ML20012B858
| ML20012B858 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/12/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#390-10535, TASK-PINC, TASK-SE SECY-90-084, SECY-90-84, NUDOCS 9003190006 | |
| Download: ML20012B858 (17) | |
Text
WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM4 I'
RELUsSED TO THE PDR p%g 4
i ht s,..us 4p POLICY ISSUE March 12,19jLO (NEGATIVE CONSENT) secy-90-Os4 For:
The Commissioners From:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Sub_iect:
SHOREHAM NOCLEAR POWER STATION - $TATUS AND DEVELOPMENTS
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of recent activities related to
~~
the $horeham Nuclear Power Station, and related NRC staff actions.
[
Background:
In accordance with the SRM dated August 25, 1989, the Director of NRR riquested that the President of Long Island Lighting Company (LtLLO) provide appropriate commhments to abstre: operability of systems required for safety in the defueled ste.te, preservation of the facility, and adequate staffir.g to ensure plant safety in the defueled state.
LILC0 providee. Oc requested co.amitments by letter dated Septeeber 19, 1989.
The staf f mt with LILCO manageur.t un September 28, 1989, and discussed LILCO plaris for ensuring continued compliance with Commission requirements until such time as exemptions or amendments were approved by NRC.
At this time LILCO also detailed its plans for equipment lay-up.
The staff has continued its regular discussions with the Shoreham plant management during the course of periodic inspections of the facility.
There has been no meeting specifically directed toward the issue of de ommissioning, since the organizational arrange-ment for evcommissioning of Shoreham is under discussion among LIC,0, the Long Island Power Authority, and the New York b er Authority.
We have urged the parties to meet with the NRC staff to discuss decommissioning as soon as practicable.
In the interim, we have reiterated, and LILC0 has reaffirmed its obligation to comply with, NRC requirements applicable to the Shoreham facility.
CONTACT:
Stewart W. Brown, NRR NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY 49 21444 AVAILABLE WHEN TFE SPM IS MADE AVAILABI.E f0a 4ba3 moos y l
V mmmmmMMMMmmma
l.
The Commissioners.
l 1
Discussion:
The following provides the status of recent LILCO
(
activities related to the Shoreham facility and NRC
}
staff actions.
5 Status of LILCO's $1te Activities j
l LILC0 has i;onfirmed that it will comply with its contractual i
obligations to refrain from operating Shoreham.
Defueling l
was completed on August 9, 1989.
The reactor vessel was I
reassembled on August 21, 1989 and the drywel) head was installed on August 24, 1989.
l i
Two major site programs are ongoing at Shoreham:
an equipment preservation program and a program to develop a j
profile of the facility's radioactivity levels.
The equipment preservation program involves the deactivation and protection of all equipment LIICO has determined to be unnecessary with all the nuclear fuel stored in the spent fuel pool.
LlLCO developed a system classification scheue that resulted in the following:
37 syster4 needtd to neeet
-l Technical Specifications (TS) requirements will be maintainW l
operable; 42 systems not required by TS but necessary for nomin61 plant functions, habitability, and so fortt., that i
will be uairtW ned functicnal; and 70 systems will be protected (preserved) in whole or in prart.
Surveillance testing is still being performed on the operable syttems, l
and the majority of preventive maintenance activitier are I
being completed for all systees.
LILCD developed a formal system lay-up implementation program to lay-up and monitor those systems that will be preserved.
The equipment being j
preserved includes all emergency core cooling system equipment, most of the safety-related equipment, and most.
of the auxiliary support equipment.
This program is I
approximately 80 percent complete and is expected to be i
completed by late April 1990.
The second program is an effort to establish a radioactivity profile of the site to aid in the development of a Shoreham decommissioning plan, i
This program is approximately 10 percent complete and is also expected to be completed by late April.
)
Status of LILCO's Site Staffino j
LILCO's initial destaffing plan called for a reduction of onsite staffing to an authorized level of 434 employees.
As
)
of January 31, 1990, 374 LILCO employees and 30 contractor i
employees were on site, leaving a shortfall of 30 persons.
LILCO continues to lose experienced and trained personnel.
A few managers have left to take other positions either within or outside the company.
However, due to the depth of the organization, LILCO has filled these positions with qualified personnel and the NRC staff remains confident of the site management's abilities and commitment to safety.
l The Commissioners,
l Before the settlement agreement, LILCO had 60 licensed personnel, including both senior reactor operators ($R0s) j and reactor operators (R0s).
As of January 31, 1990. LILCO I
had 29 licensed Personnel (17 SR0s and 12 R0s).
