ML20207A463
| ML20207A463 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/1987 |
| From: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207A468 | List: |
| References | |
| CLI-87-02, CLI-87-2, OL-1, NUDOCS 8705190646 | |
| Download: ML20207A463 (10) | |
Text
i i
v,,- r-IINITED STATES OF AMERICA
". W NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION TI APR -9 P4 07 C0m!SSIONERS:
Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman hIb,k s.,,'s 7h Thomas M. Roberts SRAh?
James X. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal Kenneth M. Carr SM APR 9 m l)l In the Matter of l
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF h
Docket Nos. 50-443-0L-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
50-444-0L-1 ll (OnsiteEmergencyPlanning
~
(Seabrook Station Units 1 1
and Safety Issues) and2)
)l ll MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI-87 02 Introduction This decision completes the Comission's review of a single issue:
whether a utility applicant must submit a radiological emergency plan (either a governmental plan or a utility plan) for the entire plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ) for the facility before the Commission may issue any operating license, including one conditioned to permit only fuel loading or operations at less than 5%
power.
It is uncontroverted that when this issue came before the Comission no plan had been submitted for that entire portion of 07051{@gg aggli hoNREGPONDENCEPDR
2 Massachusetts that is situated within the boundaries of Seabrook Station's EPZ and constitutes roughly one third of the EPZ.I In its January 9,1987 order announcing that it was undertaking review sua M,2 the Comission said that it believed it could decide the issue presented on the basis of the previously filed briefs.
Nonetheless, the parties were pemitted a full round of briefing, if they wished it.3 I0n the eve of affiming this decision the Comission received notification from PSNH that it was submitting a utility emergency plan for that portion of the EPZ that lies in Massachusetts.
In that light.
PSNN suggested that the instant review is moot and requested the Comission to If ft its stay.
In view of the lateness of PSNN's motion, and the policy importance of the matter under Comission consideration, the Comission has decided to proceed with its decision, and to treat PSNH's motion as a request to vacate today's decision on grounds of mootness and to vacate the stay on the ground that the concerns which underlie the stay have been alleviated. Views of the parties on the question of mootness and any other matters relevant to the maintenance of the stay are required on the following schedulo:
All answers from other than NRC Staff - filed by April 28, 1987 NRC Staff answer - filed by May 1, 1987 2Massachusetts Attorney General Bellotti petitioned for review as Comission consideration of in sconte review was underway.
Inclined to have this matter decided at We comission level, the Comission decided not to delay its in sconte decision for the process to consider pleadings for and a of the same issue. gainst rovfew.
In that Massachusetts sought review Its petition is in effect granted.
In its filing beforeusNewEnglandCoalitionforNuclearPollution(NECNP) sought among other things reconsideration of the Comission's Shoreham decision. The Comissior, dec1tnes NECNP's invitation and specifically limits its review to the issue specified.
3The following parties participated in the pemissive briefing schedule! Attorney General Bellotti of the Ccmonwealth of Massachusetts (later substituting Attnrney General Shannon), Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), NECNP, Town of Hampton, PSNH, and the NRC (FootnoteContinued)
3 s
1 As we discuss below, on consideration of the views of the parties, the Comission has decided not to affim the Appeal Board's decision.
In so doing, we have decided to take no action with respect to the l
outstanding Itcense for fuel loading and procriticality testing because 4
there is no safety benefit to be derived from removing the fuel; moreover, fairness suggests in any event the need for a Comission
)
decision on PSNH's mootness motion before taking any such action regarding the outstanding Itcense. Today's decision is fully applicable l
to any Itcense for Seabrook that authorizes criticality and low-power operation.
Positions of the Parties l
The Applicant and the NRC Staff argue for affirmance of the j
decision under review. They urge that in promulgating its rule on 4
1 submittalofemergencyplanapplications,10C.F.R.50.33(g),the Comission never intended to establish submittal of offsite emergency plans as a licensing requirement independent of the ultimate required findings on the plans. They further contend that 10 C.F.R. 50.47(d),
which eliminates findings on the adequacy of offsite emergency planning i
4 1
(FootnoteContinued) staff.
~
We also note receipt of a brief amicus curiae submitted by fomer Senator Gary Hart. The brief did not address the specific issue on which we accepted review.
4A license for fuel load and precriticality testing was granted and was appealed. While the Appeal Board denied a stay request made by the Attorney General of Massaciusetts, it expedited review presumably so i
that the matter could be resolved, if possible, in advance of readiness i
for low power testing.
J l
a as a precondition to issuance of a license for low power operation, makes it clear that emergency plans need not be submitted by that stage.
Finally, they can find no policy reason to support such a requirement.
On the other side, some or all of Intervenors (Massachusetts' incumbent Attorney General Shannon, NECNP, SAPL and the Town of Hampton) argue that the express language of the rules requires plan submittal, while express language of 50.47(d) does not list submittal of an emergency plan as one of the requirements to be omitted from consideration when licensing for low-power operations. They argue that sound policy favors a requirement for a substantially complete application-that the Applicant do all that it can do--before the risks and disadvantages of low-power testing are permitted. This is so, they say, because so long as an adequate plan for Massachusetts is required, until it is at least filed, issuance of a full power Ifeense cannot at all be reasonably anticipated.5 Decision This is a matter of first impression. We find no evidence that the Consission has ever before specifically considered by when the i
5 !ntervenors also suggest that Congress itself has found utility in requiring submittal of an application before allowing low power testing as is ev'denced by the structure of Section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act.
