ML20154J961

Exemption Granting 871001 Application for Schedular Exemption from 10CFR50.54(w) Requirements for Property Insurance

ML20154J961
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/11/1988
From:	Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Shared Package
ML20154J943	List: ML20154J939 ML20154J961
References
NUDOCS 8805270198
Download: ML20154J961 (9)

Text

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Docket No. 50-443 0F NEW HAfiPSHIRE (Seabrook Plant) )

EXEMPTION I.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-56 for the operation of Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. This license, issued on October 17, 1986, restricts Seabrook Station to loading fuel and conducting precriticality testing only.

However, the license provides, among other things, that the licensee is subject to all rules, regulations and orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect.

The facility is a pressurized water reactor rated at 3411 MW(t) at the licensee's site located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire.  ;

II.

Section 10 CFR 50.54(w) of the Comission's regulations requires that each I

commercial power reactor licensee shall obtain onsite property damage insurance l$0 Och ! 3 J

4

\

i in '.he amount of $1.06 billion. This reouirement, among other changes, increased the amount of required property insurance from $620 million and became effective on October 5. 1987.

On October 1,1987, the licensee filed an Application for Schedular Exemption from the requirements for property insurance above $620 million until such time as the Commission may grant a low power (5%) operating license.

This request was supplemented by additional information dated February 29, 1988. In support of its request, the licensee indicated that "Criticality at Seabrook Station has not been achieved. The primary system is not radioactive, and, in accordance with license requirements, the reactor coolant system is maintained with a boron concentration equal to or greater than 2000 parts per million." Maintaining the boron concentration of the reactor coolant equal to or greater than 2000 parts per million ensures that the reactor cannot be made critical, even if all the control rods are fully withdrawn. The licensee also maintains that the coverage in the amount of $620 million that it currently carries is "more than adequate to compensate for any conceivable condition that may occur." The amount of coverage should be more than adequate since the reactor does not contain a significant inventory of fission products and the 2000 parts per million boron concentration of the reactor coolant prevents the reactor from achieving criticality and thereby generating fission products. Therefore, the consequences of any credible accident would not include any significant radiological hazards and the existing insurance ,

coverage should be adequate to compensate for any conceivable condition. l l

The licensee indicates that the cost of property insurance in excess of $620 million (i.e. an additional $440 million in coverage) would exceed $1 million annually. In addition, by purchasing additional insurance, the licensee would be liable under the terms of the policy to pay a potential retrospective premium assessment of as much as 7.5 times the annual premium if an accident were to occur at any insured site. Thus, potential costs to the licensee of buying the additional insurance could be significant.

III.

The Commission may grant exemptions from the requirements of Part 50 "which are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security" (10 CFR 50.12(a)(1)). In its submittal, the licensee argued that the justification for its exemption request meets the "special circumstances" described in 550.12(a)(2)(ii), (iii) and (v). Section 50.12(a)(2) stipulates, "The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever... (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others

~A~

similarly situated; or... (v) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation..."

The licensee meets the conditions fcr granting an exemption. First, with respect to $50.12(a)(1), the exemption is authorized by law and does not present an undue risk to public health and safety. The risk to public health and safety presented by the Seabrook Station in its present state of cold shutdown is substantially lower than reactors operating at a significant percentage of rated power since the reactor is prevented from achieving criticality, it has not yet achieved criticality and does not contain a significant inventory of fission products.

The Seabrook exemption request also meets the special circumstances presented in 550.12 (a)(2)(ii). The Comission agrees with the licensee's assessment that, under the conditions proposed, a significant accident is, for all practical purposes, highly improbable since the reactor has not gone critical or been allowed to operate at any powcr level. Therefore requiring excessive onsite property damage insurance before the reactor achieves criti-cality would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule, which is to provide sufficient funds to clean up after a significant accident. The licensee is requesting a temporary exemption only until such time as it may be allowed  ;

to make the reactor critical and operate at low power. The licensee states  ;

that it will comply fully with $50.54(w) prior to initial criticality.

l l

l

., Tha Commission agrees that these factors ensure that the circumstances of the exemption from the subject requirements prior to achieving initial criticality do not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.

V.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, a temporary exemption is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby approves the following exemption:

The licensee is exempt from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w) with respect to on-site property damage insurance in excess of

$620 million prior to such time as Seabrook Station receives an operating license which allows the reactor to go critical or operate at any power level.

The NRC staff has determined that the granting of this exemption will not result in any significant environmental impact and that, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4), an environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connec-tion with this action. Copies of the licensee's request for exemption dated l October 1,1987 and supplement dated February 29, 1988 are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room ,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. and at the Exeter Public Library, Founders Park, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833. Copies may be obtained upon written request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention:

Director of Reactor Projects I/II.

l

' ~

q This Exemption is effective upon issua .