As a result l
of a team inspection the week of September 18, 1989, the staff concluded that LILC0's site staffing meets the require-ments of the Shoreham Opdated $afety Analysis Report and the Technical Specifications for the plant's defueled condition.
l LILCO has reduced the number of shif t crews from six to five.
i The Technical Specifications require that the shift crews consist of one SRO, one R0, and one equipment operator (EO).
Each of LILCO's current crews consists of one $RO, one RO, i
and three EOs.
Available for shift work are 10 SR0s; however, j
only 5 are required.
One of these SR0s is expected to i
leave within a month.
For the $ R0s required for shif t work, i
12 are available.
Two of these employees are expected to I
leave within the next month.
Lit.00 believes that the remaining l
$R0s and R0s will choose to remain with the company becau*e e
of their family ties to Long Islans and their length of service with the company.
Only 12 traineri EOs are available for shift crew work, leaving LILCO 3 E0r short of a full i thift complement of 3 E05 per shift.
LiLCO is 4thVfing the shifts with EOs who work overtime and raowaste equipment i
operators who are also c>ualified as EOs.
L1LCO recentiy r
hired 14 people to be traine6 es EOs (the status of t%
training programs is discussed ba19w).
LILCO expects that these newly hired en.ployees w1'1 be tulified at, E0s in about i
12 to 16 weeks (for the defueled plant condition).
4a
[
result, LILC0 will have 26 EOs.
Status of Shoreham Training f
i The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) will continue to accredit LILCO's training programs.
LILCO has been able to maintain this arrangement with INPO because of its part ownership (18 percent) in Nine Mile Point, Unit 2.
Because these programs are now based on the defueled plant condition, people trained during this period will have to receive additional training if the operational status of the plant changes.
Status of Pending Requests for Relief l
As of the beginning of this year LILCO has had 12 pending I
requests for licensing actions (license amendments and exemptions).
A number of these are recently filed requests for relief that take into account the defueled status of the plant.
Where appropriate, the staff plans to issue temporary waivers of compliance pending final staff r
i
I"
(
c.
The Commissioners ection.
One temporary waiver of compliance was issued on March 9, 1990.
It grants relief from the need for an updated safety analysis report as required by 10 CFR 50.71 until June 1,1990.
The 12 requests end the staff's schedule of actions are given in Enclosure 1.
Briefly:
i i
Two have been granted (removed organization charts from the Technical Specifications and removed need for plant manager approval of certain plant l
procedures).
l Two wil' be withdrawn as no longer needed.
The staff is processing seven other requests in due course and expects to complete action by the end of April 1990.
Based on our reviews to date, we will likely act favorably on these requests.
One of thest Actions is LILCO's 7equest for exemption from emergency planfhg requirements snd for amendment of its i
license to elir,inate tht requirtment for the local emerger/;y response organization (LERO).
With respect to i
this actien, the staff has concluded that, given the l
defueled status of the f6cility, this amendment wobid involve no signifiernt bezards consideration.
In its l
1etter of January 12, 1990 LILCO committed to reestablish an offsite emergency response organization comparable in effectiveness to the NRC approved LERO prior to placing any fuel back into the Shoreham reactor.
Since LILCO t
has demonstrated the ability to establish the LERO, the i
NRC staff considers this change would not be irreversible.
l The staff plans to publish a Federal Register notice
}
concerning the requested amendment.
A copy of that notice l
is provided as Enclosure 2.
l With respect to the twelfth request, an amendment prohibiting operation of the $horeham facility, called
" Request for a Defueled Operating License," NRR is working i
on this matter with OGC to determine an appropriate course t
of action.
As a first step, the staff plans to issue a confirmatory order modifying LILCO's license (effective immediately) l to prohibit LILC0 from placing any nuclear fuel in the
$horeham reactor vessel without prior approval from the NRC.
A copy of that order is provided as Enclosure 3.
b
I i
The Commissioners !
l In the event the staff identifies any potentially unique i
t safety considerations in these or further exemption requests, it intends to seek the advice of the ACRS prior to granting the exemption.
Based on the staf f's prelimi-nary review of the exemption requests, it does not appear t
at this time that any unique safety considerations are involved.
Nonetheless, the staff has provided its preliminary thoughts to the ACRS for their information and will discuss any questions with the ACRS that it may have.
The staff will advise the Consission of any specific exemptions for which ACRS review has been requested.
j Status of Other Staff Activities The senior resident inspector assigned to Shoreham was l
transferred effective January 28, 1990, to Indian Point, l
Unit 2 for his continued professional development.