Interveners proffer various other )olicy considerations that they believe are served by requiring early sumittal of plans, including an increment of additional safety as a result of early planning, less pressure on FEMA, and expedition of hearings.
5 S
applicants must submit the emergency plan.6 The statements of considerationanddiscussionofproposedrules50.33(g)and50.47(d) l include no insight on this issue. Nor has any licensing hearing presented this question.
It is contended by those seening affimance of ALAB 853 that the Commission's Shoreham decision governs this matter. The issues in Shoreham were raised in connection with alleged grave uncertainty about whether eventual findings on the submitted LILC0 (Long Island Lighting Company) emergency plan would support issuance of a full power license.
In that context the Cosmission noted that low power testing has independent benefits, including the avoidance of potential deloy if and when a full power Itcense is issued, and that the earlier low-power testing was initiated the more likely that its full benefits would be reaped on a timely basis. The Comission concluded that disputes about the eventual decision on the merits of issues under consideration for a l
full power license should generally not interfere with the low-power testing.
l l
But the disputes which fueled the controversy in Shoreham were, by their nature, litigation and political disputes. And, as noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, we observed in regard to Shoreham, "the outcome of litigation and political covif1fets frequently surrounding the grant of a final license is particularly speculative." Cuomov.NRC,772F.2d972,976(D.C.Cir.
l 6The Comission believes that it is abundantly clear that a plan must at some time be submitted, and considers that the issue raised addresses only the timing of that submittal.
6 6
1985). The emergency planning uncertainty at Shoreham could have changed favorably or adversely at any time as viewpoints changed or as i
accomodations were reached.
This is characteristic of many matters in litigation, and the Commission properly declined to regard the existence of such litigation as a factor precluding issuance of a low-power Itcense. But the issue before us in Seabrook is distinguishable from Shoreham -- here we deal not with speculation as to the outcome of hearing litigation, but with the conclusions to be derived from the proposition that some of the materials that normally are essential to support a full power Itcense under our regulations were missing.
As sumartred above, arguments based on the language of the rules have been made by both sides. We acknowledge that there is some merit to both sides' positions, and we comend the Appeal Board for its careful analysis of the question. But the question before us is not a strictly legal one, but rather a question of regulatory policy which ultimately we alone should decide.
In the special circumstances of this case our judgment is that sound policy favors requiring the filing of a State, local, or utility plan before any operating license is issued, including a license confined to fuel loading or low power testing.
In Shoreham, we specifically observed that the emergency planning 1
issues raised there did "not appear to us to be categorically i
untesolvable,"CL1-83-17,17NRC1032at1034(1983), and we did not discount the possibility that a license for fuel loading and low power testing could be held up if it were established, beyond significant doubt, that there were truly insuperable obstacles to issuance of a Itcense for operation at any substantial power level. We believe that sound policy requires that we retain this option at least for Seabrook.
7 i
! b The filing of an offsite plan makes possible at least a sunmary review, t
of the type we performed in Shoreham, to determine whether adequate i
emergency planning is at least in the realm of the possible. Thus j
applicants must do at least this much before there can be any Itcense I
issued.
1 The Commission stay remains in effect pending consideration of l
PSNN's " Suggestion of Mootness and Request for Vacation of Stay" in t
accordance with footnote 1 to this decision.
j i
Commissioners Roberts and Carr disapproved this Order, their i
dissenting views are attached. Commissioner Asselstine's additional 1
j views are also attached.
It is so ORDERED.
i 6
j.
4 For the Commission f
I';., f,,,
hcc i
y @m C. iwnJ
't
, Acting Secretary for j
7, the Cossisston Dated at shington. 0.C.
l this f " day of April,1987.
1 l
l I
l i
i l
i i
I
O J
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF COMMISt!0NER ASSELSTINE
! concur in the result reached in the Consission's order, but ! do not necessarily subscribe to all of the reasoning therein.
I believe that, as a matter of policy, the Consission should not issue a low power license to a plant when there are fundamental uncertainties about whether the plant can be ifcensed.
h t
f r
1 4
I T
n 4
9 Dissentino views of Commissioner Roberts I would affim ALAB-853.
To require, prior to issuance of a low power license, submission of a utility plan for the portion of the EPZ that lies within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts serves no legitimate regulatory purpose and is incon-sistent with our earlier action in the Shoreham case.
The majority's reasons for distinguishing the Shoreham situation from the Seabrook situation are feigned. Moreover, to require, solely for the sake of completeness, submission of a document that has no bearing on the findings required by our regulations for issuance of a low power license is to worship fom over substance.
To reverse the legally correct and sensible position of ALAB-853 for the sole purpose of sending a signal to the applicants and the public that the Commission is not likely to approve a reduction in the size of the EPZ at Seabrook is wrong.
That message can and should be transmitted more clearly and directly.
I believe that the choice of which path to pursue, seeking a reduction in the size of the'EPZ or filing a utility plan for Massachusetts, and whether to risk a delay in licensing by taking the path they choose, should be left to the applicants and that, absent a valid safety basis for doing so, we should not interfere in their choices.
