ML20235M160
| ML20235M160 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1987 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235M163 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#387-3978, CON-#387-4037 CLI-87-04, CLI-87-4, OL, NUDOCS 8707170086 | |
| Download: ML20235M160 (20) | |
Text
l l
LILCO, July 14,1987 Mi > [ :i '
') n.:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '87 JUL 15 Pi2 :k'-
Before the Commission . {,,,
m ,
in the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL
) (25% Power Operation) 1 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1)
)
MOTION FOR DESIGNATION OF LICENSING BOARD AND SETTING EXPEDITED SCIIEDULE TO RULE ON LILCO'S 25% POWER REQUEST L Preliminary Statement As instructed by the Commission in CL1-87-04 (June 11,1987), Long 7sland Lighting Company (LILCO) has today, filed with the Licensing Board L Motion for Authorization to Increase Power to 25% at Shorcham ("25% Power Motion"). The 25%
Power Motion incorporates LILCO's Request for Authorization to increase Power to 25% ("25% Power Request"), originally filed with the Commission on Apri! 14) LILCO has filed its 25% Power Motion with the most nearly appropriate existing Board, that in the OL-3 docket (the "Margulies Board"), which has jurisdiction ov>ar all emergency 1/ The filing in the 25% Request (as corrected by errata filed on May 20,1987) is supplemented by a May 11, 1987 Affidavit of Adam Madsen, previously filed with the Commission as part of LILCO's May 12, 1987 Reply to Interveners' Opposition to Expe-dited Consideration, and by an additional Affidavit of Mr. Madsen, dated July 14, 1987.
These affidavits support the urgency of LILCO's request to add 25% of the capacity of.
Shoreham to its system as soon as possible. Not included in this filing is LILCO's Motion for Expedited Commission Consideration, since that motion is now moot. Mr. Madsen's -
July = 14,1987 Affidavit, served unexecuted in the interest of expedition, will be re-served as soon as it has been signed and notarized. 3 i
I 8707870084. 370714 Pet ApocK 08000811 0 POR , !
yo3
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ . i
i e
o i
! i planning issues except those invcived with the February 13, 1986 exercise, which are !
I before a separate Board (the "Frye Board") in a separate docket (OL-5).W It is not clear that the Margulies Board has jurisdiction over the issues raised by the 25% Power Motion.E lt is, however, clear that both that Board and the other ex-1 isting Shoreham emergency planning Licensing Board, the Frye Board, are already fully l
occupied with hearing and resolving full power emergency planning issues. Only a new Board would be able to give LILCO's 25% Power Request the prompt consideration which Long Island's present and growing power shortage requires and which the other matters raised by it, including LILCO's compensating measures and fairness to LILCO, comi..end. in light of these f acts and given the Commission's authority in 10 CFR 5 2.721(a); LILCO is filing this Motion directly with the Commission to request the des-4 ignation of a new Licensing Board and the setting of specific scheduling guidelines for expedited consideration of LILCO's 25% Power Motion.S!
- i 2/ LILCO has also lodged copies of the 25% Motion and supporting Affidavits with the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, to facilitate transfer of the matter to a new Board if the Commission grants LILCO's request for designation of one.
3/ Though the 25% Motion seeks authorization to operate pursuant to a provision of !
the Cnmmission's emergency planning regulations,10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1), the issues to be determined involve distinct safety issues -- the amount of risk present at 25% operation
' -- and take the current emergency planning structure and record at Shoreham as given. I i
The only point of tzngency between the issues to be datermined under the 25% Motion and those in the ongoing emergency planning proceeding involves ascribing and de-termining the acceptability of a level of risk at 25% operation for various issues, still ;
being determined in connection with 100% operation, on the basis of the existing record l on them.
