ML20213F989
| ML20213F989 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/14/1987 |
| From: | Curran D, Ferster A HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3425 ALAB-865, OL-1, NUDOCS 8705180070 | |
| Download: ML20213F989 (15) | |
Text
,
4 00CKETED May I@h'1987 U
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COyf SgOf4 P4 :26 i
BEFORE THE COMMISSION OFFICE Or ^itdr.nc i
)
00CntliNGa iin"Cf BRANCH In the Matter of
)
)
Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Not. 50-443 OL,j
)
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
Onsite Emergency
)
Planning & Technical
)
Issues NEW'EhGLAND CCALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S MOTION FOR A STAY OF A LOW POWER OPEPATION PENDING FULL POWER DECISION OR APPELLATE REVIEW I.
INTRCDUCTION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF Gn April 8,1987, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.788, the New England Coalition on Nuclear Polluticn ("NECNP") petitioned the Appeal Board for a stay of the ef fectiveness of the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision ("PID") of March 25,1987, which
-authorizes the operation of the Seabrook nuclear power plant at up to and including 5% of rated power.1 By order of May 8, '1987, the Appeal Board denied NECNP's motion.
(ALAB-865)
NECNP hereby renews its stay motion with the Commission, and asks that the Commission stay the ef fectiveness of the PID pend-ing a Commission decision on the full power license for the Seabrook plant.
In the alternative, NECNP requests a stay for the time necessary for the Commission to review this stay peti-t ion. 2 Should the Commission decide not to issue a stay for 1
Although the Commission's stay order of January 9,1987
( CL I-8 7-02 ), was in effect at the time that NECNP petitioned the Appeal Board for a stay, the NRC's ' rules required NECNP to file a stay motion on all other issues relevant to this case within ten days af ter issuance of the PID.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 788(a).
01 6) 8705180070 B70514
)h DR ADDCK 05000 3
a
F
{
e either of those purposes, NECNP requests a stay for the brief period necessary to file a stay petition with the United States Court of Appeals.3 NECNP also requests that, the Commission immediately issue a temporary stay of the PID pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 2.788(g) if necessary, to preserve the status quo pending the receipt of I
responses by parties opposing this motion.
Under S 2.788(d),
other parties are given ten days in which to file responses to s tay motions.
This case presents the extraordinary circumstance contemplated by 5 2.788(g) in that the Seabrook plant may be licensed and started, with resultant irreparable harm, before responses to this motion can be received and the notion ruled on.
II.
GPOUNDS FOR ISSUANCE OF A STAY A.
Substantial Probability of Success on the Merits In opposing Applicants' motion for authorization to operate a t low power, NECNP and other Intervenors have asserted substan-(continued) 2 At this writing, the stay imposed by the Commission in CLI 02 is still in effect.
However, that stay relates only to the question of whether Applicants have satisfied NRC requirements at 10 CFR S 50.3 3(g).
Should the Commission determine that the issue of compliance with S 50.33(g) no longer merits imposition of a. stay, NECNP requests that the Commission extend the stay so that it may consider the other, novel issues that are raised in this stay motion.
3 Such a stay is necessary for the preservation of NECNP's rights of appeal.
According to Victor Nersis, NRC Project Man-ager for the Seabrook plant, the NRC Staff could be prepared to issue an operating license for low power operation within hours of a Commission decision to lif t its stay of low power operation.
Should the Seabrook plant be started up before NECNP has an opportunity to file an appeal in federal court, NECNP's claims will be mooted by the operation of the plant.
1
s ~
.s 3-tial grounds for denial of a license authorizing low power opera-tion..Those arguments are reiterated below.4 1.-
Violations of Atomic Energy Act.
Under 10 C.F.R. S 50. 57(c), Licensing Boards routinely defer the resolution of some licensing issues until af ter 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 of offsite state and local emergency response plans at the low power authorization stage.
NECNP contends that these regulatory practices violate its right under the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. S 2239(a), to litigate all issues material to a full power operating license decision, before the Seabrook plant is allowed 4
to operate at any power level.5 The Atomic Energy Act rakes 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 i
4 See New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Opposition to Applicants' Motion for Issuance of Partial Initial Decision Authorizing Low Power Operation," dated July 2, 1986.
Copies were attached to NECNP's Brief in Support of Attorney General of Massachusetts' Appeal of ALAB-853, dated January 20, 1987.
NECNP reminds the Commission that, due to 10 C.F.R. S 2.788(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.
4 5
L He note that the Appeal Board refused to consider this chal-lenge to Commission regulations and asserted that NECNP must
~
raise this issue 'before the Commission.
ALAB-865, slip op. at 15.
t
s when Congress perceived a need to permit low power operation before licensing hearings were conplete, it gave the Conmission only temporary authority to do so.6 Moreover, although Congress has anended Section 189(a) to permit the Commission to waive the prior hearing requirement for license amendments that pose "no significant hazard," it has not included original licenses 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 accorpanying irreversible impacts and raised risk to the public health and safety, before completion of hearings on all issues that are 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-quacy of of fsite emergency planning for Seabrook and to take an agency appeal of the full power licensing decision, as guaranteed by 10 C. P. R. Part 2.7 2.
Violations of National Environmental Policy Act.
The I tcensing Board violated the National Environmental 6
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 1 and 2.
7 It should be noted that NECNP has appealed the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decision.
See NECNP's Notice of Appeal, filed April 8,1987, and NECNP's Brief in Support of Appeal of Partial Initial Decision Authorizing Issuance of a License to Cperate at Low Power, filed May 8,1987.
NECNP's appeal brief raises numerous and substantial errors by the Licensing Board in the technical and onsite planning phase of this proceeding, including wrongf ul denial of contentions and errors in the Licensing Board's PID regarding environmental qualification of e lectrical equipment.
. Policy Act (NEPA) by authorizing low power operation without hav-ing required the preparation of either a new Final Environmental l
Statement (EIS) or a supplement to the 1982 EIS weighing the costs against the benefits of low power operation at Seabrook Station.
The 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 outweighnd the environmantal impacts and costs of Seabrook operation.
How-ever, the 1982 EIS did not consider the possibility that the Seabrook plant may never operate at f ull power -- a situation that became highly probable when the Commonwealth of Massachu-setts unequivocally refused to cubmit emergency plans for the Massachusetts 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 Massachusetts' uncondi-tional 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 planning regulations, there is currently a high likelihood that 8
Following a careful study of emergency planning at Seabrook, the Governor of Massachusetts announced that Massachusetts 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 avent of a radiological emergency, as federal law requires."
