated December 6,1982 ,

4. Salem Nuclear Generating Station Units 1 and 2, dated January 11, 1983

! 5. McGuire Nuclear Station Units 1 and 2, dated December 9, 1982

6. Diablo Canyon Nuclear. Power Plant Units 1 and 2, dated March 18,.1983

, 7. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3, dated July 15, 1983 .

8. LaSalle County Station Units 1 and 2, dated July 26, 1983 ,

i

9. Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1, dtaed January 11, 1984 l

10. Susquehanna Steam Electric Station Units 1 and 2, dated May 9, 1983 '

) .

11. V. C. Susmer Nuclear Station Unit 1, dated July 12, 1983

. 12. St. Lucia Plant Units 1 and 2. dated December 15, 1983 t

t .

1 . ..

i -

, , . . , ---...,.-n, , --, . - , - - ---,,,----,,,---,,,,-..n-m..-,-.,.~.,-., -

, . - . - , ,,---,-c,,,,-.. .----,-,---,,,-,,..,-,n,r.. , - - - - , . . - - , ~ , , - - , . -,._-,--,n-.

.\

O - }

QUESTION 5: For all reactors licensed since the accident at Three Mile Island, please provide the following (A) the date of issuance

-- of the low power license; (B) the date of initial criticality; (C) the date of 5 percent power operat' ion; (D) the date of issuance of the full power license; (E) the-date ~

that power levels of 25 percent or higher were first attained; (F) the date that power levels of 90 percent or higher to the lowwere power firstlicensee attained; (G)(exemptions and, H) exemptions granted grantedbybythe the NRC NRC to the full power licensee.

ANSWER.

The data requested is provided in the attached Table 5.1. We interpreted  !

the date of 5 percent power operation to be the date that this power level

! was exceeded. Where the plant has not achieved the event listed the symbol i

N/A has been used. j

! l y ,

l i

l t

i 89 o

S

..___..._,._.,.___._,,.....__.c__,. _ . _ , _ _ _ - _ . - _.-m- _.. _ . , _ , - _ _ . _ . _ - _ _ . _ . . , _ . ~

] ,

1

..t:* .

l .-

1 4

_ _ T R E 5.1  !

l; '

H ANIS IS9f D 0 iPATIMi LIGMS dimt usei MilBNJHi 1EllIM NW W NW W MW W . ..

ISSilfKE M1E E . ISRMMI Dffl DING MW RWD LEWLS (F MW RWR LFWLS (F l.fM I1W.R INITIAL :ttt HER 5 NMIFT ?5 PFPrfMT OR HIGER !TIITlirTFT Op lilG FR RJWff LIGJEE GlilOtl1Y lGNSE RKR RTPATifft IN111 ALLY ATTAIN 11 .INillAltY ATTAIN D i

Mil 1H N04 7 ai/j/N) 7/f*/M1 1

6/17/N) R/71/lft 9/10/51 Of' 7/NI (INE) veaumes 7ta/s) In s/vi 9/_]_7/11 10APfiti Il/17fm / /4 s hilltY 7 JUr75r11 5n itc 3/9/4 2/7J/ r IinFre c/ I 7I t

)

I 9 MiZ MI 5/;U 512 (f l 5fA11i - t,M61R iir.51t l;l \bl(l 4

FIL MIHL I bl 7/5 Ital t/ L /All/F U/11/4  ?/I5/4 . nF/7

! Riaunm 7 hf,5/l 11/ El 11 9/I5/I 17 / 7/ /111 7/77R .,i/75/i7 1 IITRif uus. I 9171/t

.} SISRifED 11/1 ~ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

- EINSTAB 11 l ,

. (Fif1 LWill NEl RE-m I (RY)