3, Only the Commission has the power to grant the full relief LILCO requests in l
i tnis MO:fon, No Licensing Board has the power to appoint a new Board; at most it could J only refer LILCO's Motion to the Licensing Board Panel Chairman, who has the power to designate a new Board, but may not have the power to impose or recommend expedi-tion. In any event, this process could easily consume weeks, if not longer. Only the i
Commission has the plenary appointment and scheduling powers necessary to dispose of this Motion in a complete and prompt manner.
a II. Backsrround LILCO has held a license to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, cur-rently limited to 5% of rated power, for over two years now. The Company has suc-cessfully operated the plant at that level, even generating commercial electricity tem-l porarily to its power grid. Meanwhile, proceedings on the one remaining aspect of LILCO's application to permit modification of that license so as to permit operation at 100% of rated power - offsite emergency planning -- have been underway continuously for over four years by now, since the spring of 1983. While many matters have been re-solved, there is no certi.inty as to when those proceedings will be sufficiently complet-ed to result in issuance of a 100% license.
At the same time, electric demand on Long Island has continued inexorably to grow. The insistent nature of that increase, corabined with the uncertainties about completion of the 100% emergency planning proceedings, have impelled LILCO to re-quest interim operation of Shoreham at 25% of rated power.
LILCO filed its 25% Power Request and Motion for Expedited Commission Con-sideration with the Commissions on April 11,1987. Those documents demonstrated a l
prima facie case under 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1) for operation above 5% power, 5/ LILCO filed its 25% Power Request initially with the Commission in light of the-Commission's inherent supervisory authority to intervene in pending proceedings where, as heres exigent circumstances exist. Public Service Co. cf New Hampsh!re (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CL1-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 516 (1977). The Commission has noted that "In the interest of orderly resolution of disputes, there is every reason why the Commission should be empowered to step into a proceeding and provide guld-ance on important issues of law or polley." [d. at 516-17 (quoting United States Enercy Research and Development Administration (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
CL1-76-13, 4. NRC 67, 75-76 (1976)). In its initial filing LILCO relied on the Commis-sion's authority under S 2.704 to name one or more of its members to hear matters.
l .
O 4
6/ On April notwithstanding the pendency of certain of fsite emergency planning issues.-
l U The Staff filed 27 and May.5 and 6, Interveners filed various pleadings in opposition.
its response on April 29, taking no position on the merits but supporting LILCO's R quest insof ar as it sought the Commission's expedited consideration. Therea 12,1987, and on May 13,1987 the Staff responded to the Interveners' opposition on May filed its Schedule for Review of LILCO's 25% Power Request which indicated that th i d in technical review would be completed and the final Safety Evaluation Report ssue t
July, j In April, the Staff and its contractors also commenced a technical review of !
t LILCO's 25% Power Request. The Staff and its contractors met with LILCO several s/ 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1) reads:
Failure to meet the applicable standards set forth in paragraph (b) of this section may result in the Commission declining to issue an operating license; however, the appli-cant will have an opportunity to demonstrate to the satis-faction of the Commission that deficiencies in the plans are not significant for the plant in question, that adequate in-terim compensating actions have been or will be taken promptly, or that there are other compelling reasons to per-mit plant operation.
demonstrated the circumstances contemplated by The 25% Power RequestIt showed that at 25% operation the remaining of fsite emergency pla It also showed that LILCO's emergency 5 50.47(c)(t).
ning issues at Shoreham were not significant.
plan ano response organization. LERO, provide adequate inte action - a worsening energy shortage on Long Island, the need to lessen dependence on foreign oil, and f airness to LILCO af ter years of repetitive scrutiny of Shoreham. l 7/
Interveners filed their Response in Opposition to LILCO's Motion for Expedited Commission Consideration, Motion for Order Directing NRC Staff to Ceast Unauthor- l Ized Review and Additional Affidavit in Opposition to LILCO's Motion for Expedited I l
Consideration on April 27, May 5 and May 6,1987, respective '
Power Request.
l times in April and May to discuss various aspects of LILCO's 25% Power Request. In-tervenors' representatives were present at these meetings. In connection with their re- I t
view,"the Staff and its contractors made numerous requests for supplemental informa- ,
j tion and data concerning the 25% Power technical analyses. LILCO provided this information to the Staff and the Staff's contractors, and to Interveners' representatives a, well. As of mid June,1987, the Staff review was well underway and, if on schec'ute, largely complete 1.15everal respects.