"ee September 20, 1986 Statement of Governor Michael S.
Dukakis regarding the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, at 15.
The State-nent is attached to NECNP's Motion to Hold Of fsite Emergency Planning Proceeding in Abeyance, filed with the offsite Licensing Doard on October 28, 1986
. Applicants will never qualify for an operating license for Seabrook.9 Moreover, in its latest Form 10-K f or the fiscal year ending December 31, 1986, PSNH admits that Seabrook would beccme economically unviable given a prolonged delay in licensing.
Part 1 at 2.
The strong likelihood that Seabrook will never become licensed te operate at full power thus constitutes a significant new circums tance relevant to environmental concerns, rendering it necessary to file a supplement to the 1982 Final EIS purcuant to 10 C. F. R. S 51.92 before either a low or full power license may be issueo.
NECNP f urther argues that the issuance of a low vower license is, under the unique circumstances in this case, a sepa-rate federal action having a significant environmental impact, triggering the NRC's duty under NEPA and 10 C.F.R. S 51.20 to prepare a separate EIS.
Given the lack of any reasonable pros-9 While the Applicants have proposed to circumvent Massachu-3etts' nonparticipation by petitioning for a waiver to the Com-mission's regulations requiring emergency planning for an EPZ of 10 miles, and thereby removing Ma ssachusetts f rom the EPZ altogether, this proposal is both technically and legally insup-aortable.
See NECNP's Opposition to Applicants' Petition Under 10 C. F.R. S
- 2. 7 5 8 and 10 C. F.R.
50.47(c) f or waiver of Ten-Mile Umergency Planning Zone, filed with of fsite Licensing Board on February 2,1987.
On April 22, 1987, the offsite Licensing Board rejected the petition, ruling that Applicants had f ailed to make a prima facie showing on the technical merits of the petition, as required by 10 CFR S 2.758.
ASLBP No. 8 2-4 71-0 2-OL.
The Commission's recent proposal to amend the emergency planning rules to waive the preparedness requirements where state and local governments have refused to participate in emergency 1.lanning [52 Fed. Reg. 6980 (March 6,1987)] is also legally deficient and would not survive judicial review.
See analysis of proposal in letter f rom Diane Curran and Ellyn Weiss to Commis-sioners, dated February 20, 1987.
. pect that Seabrook will be licensed to operate at full power, the costs and benefits of low power operation can no longer be said to be subsened in the EIS prepared for the full power license.
Thus, NEPA mandates that the costs and benefits of operating only 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 af fidavits of Dale G.
Br idenbaugh and Gordon R.
Th omp s o n, PhD., attached as Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' s tay motion before the Commission, l
l
_even temporary operation at low power will result in irreversible plant contamination caused by radiation of the reactor and its component parts, as wel.' as worker exposure to harmful radiation 10 A decision that either a supplementhl 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 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
In that case, the court specifically 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]." 7 72 F.2d at 976.
Ile r e, 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, evan the most rudimentary indications that Applicants may eventually satisfy the Commis-sion's emergency planning regulations are missing here.
. and the creation of high-level radioactive waste.
Operation at
. low power will also pose a risk to the public health and safety.
Should a radiological accident occur at the Seabrook plant, it could cause irreversible health damage to the population around the plant.11 Mo reove r, in failing to extend the Sholly Amend-ment's "no significant hazards" exemption to original licensing decisions, Congress has made it clear that it intended to prohibit the incursion of irreversible consequences, no m ter how insignificant, until all licensing issues were resolved in crior adjudicatory hearings.
To deny NECNP's stny motion would ne to allow precisely the harm that Congress intended to prevent in enacting Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Ac t.
See Common-sealth of Massachusetts v. Watt, 716 F.2d 9 4 6, 952 (1st Cir.
1983).
Finally, the NRC's failure to make a conplete, inforned 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.
Although it denied the intervenor's stay motions, the Appeal Board found for intervenors on the issue of harm to Applicants.
Noting the Licensing Board's long delay in issuing a decision on onsite emergency planning and technical issues, as well as Applicants' failure to press for a resolution of pending matters, 11 Although the Commission considers this risk to be insig-nificant, the risk does exist.
See Letter from Nunzio J.
Pal-ladino to Edward J.
Markey, dated June 15, 1984, Enclosure 1, attached as Exhibit 3.
Moreover, the health consequences of a radiological release at Seabrook would be irreparable.
. the Appeal Board concluded that "any harm to the applicants-would int to.some extent attributable to their own inaction."
ALAB-865,_
clip op. at 29.
Moreover, in _ view of..the unlikelihood that Applicants will obtain a full power license at any time in~ the near future, due to the protracted emergency planning litigation in this case, there is no benefit:to Applicants in conducting low power testing at such an early stage.
As attested to in the af fidavit of Dale Br idenba ug h, "the initial operating phase at a new nuclear unit can be most ef ficiently performed if a smooth transition is made f rom fuel loading to low power operation and on to the power testing above 5%."12 Finally, each of the benefits of low power operation early discovery'and correction of possible problems which may prevent at delay full power operation, and providing operator and plant staf f experience on the actual plant -- are all premised on the assumption that operation at full power, with its attendant benefits of electricity generation, will, at some point, occur.
liowever, given the lack of any reasonable prospect that this plant will ever operate at full power, these alleged benefits of low power operation disappear.
Thus, the Applicants will in no way be narmed by denial of the license.
In fact, Applicants will avoid an unnecessary expenditure of time and money.
If, at some later point, the serious issues surrounding the adequacy of the l
12 Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Exhibit 1 at 4.
I l
I
a-
.- 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 risos 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.
Respectfully submitted,
/-
'l A.,, j j
f,< ~--:% PQ'y
/,.e./,
/
/
- n'L'K r.'l Ciane curran Andrea Pe rster Ellyn R. ' heiss Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N.W.
Suite 430 Washington, D. C.
20009 (202) 320-3500 May 14, 1987 I certify that on May 14, 1987, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by first-class-epil or as otherwise indi-cated on the attached service list.
N
/
/
dGx
,)
v -t Diane Curran
/
1 W
Exhibit 1 Ch.23 ATO3!!C ENERGY 42 f2242 5 2242.