X RWINEW 7 7/161V TTA >lV SnVfV 9/17nV IUl2%RV h/1%fF% (nnFI f (f. I Mills? i U IV BIl5/V RT15MI 9171MV 8/71V5 ist4.-1 6/ElV . ;I ;  ;/V W/A 1814 r rA P/p i 9613]}WIER ] T/I7/ E cII I1/P / 71V .1717ny - ny 7/INIU t pai0 l 3rrt i1 Nne DJ/ft7 . "I 7fU . 111Fnt7 .  : TAfig '

i/;(1/ o-- 0TET-SIF siwe. 3 715ne m/is W1hru Ullfi/B wi u 11c17m3 I n RF-l EIDH q . Z itB/f6 >ARtis 5f///'5 51/tro i 71$r ru znvi<5 i ~

5 11 ..It 7 81Ab/H5 t# 7113 5/10/U 5 7]3 / 15 'illHIU /f'M/D

' :2 .

7/m/55 ST 1/ill i j/75/UI - 573nUI I/A '/A t'-7 - ; 7FJI/tU 47 LFi I , f 11 4 1/A I/A BIA a szusm, 7 :'f?3/UI l l/l i N/l ,

'I/A IIA II/A E

• FAIE.EY 2 DID Nff A0llEEt#1TIAL CPITICAL I1Y IMil. MER FIIL RWR LIGNSE M1E (F 3/31/pt. -

"fFSTRICD 10 SR llE In STF41 (IEM1(RS

• c 4

4 i  :

a .

i .

TABLE 5.1 (CONTINUED) ,...

- 3 EXEMPTIONS GRANTED BY THE NRC EXEMPTIONS GRANTED BY THE NRC IN .

PLAN IN THE LOW POWER LICENSE THE FULL POWER LICENSE AMENOMENT  ;

North Anna 2 N/A - Certain Requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50 Sequoyah 1 N/A 10 CFR 50.491 g)

Farley Z Certain Requirements of Appendices G. H & J Certain Requ Irements of Appendices G 11 & J to

. to 10 CFR 50 10 CFR 50 Salen 2 Certain Requirements of Appendix J to Certain Requirements of Appendices J & A to 10 CFR 50 10 CFR 50 i McGuire 1 Certain Requirements of Appendix G to Certain Requirements of Appendices J & E to T  !

10 CFR 50 10 CFR 50 V 5equoyah Z N/A 10 CFR 50.49(g)

Diable Canyon 1 ,

Certain Requirements of Appendices G. H & J N/A to 10 CFR 50 San Onofre Z Certain Requirements of Appendices G, H & J N/A to 10 CFR 50 ~

LaSalle 1 Certain Requirements of Appendices E G. H & Q No Changes  !

to 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73; and 10 CFR 70.24 Grand Gulf I Certain Requirements of Appendices G & H to N/A 10 CFR 50 lusquehanna 1 Certain Requirements of Appendices G & H to N/A '

10 CFR 50 Susumer 1 Certain Requirements of Appendix G to 10 CFR 50 Certain Requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 San Onofre 3 Certain Requirements of Appendices G. H & J N/A to 10 CFR 50 RcGuire Z Certain Requirements of Appendix G to 10 CFR 50 Certain Requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFP T O 5t. Ltcie Z N/A _ N/A s.J-

, LaSalle Z Certain Requirements of Appendices G. H & J Mo Changes to 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73; and 10 CFR 70.24 _

~ _

WNP-Z Certain Requirements of Appendices G. H & J N/A to 10 CFR 50 Susquehanna Z None N/A 9

j

Seabrook Service List - Notica of Appeal & Stcy Motion Sheldon J. wolfe, Chatrean North Haeoton. NH. 03926 442 J.W. McCoreack (POCH)

Alcetc Safety and Licensing loston, MA 02101 J.P. Nadeau P!herwin E. Turk Esq.

loard TownofRye OfficeofGeneralCounsel SandraGavutis U.S. NRC .

Washington, D.C. 20555 155Washingtonload U.S. NRC RfD 1 los 1154 Rye, New Haspshire 03870 Washington, D.C. 20555 Eas,t tensington, NH 0:827 Dr. Jerry part'our Atcenc Safety and Licensing RichardE.Sullivan, Mayor Mr.AngieMachiros,Chatrean CharlesP.Grahaa,Esq.