I
b Dissenting Views of Consissioner Carr j
! would affim the Appeal Board's decision in ALAB-853 because the Appeal Board interpreted the regulations at issue correctly and 1
)
sensibly. Submission of a plan has no bearing on the findings 1
required by our regulations for low-power licensing and elevates fom over substance.
L A
- 4. A. tg i
l I
O 4
l I
i
GORDoN J. HUMPHREY cowu mies htW MAM*lai#f ARME) $tRVICES JUD80ARY
$f LA80R AND HUMAN RESOURCES A
a as
~'- = l,v g ! -
Witts $tatts $tRatt WASHINGTON, DC 20510 April 3, 1987 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
I am writing regarding the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision of March 25 authorizing issuance of a low-power operating license for the Seabrook nuclear plant subject to certain technical conditions.
Although I am aware that 10 CFR 50.47(d) establishes that off-site emergency preparedness is not required for issuance of a low-power license due to the low safety risk associated with operation at or below 5% of rated power, I call to your attention unique considerations at the Seabrook Plant.
Practically speaking, a decision on full-power licensing for Seabrook is many months away.
No doubt, the licensing process will be appealed at every step.
Some say that the owners could well enter bankruptcy before the licensing and appeals processes run their course.
That raises questions about the ultimate destiny of Seabrook.
In the event that a plant which has been allowed to operate at low-power never receives a full-power license, the cost of plant conversion for alternative use would increase signifi'cantly due to the high cost of clean-up.
The Commission is currently considering ALAB-853 to consider "whether as a matter of law or policy a utility applicant should be required to submit a radiological emergency plan (either a governmental or a utility plan) for the entire emergency planning zone (EPZ) for the facility before any operating license may be issued."
I would ask that the Commission also give serious consideration to the issue as to whether a plant should be contaminated by virtue of low-power operation before all
~) Y,
h+n.1 1 l.:'.'.'.'1.17.,.'#,
l.',.'?'0. 0. "
eo
s
' The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
April 3, 1987 i
Page Two major obstacles to full-power operation have been cleared.
I believe that it is unreasonable to fire-up a nuclear facility when significant issues regarding full-power operation remain unresolved.
With warmest regards, I am Sincerely yours, i
l i
Gordon
. Humph ey, US i
1 GJH/jc 4
I
=
I l
4 r
ans o
UNITED STATES
!\\
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
g, C
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o,
a
- \\./
CHAIRMAN April 27, 1987 The Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am forwarding the enclosed quarterly status report for the first quarter of calendar year 1987, in response to the direction given in House Report 97-850. The NRC licensing activity during the period of this report includes the issuance of full-power licenses for Harris Unit 1 on January 12, 1987; Byron Unit 2 on January 30, 1987; and Vogtle Unit 1 on March 16, 1987; and operating licenses restricted to five percent power for Vogtle Unit 1 on January 16, 1987, and Palo Verde Unit 3 on March 25, 1987.
Additional licensing delay for Shoreham is projected due to complex litigation.
Licensing delay may also occur for Comanche Peak Unit 1 because the duration of the hearing is uncertain.
Although a license authorizing fuel loading and precriticality testing for Seabrook Unit I has been issued, there is a projected delay for low-power licensing.
Full-power licensing for Seabrook Unit I will be delayed due to offsite emergency preparedness issues.
The length of the delay is not known at this time. A license for fuel loading and precriticality testing has been issued for Braidwood Unit 1.
Low-power licensing will be delayed until the hearing process is complete.
With the exception of Seabrook and Shoreham, regulatory delays in this report are not impacted by the schedules for resolving off-site emergency preparedness issues.
Sincerely, M k.
It Lando W. Zech Jr.
Enclosure:
NRC Quarterly Status Report to C.ongress cc: Rep. John T. Myers y
[Q70Cc6CW.Q
~
XA-
m 6
NRC QUARTERLY REPORT Shoreham The NRC issued an operating license restricted to 5% of rated power on July 3, 1985. The 5% test program is completed. The plant was shut down on October 8,1985 to begin an outage during which the licensee performed required surveillances and maintenance, and replaced the startup sources. The licensee also completed reactor vessel water level instrumentation modifications. On August 4,1986, the plant was restarted and on August 26, 1986, the turbine generator was synchronized to the grid for the first time. The plant was shut down on September 1, 1986, having successfully completed the planned operator training shifts, tests of the RCIC and HPCI and the modified water level instrumentations. The ' plant would be physically ready to exceed 5% power at this time, if authorization were granted. The licensee plans to restart the reactor in April 1987 after source replacement to conduct further tests and operator training.
The New York State Supreme Court in Suffolk County, New York issued a declaratory judgment on February 20, 1985, that LILCO does not have the legal authority to perform offsite emergency planning functions for Shoreham without the partici-pation of State and local governments. This decision was affirmed on appeal.