Temporary operating licenses for nuclear power reactorw-Prerequisiles for filing applications; affiilarital hearing f al In any pruteciting upon an application for an opis ating li-con 5c for a nucit.ar power reactor, in which a hearing is otherwi.c rcquired pursuant to section 2230(a) of this title, the applicant may retition the Commission for a temporary operating license authuriz-ing operation of the facility rending final action by the Comminion 6n the application. Such petition may be filed at any time after fil-Int of: ill the report of the Advisory Committee on Reattor fiafe-tuards requireil by section 22.12sb) of this title; (2) the cafity
' Valuation of the apg.lican.en by the Commis. ion's regul tory staff; 4
and #36 the regul.ntory 9:ff's final detailed statt ment on the ents.
ronm(ntal impa(t of the facility prepared pursuant tu rut; tion 433L 21:C) of this title or, in the came of an application for <,perat-int license filsd on ur before September 9.1971 af the regulatory staf f's final detailt d,tatt ment required under scetion 4=2:2H Cl of this title is not iompitted, the Commission must satisf y the apple-cable i..,niss emes.t s of the.%tional Environmental Policy.ht prior The to iq,uine ns ts mporarv operating 1: cense unctr tr.is arette,n.
Ittition hall Le.ncompanted be ate atisd.nsit cr attadasit, settine forth the facts upon wtsch the petitioner relics to justify issuance of the temrorary operating littnie. Any party to the Irattding I'*3Y file af fidatats in support of or opposition to, the g etation w ath-in fourtee n das s atter the filing of sucn petition, or within aut h ud-ditional time not to exceed ten cars as may be fixed by tr.e Commis-Sion. The Commission ah.sil hold a hearing af ter ten d.sys* notice and put.lication once in the Federal P.cgister on any much petition and supportene maternal filed under this acction and the aerian.n v.f the Commission with respect to the usuance of a t<mporary operat-IDE IIcense, following auch hearing shall be on the basis of landings on the matters. pesified in subsection a bi of this section. The hear-ing required by this section and the decision of the Commissii,n on 4 the the petition chall be conducted with expedited posedurri Cummission may by rule, regulation, or order deem apr repriate for a full disclosure of material facts on all substantial incues raised in connection with the proposed temporary operating license, n eg a. nee tiede....e t...:..... seen
..e e.. dais....t s =>.. r ne..
e s am= persew e
(b) h*ith respect to any petition filed pursuant to subsection ia) of this section, the Commission shall issue a temporary operating li.
cense upon finding that:
-(1) the provisions of section 2235 of this title have been met with respect to the temporary operating license; F
(2) operation of the facility during the period of the tempo-c f *.
rary opcrating license in accordance with Ita terms and condi-165 4
t e
.~..
.N v'
.~ g! j *, p
- ;0
. s
-(
I,
5
- jq l
.,{ ~
r 7,
c
' g ;_; y,
.', ' 3. Q Q :
- j} ~,-.
~
S*
a:
3.,
. w n, y.
.y g u% a y, pg.,c.g.9.4 p,. -
~:
g
. y. v
/
. w, a,.3,; a
- g<
y
=
3'.
- t. -.
ma, p.
- r;
~, y e c..
,w.w ? ?
Of
. -t $
$.hlg '. h.
2 L.
.kn N%M6a ik h S hYf,'. ?.k wm;;m,%. 9l tv.; if}m'*J w :. m Usiggny&l%f' '@?.
- ?j i
= 3 p " '$
l.k' an:gwmujfph yg,gg'AQTyg.gg
.g,3q g
wwn Aw.g
a......
4 3
n, 1.
+
k-s)
.42 s2242 PCDUC llEAI.Til AND WEl. FARE Ch. *a tions will provide adequate protection of the environment dar.
Ing the period of the temporary operating licenact and
"(3) operation of the facility in accordance with the 'tttrng
^
~
and conditions of the temporary operating license is essential
-toward in= urine that the power generatine capacity of a utility system or power pool is at, or is restored to, the levels requir(d to assure the adequacy and reliability of the power surply, tak.
Irig into consideration factors which include, but netd not 14 limited to, alternative available sourecs of supply, historical re.
scrte requirements for the systems invelsed to function rclia.
bly. the pn=<ible endanecrment to the public health and safety in the event of power shortares, and ' data from up;.ropriata Federal and.utate governmental bodies which have official re.
spon<iteility to a*sute an adequate and reliable power 'upply, Tin-te mporary lie en<e shail contain such terme ami con,istions si the Formnicion mav etrem ncce.<=arv. incluihne the duration of the license and any provi.aion for the e xten= ion thereof, and tha requirr, ment that tne licen-e not retire or domantle any of its existint gent rating. apacity on the vrnund of fl:. as aiial.ility nf th.' e apacity from the facility w hich n "peratinr undt r the h mpe.t ary hue,,,,
Anv de rnton or other document authorizine the i suant" cf any trmrotary license rur=uant to this ocction sr.all recite with sp;cigje, sty the rea 4ons justifyine the issuance. The duisinn of the Com-musion with respett to th issuan(c of a temporary ct. crating li, urn, shall 1.
sut Ject to judicial review pursuant to the Act og p,,
cember 29,13.~s0, as amended (ch. I169. 64 Stat.11231.
4 s...se...eie..reer ise....
The hearine on the appliention for the final operatine licen,,
<ct otherwise required pursuant to section 2200(a) of this title shall t.
. concluded a< promptly as practicable. The Commission shall vacat.
the terntorary operating license if it fimi.= that the applicant is.st prn*tt uting the application for the final eperatine license with due dificence. Issuance of a temperary operatine license pursuant to sub.4et tien sh) ei this section chall be without prejudice to the peu.
tion of any rarty to the proceeding in which a hearine is othersi..
required punaisant to sicction 22001al of this titlet and failure to an.
sert any ground for denial or limitation of a temporary operating 1;.
cense shall not bar the assertion of such ground in connection with the issuance of a subsequent final operating license.
F.selt slee er authority (d) The authority under this section shall expire on October stj' 1973.
' Aug.1.1946. c. 724, i 192, as added June 2,1972. Pub.L 92-307, gg '
Stat.101.
~
166 5 b e
p
,w 4
- /
p
-n Y"Y't j 0*.
h
,, kN lJ?
