ML20207K064
| ML20207K064 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/05/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Kennelly B HOUSE OF REP. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20207K068 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8701090212 | |
| Download: ML20207K064 (6) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
s p
ga arcg'o
/
UNITED STATES
[}
c WASHING TON, D. C. 20555
,, y j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A//
JAN 5 1987 s
Ite Fonorable Barbara B. Kennelly finited States House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Congresswoman Kennelly:
Your letter of December 5,1986, to Chairman Lando Zech has been referred to me for response.
In your letter, you requested a status report on the_Shoreham -
Nuclear Power Station (SNPS).
You also requested a timetable for the plant's licensing and information on NRC actions to ensure that the facility functions safely and in compliance with federal standards. A sumary of the licensing history, the NRC's safety reviews for the SNPS and the current status of the facility follows.
The Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) applied for a license to construct the SNPS on May 15, 1968. The NRC staff reported the results of its review of the ccnstruction permit application in its Safety Evaluation Report (SER),
dated February 20, 1970. Fo11cwing a public hearing before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB), a construction permit was issued on April 14, 1973.
On January 26, 1976, LILCO filed an application, supported by a Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), for an operating license for SNPS. During the course of the NRC staff's safety review, the FSAR was supplemented by twenty Amendments.
In April, 1981, the NRC staff issued a Safety Evaluation Repcrt (SER) which evaluates the information submitted by LILC0 in the FSAR and its Amendments against the Commission's regulations and standards. The staff's SER was followed by nine Supplements.
By Supplement No. 9 to the SER, issued in December,1985, all the outstanding safety related issues were resolved to the satisfaction of the staff.
In addition to the staff's review, the Shoreham application was reviewed by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS). Following public meetings and deliberations, the ACRS made its recom-mendations to the NRC Chairvan on October 19, 1981, and concluded that, "(the)
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 can be operated at power levels up to 2436 MWt without undue risk to the health ard safety of the public."
The Shoreham operating license proceedings before the various ASLBs are now in the lith year. These proceedings can be categorized into litication related to the safe operation of the plant and those related to off-site emergency planning (EP). All matters unrelated to off-site EP issues were resolved by the Licensing Board in favor of LILCO. The first Shoreham operating license authorizing fuel loading and criticality testing at up to 0.001's power was issued on December 7, 1984.
Initial criticality occurred on February 15, 1985.
On July 3, 1985, a 5% license was issued and the plant commenced operation and conducted tests within the 5% limitation.
The plant was shutdown on October 8, 1985, after LILCO had essentially completed low-power testing. On August 4, 1986, the plant was restarted and on August 26, 1986, the turbine generator was synchronized with the grid for the first time. The plant has been in cold e701070212 870105 p9 cem dc to 404@Mtt-i 18-
--=
i l
Congresswoman Kennelly ;
1 l
shutdown since September 1,1986, after having successfully completed all the low-power testing requirements. Except for the issue on the adequacy of off-site l
emergency planning, the facility is physically reedy to be authorized to j
operate at full-power.
1 Since full-power licensing centers around the off-site EP issue for Shoreham, I would like to first provide you with a summary of the backgrcund on this issue. The Shoreham facility is situated in Suffolk County, New York, and the 10-mile radius emergency planning zone is either within the County or the-waters of Long Island Sound. The controversy surrounding the Shoreham EP largely arises from the ramifications of the State of New York and the County i
governments' refusal to participate in the development and implementation of offsite emergency planning for Shoreham.
For a number of years, both the governments of the State of New York and of Suffolk County generally supported 4
j the construction of Shoreham and assisted in the development of emergency l
response plans. However, this changed in 1983, and on February 17, 1983, the l
Ccunty legislature concluded that the traffic conditions on Long Island made effective emergency evacuation unworkable and passed legislation providing that i
no off-site emergency plan may be adopted or implemented. The State of New York j
supports the County's position and eventually joined the County as intervenors in the licensing proceedings.
On May 26, 1983, LILCO filed an alternative emergency plan which relies wholly
{
on the services of LILC0 personnel and contractors for the performance of both i
on-site ard off-site emergency functions. The intervenors, on July 26, 1983, filed 97 contentions before the ASLB for Shoreham. The proceedings before the ASLB lasted almost two years. In all, 86 expert witnesses testified and the
}
transcript, written testimony and exhibits consisted of over 22,000 numbered pages. On April 17 and August 26, 1985, the ASLB issued its Partial Initial Decision (PID) and Concludina PID, respectively, and ruled on each of the over 1
70 contentions admitted for littaation. Althouoh LILCO prevailed on most of i
the issues, the ASLR concluded that the LILCO plan was fatally defective because without the covernments' coeperation, LILC0 lacked the " legal authority" to implement certain aspects of the plan and because opposition by the State of New York and the County to the plan had created a situation where at anytime it was not known whether the plan would be workable.