On June 11, 1987, the Commission issued a decision, concluding that it could not resolve various issues presented in the 25% Power Request before the end of sum-mer 1987 if it followed the normal adjudicatory heanng procedures in 10 CFR 5 50.57(c) and 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G.E CLI-87-04, 25 NRC (1987). Accordingly, the Commission denied the Request, but did so without prejudice on the merits, stating that LILCO "may refile its (25% Power Request) under 10 CFR S 50.57(c) with the Licens-i ing Board when and if it believes that some useful purpose would be served thereby "
1 Id. LILCO has availed itself of this opportunity by filing with the Licensing Board (con-temporaneously with this Motion)its 25% Power Motion.EI
!/ Though the Commission's decision focused specifically on LILCO's claim that Long Island has an immediate summer 1987 need for power, it is important to remem-ber that that claim is only one of three distinct sets of " compelling reasons" advanced by LILCO, each of them a suff)cient basis for authorizing 25% operation of Shoreham pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1). LILCO's Request demonstrated, in additiors, the exis-tence of adequate interim compensating measures and tne insignificance of remaining emergency planning issues. The Commission's decision did not treat these issues on the merits. Moreover, simply because certain issues cannot be resolved in time to meet 1987 summer power needs is no reason not to proceed expeditiously. Long Island's need for power is a continuing and growing problem.
p/ As LILCO's 25% Power Request (including e rata and Reply) has already been filed with the Commission and the OL-3 and OL-5 Boards and served on all parties to (footnote continued) l l
1 1
% l
a 6-This Motion requests that the Commission exercise its power pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.721 to appoint a new Licensing Board to address LILCO's 25% Power Re-quest" and to recommend to that Board an expeditious schedule to resolve LILCO's 25%
l Power Motion. The two existing Shoreham licensing Boards (OL-3 and OL-5) are al-ready i'ully engaged in hearing and deciding the various remaining emergency planning i j
l' issues relating to LILCO's full power license application. There is little realistic pron-pect that these Boards can complete their work in these labyrinthine proceedings in i less than several additional months. Thus, as this Motion demonstrates, it would be un- ..
l realistic to expect either of them to undertake any substantial additional tasks at this time. This Motion also sets forth in some detail a reasonable and expeditious schedule for hearings, should they be necessary, with due. regard for the rights of all parties in this matter.
1 1
(footnote continued) this proceeding, it is not being re-served in bulk at this time. liowever, as a courtesy, three copies of the Request (with Appendices and errata but less the now-moot Motion for Expedited Commission Consideration) are being lodged with the Chairman of the L1-censing Board Panel and one each served on the active parties (NRC Staff. New York i State, Suffolk County). In addition, copies of this Motion and of LILCO's Motion to in-crease Power to 25% and of the Affidavit of Adam Madsen, dated July 14 ' 1987, are being served on all pemons who received LILCO's initial 25% Power Request. The 25%
Power Motion relles upon all the technical analyss, data and arguments contained in the 25% Power Request and on the supporting affidavits tiled with it and with LILCO's ,
May 12 Reply, and extends the data relating to one of the three sets of " compelling rea- i sons" originally advanced in the Request - need for power - beyond the summer of 1987. {'
. - _ _ - _ - - ._-_-_-_-_-___-__---_---------------_--------------------------------=-----A
I l
T
_ .7 III. Circumstances Mandate the Appointment of a New Licensing Board and the {
Establishment of an Expeditious Hearing Schedule
. l A. Need for New Licensing Board Two Licensing Boards, neither with plenary jurisdiction,N currently exist in the Shoreham proceeding. Each of them is already occupied with various emergency _ ]
planning matters at Shoreham. The OL-3 docket board (Judges Margulies, Kline, Shon) l-is concerned with issues involving the Shoreham offsite emergency plan itself, re-manded by ALAB-832,23 NRC 135 (1986) and ALAB-84*i,24 NRC 412 (1986), and subse-
)
quent Commission actions. That Board also has before it LILCO's motion for summary l
disposition of outstanding issues based on the " realism" principle enunciated by the Commission in CL1-86-13, 24 NRC 22 (1986). The OL-5 docket. board (Judges Frye, Paris, Shon) has before it issues arising out of the Fcbruary 13 '1966 Shoreham offsite I emergency planning exerche.