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this // > day of hf, 1988.

. r, ,

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Walter R. Butler, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects - I/II 1 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

l i

l i

i

"/ \

- j

., 1 1

. 5 or property or the mmon defense and security and is oth ise in the public interest. Therefore, he Commission hereby approves the ollowing exemption:

The licensee is exem from the requirements of 1 CFR 50.54(w) with respect to on-site roperty damage insuranc in excess of

$620 million unless and til such time as Sea ook Station receives a low power (5%) erating license.

The NRC staff has determined tha the gr nting of this exemption will not result in any significant environmental 1 ct and that, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d)(4),anenvironmentalimpactapprisa need not be prepared in connection with this action. Copies f the lic nsee's request for exemption dated October 1, 1987 and suppleme dated Februar 29, 1988 are available for public inspection at the Commis on's Pubite Document Room , 1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. and at t e Exeter Public Library, unders Park, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833. Copi ., may be obtained upon written . quest addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulat y Commission, Washington, D.C. 20 5, Attention:

Director of Reactor Pr jects I/II.

This Exemption is ef ective upon issuance.

Dated at Rockvill , Maryland this day of 1988.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTIO S. Varga C. Thomas B. Boger D. Nash V. Ners s R. Wood ,

PTSB R F (PUB SERVICECOMPANY) 0FC :PT :PTSBfNRP :NRR:PDI.3 :PTSB:NRR :0GC :NRR:PDI-3 :NRR/ADR1

.....: . ....:..__. ...p.:...........:.......__...:........___:...........:...........

NAME :RW <

DNast

. . . . . : _ _ . . _4 . _ ....:.........__

reses

_ _h. f:. .T :RWessman :BBoger

D/88 / /88  :/t//g88  : / /88  : :03/ /88 DATE:$//88  :

7

/ /88

/

OFC :NRR:DRP  :  :  :  :  :  :

NAME :SVarga  :  :  :  :  :  :

N 1 1 x x x x

1

, . 1

~

.. i

. 6-This Exemption is effective upon issu .

o Dated at Rockville, Maryland this l,l e::~ day of lauJ 1988.

FORTHENUCLEARREGUhhRYCOMMISSION

/ .,).

Walter R. Butler, Acting Director '

Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION

5. Varga C. Thomas B. Boger D. Nash V. Nerses R. Wood PTSB R/F (PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY) *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OFC :*PTSB:NRR  :*PTSB:NRR  :*NRR:PDI-3 :*PTSB:NRR  :*0GC  :*NRR:PDI-3 :*NRR/ADR1 NAME :RWood :DNash :VNereses :CThomas :E;;eis :RWessman :BBoger DATE : 4/15/88 :4 /18/88 :4 /18/88 :4 /19/88 :5 /03/88  : 5/03/88 :05/03/88 0FC RR:DRP  :  :  :  :  :

NAM :SVarga  :  :  :  :  :  :

DATE : [3 / \\'88  :  :  :  :  :  :

l

7 This Exemption is effective upon issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of 1988.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Steven A. Varga, Director Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION S. Varga C. Thomas B. Boger D. Nash V. Nerses R. Wood PTSB R/F (PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY)

.r. _,O .

OFC  : PTS :NRR :PTSB*y Rg :NRR:P I,3 :PTSB:NRR :0GC N 1l a.gIf3 :NRR fJ

.....:.. ....:.. 3q A gg_ ,p, .

.g_..:_______ _:__ _ ____e_ , __......__j ..

NAME :R :DNash '\vNe es -

1. Wessman :BB6 r'

_..___:. __________:......______..________. ___...______._J __...

..___:____.......:__.3_88 DATE  : /p88

Q/[/  : Y/l8/88 :dHpf88 '[/)/88

$f/3/88 $0 88

'0FC :NRR:DRP  :  :  :  :  :  :

......:____________:..___...____:_____.......:__....._____:.__........_:....________:..... ____. j NAME :SVarga  :  :  :  :  :  :

DATE : (/\\/88  :  :  :  :  :  :

1 1

1 1

I 1

l l

'o, UNITED STATES

? e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ .j 3 ,qi"(i WASW NG TON, 0. C. 20555 May 11, 1988 Docket No. 50-443 Mr. Robert J. Harrison President & Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New Hampshire post Office Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105

Subject:

EXEMPTION FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF 10 CFR 50.43(w)

SEABROOK STATION (TAC #66469)

The Comission has issued the enclosed exemption from certain reouirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w). The exemption was from the requirement to increase the amount of required property insurance from $620 million to $1.06 billion until Seabrook Station receives an operating license which allows the reactor to go critical or operate at any power level. This exemption is in response to your application of October 1, 1987 which was supplemented by additional information submitted on February 29, 1988.