' ~ '*
a
.m
... ~
n-
'I
_,_ = _ h,[
e
- - o Exhibit 2 e
s 8
4 42 { 2242 PCllLIC IIEALTI! AND WELFAllE 10.'
The temporary operating license shall become effecuve upon lasuance and sha" contain such terms and conditions as the Commission may deem recessary,incluo.re the duration of the license and any provision for the estension thereof. Any fme.
order authorizing the tssuance or amenoment of any temporary operating f.cena-pursuant tn this secuon shall recite with specificity the facts and reasons justifyine the findings under this sut,secuen, and shall t,e transmitted upon such issuance te the Committees on Interior and inst.lar Affairs and Energy and Commerce of ins flouse of itepresentstaves and tre Committee on Environinent and Pubsic Worms o' the Senate. The f nal oroer of the Commisuon with respect to the issuance or amenoment of a temts)rarv operatant I. cense spall be suofect to }udicial retiam pursuant to enacter l"s of Tit:e P. The requirements of secuan 223$as <:t this t: tie with resnect to tr.e issuance or amenoment of facility bcenses snail not arpiv to tra tssuance or amenoment of a temtx,rary operaung Ocense under tnis secuen.
fee Hestine for final eseroting beener: evepension. sessence. comphence, eie with temps rear operesias steense Any meannr en tne aopiacation for the fmal coerstmr 1eenae for a facmts requireo rurvuant to section J.'!'aias of trus tiue sna.i te conesucco as promotw he pracuca cie. Tre Comminsano anau susneno tne temocrary r.oeratant sacense if i-f.nos irat tre rcucant.s rot rmsecutire tre septication for tre fina.,ocratire
- 1. cense witn oae omrence beuarce of a temrerary nnerst:re s: cense unoer sune.+.
t.on e a c: tr.is secuon 5 a.. te uncout rremaice en tre rant of any carry ta rw.
any auue m a reanr.e rmuirco rurnant ta secuan tJ3}se of tant titie; ano f anure to assert ans creano for q,nias nr i. nitauon et a temterarv oriernung :: cense erar.
r.ot t.ar tr.e asserann of sace vrouno m conneetton witn tre inuance of a *uoscoue.-
final coeratint : cense Any r arev t., a neanne emu ras nJr*uant to secuon titw of tnis t. tie en ene f.nai e :erauer i cente tar a f aciaty for u nica a teraoorar.
onersunt t eense ras been i suco unoer aunnection tu cf this secuen. ano ar.
memoer of tre Atomic. afety and Licename boaro concuenne cuen ricanne, snat prnmetiv notify tne Cornmisason of any mtormation inoscanne tr.at tne terms anc cono.uons of tee temporary coernung s. cense are not came rnet, or tnat suen term-ano conditions a e not sasficient to compiv witn tne provisions of paragraon a;:s e<
l supsecuon aop of this sect;on.
(ds Mmen.ateene e remeesee for minimiseu e of need fee beense The Commission is autnonted and directed to adopt suen admmistrauve rem + die
- n as tre Commiuion < teems accronnate to minimize tne need for issuance of temte rarv opratint s. censes pur*uant to tnis secuan.
se Espirnose et seeming eninnenir The as.thonty tn issue rew temporary opersung licenses under this section shall -
expire on Decemoer 31. 1983.
~
(Aa amended Jaa. 4.1983. Pub l. M-415. I !! M Stat. MI I e
e y
e
_,v;,
'by
.. /'
y.
f,y*y.
g e
eh*.. v
-s m ; n.1 1
7 h L.s
- )
- l ', E f$&,.g'*
P m.gst y.' '
s_-.~
h.
T
+/,4 y A
o a
{
d s~.>*
~
,' 1
.w[1%g{LyAoY. '.,
n'
.,Y t
,~,,< >..
1,.s..y.
,.y
.n,
.,j
,4f
.bt?*'
st,
+
, ta
Exhibit 2 s'
i l 2242. Temporary operating license f.i rues i 46.. se.une.. 4 eeran.a at.peeme p..e, ie.ek peuti... ama.ut. cc.
In any proceeding upon an apphcation fcr an operating I; cense for a utdiaation S
facihty required to be 1, censed under secuan 2133 or 2134th) of thts utfe,in which a hearmg is otherwise required pursuant to accuon 2:39a1 of this title, the applicant rnay gution the Corr.miasinn for a temporary operaung licen e for such facihty sathonzing feel loading, testing, and operauon at a sp-cific power lesel to te determined by the Corr.rmsmn. pending Imal actiun by ti.e Comminion on the j
spphcation. The initial petiuort for a temporary operatmg license for each such facihty, and any ternporary operstmg license issued for such facihty tased upon the imtial ptition, shall be hmited to poner levela r.ot to exceed 5 percent of rated fall thermal pomer. f ollowing issuance Ly the Commismn of the temporary operstmc license for each such fanhts. the licensee may file petitaons *sth the Cornmission to amend the 1. cense to allow facihty operation m staged increases at specific power lesels, to be determined by the Ocmmission, escecome 5 percent of rated fMI thermal power. The imtial ptattoo for a tempcrary creraung Ocense ()r esen sac's facihty may te fi!cd at any t:o,e af ter tAe fahnr of. lit the report of the Advporv Committee on barmr dafeguar2s raourred Ly section Obs of thin titie: iS tr.e fUne of ti.e mit:al 8afetv F.s staaunn Report ty the Nuciear Eeruiators Commismn staff and tre Nucicar Rerutatory Corrmissaan sta!!'s f.rst suppiement to tre report preparco.n re=porse to t'e raport e.f tne Adsisory Ccmmittee on Reactor safe-guatus (,r the f acintv: 118 tne.Nucicar Regratory Cominimon statis f.nal oeuneo sustrment <>n tre eng ercnmental a inset of the factitty J recarea tur?uant tn rection 4/02tist'l uf thin t.ne; and sit a 6T.e. acal, or utuity emergency Iret arroness ian for tne ficmty. I einunns ter tre rsvar.ce of a ten porve etwritme i cense. <,r for an awn.iment M saen a ireme anuaine operatnn at a recific inner e.ves erriter trsn tnat autr.oruro in tr.e :".uai 'er-torary eterauer 1:cenae. sr.ad t e accome amed by an a:fidavit or atf dauta setter Iwtn tr.e specific taru ugn u n;cn tr.e peut.oner rues to p.tify muance cf tr a ramtorary operaung f. cense or tr.e amer iment De Gmmmion <n.!! tu::.an r.ouce of eacn suen uut.on m tne r.+ ral thereto.