The jurisdiction of either of these Boards to hear the 25% Motion is dubious.
The OL-5 Board, whose jurisdiction is limited to the exercise, seems clearly not to have jurisdiction. The issue is closer with respect to the OL-3 Board, which has residual ju-risdiction over all other eme.gency planning issues. Nevertheless, the 25% Motion does not clearly raise emergency planning issues. While it requests a decislun pursuant to a provision of the emergency planning regulations,10 CFR S 50.47(cX1), it takes emer-gency planning issues - the vast majority of which have already been litigated - as l
J 10/ The original Bosrd, which had presumptively plenary jurisdiction, ceased to exist af ter all conventional safety issues relating to a 100% license had been dispositively re-solved at the agency level, i l l i
l
. 4 l
1
]
given. The matters before it for resolution involve the level of risk extant at 25% op- j l
eratien. They do not require the prior dispositive resolution of the few rernaining out-standing emergency planning issues. Indeed, they presume that those issues (whose dis- !
positive resolution would pave the way for issuance cf a 100% license) can remain i unresolved at 25% power because of the reduced level of risk involved.
Even if the jurisdiction of the existing Emergency Planning Boards were not so dubious, their prior commitments and other aspects of the material presented for deci-sion commend creation of a new Board as the only means of ensuring the prompt reso-
!ction of the 25% Power Motion which it deserves.
Each of the Emergency Planning Boards is substantially engaged by the emer-gency planning' matters presently before it. On June 30 the OL-3 Board began five !
Scheduled weeks of hearings on issues concerning LILCO's substitution of its own f acili-ties for the Nassau Coliseum as a reception center for evacuees. Following those hear-I ings, the Board will need to write its decision. In addition, other planning matters, d including those raised by the " realism" principle, are or soon will be before it. That Board's attention is thus substantially taken already.
Similarly, the OL-5 Board has just completed some twelve weeks of hearings, !
which began on March 10. concerning the February 13, 1986 exercise. The findings schedule issued by it calls for final papers to be submitted by September 1. That Board l
L will thereaf ter have to turn concentrated attention to decision writing in order to en-able LILCO to take timely remedip!, action. if any is necessary, concerning the exercise.
That Boards energies are thus also substantially consumed for the foreseeable future.
L .
I i
l2 i
9 ;
The necessary work of both of these Boards must be complete by February 13, 1988 in order for LILCO to be eligible to receive a full-power license without having to-obtaM a waiver of the requirement of 10 CFR Part 50, App. E, 5 F(1) (52 Fed. Reg. ;
16,829 (May 6,1987)) that an offsite emergency planning exercise, in order to provide a basis for full-power licensing, must have been held 24 months or less prior to licensing.
That task is already compilcated by the fact that both Boards share one member, Judge 1
l Shon, in common. For either of these Boards to be put in charge of the 25% power is- 4 l sues as well would require Judge Shon to divide his attention still further, to three dis -
tinct proceedings. Totally apart from overall work load, the capacity of any of these -
Boards to proceed will be limited by Judge Shon's availability. Thus, while Judge Shon's.
presence in both the OL-3 and OL-5 dockets has provided valuable institutional memory to enable these Boards to avoid inconsistencies, adding the 25% Power Motion's issues to-the existing tasks of either Board would clearly tend to limit the progress on all of
- them, as well as imposing a potentially crushing workload on him personally. t Further, while common membership was desirable on the OL-3 and OL-5 Boards
{
because of the intertwined nature of the emergency planning issues before them, there ;
is no such direct commonality of those issues with those presented by the 25% op-eration request. Thus, the issues presented by the 25% Motion focus on the !cvel of risk presented by operation at 25% of rated power. While the facts of the emergency plan-ning record form a part of the background for decision on the 25% analysis, the 25% is-sues neither require further litigation of outstanding emergency planning issues nor depend on their prior dispositive resolution. Indeed, the premise of the 25% operation request is that, because of the reduction in risk at 25% power, existing emergency plan-ning measures are clearly satisfactory for operation at 25% power. Thus, the rationale t
1 i
for common membership that existed with the emergency planning boards des not ex-tend to the 25% Power Board.