Based on the staff's evaluation centained in the exemption, the Commission has granted your exemption request pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.12. The exemption is being forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

This completes our action related to the above-referenced TAC number.

Sincerely, Victor Nerses, Project Manager Project Directorate I-3 Division of Reactor Projects I/II

Enclosure:

Exemption cc: w/ enclosure See next page O

h A 697r'lW*g.

Mr. Robert J. Harrison I

Public Service Company of New Hampshire Seabrook Nuclear Power Station cc:

Thceas Dignan, Esq. E. Tupper Kinder, Esq. ,

John A. Ritscher, Esq. G. Dana Bisbee, Esq. I Repes and Gray Assistant Attorney General 225 Franklin Street Office of Attorney General j Boston, Massachusetts 02110 208 State Hosue Annex l Concord, New Hampshire 03301 1 Mr. Bruce B. Beckley, Project Manager Public Service Company of New Hampshire Resident Inspector Post Office Box 330 US Nucleer Regulatnry Comission Panchester, New Hampshire 03105 Post Office Box 1149 Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Dr. Mauray Tye, President .

Sun Valley Association Mr. A. M. Ebner, Project Manager 209 Sumer Street United Engineers & Constructors Haverhill, Massachusetts 08139 Post Office Box 8223 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Robert Backus, Esq.

Backus, Meyer and Solomon Steven Oleskay, Esq.

116 Lowell Street Office of the Attorney General Manchester, New Hampshire 03106 One Ashburton Place P.O. Box 330 Diane Curran, Esq. Boston, Massachusetts 02108 H6rmon and Weiss 2001 S Street, NW Carol S. Sneider, Esq.

Suite 430 Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20009 One Ashburton Place P.O. Box 330 Philip Ahren. Esq. Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Assistant Attorney General State House, Station #6 D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq.

Augusta, Maine 04333 General Counsel Public Service Company of New ,

Hampshire l Mr. Warren Hall Post Office Box 330 l Public Service Company of Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 New Hampshire Post Office Box 330 Regional Administrator, Region I Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 475 Allendale Road 1 Ms. Jane Doughty King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 Seacost Anti-Pollution League l i

5 Market Street New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 107 Pleasant Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Mr. Diana P. Randall 70 Collins Street Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 0

1

Public Service Company of Seabrook Nuclear Power Station New Hampshire CC:

Mr. Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Mr. Alfred V. Sargent, City Hall Chairman 126 Daniel Street Board of Selectmen Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 Board of Selectmen Senator Gordon J. Humphrey RFD Dalton Road ATTN: Tom Burack Brentwood, New Hampshire 03833 S31 Hart Senate Office Building U.S. Senate Ms. Roberta C. Pevear Washington, D.C. 20510 Town of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire Drinkwater Road Mr. Owen B. Durgin, Chairman Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 03844 Durham Board of Selectmen Town of Durham Mr. Guy Chichester, Chaiman Durham, New Hampshire 03824 Rye Nuclear Intervention Comittee Ms. Sandra Gavutis c/o Rye Town Hall RDF 1 East Kingston, New Hampshire 03827 10 Central Road Rye, New Hampshire 03870 Chairman, Board of Selectmen RFD 2 Jane Spector South Hampton, New Hampshire 03827 Federal Energy Regulatory Comission R. Scott Hill - Whilton 825 North Capital Street, NE Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whilton Room 8105

& McGuire Washington, D. C. 20426 79 State Street Newburyport, Ma, 01950 Mr. R. Sweeney Three Metro Center Ms. R. Cashman, Chairman Suite 610 Board of Selectmen Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Town of Amesbury Town Hall Amesbury, Massachusetts 01913 Mr. Richard Strome, Director State Civil Defense Agency Honorable Peter J. Matthews State Office Park South Mayor, City of Newburyport 107 Pleasant Street City Hall Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 Adjudicatory File (2)

Mr. Donald E. Chick, Town Manager Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Town of Exeter Panel Docket 10 Front Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Exeter, New Hampshire 03823 Washington, D.C. 20555 0

• s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the catter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Docket No. 50-443 ,

0F NEW HAliPSHIRE (Seabrook Plant) )

EXEMPTION I.

Public Service Company of New Hampshire (the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No, MPF-56 for the operation of Seabrook Station nuclear power plant. This license, issued on October 17, 1986, restricts Seabrook Station to loading fuel and conducting precriticality testing only.

However, the license provides, among other things, that the licensee is subject to all rules, regulations and orders of the Consnission now or hereafter in effect.

l i

The facility is a pressurized water reactor rated at 3411 MW(t) at the  !

licensee's site located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire.

II.