~
i The intervenors and LILC0 appealed the ASLB decisions. On October 18, 1985, the Atomic Safety Licensing Appeal Board (ASLAB) affirmed the ASLB decision on the
" legal authority" issue and ruled that the New York State statutes are not pre-e i
empted by federal laws and LILCO had not demonstrated by its " realism" argument that the state and local governments would in fact work to carry out the LILC0 plan in the event of an actual energency. The ASLAB also rejected LILC0's
" immateriality" argument that some of the functions which LILCO purportedly i
lacked authority to implement would not be actually needed in an emergency.
j LILCO petitioned the Commission to review the Appeal Board decision and on July j
24, 1986, the Commission reversed and remanded for further evidentiary hearings i
on issues raised by LILCO's " realism" and " immateriality" arguments. On remand,
{
the Commission directed the Licensing Board to assume that the State and County i
- - ~ -
Congresswoman Kennelly would in fact respond to an accident at Shoreham on a best effort basis and would use the LILC0 plan. The Commission concluded that additional information is needed in order to determine whether the LILC0 plan would provide generally comparable protection to the public to that which would be accomplished with State and local governmental cooperation.
There are emergency planning issues, other than " legal authority" questions, which are also still under litigation.
Several issues involving individual features of the LILC0 plan have been remanded to the ASLB while others are under Cormission review. On February 13, 1986, an exercise of the LILC0 Shoreham EP was conducted under the observation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The successful completion of such an exercise is necessary before a plant could be licensed for full-power operation. About 35 contentions have been admitted into litigation involving this exercise and its results.
This proceeding, as well as matters remanded for further hearing, are in progress and are expected to go on well into 1987.
Because of these continuing proceedings in the Shoreham EP litigation, we are unable to predict when the full-power licensing process will conclude.
I believe that the above discussion is responsive to the information you requested.
If you have further questions please contact us.
Sincerely, Orir;inal algael 1,y Victor Stello -
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION See next page
- Previously concurred:
- PD#4/LA
- PD#4/PM
- PD#4/D
- 0GC-Bethesda
- DD/ DBL M0'Brien RLo:1b WButler RHouston 12/18/86 12/18/86 12/18/86 12/23/86 12/29/66 RWH for I
- D/ DBL DD R
D/P R,.
ED0 OCA Edo RBernero RV Tmer HD nto JRoe CKanterer V'it llo 12/29/86 O' g/86
{t/J186
/ /86 [/7/87 p- /g/86
DISTRIBilTION (Green Ticket 002383) 1DockettF11e(DocketNo.50-322)
NRC PDR w/ incoming LFDR w/ incoming l
EDO #002383 ECO Rdg. File HDenton/RVollmer i
Glainas ERossi DCrutchfield PD#4 Rdg.
OGC-Bethesda l
OCA (3)
SECY(3)(CRC-86-1289)
VStello PPAS (ED0 #002383) w/ incoming DMossburg/ Toms w/incomina i
RBernero/N01 son l
PLo w/ incoming M0'Brien w/ incoming 4
1 TMurley EMurray JTaylor JRoe CKammerer i
i i
4 l
4 l
1 4
1 1
g- & Nbb c uc
'o.
UNITED STATES 7 'n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 h /:. \\ ""'.'e =
ACTION EDO PRINCIPAL CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL
______ =--
FROM:
DUE: 12/30/86 EDO CONTROL: 002383 DOC DT: 12/05/86 REP. BARBARA B.
KENNELLY r!NAL REPLY:
TO:
CHAIRMAN ZECH FOR SIGNATURE OF:
ORFEN SECY NO: 861289 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DESC:
ROUTING:
.REOUEST STATUS REPORT ON SHOREHAM MURLEY s.
MURRAY
. DATE: 12/12/86
- T TAYLOR Q SSIGNED TO: NRR CONTACT: DENTON, i
' ~ ~ ~
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
[
I NRR RECEIVED:,12/15/86
[
_ f ACTION:
- DSL. N %
p
[
NRR ROUTING:
DENION/VOLLMER i
PPAS MOSSBURG/'IOMS I
P i
i i
e
_y,
_, - _ -,,, _ -. -.,. -... -, -. -,.. ~ - -. -... - -
,,-...~.~..-.-r-
~
, o. '._
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 1
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-86-1289 LOGGING DATE: Dec 10 86 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
B.A. Kennelly AFFILIATION:
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES LETTER DATE:
Dec 5 86 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Shoreham
SUBJECT:
Req status rpt on the Shoreham nuc power plant ACTION:
Signature of EDO DISTRIBUTION:
OCA to Ack SPECIAL HANDLING: None NOTES:
DATE DUE:
Dec 23 86 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
n.2 dol!.EDO p.,9 3} - I V G Tims F'
f-l EDO - 002383 L.
.