LILCO accordingly requests that the Commission designate a new Licensing Board to address the 25% Motion.
B. Basis for Erpedition It is well established that the Commission and its agents, the licensing boards, should estabilsh and adhere to expeditious and reasonable schedules where, as here, l good cause can be shown for such expedited proceedings.EI Accordingly, LILCO re-(
quests the Commission to appoint a Licensing . Board to consider the issues raised by the 25% Motion and to instruct the newly appointed Licensing Board to explore opportunities to shorten the time limits for any necessary proceedings pursuant to 10 CFR S 2.711.EI 6
LILCO believes that the fo!!owing factors are relevant to setting an appropri-ate schedule for resolution of the 25% Motion, and that they strongly commend the Commission's setting an expedited basis for its resolution:
j (1) Shoreham is complete, tested, staffed and has long been ready for op-eration. Except for varicus artificial offsite emergency planning issues, the plant is fully licensed. Though emergency planning issues have been in litigation for four con-tinuous years by now, there is no certain end point to the controversy surrounding 11/ See 10 CFR S 2.711 (1987); Statement of Policy on Conduct of Licensing Pn>cwdings, CL!-81-8,13 NRC 452, 454 (1981) ("The Commission expects licensing boards to set and adhere to reasonable schedules for proceedings").
{
M/ See Metropolitan Edison CA (Three Mlle Island Nuclear Station, Unit No.1),
CLI-79-8,10 NRC 141,147 (1979). ;
I e -w e . . .,w- w --r .e
o i
i them. As a result, a fully completed plant, otherwise fully licensed and, even in the emergency planning area, approved in most major respects and definitively rejected in none,' stands idle for the third year. LILCO's 25% Power Motion provides an appropri- i 1
ate mears, contemplated by 5 50.47(c)(1) of the Commission's regulations, for permit-ting beneficial operation of Shoreham pending resolution of the remaining full power emergency planning issues.1E (2) In the nearly two decades since its initiation, the Shoreham project has been subjected to the most prolonged, protracted and intense scrutiny in the history of l l
this agency. Through all of it, the plant has consistently passed safety muster. S_ee 25% Pcwer Request at 121-42. This Commission has also found emergency planning and .
I preparedness for the plant to be feasible, thus destroying the only principled basis of !
opposition by New York State and Suffolk County and leaving only artificial, inconse- 1 l
l quential emergency planning matters remalNog. _See 25% Power Request at 12-18, 1
81-102. Fundamental f airness and equity to LILCO mandate that LILCO's licensing ef-l forts not be further hampered by delay. In light of the prolonged and extensive hear-ings already held, it would be manifestly unjust not to give the 25% Power Request ex-poditious treatment.
13/ The remaining unresolved offsite emergency planning issues are entirely artifi-cial: raey exist solely because County and State officials have refused to commit in ad-vance to participate in offsite emergency preparedness. This ploy to block Shoreham's operation cannot ultimately succeed; the 25% Power Request attached to the 25%
Power Motion demonstrates that when Shoreham is operated at 25% of rated power, the remaining full power emergency planning issues become insignificant. The Request shows conclusively that LILCO's commitment to maintain Shoreham's 10-mile EPZ, its potent and tested Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) and the existing, al-ready litigated and exercised Offsite Radiological Emergency Response Plan give rea-sonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of an accident at 25% power.10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1)specifically envisions these precise l circumstances.
l l
5 (3) As shown in the 25% Power Request attached to the 25% Power Motion and in the various affidavits of Adam M. Madsen, Long Island's critical and urgent need l
for additional electric power is already a daily fact and will only increase in seriousness by the summer of 1988. Power alerts are already occurring - four have been declared l already this year - and growing capacity shortfalls are forecast. LILCO's aging, for-eign oil-fired base generating capacity is insufficient to meet Long Island's current de-mand. LILCO must rely on off-Island purchases through its three interconnections. But these limited interconnections are already being used to capacity, and it is only a mat- !