A U.S. District Court in New York has also ruled on March 18, 1985, that the State and Suffolk County could not be forced to participate in emergency planning.
o b Additional licensing delays in full-power authorization (above 5% power) are likely. The emergency planning Licensing Board ruled in the licensee's favor regarding the majority of the emergency planning contentions on April 17, 1985, but, relying in large part on New York State court decisions ruled that LILC0 does not have the legal authority to perfom certain required emergency planning functions. The Licensing Board issued its concluding partial initial decision (PID) on emergency planning on August 26, 1985, in which it decided the reloca-tion center issue and reached its ultimate decision as to whether "there is reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency" at Shoreham. The Board found that such
" reasonable assurance" is lacking primarily due to LILCO's lack of legal author-ity to implement its offsite plan, and the absence of a State plan indicating that there would be an integrated, cooperative and coordinated offsite response in the event of an emergency. Appeals of both the April and August emergency planning decisions were filed with the ASLAB by both LILC0 and the intervenors.
The ASLAB, on October 18, 1985 upheld the Licensing Board's decision that LILC0 does not have the legal authority to implement its offsite emergency plan. On hovember 4,1985, LILC0 filed a petition for review of the ASLAB decision before the Commission. On July 24,1986, the Connission ordered further hearings on the adequacy of emergency planning at Shoreham presuming that the State and i
County would participate in an actual emergency.
l l
The ASLAB issued its decision on appeals of those aspects of the Shoreham Emergency Plan not related to the " legal authority" issue on March 26, 1986.
In that
F
\\
- decision and one of September 19, 1986, the Appeal Board remanded the following issues back to the Licensing Board for further action involving:
- 1) the plume EPZ size, 2) role conflict of schoolbus drivers, 3) evacuation plans for hospitals, 4) the use and availability of reception centers, and 5) the adequacy of protective measures in the ingestion pathway zone. On September 19, 1986, the Comission stated it would review the Appeal Board's remand of issues regarding the plume EPZ size and the hospital evacuation plans.
An exercise of the LILCO emergency plan (EP) was conducted on February 13, 1986.
The NRC has reported that the licensee adequately demonstrated its onsite emergency response capabilities. FEMA issued its evaluation of the offsite exercise on April 21, 1986, and identified five deficiencies and several areas requiring corrective action. The intervenors and LILC0 asked the Comission to establish procedures to allow litigation of contentions steming from the exercise. On June 6,1986, the Comission directed that a Licensing Board be established to conduct an expeditious hearing regarding the contentions on
" fundamental flaws" in LILC0's EP which might have been shown by the exercise.
The ASLB has admitted 15 contentions with many subparts for litigation involving the emergency planning exercise. The hearing began on March 10, 1987.
On November 10, 1986, the intervenors filed a motion to reopen the record to admit three new issues:
(1) withdrawal of WALK radio station; (2) lack of agreeinent with the Red Cross; and (3) lack of congregate centers. This motion has not yet been ruled upon.
r 4
On December 15, 1986, the Licensing Board granted LILCO's motion for reopening the hearing record to admit new evidence on replacing the Nassau County Coliseum as a reception center with three of its own facilities. Separately, on December 15, 1986, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's conclusion that LILCO is obliged to plan for all evacuees who seek radiological monitoring and decontamination. Hearings on the adequacy of the relocation centers is scheduled to start on May 4,1987.
On January 2,1987 LILCO petitioned the Comission for a review of the Appeal Board decision that LILC0 must plan for the monitoring of all evacuees.
Due to the New York State court decision, the Board decisions and the New York State and Suffolk County positions on cooperating in emergency planning, the Comission is unable to forecast a realistic licensing impact at this time.
Comanche Peak As construction of the Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSES) was nearing completion, numerous concerns were raised regarding the design and the construc-tion adequacy of the plant. Primarily, these concerns were raised through:
(1) issues in contention before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB); (2) the staff's review of technical concerns and allegations regarding design and construction of the plant, which are documentea in five Supplemental Safety Evaluation Reports; and (3) Cygna Energy Services which performed an Independent Assessment Program of design and construction at Comanche Peak.
. t Following identification of these concerns, the applicants submitted to the NRC 1
staff the Comanche Peak Response Team (CPRT) Program Plan which includes resolution of all issues raised by external. sources (e.g., ASLB hearings, NRC, Cygna), as well as a set of self-initiated actions to re-examine the adequacy of design and con-struction of the Comanche Peak Project. The staff has issued Supplemental-Safety Evaluation Report No.13 which approved the applicants' Plan. We are currently monitoring all phases of implementation of the Plan.
Deficiencies discovered through design and construction reviews have resulted in.
corrective actions which include reanalysis, revision or updating of existing design calculations, physical reinspection of as-built hardware, and in some cases, physical rework. The applicants requested Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation to develop comprehensive corrective action plans." Generic Issue Reports" to:
- 1) resolve CPRT findings and their implications, and 2) review 100% of safety related systems in the mechanical, civil / structural, electrical, and instrumenta-tion and control areas. This includes qualifying and/or fixing existing hardware as necessary. Other specific areas are being addressed separately by specific 1
architect-engineers. These areas are large and small bore pipe supports (SWEC),
cable tray hangers and conduit supports (Ebasco, Impell), HVAC (Ebasco) and i
equipment qualifications (Impell).
t i
l 1
.--,,,v--
v-?---
w-
-- r
._,y
. The Quality of Construction portion of the CPRT Program is scheduled to be complete by April 1987. Issue Specific Action Plan Results Reports, which address'those issues raised by external sources such as the NRC and Cygna are to be completed by mid-1987. Generic Issue Reports were completed in January 1987. Final reports and physical rework is scheduled to be complete by August 1987. Hot Functional Testing is scheduled for the fourth quarter of 1987, if the above
]
schedules are maintained.
i l
The Licensing Board has adopted a schedule which calls for discovery on the i
adequacy of the CPRT Program Plan, followed by the filing by CASE of summary disposition motions on that subject. The Board would then decide whether to go to hearing on Program Plan adequacy issues, or await the results of implementa-tion of the Program Plan and corrective action program " Generic Issue Reports".