R.fister a-o :n wn t.ioe.c rem s r sobcauons as tne Gmm:ssion u*ema attron-ate to cite r-ssonaute natace to prvans w no rment nase a wtentias ir.terest in the grant of swen temporsrs cLerstmg i.eense or amenornent t..ereto. Any person mar fJe af fidavita or statements m sut' port of or m opp mtion to. the paution within
~*
thirty da)s atter the pupMtion of suen nouce m the federal Register.
Iha Opersilan at eresser power le.ek criteria. effect terine and eeneiti.ne, eieg,coredureg as pise awe With respect ta any utition fi!ed pursuant to subsection (a) of this seet:on. the Commission rnay issue a temporary nperstmg heense, or amend the nicense to adonze temporary coeration at each specific Mwer level greater than that autho-rued in the er.:tial temporary operaung heense, as determmeo by tne Commiss;on.
upuri findine that-II) m ait respects other than the conduct or compleuon of any required hearmg. the requirement.s of law are met *
- 12) in accordance with such requirements, there is reasonable usurance that operauon of the facihty daring the tenod of the temporary operstmg license m accordance mith its terms and conosuons 3111 provide adequate protection to the pubhc health and safety and the envtronment dunng the pened of temporary operauen: and (3) denuti of such temporary eperating license will result in delay between the date on which construccon of the facihty is sufficiently compieted, m the judgment of the Commission, to prmit issuance of the temporary operaung license and the date when such facihty would otherwise receive a final operat-ing beense pursuant to tAis chapter.
p.-
F.
.t
.y, ?
-44 c.
ip W
. l,..pk *, l. h*
q Y[
(
- q%.
v
- 3. n
- = -
.~
y v
i
. 7
]h ll C ;.' @.
1
+
m 3
- i",
s e
G 8
g e
e E14 CLOSURE I-a S
s t
9 e
b a
e e
S
. g. _
f.
EXHIBIT 3
~
.f.gho se g s
h_
.N.
UNITED $f ATE 3 L
- 7..JNUCI.T R REGUCATORY COMMIS310N
- o!
- C.= j~ h 7
'?,*
nAs.onr m o.c.smaa l
q n. s..r s.,
June 15.1984 C)4 A f A M A og Se Henerable Edward J. Mar. key, Chair.an
.t::-- i
- ee en Ove rsip.
and Investigatio.s
~
'.: t-ittee on Ir.terior and Insular Af f airs
'.rited States House o' Re resentatives a a s n t e.; ten. 3. 0.
2*515
" ear Co..gress.an Marxey:
- ve letter cf Mar:n 20, 1954 re:uested an ex:'a ra ti:r. c' t..e ri sk s t**.0"*a:ec w1th 1Ow ::we-c:e*:0 ten a* :: rcr::a1 nu:iea r :: e* rea:::*:.
y *.*J
- t s e d.
- '. v a.
' ". a. *. *. f i
- C ' ' a. s *. *. *.*. *a
- .1'."
s e.......
..i
. j,,
- g...,
.... 4......
4.........
t
. j,. g,.
........s.
wj.. 1 3,....,
.......,s.
.3
- a. 7,.,....
.y i..
%. y...
,.,s.e g..
4............,.
.g....
.w.
...,3 ) *i r,... '.... j,.........
..,e.t
.a
. ~.. s.. ] ),,.,. 4....;d..
4........
............, j.,.........
..e..
. a '... a s a 6...
s.
13K
.se
..,a..
a... p.,...s..
' p.
...4.,.
... c.., e. e e,.,,,...,.,.i....
~
- 4.
- t e.
- a. *
- a. r. *. *.. a. * *a.a.*..**.*.*.*..a*
.a.
- a. ' ' S *
- a. *. *.*.a.
...j.'*a.
- 3 a *. *..a a.
2
'. s t s C f 1 * * *. e r *. *. *. *. *. *. w. * **a.*.'*.*."..
.s a a - a.....a l,v l e s s
- ..a.a r. *..a. a. ".
wa o.
- ~..~..* *.**.'.C
~.#.
- '. '. s r a.. t.v.
- ..,. 4. e. $ j a. o. r.
G e. l l a. s ky d *. ".' r. *. *. *. a r *. i ~ '..* *. a.
i a.. ***
j n.... ~,. 4.
. i s re s,* *.n s n' 'a.
- y *..a *.
- a... e * *. s.
e.
,, a.
. n.
..j$
5ina.seeiy, (0.
l
// /;.L w
(
O Nun:io J. P:lladino Attac.% nts:
As stated cc:
Rep. Ron Marlenet l
l 45 o.w G 5
- 6 4 0 615 ----
PD4 COMMG NRCC a ~'a r m a na m n e r.c. m e
n
)
. ' +.a*g'
_s 00ESTION 1:
What studies, reports or "NUREG" document has the Comission 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 several plants including the following:
(A)
Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-0675, Supplement No. 10 August 1980)
(B)
San Onofre Units 2 and 3 (NUREG-0712, Supplement No. 4, January 1982)
(C)
Suniner Nuclear Station Unit 1 (NUREG-0717, Supplement No. 4 January 1982)
(0) LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-OS19 Supplement No. 3, April 1982)
(E)
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (NUREG-0831, Supplement No. 2 June 1962)
(F)
Susouchanna Station, Units 1 and 2 (NUREG-0776, Supplement No. 2, June 1982).
s s
m a
u-OUESTION 2:
What would be the accumulation of radioactive fission products af ter 30, 60 and 120 days of 5 percent operation at a typical BWR and at a typical PWR7 ANSWER.
Low power testing of a new power reactor would not typically result in as much radioactive fission products as 30 days of continuous operation at the maximum permitted power.
Low power testing could be described as a period of final adjustment of many plant systems, punctuated by ascensions to the minimum power needed to perform each series of tests.
The assumption of continuous operation at constant power, however, is usually made in comouting radioactive investories in order to simplify the ecuations of growth and decay and to provide an upper bound analysis of risks.