i ter of time and probabilities before the inconveniences of load management and reduc-tions become literal blackouts, brownouts or other forms of power shortage. New gen-eration (combustion turbines), transmission lines and interconnections are in process but are years away. h more expeditious remedy is required. The appropriate and time-ly remedy for this continuing, critical need for electric power is operation of l
Shoreham. I (4) No less urgent is Long Island's continuing need to reduce its dependence on foreign oil for generating electric power. As the attached Department of Energy letter dated May 29,1987 reflects, commercial operation of Shoreham "would provide ,
an efficient, reliable, clean and safe energy source to relieve concern about the reilability of electricity generation on Long Island." As the Department of Energy ree-l i ognizes, Shoreham's operation will help "to avoid overdependence on foreign sources of I energy which threatens our national security."
i (5) I An expeditious schedule is fully consistent with the rights of interested j parties. The technical and legal bases for LILCO's 25% Power Request have been filed i
and available to all parties since April 15, 1987. The NRC Staff has long since retained ,
I l
l
_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __._____a
1
. . ~ ;J l
the contractors needed in its view to review the technical bases of the Request. Staff l review is well underway and, assuming it is on schedule, largely completed. Interveners also retained consultants who have been present at the various meetings scheduled by the NRC Staff to discuss LILCO's 25% Power Request. Moreover,in addition to the Re-quest and its detailed technical appendices, LILCO has provided -Intervenorr,' consul-tants with copies of all of the underlying contractors' reports and with copls of a!! the additional backup information and data requested by the NRC Staff, including computer
' data, technical backup documentation, calculations and reference documents. The l NRC Staff and Interveners have been given ard have long had in hand more than ade -
quate data and documentation to permit substantive review of' LILCO's 25% Power Re-quatM In addition, LILCO, by letter (attached), has invited Interveners to undertake further discovery even in the interim whila this Motion and other preliminary matters relative to the 25% Power Motion are being resolved, so as to avoid delay.
C. Proposed Schedule The schedule proposed below by LILCO is appropriate in structure and content to consideration of LILCO's tequest in the event the Commission concludes that live proceedings may be appropriate. Two of its characteristics deserve comment. First, it dispenses with the contention stage that is customarily used at the outset of 1,4/ Interveners' previous filings before the Commission in LILCO's 25% Power Re-quest recite a thoroughly predictable litany that they would require one year to 18 months to perform their review. As LILCO's Reply to Interveners' Opposition to Expe-dited Consideration of LILCO's 25% Power Request demonstrated, this was just the latest in a long series of delaying gambits designed to defeat Shoreham by delay because it can not be defeated on the merits. Interveners have, at most, a right to review, not a right to redo the analysis. LILCO's proposed schedule reflects this reality and the other points covered in LILCO's Reply at 25-30, 4 4
proceedings in the expectation of shaping and narrowing !ssues by parties lacking previ-ous intimate familiarity with them. Second, by having the other parties make the next fillrigs, it recognizes that LILCO has already filed the substance of its opening case on the well defined issues at hand.
i Contentions are normally utilized under Commission practice at the outset of proc
- dings, where the issues are customarily relatively inchoate, the parties are unfa-miliar with them and each other, and there is a need to bring focus to the proceeding.
atever the efficacy of that process in situations for which it was intended, LILCO's 25% Power Motion does not present such a situation. The issues here are d.iscrete and known to all parties; extensive discovery has been provided and more will be made
> available; and there is a time value to a decision here that will be damaged, unnecessarily but in9vitably, by the additional several weeks required to file and rule on I contentions. Further, the use of formal contentions is not required in NRC proceed-ings, as the low power dccket in this case (Docket 50-322-OL-4) illustrates.E Similarly, it is both appropriate and conducive to economy of effort for the parties other than LILCO to make the next filings. The technical issues presented by the 25% Power Motion are narrew, focused, and conceptually familiar to knowledgeable partles; the anciuary issues (e.g., the s!gnificance of remaining emergency planning is-sues) are familiar in fact to the parties from the pre-existing record of this case.