Discovery regarding Program Plan adequacy is ongoing at this time.
During a routine review of various licensing documents, the staff found that the construction permit for Unit I had expired on August 1,1985, and that the applicant had not made a timely filing for renewal of the construction permit.
Following a request by the utility, on February 10, 1986, the staff granted an extension of the CP.
In a January 31, 1986, submittal to the Commission, the intervenor (CASE) requested a hearing on the application to renew the construc-tion permit. By Memorandum and Order dated March 13, 1986, the Commission i
. referred CASE's request for a hearing to the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel (ASLBP) for appointment of a Licensing Board to rule on the hearing request and to conduct any necessary hearings. The ASLBP establish-ed a Board made up of the same members from the OL proceeding to consider requests for hearing and petitions to intervene in regard to the applicants' application for an extension of its construction permit for CPSES Unit 1.
On May 2,1986, the ASLB issued an Order adnitting as a single contention, two essentially identical contentions which questioned whether applicants had shown good cause for the granting of a construction permit extension and required the two intervening parties to be censolidated. The staff and applicants appealed the ASLB's Order admitting the contention.
On July 2,1986, the Appeal Board certified to the Commission the question of whether the admitted contention is foreclosed from litigation as a matter of law by the Commission's decision in WPPSS CLI-82-29. On September 19, 1986, the Commission issued an order, CLI-86-15, responding to the Appeal Board's request for guidance regarding the acmissibility of the consolidated contention of intervenors. The Commission directed the Appeal Board to determine admissi-bility of the consolidatec contention in accordance with the Commission's guidance.
1 b
c i
~
i
. The Appeal Board in an order dated September 22, 1986, provided the parties with an opportunity to comment on the Commission's response. All parties submitted briefs to the Appeal Board. However, the Appeal Board deferred a decision until the Licensing Board acted on intervenors' September 30, 1986, motion to either amend their contention or reconsider previously excluded contentions based on the Commission's guidance. On October 30, 1986, the.
Licensing Board issued an Order admitting one amended contention; appeals of this Order were filed by both staff and applicants. Oral argument on the appeals was held on January 29, 1987. The matter is pending before the Appeal Board, which has denied applicants' request to stay discovery.
Watts Bar On November 14, 1986, TVA announced its priorities for the startup of its nuclear units as follows:
Sequoyah, Browns Ferry, and Watts Bar. TVA further indicated that enginee'ing support from Browns Ferry and Watts Bar may be r
reallocated to the Sequoyah restart effort on a limited basis. Although TVA i
has not established a schedule for completing Watts Bar Unit 1, Mr. C. Mason, at that time TVA's Acting Manager of Nuclear Power, stated during a news conference that he still' expects Unit 1 to go on line before the end of 1988.
The staff is awaiting TVA's Watts Bar specific response to the September 17, 198510 CFR 50.54(f) letter, which is expected to be submitted by. April 1987.
. All employees scheduled for interview as part of the Watts Bar Employee Concern Special Program (WBECSP) have been interviewed under this program. Approximately 5,000 concerns were raised of which 2,000 concerns are safety-related. All concerns from the WBECSP have been placed in nine categories depending on the nature of the concerns. Within each category, there are several subcategories with concerns of a similar nature. TVA will submit a final report for each category, addressing the resolution of each category. Employee Concern Task Group reports for Watts Bar have not yet been received.
On July 17, 1986, TVA submitted a revised Corporate Nuclear Performance Plan which it revised on July 31, 1986, December 4, 1986 and March 26, 1987. The staff is currently reviewing these submittals. However, an additional revision is expected to reflect changes in the organization, personnel, and management procedures.
While resolution of the employee concerns and the conflict of interest issue are considered to be the critical path items, environmental qualification program issues and welding program concerns must be resolved prior to licensing.
TVA has not established a schedule for responding to the Watts Bar specific issues. On January 29, 1987, TVA filed a timely request to extend the Construc-tion Permit for Watts Bar Unit 1 to September,1988, and, for Unit 2, to January, 1990.
J
. Seabrook Construction of Seabrook Unit 1 is essentially complete. Fuel loading was completed on October 29, 1986. Precriticality testing is complete.
On October 7, 1986, the Licensing Board issued an order authorizing issuance of a license to load fuel and conduct precriticality testing. Massachus'etts and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League filed separate appeals of the Board's Order; Massachusetts additionally requested a stay of the issuance of a license. The stay request was denied by the Appeal Board on October 17; an operating license to load fuel and conduct precriticality testing was issued on that date. The Appeal Board denied the Massachusetts appeal on November 20,1986(ALAB-853)and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League appeal on December 8, 1986 (ALAB-854).
Massachusetts has petitioned the Commission to review ALAB-853; the issue raised in the petition is whether any license can be issued prior to the submittal of offsite emergency plans. The Staff responded to the petition on December 22, 1986.