CityHall BoardofSelecteen klay, Mgrphy ani Grahas Board U.S. NRC Newouryport, MA 0!?50 Newbury, MA 01910 100MainStreet Aserbury,MA 0191:

Washingten. D.C. 20555 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairsan H.JosephFlynn,Esq.

Office of General Counsel # Alans.Rosenthal,Chairsan Dr. Esseth A. Luede Icardof!electeen Atce;t Sef:ty and Licensing iconof!alisbury,MA 01950 FEMA AtcaicSafety& Licensing 500 C Street S.W. Appealteard toara U.S. NFC Senator Gstden J. Huephrer Washington,D.C 00472 U.S. htC mast.ington, D.C. 20555 dashtr.; ton. 'J.C. 20555 U.S. Senate Washington. D.C. 20510 George Cana littee. Etc.

Atesic tar"# and Litensing Geoffrey M. Huntlngton. Esq. sNogard A.A ' l[ter (Attn. Ice lurats)

Office of the Attorney General Atcast !afety & Licensing toara Fane State House Annee Appeat fear 1

.J.S. 'iRC teletteen of Northaenten Lasningtcn. ).C. 00555 '4orrr.aeotoa, een casctnare Concero. 1H 3:: 1 U.S. :dC 3:226 dasningten. D.C. 20555 at:e:c ht 'e ind Licensing Al'en uncert

!enator kreen J. meer.rev C;.ti :etense Oractor Mary 1.Elles 2:ceat i:e : Pinei 17,. sEC  ! ingle m are. <te . 4 *cen cr.Erent:.o:1 atcs:t infe!r i utensing nasningt:n. 2.C. 20555 C:ncera. M ,;;01 Eseter. M G;5;; appeat icara U.S. dC

.~ot reting eid Service witnael ! ant;;ao!!o. 2.atrean Ritnar1 A. rias;e Esq. dash;ngten, ?.C. 20555

15. RC ioar1 of !etecteen ias:e an2 "cm:tnoies Warn:agten. ).C. 20555 emeil 5treet. RFD I : 35 Flearant :treet ......___,....

So2th iaeoten, d NH 0 Sa2 Concoro, nH 03:01 elyhand 1rs. Anne '. Soccean leard or

• lecteen Jadtth H. Marner. S q. GaryW.Holees.Esq.

$11vergiate,Gertner,etal. Holees& Ell:s setvFederaiEspress 13-15 New Nrret Road Durnas. NH O!842 88 Broad Street a7 Winnacunnent Road loston. MA 02110 Haeoton, NH 03842 WilliasS. Lord.Selectean Tcus Hall - Friend Street Rep. Reberta C. Fevear WilliasArestrong AsesDury, eA 01913 Drinkwater Road CivilDefenseDirector Haspton, Falls. NH 03844 10 Front Street ,

Jane Doughty Exeter, NH 03833 l SAFL Phill b Ahrens Esq.

5 Market Street Assb.,!AttorneyGeneral CalvinA.Canney Portseouth. NH 03801 State House, Station 8 6 CityManager Augusta, ME 04333 CityHall Carol S. Seeider. Esquire 126DanielStreet AssistantAttorneyGeneral 8tihosas4.Dignan,Esq. Portseouth, NH 03801 1 Asht>urten Place,19th Floor R.I. Gad 11. Esq.

loston,MA 02108 Ropes & Gray Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

225FranklinStreet $haines & R Eachere StanleyW.Inowles loston, MA 02110 P.O. los 360 '

MaplewoodAve.

Scard of Selecteen P.O. los 710 Robert A. Backus, Esq. ' Portseouth, NG 03801 Backus,Meyer&Soloson 111LovellStreet EdwardA.Thoeas Nanchester, NH 03105 FEMA

.i '

+

, . $ , k*

,. y,. . . , , . . . ...~.... . . v., :g -