15/ Interveners frequently cite to an unpublished district court temporary injunction issued against a schedule set by a particular licensing board in the low power lleensing proceeding. Mario M. Cuomo v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Civ. No. 84-1264 (D.D.C. April 25, 1954), That case is totally inapposite. The schedule being dealt with there was much more rapid, and with fewer procedural projections, than that being proposed here. In any event, the basis for the couit's decision did not involve the role of, or need for, a contention stage of a preceeding. Following that decision, the low power case continued and was completed without contentions ever being filed.
i l
. l
I Further, as a practical matter LILCO has already substantially submitted its opening
('
case under oath in the verified 25% Power Request and Reply and provided extensive ;
i docuinentary and live discovery. This discovery, together with the additional period
{
provided for by the proposed schedule, furnishes sufficient time and opportunity for knowledgeable parties to evaluate and comment substantively on the merits of the 25%
proposal in testimony, as indicated in the proposed schedule.
l
(
LILCO believes that the schedu!e outlined below is reasonably tailored to and '
r would provide at least adequate time for disposition of the issues raised by the 25% Mo-tion, should the Commission believe that hearings on the matter are necessary. It al-lows a generous span for hearings - four weeks - which may well be more than are needed. It also collapses discovery and testimony filing somewhat, and shortens the fil-ing period for post-hearing proposed findings and conclusions, in light of the clear defi-nition of the issues and the expertness of the parties. It is premised on the Commis-sion's acting relatively expeditiously and on its giving the Licensing Board tentative guidance with respect to time frames for resolution of issues. If pursued with reason-able expedition, it should have matters in the Licensing Board's hands for disposition by the end of 1987 and available for decision in early 1988:
April 14 Fillni of LILCO's 25% Power Request, which with i supplemental affidavits of Adara Madsen provides the substance of LILCO's opening testimony July 15 Receipt by Commission, Boards and all parties of (1) Motion for Designation of Licensing Board and l
and (2) Motion for Authorization to Increase Power to 25%
y
__ _m_ ,
wAn s . .as-- ~ ~ - - - - - - - -
1 i
i July 27 Responses to Motions due from IntervenorsM/
July 30 Responses to Motions due from StaffE/ '
Day 011/ Commission Disposition of Motion for Designation of {
Licensing Bcard !
i Day 0 plus ? Licensing Board Prehearing '
Conference 1
July 14 - Day 30 DiscoveryM/ !
Day 50 Filing of Interveners' testimony !
1 Day 60 Filing of Staff's testimony Day 67 Filing of LILCO's reply testimony !
Day 74 Hearings begin i Day 100 Hearings end [4 weeks of hearings i contemplated)
Day 121 Filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by LILCO Day 128 Filing of proposed findings of f act and conclusions of law by Interveners Day 135 Filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by Staf f D:y 142 Fi!!ng of proposed reply findings of fact and ;
conclusions of law by LILCO Early 1988 Licensing Board decision '
g/ LILCO requests that the Commission rerjuire that responses be received from all parties, rather than merely posted, by these dates.
17/ A date presumptively af ter receipt of the other parties' rep!!es, due by July 30.
18/ LILCO, by attached letter to Interveners' counse!, is offering to make further discovery available beginning now, even before the Commission has acted on this Mo-tion. Thus t?.e overall discovery period contemplated by this schedule will be a mini-mum of about 50 days long. This is more than adequate in light of the detail already provided in the 25% Power Request and its appendices and in light of the extensive ad-ditional backJp and explanatory material provided to the NRC Staff and Interveners be-twecn mid-April and mid-June. In effect, much discovery has already occurred.
l
e l
17 IV. Conclusion i
For the reasons stated abo, ', LILCO requests that the Commission, af ter re-ceipt of comment on this motion, promptly establish a Licensing Board to consider LILCO's 25% Request on its merits and promulgate the dates-certain schedule for that j consideration proposed its this Motion, should it decide that iormal evidentiary proceed-i ings are necessary. l Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l
, Ll R -
n W. Taylor Reveley,111 i Donald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams Post Office Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
\
Anthony F. Earley, Jr.
Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 DATED: July 14,1987 l
l l
l
n -
Department of Energy Washington, CC p0555 I
May 29,1987 i
Hr. Steven A. Varga Director Division of Reactor Projects I/!!