The Commission by an order of January 9,1987, stayed the issuance of a low power license for Seabrook pending further Commission review.
The Licensing Board issued a Partial Initial-Decision on March 25, 1987, authorizing issuance of a low pcwer license. Activities authorized by the current license could have been completed by late December 1986. Therefore, this represents an additional three month licensing impact. However, it is unlikely that this three month delay will have an overall impact on the plant startup schedule.
Q In order for operation at full power to be authorized, issues involving Jff-site emergency response planning in New Hampshire and Massachusetts must be resolved and the ACRS must review emergency planning.
Emergency plans for New Hampshire and the towns therein were submitted in December, 1985. Contentions were accepted for litigation on the New Hampshire plans on April 29, 1986. An off-site exercise involving the applicant and New Hampshire was condteted on February 26, 1986, and a number of deficiencies of the type requiring a remedial exercise were identified. The State of New Hampshire implemented improve-ments and corrective actions, and substantial revisions to the New Hampshire plans were submitted on September 12, 1986.
Because of these revisions, intervenors were given an opportunity to file new contentions and the hearing has been rescheduled to begin on June 1, 1987. Activities regarding the emergency response plans for Massachusetts are on the critical path for licens-ing. On September 20, 1986, the Governor of Massachusetts stated that Massachusetts will not submit emergency plans for review.
On December 18, 1986, the applicant filed a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.758 and 10 CFR 50.47(c) with respect to the regulations requiring planning for a plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ). The petition with the Licensing Board seeks an exception or waiver of the provisions of the regulations (10 CFR 50.47(c)) to allow reducing the size of the EPZ for Seabrook station from ten miles to one mile. On December 23, 1986, the Board ordered all parties to file briefs by January 27, 1987 on whether the applicant's petition, makes a prima facie showing that the regulation should be waived so as to allow further consideration of the
ln l
! i application. A subsequent Board order extended the date to February 27, 1987. The staff believes that resolution of off-site emergency planning issues will delay issuance of a full power license; hcwever, the extent of the delay cannot be determined at this time.
Braidwood l
Construction of Braidwood Unit I was essentially completed on October 17, 1986.
Hearings on the emergency preparedness contention were initiated on October 29, 1985, and were completed on March 12, 1986. The parties have submitted proposed findings on this contention and the matter is pending before'the Licensing Board for its decision. Hearings on the contention concerning harassment, intimidation, retaliation and other discrimination were initiated on May 6,1986, and the record was closed on December 17, 1986. The ASLB initial decision for the low power license is scheduled to be issued in mid-April,1987.
On August 18, 1986, the applicant filed a request pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(c) for authorization to load fuel and perform precritical testing. The staff sub-mitted a response supporting the request; the intervenors opposed the request.
On September 18, 1986, the ASLB issued an Order granting the applicant's motion.
A license authorizing fuel loading and precritical testing for Braidwood Unit I was issued on October 17, 1986.
Fuel loading began on October 25, 1986, and was completed on November 3, 1986.
-13 The ASLB initial decision for the low power license is now scheduled to be issued in mid-April, 1987. A low power license could be issued immediately following issuance of a favorable decision.
Full power licensing is scheduled for May 1987. The applicant has stated that the current start-up schedule is dictated by the hearing schedule, and -that absent the hearing, the plant could have been ready for a low power license in mid-December,1986. Therefore, based on the applicant's projected schedule and the current schedule for the ASLB initial decision for the low power license, there is an approximate five xcnth licensing impact. However, the extended length of the hearing was, in part, due to the extensive rebuttal case introduced by the applicant.
e
e.O%
-.4 4
.*e
.2%.
,-W.
r-6+-
l l
l Tabla (Page 1 af 7) 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 03/31/87 l'
Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applications SER SSER Coeus. Decision j g
Est staff Staff ASLB Appl.
Delay issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical issue 6/
Start of Initial Comm.
Constr.
Plant (hnths)
FES Input to P0 SSER Hearina Decision Eff.**
Dec.
Comp 1.
Harris 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C*
C*
C Byron 2 0
C C
C C
C.
C C
C C
C C*.
C Shoreham 1 2/
- 7/
C C
C C
C C
C C
C 7/
- 7/
N/S C-Clinton 1 2/
0 C
C C
C C
C C
C 4/
N/A N/A 04/87*
C Seabrook 1
- 8/
C C
C C 13/
C C
C C
C* 8/ N/S 8/
N/S C
Mine Nile 2 2/
0 C
C C
C C
C C
None None N/A 7/87* 11/ C l
Braidwood 1 5 14/
C C
C C
C C
C C
04/87 05/87 05/87 C
i Vogtle 1 2/
0 C
C C
C C
C C
C C 5/
C*
C*
C l
Palo Verde 3 2/ 0 C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C 07/87*
C*
Beaver Valley 2 0 C
C C
C C
C C
Mone None N/A.
05/87*
05/87*
South Texas 1 0
C C
C C
C C
C C
C 15/ 06/87 06/87 06/87
$US-TOTAL 5
Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date
- Coanission decision on effactiveness of ASLB decision Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Constructica Completion Date j
Commission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision
03/31/87 Tab 12 (Page 2 sf 7)
DFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Licensing Schedults ftr All Pending OL Applic tions Cnen. Decision 1f SER SSER ASLB Appl.