Section 10 CFR 50.54(w) of the Consnission's regulations requires that each commercial power reactor licensee shall obtain onsite property damage insurance

)

rL I Q W (f f ' _ .

s in the amount of $1.06 billion. This reouirement, among other changes, increased the amount of required property insurance from $620 million and became effective on October 5, 1987.

On October 1, 1987, the licensee filed an Application for Schedular Exemption from the requirements for property insurance above $620 million until such time as the Commission may grant a low power (5%) operating license.

This request was supplemented by additional information dated February 29, 1988. In support of its request, the licensee indicated that "Criticality at Seabrook Station has not been achieved. The primary system is not radioactive, and, in accordance with license . requirements, the reactor coolant system is maintained with a boron concentration eaual to or greater than 2000 parts per million." Maintaining the boron concentration of the reactor coolant equal to or greater than 2000 parts per million ensures that the reactor cannot be made critical, even if all the control rods are fully withdrawn. The licensee also maintains that the coverage in the amount of $620 million that it currently carries is "more than adequate to compensate for any conceivable condition that may occur." The amount of coverage shoeld be more than adequate since the reactor does not contain a significant inventory of fission products and the 2000 parts per million boron concentration of the reactor coolant l

prevents the reactor from achieving criticality and thereby generating fission products. Therefore, the consequences of any credible accident would not include any significant radiological hazards and the existing insurance coverage should be adequate to compensate for any conceivable condition.

O e

-- . . , . . . _ - -. -..---n , , , - - . . - - , . - . ., , _ . . - . ,

r

3-The licensee indicates that the cost of property insurance in excess of $620 million (i.e. an additional $440 million in coverage) would exceed $1 million annually. In addition, by purchasing additional insurance, the licensee would be liable under the terms of the policy to pay a potential retrospective premium assessment of as much as 7.5 times the annual premium if an accident were to occur at any insured site. Thus, potential costs to the licensee of buying the additional insurance could be significant.

III.

The Comission may grant exemptions from the requirements of Part 50 "which are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security" (10 CFR l 50.12(a)(1)). In its submittal, the licensee argued that the justification for its exemption request meets the "special circumstances" described in 950.12(a)(2)(ii),(iii)and(v). Section 50.12(a)(2) stipulates, "The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever... (ii) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others

• i i

i

~ l

4 similarly situated; or... (v) The exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicable regulation and the licensee or applicant has made good faith efforts to comply with the regulation..."

The licensee meets the conditions for granting an exemption. First, with respect to $50.12(a)(1), the exemption is authorized by law and does not present an undue risk to public health and safety. The risk to public health and safety presented by the Seabrook Station in its present state of cold shutdown is substantially lower than reactors operating at a significant percentage of rated power since the reactor is prevented from achieving criticality, it has not yet achieved criticality and does not contain a significant inventory of fission products.

The Seabrook exemption request also meets the special circumstances presentedin550.12(a)(2)(ii). The Commission agrees with the licensee's assessment that, under the conditions proposed, a significant accident is, for all practical purposes, highly improbable since the reactor has not gone critical or been allowed to operate at any power level. Therefore requiring excessive onsite property damage insurance before the reactor achieves criti-cality would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule, which is to provide sufficient funds to clean up after a significant accident. The licensee is requesting a temporary exemption only until such time as it may be allowed to make the reactor critical and operate at low power. The licensee states that it will comply fully with $50.54(w) prior to initial criticality,

\

e

.g +

i *.

i +

• l 1

The Comission agrees that these factors ensure that the circumstances of the exemption from the subject requirements prior to achieving initial criticality do not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.

IV.

Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, a temporary exemption is authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the Commission hereby approves the following exemption:

The licensee is exempt from the requirements of 10 CFR 50,54(w) '

with respect to on-site property damage insurance in excess of

$620 million prior to such time as Seabrook Station receives an operating license which allows the reactor to go critical or operate at any power level.

The NRC staff has determined that the granting of this exemption will not l result in any significant environmental impact and that, pursuant to 10 CFR 1

51.5(d)(4),anenvironmentalimpactappraisalneednotbepreparedinconnec-l tion with this action. Copies of the licensee's request for exemption dated October 1,1987 and supplement dated Feoruary 29, 1988 are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room ,1717 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. and at the Exeter Public Library, Founders Park, Exeter, 1

New Hampshire 03833. Copies may be obtained upon written request addressed to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washi$ ton, D.C. 20555, Attention:

l Director of Reactor Projects I/II. l

i ..-

+-

t, i

This Exemption is effective upon issuance.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this // day of hc,f ,, 1988. l FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l Walter R. Butler, Acting Director Division of Reactor Projects - I/II i Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

l l

l 4

=

3 i

l l

O 1