U.S. Nuclear f.egulatory Com ission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Varga:
This is in response to your letter of April 30, 1987 Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) recuest for authorization from theregarding the lo Nuclear 25 percentRegulatory Comission to operate the Shoreham nucicar powerplant at of rated capacity. ,
factors which form the basis for LILCO's request, namely, their immediat need foreign foroil. power and their imeediate, continuing need to reduce dependence on !
The Department of Energy's recently released report entitled, " Energy Security,'
insecure foreign raisesoil.concerns over the trends toward increasing reliance on i In the past 20 years, nuclear energy has been a primary energy securitycontributor worlowide.toward reducing oil dependence, thereby improving i powerplants are installed in the same regions of our national grid as 82 percent of the installed oil capacity.
even greater if plants like Shoreham This percentage would be :
percent dependent on foreign oil, wer,e licensed to operate.which are on a system New York State alone burns 25 percent of all oil used to generate
, electricity in this country, a major portion of this on Long Island. While l Shoreham plant (at full power cperatien) will replace 7 to 9 m L
dependence on oil to generate electricity. barrels of oil annually and These ir:portant attributes, taken together across the country, define the national security interests in reducing sought to foster. dependence on foreign oil which Administration policies have '
I cullding Shoreham but the plant must ooerate to make gcod on t 4
l l
T .
j 2 l The 'need for power" issue, which is a determination made at the State level, a uttittymust always be considered in view of the particular situation facing company. Unlike most utilities, LILCO's service area is an j island which systems has fewer transmission interconnections with neighboring utilities.
This means there is a limited ability to back up tha electrical generation o3 Long Island. Regional ehetrical power pools, such as the Haw York Power Pool which dispatches electric power for the entire State, coordinete the bulk electric power supply and est6blish certain opsrating criteria for its member utilities. Each utility must provide its share of pool capactty; failure to comply with these criteria may create marginal supply conditions in the geographical area of the utility that fails to meet the criteria, and can result in power supply problems even beyond the immediate 1,rea. ' Typically, there are economic penalties assessed against those utilities who do not provide their share. l LILCO has been assessed several times on this very point.
In the New York Power pool, one of these criteria is a reserve margin which i is sufficient to coepensate for the unanticipated loss of the largest supply source at the time of the system's peak demand. The unpredictability of plant availability and peak dennd leads the Power Pool i to require reserve margins sufficient to guarantee the utility will maintain electricity for their'custcmers.
part of the utility's public service obligation. Requirements such as these are In LILCO's the New York Pcwer case, they Pool. have to meet an 18 percent reserve requirement set by '
In order to meet this requirement. LILCO must rely on their existing oil fired units and their existing transmission lints.
As t.!LC0 has explained in their application, because of their limited transmissico capability and aging oil units, they have often been strainec to the limits in meeting the demand. This continuing situation has resulted in numerous warnings by the New York Power Pool, the State Public Service Cemmission, the Nerth American Electric Reliability Council i without Shoreham is marginal and will Although deteriorate.and tne Federal other New Yor {
Government does not have responsibility to ensure supply, the Department of Energy is ultimately responsible for energy emergencies. Therefore, we with LILCO, as we have done in the past. plan to monitor the situation l The.only aoparent actions that LILCO could tske to ameliorate this '
currently being implemented. situation would be to enhance the conservation and lo j The Department of Energy is not able to . judge whether sufficient additional capacity. potential exists in these areas to offset the i
need for additional The essence of the matter is that commercial operation of Shoreham would provide an efficient, reliable, clean and safe energy source to relieve concern about the reliability of electricity generation on Long Island. In
,'y .
3 Energy security study, ertphasis is placed on the fact that nuclear energy is essential to maintaining the diversity ia energy sources necessary to avoid nationalover security. dependence on foreign sources of energy which threatens our Similarly, the ability to realize growth in the reliable electricity system.conrnercial, industrial, and trade settors of our economy achieving these two national goals.The operation of shoreham is consistent with If you586-6450 (202) require any further information, please feel free to contact me on or Mary Ann Novak of my staff on (202) 585 2240.
Sincerely,
- b. <j' .
I E -_
A. David Rossin Assistant Secretary fer Nuclear Energy i
l 8
I 9
i L.___._.___._ _ . . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l