~
Est starr starr 6
Delay issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Issue /
Start of Initial Comm.
Constr.
Plant (Months)
DES Input to P0 SER Mlt FES Input to PO SSER Hearing Decision Eff.**
Dec.
Comp 1.
8raidwood 2 0
C C
C C
C 11/87 12/87 C
04/87 05/87 01/88 01/88 1
Vogtle 2 0
C C
C C
C 01/88 02/88 C
C C"
03/88 03/88 South Texas 2 0
C C
C C
C 10/88 11/88 C
C 15/ 06/87 12/88 12/88 Watts Bar 1 0 g/
-C C
C C
C C
C Mone Mone_
N/A N/S N/S M/
Comanche Peak 1 - g/
C C
C C
C C
C C
N/S N/S N/S N/S. M/
f Watts Bar 2 0
C C
C C
C N/S N/S Mone None N/A N/$
N/S Comanche Peak 2 -
C C
C C
C N/S N/S C
N/S N/S N/S N/S g/
Limerick 2 0
C C
C C
C N/S N/S C
C C
04/90 04/90 SUS-TOTAL Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date Commission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision 5
Indicates changes free last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date Commission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision
03/31/87 0FFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION i
1able (Page 3 af 7)
Licensing Schedules for All Pending OL Applic?tions Conn. Decision f g
Staff Est starf Issue 6/
Start of Initial Come.
Constr.
Delay Issue Technical Issue ACRS Issue Technical Plant (Months)
DES _
Input to P0 SER_
g FES Input to P0 SSER Nearine Decision Eff.**
Dec Comp 1.
Bellefonte 1 0
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S M/S Mone.
None N/A 01/93 01/93
)
Bellefonte 2 0
N/$
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S Mone None N/A 01/%
01/95 Perry 2 3/
0 C
C C
C C
M/S N/S C
C C
N/S
. N/S Grand Gulf 2 9/ ' O C
C C
C C
N/S M/S Mone None N/A N/S N/S WP-3 3/
0 C
N/S N/S M/S N/S N/S N/S M/S N/S N/S N/S N/S j
WP-1 3/
0 N/S N/S N/S N/S M/S N/$
N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S N/S Seabrook 2 16/
0 C
C C
C C
N/S N/S N/S C*
N/S N/S N/S l
TOTAL DELAY
~
Indicates ct.coes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date Commission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision 0
Indicates changes from last report in Decision or Construction Completion Date
- Consission decision on effectiveness of ASLB decision 9
i
~
TABLE (Page 4 of 7)
FOOTNOTES i
1/
Licensing schedules and decision dates do not reflect additional potential delay from Emergency Preparedness Review.
For plants with construction completed, the Conmission decision dates shown are for full-power; however, initial licensing may proceed (restricting power to 5% of rated full power) based on a favorable ASLB decision (if applicable) and a preliminary design verification by the applicant and staff. Construction completion dates and i
Commission decision dates are based on the utility company estimate of construction completion.
I 2/
An operating license restricting operation to fuel loading and operation up to 5% power has been issued for these facilities. A Connission decision regarding operation above 5% power will be made on a schedule commensurate with the licensee's need for full-power authorization; therefore, no delay is projected unless otherwise noted.
3_/
Construction has been halted; a construction completion date has not been established.
]
4/
A joint motion to dismiss the proceedings was filed by the applicant and intervenors on January 28, 1985. An Order and Memorandum withdrawing all remaining contentions and terminating the proceedings was issued by the ASLB on February 14, 1985.
)
5/
A Partial Initial Decision (PID) on two of three contentions was issued in favor of the applicant on August 27, 1986. The intervenors have filed a notice cf appeal. A concluding PID was issued on the environmental qualification of solenoid valves in favor of the applicant on December 23, 1986.
l
~/
Date shown for first units is for first SSER following ACRS meeting.
6 Additional SSERs will be issued to close out remaining open items.
7]
A fuel loading and cold criticality testing license was issuea on December 7,1984. On June 14, 1985, the last safety-related issue was resolved in favor of LILCO, and a 5% power license was authorized.
Additional licensing delays ir, the full-power authorization (above 5% power) are likely due to off-site emergency planning issues. On February 17 and March 18, 1985, New York State Courts held that LILC0 nad no authority to implement its eniergency plan. A Licensing Board reached a general i
conclusion on April 17, 1985, that although the LILCO emergency plan is adequate, it could not be concluded that it would be implemented, as (had been deterinined by the courts) LILC0 does not have legal authority to carry out the plan and as there is no reasonable assurance that there would be an integrated response to.an emergency without State and local cooperation. On August 26, 1985, the Licensing Board issued its concluding Partial Initial Decision holding that there is no reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a l
l
. _ - _ _. ~.
TABLE (Page 5 of 7)
FOOTNOTES 7/
(continued) radiological emergency at Shoreham, primarily because of LILCO's lack of
~
i j
authority to implement its own offsite plan, and the absence of a State plan indicating that there would be an integrated, cooperative and coor-l dinated offsite response in the event of an emergency; appeals from portions i
of this decision were filed. The Licensing Board's conclusion on lack of legal authority to implement its emergency response plan was a'ffimed by the Appeal Board on October 18, 1985. On December 19, 1985, the Commission accepted a petition filed by LILCO on November 7,1985 to review the 4
Appeal Board's decisions. On March 26, 1986 the ASLAB issued its decision on appeals of those aspects of the Shoreham Emergency Planning Proceeding j
not related to the " legal authority" issue. The Appeal Board remanded four issues, related to:
- 1) plume EPZ size, 2) role conflict of school bus drivers, 3) evacuation plans for hospitals, and 4) the adequacy and use of relocation centers back to the Licensing Board for further action.