The distributions of fission oroducts differ somewhat between B1R and PWR
'cres mainly due to differences in the relative amounts of fissions
'ccurr1ngingetinides(theser1esofelementsbeginningwithactinium)
~.her than '
U.
These otner actinides are not present in new fuel, but they build up slowly over time througn a series of reactions.
These otner
'issionproductyearswnicndifferfromthoseof'3gypesofcores,andnave actin 1ces accumulate at different rates in the two U.
During low power
- esting with new fuel, very little generatton of other fissile actinides would occur, ano tne early accumu4 tion of fission products in both SWR and
?WR cores would be dominated by ***U fissions.
A single estimate of accumulation of fission prooucts, therefore, is considereo applicable to
, both reactor types.
While sufficient information is available for the estimation of 937 isotooes that may be generated in a reactor core, the bulk of these have very snort half-lives, are stable isotopes, or are mace in very small amounts.
The Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400), identified 43 fission products and 11 actinides and other activation products which were judged responsible for virtually all radiological risk, and the staff uses only these radio-isotopes as a simplification in computing accident consequences.
No detailed computer calculations of a core inventory at any of the durations cf operation are available, and such calculations require lengthy preparations and significant expense.
The requested accumulations, therefore, have been calculated from an existing ccmputer-generated inventory using the equations of radioactive growth and decay to correct that inventory to approximate the requested conditions.
The inventory selected was the new fuel region at 91 days of operation in case IIA 2, described in the report " Extended Burnup Calculations for Operating Reactor Reload Reviews", NUREG/CR-3108, February 1983.
Only the 43 risk-dominant fission products were corrected to the requested conditions.
9 9
L
l w
Of the 43 risk-dominant fission products, 25 have half-lives sufficiently
.hort that they wculd 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 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.gglong 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 power levels) is the power generated by 126 megacuries of fission.
During low power testing of a new core, the 21 fission products would be removed from secular ecuilibrium by variations in power level or certocs of snut-down, out would approacn secular ecuilibrium at any power level within several dagg, would be at 50%
decenoing upon nalf-life. For example, the longest-lived Table entry, '
I of its ecutlibrium value at 8.1 cays of continuous operation, and at 98% at 30 days.
The remaining 22 risk-dominant fission products accumulated af ter 30, 60, and 120 days in a centinuous source of 150 megawatts of fission have been listag in Table,j.2, along sith the half-life of eacn isotooe.
The entries for
- Rb, and ** Cs and ~~2r incluce estimated contributions from activation as well as fission yield, ang3jtetr estimates are correscondingly less procuct, but an activation procuct of stable fission product '330t a fission accurate.
The radioisotope Cs is not included, since it is Cs.
It is 9331 mated that a 150 megawatt core would accumulate about 1000 curies of Cs in 30 days, with furtner accumulation to aoout 6000 curies at 120 days.
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.
Again, the actual amounts of the isotopes identified in Table 2.2 would vary in an extremely complex manner during variations of core power.
e e
e 4
5 0
. _ - =
l 7
7
(
TABLE 2.1 Megacuries In Secular Equilibrium With 150 Megawatts Of Fission At A Typical Light Water Reactor l
l Fission Product Mecacuries Half-life (Days)
"Kr 1.5 0.18 87Kr 3.0 0.053 88Kr 4.1 0.12 l
133 8.4 5.3 Xe 135 2.7 0.38 Xe l
131 3.7 8.1 1
132 I 5.5 0.096 133I 8.4 0.88 134 9.6 0.037 1
l 135 I 7.9 0.28 131"Te 0.52 1.3 132 5.5 3.3 Te
~
127 0.18 3.9
~
5b 129 1.0 0.18 5b II 7.0 0.40 l
Sr l
99 7.6 2.8 Mo IDc 6.7 0.25 l
'105 1.8 0.19 Ru 105 1.7 1.5 Rh 97 7.3 0.71 l
Zr 143 l
Ce 7.2 1.4 t
5 0
-.r-
..m,
.m-
-. ~.
7% r, --
.,.y
7
-]
e-TABLE 2.2 Megacuries At Various Durations In a Typical LWR At 150 Megawatts Fission Product 30 Days 60 Days 120 Days 1/2 Life (Days) 85Kr
.0016
.0033
.0066 3950.
00 Rb
.00024
.00031
.00035 18.7 136 Cs
.015
.018
.019 13.0 137Cs
.014
.027
.055 11000.
127Te
.12
.13
.13
.391 III*Te
.0028
.0051
.0084
- 109, 1297e
.83
.86
.88
.048 129mie
.075
. 115
.15 34 095r 1.9 3.0
'4.' 4 52.1 90Sr
.013
.025
.051 11030.
140Ba 6.2 -
7.4 7.7 12.8 103 Ru 1.7 2.6 3.6 39.5 106 Ru
.042
.083
.16 366.
90Y
.013
.026
.051 2.67 91 Y 2.0 3.4 5.1 59.0 95Zr 2.1 3.6
.5.5 65.2 95Nb 1.5 2.3 3.0 35.0 140 La 6.2 7.4 7.7 1.67 141 Ce 3.3 5.0 6.3 32.3 144
.44
.85 1.6 284 Ce 143Pr 5.5 6.7 7.1 13.7 147 2.4 2.7 2.8 11.1 Nb
'g a
o O
I O
6 L
]
m 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 term assumptions does the NRC use for judging the risk of low power operation?
ANSWER The staff's Safety Evaluation Reports for proposed operating licenses consider a variety of postulated reactor accidents, all of which assume the reactor to have been at 105t of design power.
The off-site consequences estimated in these reports are doses to hypothetical individuals at specific locations downwind from the olant, wnich are compared to the dose guidelines in 10 CFR part 100. Analyses to estimate off-site consecuences for power less than 105% of design are not perfomed since suen consecuence estimates aould necessarily be lower.
- he our00se of the postulated accident analyses in Safety Analysis Reports
'!ARs) is to assess the performnce of the' plant during postulated acc1 cents and to demonstrate that the raciological consequences of the postulated scc 1 dents. *nen evaluated using conservative assumptions, remain below the guideline cose values of 10 CFR 100.