- However, it ordered the Board not to proceed until ordered to do so by the Commission, as the Commission had the !egal authority decision before it. On June 6, 1986, the Commission ordered that hearings should start on whether the February 13, 1986, exercise of LILCO emergency response plan showed "any fatal flaws" in the plan. The ASLB admitted 15 contentions with many subparts for litigation i
and the hearing began on March 10, 1987. On July 24, 1986 the Coinnission ordered further hearings on the adequacy of emergency planning at Shoreham presuming that the State ad county would participate in an actual emergency.
In addition, on September 19, 1986, the Commission said it would review the Appeal Board's determinations in regard to the need for further consideration of the plume EPZ size and need to plan for the evacuation of hospitals, and i
lifted the stay of the remand of issues involving the role conflict of school bus drivers and the use and availability of relocation centers.
The Appeal Board also issued a decision on September 19, 1986, remanding 4
to the Licensing Board other issues in regard to the monitoring of evacuees i
and any defects in LILCO's plan for the ingestion pathway area. On November 10, 1986, the intervenors filed a motion with the Commission to reopen the record to admit three new issues: withdrawal of WALK radio station; lack of agreement with the Red Cross; and lack of congregate centers. On December 15, 1986, the Licensing Board ruled to grant LILCO's motion for reopening the hearing record to admit new evidence on replacing the Nassau County Coliseum as a reception center with three of its own facilities. These hearings are scheduled to start on May 4,1987. Separately, on December 15, 1986, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's conclusion that, in addition to planning for the number of evacuees likely to seek sheltering LILC0 is obliged to plan for evacuees for radiological monitoring and decontaimina' tion alone. On January 2,1987 LILC0 petitioned the Commission for a review of l
the Appeal Board decision.
For operation above 5% power, favorable decisions on i
offsite emergency planning are required. Due to the Board decisions on emergency planning and the position of Suffolk County and'New York State on whether they will cooperate in emergency planning, the Commission is unable to forecast a realistic licensing impact at this time.
O TABLE (Page 6 of 7)
FOOTNOTES j
-8/
A Partial Initial Decision (PID) on all safety issues was issued on March 25,1987. This decision authorized issuance of a low power license.
However, the Commission has stayed issuance of the low power license until it completes its review of ALAB-853. A fuel load and precritical test license was issued on October 17, 1986. The plant was ready for licensing on June 30, 1986, therefore this represents a four month delay. Based on the applicant's schedule for completing activities authorized under the current license, plant startup will be further delayed by at least three months. Revisions to the New Hampshire emergency response plans were sub-mitted on September 12, 1986, and on September 20, 1986, Massachussetts announced that it would not submit emergency response plans for Seabrook.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the three month delay in low power licensing will have an overall impact on the startup schedule for the plant.
9/
Construction has been suspended with the plant about 35% complete. The applicant has requested a Construction Permit extension to April 30, 1991.
10/ Schedule to be determined after receipt of TVA's response to the September 17, 1985, 50.54 (f) letter.
11/ The licensee has decided to replace the main steam isolation valves.
1 12/ On November 25, 1986, applicants reported to the SEC that all reanalysis, reinspection, rework, and testing activities prerequisite to the loading of fuel in Unit I will be complete in early 1988. Based on this estimate, comercial operation would be achievable in early 1989. Unit 2 will not be ready for commercial operation until after the 1989 sumer peak season.
The Comission is unable to predict whether a licensing impact will occur.
13] ACRS report of April 19, 1983 recommends low power license.
Further ACRS review is required prior to full-power licensing.
14/ On August 18, 1986, the applicant filed a motion pursuant to 10 CFR 50.57(c)
~
with the ASLB for authorization to load fuel and perform precritical testing for Braidwood 1.
On September 18, 1986, the ASLB issued an Order granting the applicant's motion. The zero power license was issued on October 17, 1986. The ASLB initial decision for the low power license is scheduled to be issued in April, 1987. A low power license could be issued imediately following issuance of a favorable decision. Full power licensing is scheduled for May, 1987. The applicant has stated that the current start-up schedule is dictated by the hearing schedule, and that absent the hearing, the plant could have been ready for a low power license in mid-December, 1986. Therefore, based on the applicant's projected schedule and the current schedule for the ASLB initial decision for the low power license, there is an approximate five month licensing impact.
However, the extended length of the hearing was in part due to the i
extensive rebuttal case introduced by the applicant.
TABLE (Page 7 of 7)
FOOTNOTES 15/ A Partial Initial Decision was issued on June 13, 1986. On August 29, 1986, the Board resolved all remaining issues in favor of the applicant and
~~
authorized issuance of operating licenses for South Texas 1 and 2.
On October 8, 1986 the Appeal Board affirmed this decision.
16/ Construction has been halted; the applicant has stated that it will
~~
pursue revocation of the construction permit and withdrawal of the operating license application.
-.