,for the large break loss of coolant accident, (LOCA) the most severe reactor accident considered in the Safety Evaluation Reports, it is assumed that
- C0t of the noole gases, krypton and :enon, 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 term, i.e., the amounts of these fission products escaping into the environment, is conservatively comouted 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 tission products are predominantly at secular equilibrium after 30 days of coeration. Were the release assumed in Safety Evaluation Reports for the large break LOCA to occur during 5% power operation, the dose consequences estimated would be 4.8% of those reported for 105% power operation. Since these doses are estimated conservatively, no diminution by radioactive decay of the source term is accounted for, and the worst possible dose would be somewhat less.
For typical BWR and PWR plants, this would result in dose e stimates of several REM to the thyroid and a few hundred millirem whole body to an individual spending the first two hours of the source tem 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 remains as elemental iodine during its transport.
~
,q
'o As noted in the response to Question 2, the core inventory during low power testing would be expected to vary greatly due to fluctugj{ans in power level. The thyroid dose calculations are dominated by 1, due' to the rature of {gy 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
{gginefissionproductscombined.
For a typical low power testing period, I would not be expected to accumulate to more than a fraction of its ecuilibrium value.
Under a Conmission policy statement of June 1980, the staff and utilities have also assessed accident consequences and probabilities of very low probability accidents from an environmental as well as a safety point of view. These accidents are sometimes referred to as beyonc design basis or Class 9 accidents.
The staff has published Environmental Impact Statements covering sucn events for all license applications suomitted after July 1, 1980.
In addition, the staff has also assessed the risks (probaDility times consecuences) from such accidents for suen purposes as siting criteria studies, prooabilistic risk assessment reviews of specific reactors and for ceneric studies.
All of these assessments have been mace for reactors coerating at full oewer.
No spec 1fic offsite consecuences have been assessed for reactors ocerating at low power levels.
O 9
5 e
0 e
e 0
t 0
e G
e
I q
q 00ESTION 4:
What does tre - AC believe to be the probability of accidents at a typical NR and at a typical PWR during low power operation?
Identify the dominant accident sequences that could lead to core damage, core melting, or offsite releases.
Additionally, please indicate whether the Comission believes that the probability of mishaps and accidents is higher or lower for plants with a low power license than for plants with a full power license.
Please also indicate what has been the history of operating experience for plants with low power license and provide any studies or memoranda concerning this subject.
ANSWER.
Estimates of risk reduction were made in recent operating license cases (See r
Cuestton 1) based en dominant sequences from the Reactor Safety Study l_
(DASH-1400).
For PWRS and SWRS, the important secuences are small Lass-of-Coolant accicents and transients, with the addition of the Anticipated Transients Without SCRAM teauence #or SWRS.
The following ma1or
'tetors contribute to a suostantial reduction in risk at low power operation comoared to equilibrium full power operation:
A.
he reduced decay heat from low power coeration results in a significant reduction in the resconse required to mitigate potential severe accidents and therefore a reduction in the likelihood of core damage.
For example, passive heat sinks within the system may be sufficient to delay the need for operator remedial action for several hours before core damage would be a threat, similarly, the cooling water flow rates required to dissipate the low decay heat are recuced by a factor of 20 or more so that numerous small pumos available at a plant may be sufficient to provide adequate cooling in the event that the primary safety systems failed to function.
B.
The fission product inventory from operation at low power is significantly reduced and therefore the potential risk to the public is also reduced.
e
o.
R m)
Regarding minor malfunctions of normally operating systems, there may or may not be a greater nunter 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 experience for the following plants licensed since the three Nile 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 Decencer 9,1982 6.
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plars Units 1 and 2, dated Maren 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
^*
9.
Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1, dtaed January 11, 1984 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. Lucie Plant Units 1 and 2. dated December 15, 1983 4
e e
b 6
w
l.'
n 9
CUESTION 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 operation; (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 were first attained; (G)(H) exemptions granted by the exemptions granted by the NRC to the low power licensee and, NRC to the full power licensee.
1 ANSWER.
The data reauested is provided in toe attached Table 5.1.
We interpreted the cate 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 sysmol tyA has been used.
6 j
i e
i O
4'
~
7, 9
o 9
E'E 1
1
=-
125sj c
- h; Ep! Ei e
B5El
--uj L
' ~l siiBEs.
[Ethaste s -
e,EE! SEEERt5 652485RG225 a..m.
s m,- n.r.
s a
.g a m
ht E si
'"E!
~$Ei5 EMEW EN SEEE k
l Est s::Et! EE v6Q E WEE X5...l h
t a,S ::=,Ea2mma E
~,.gi
== = 2 wbe n.,
=
c e
~
w=
l' w
~
"fzl l
c.s y -'
Ett b
.- Ec':
5
.m
~
_<: = =f x
- = cici
=-
=
3 D@E@E
@S! khEydl !
. EN; g :-
r; &"i 5
. s# "C5d$wc :se c:c hc.2 Y.- = :,,. E '::::
C=5 :: = rp 2
Cn;
- v. -' - - =.3 :
p ma.
a.v.e mmi
=
--w 3,. %-vue I DE! @~
g
=o I
=
6 M
N O
kk.
esa c.hkhkss=sc., a W
kk%
w es C oca Pen.E=> s s a c. t c a
2:-=
rec 2;: : c:v G G )
t~2 h:
==
~
c2
~
D3 t= kkEEEh kkkk kkkE 68
=
S
- E : EE E
a et es~RS.Rs.
tiEEE Et%EEe
=
m-A r-.
23 A
EG w"
~
e etaseges=*e r
- m seessa as dE*a WEEW$.$5 3.
m._a_s!. EEtE'E,S sse E
b n.F a w.
gE I
t-n.
i I
-1 gg o.
N k-4;f"EgCL s
c es.EbE* g@=
NE p @
E_b kN r.
c.C "L.t3 E-gE am N
a P.Q EE c*~l.5 IIse e5 5=
el tr.Eh:::ms a e=
e nnh h.
e t
4 l
_j
TABLE 5.1 (CONTINUED)
EIDIPTIONS GRANTED BY Tile NRC EXEHpTIONS GRANTED BY THE NRC IN 1AM IN T!!E LOW FCMR LICENSE IniE filiL FO4R LICEh5E MTEMENT forth Anna 2 N/A Certain Requirements of Appendix R to 10 CFR 50 W yah 1 N/A ID CFA157. 9[g)
Farley Z Certain Requirements of Appendices G H & J Certain Requirements of Appendices G H & J to to 10 CFR 50 10 CFR 50 Eales 2 Certain Requirements of Appendix J to Cirlain Requirements of Appendices J & A to 10 CFR 50 10 CFR 50 EcGuire 1 Certain Requirements of Appendix G to
~Cerlain Requirements of Appendices J & E to 1
10 CFR 50 10 CFR 50 V
5equoyah 2 N/A 10~tFR 50.4Mg)
- llabla Canyon 1 Certain Requirements of Appendices G, H & J R7A to 10 CFR 50 San Onofre 2 Certain Requirements of Appendices G, H & J N/A to 10 CFR 50 LaSalla 1 Certain Requirements of Appendices E. G, H & J ho Changes j
to 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73; and 10 CFR 70.24 Grand Gulf I Certain Requirements of AppenlIcis GTil to h/A 10 CFR 50 Susquehanna 1 Certain Requirements of Appendices G & H to N/A 10 CTR 50 Summer 1 Certain Requirements of Appendix G to IUTFRTO Certain Requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50 San Onofre 3 Certain Requirements of Appendices G IID K/A to 10 CFR 50 m ire 2 Certain Requirements of Appendix G to IDTTR 50 Certain Requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFP 50 St. Lucie 2 h/A N/A LaSalla 2 Certain Requirements of Appendices G II l J H3 Changes I
to 10 CFR 50; 10 CFR 73 and 10 CFR 70.24 P -Z Certain Requirements of;AppendTcFGDI X J K/A l
to 10 CFR 50 Susquehanna Z Mone I/A i
a
.e o
SEAIR06f ![RVICE LIST -- ONSII[ -- COMMIS$$ K NERS SheldonJ.Wolfe,Chairsan TownofRye officeofGeneralISM sandraGavutis AtoeicSafetyandLicensingId
!$5WashingtonRoad U.S. NRC
~
RfD1los1154 U.S. NRC Rye, New Haepshire 03870 Washington, D.C. 20555 p my 14 P4 Nt tensington, NH 03827 Washington. 0.C. 20555 RichardE.Sullivan, Mayor Mr. Angie Machiros Chairsan CharlesP.Grahaa,[sq.
Dr. Jerry Harbour CityHall BoardofSelecteen
. Mclay, Murghy and Grahas Newbury, MA ggGN@h00 Main Street Ato:icSafetyandLitensingId Memburypert, MA 01950 U.$,NRC BHANCH Asesbury, MA 01913 Washington.0.C. 20555 Alfred V. $4rgent Chairsan H.Josephflynn,[sq.
IotrdofSelecteen Office of General Counsel Alan 3.Rosenthal,Chairsan Lt. teseth A. Luelle Town of Salistory, MA 01950 FIMA Atcelt$4fety& Licensing AteeltSafetyandLicensing84 500 C $treet 3.W.
Appeal leard U.S. NRC Senitor Gordon J. Hasphrey Washington 0.C. 20472 U.S.t#
Washington.0.C. 20555 U.S. Senate Washington,D.C.20555 Washington, D.C. 20510 George Cana lisbee, Esq.
Atomic $afetyandLittasing (Attn.Icelutack)
Geoffrey M. Huntington, [sq.
HowardA.Wilber Icard Panel Office of the Attorney General Alcelc $4fety & Licensing U.$. NRC
$ ele (toenofNorthampton
$ tate House Annet Appealloard Washington. 0.C. 20555 Northeepton, New Haspshire Ccntord,NH 03301 U.S. NRC 03026 Washingtcn, D.C. 20555 Atesic Safety and Licensing Allen Lacert Appealloardyanel Senator Gordon J. Husthrey CivilDefenseDirector GaryJ.[dles U.S. NRC 1lagte$quare,Ste501 TownofIrentenood AtesteSafety& Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Concord, NH 03:01
[ eter, NH 03833 AppealBoard A
U.S. NRC Docheting and Service Mithael!antosuosso,Chairaan Richard A. Hasse, Esq.
Washington.0.C.20555 U.S. NSC 10ardof$91etteen HaoGe and McNitholas Washington,D.C. 20555 Jewel! Street, RfD I 2 35 Pleasant $treet 8LandaW.leth,Chairsan
!cuth Hasaton, NH 0 %42 Concord, NH 03:01 U.S.NAC Krs. Anne I Geodean Washin1 ton.0.C.20555 leardofSelecteen Juhth H. Milner, Esq.
GaryW.Holets,Esq.
1315 New Merlet Roaj Silverglate,Gertner,etal.
Holets&[1115 Ihets I. Asselstine, Ccesis-Durhaa, NH 03842 88 froal Street 47WinnatunnentRoad stoner lasten,MA 02110 Haeston, NH 03342 U.S.NRC Willias S. Lcrd, selectean Washington 0.C. 20555 Town Hall - Friend $treet Rep. Rotetta C. Pevear WilliesArestrong Asestury, MA 01913 Ortnluater Road CivilDefenseDirector tiennethM.Carr,Ccealssioner Haspton, Falls, NH 03044 10 Front $treet U.S.NRC Jant 00ulhty (leter, NH 03833 Washington.0.C.20$$$
$APL Phillip Ahrens Isq.
5 Karket Street AssistantAttorneyGeneral CalvinA.Canney tihesasM.Roterts,Cosels-Porissouth, NH 03801 State House, Station 1 6 CityManager siDner Aagusta MI 04333 CityHall U,$.NRC Carol S. $neider, tsquire 126DanielStreet Washington,D.C.20555 AssistantAttorneyGeneral asthesasG.Dignan,Esq.
Portseouth, NH 03P01 1AshburtonPlace,19thFloor R.I. Gad!!,Esq.
tirederickM.ternthal,Cee-loston,MA ')2103 Ropes 4 Gray Matthew f. Irock, [sq.
sissioner 225 Franklin Street
$haines&Mclathern U.S.NRC StaaltyW.Inowles loston, MA 02110 P.O.los360 Washington 0.C. 20555 loard of Sel,cteen M4plewoodAve.
P.O.los110 Rctert A. Backus, (sq.
Portssouth, NH 03801 elyhand North Haepton, NH 03J26 lactus,Never6Solcean esByFederallipress tilLowellStreet
[dwardA.Thoeas J.P. Nadeau Man (hester, kH 03105 FEMA 442J.W.McCoreach(P0CH) loston, MA 02109 pibherwinI. Turn,Isq.
-