The l
vacant position has been posted.
Until a permanent resident inspector is assigned to Shoreham, Region I is providing l
50 percent onsite coverage using acting resident inspectorc.
l Region I also plans to conduct a followup site inspection i
of LILCO's site staffing levels, empleyee qualificatior.a.
arai equipmeqt pre 6ervation program, j
Reconnendt tion-Unless the Commission directs otherwise within 10 days fromthedAteofthispaperthestaffwIllissuetne enclosed Federal Rejir*.cr notice (Enriosure 2) and ccnfIrmatory order (InWsure 3).
/
J s M. Tay xecutive Di ector j
for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated SECY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staaff on Tuesday, March 27, 1990, l
that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to i
the action proposed in this paper.
l DISTRIBUTION:
I Commissioners EDO OGC ACRS OIG ACNW l
GPA ASLBP REGIONS I & V ASLAP SECY t
e
-_w o
ENCLOSIRE 1 STATUS OF Litt0'S REtPSS JM RELIEF
~.
Afm OTHER LICE 8tS NG [CTIONS ISSUE ACTION SCEDULED DATE 1.
Resnnved the need for plant Comple's - 4%cery 16.1990 Completed manager's approval from the process of certain plant procedures (Technical Specification 6.8.2) 2.
Removed the organization Cos9 cte - February 1, 1990 Coupleted 1
charts from the Technical Specifications (Technical Specification 6.2) i 3.
Change the alam/ trip LILCO to Withdraw Request March 15,1990 setpoint for main control fMu longer needed)
{
room vent radiation monitors (Technical Specification 3/4.3.7) 4 8
Change to control rod LitCO to Withdraw Request Merch 15,1990 exercise procedure
{We Longer needed)
(Technical Specification 1.2) 4 9
c.
,<-,,-...,..--,,,.,-,+=-+-,ww
,mw,
.,me w.-we..
e.en
,,m.
~e.-++,,
2-ISSUE ACTION SCMEDULED DATE l
S.
Relief from insurance Issue Envirofmental Assessment Completed requirements (Exemption Complete Febmery 15,1990 from50.54(w))
Issue SER and Exemption March 15, 1990 6.
Schedular relief from need to I:sve Enviroaaental Assessment March 15, 1990 l
vpdate SAR (Exemption From 50.71)
Issue SER er.: Examption March 30, 1990 7.
Modify diesel generator test Staff tc Issue SER April 30, 1990 schedule per our Generic Letter (Technical Specification 3/4.8.1) 8.
Relief from emergency 1%:se Shelly for License March 23,1990 preparedness requirements (License AWt Amendment and Exemption From Isme iteer:se Amendment Appendix E)
(at leest 30 days efter Shelly is issued) i Issue SER and Exaption Arril 30,1990
)
__..-,--~.,.-,,.--..-,.n-s.,.
.w a, en
-- -.-,,--. m
..,,.-.,.,--.e
--,,--,v
~,,_..,-nn_,-...
2-ISSUE ACT105 SCfDULED DATE O.
Relief from security plan 1ssue $ holly Merch 23, 1990 reovirements Issue Ucense Anendment April 30, 1990
- 10. Delete radioloeical effluent issue Shelly March 23,1990 iters from the Technical Issue ha,it and SER April 30, 1990 Specifications (GenericLetter89-01)
- 11. Relief from containment leakage Issue Envirmeental Assessment April 30,1990 testing requirements Issue SER and Exception May 15, 1990 (Exemption From Appendix J)
- 12. Request for a defueled Develcp Staff Position No Schedule operating license 4
1
,4
.--y,.
r, e
t.y--w..,s, w--
,e,
...w. -
.m..,,.. - _.-...
-m.
mv..,
w. --
..-e
i
)
l..
l l
l ENCLO$URE 2 I
MEMORANDUM FOR: $ holly Coordinator i
FROM:
Walter R. Butler, Director l
Project Directorate 1-2 l
Division of Reactor Projects 1/11 50BJECT:
REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN 81 WEEKLY FR NOTICE - NOTICE (TACNO.75498) 0F CON $10 ERAT 10N OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY l
OPERATING LICENSE AND PROPOSED NO $16NIFICANT HAIARDS 6
CON 51 DERAT 10N DETERMINATION AND OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEARING Long Island Lighting Company. Docket No. 50 322. shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Suf folk County, New York Date of amendment request: December 15, 1989 Description of amendment request:
Theamendmentwouldadd(onpage6'>f Facility Operating License No. NPF-82, immediately following the text of f
LicenteConditionP.C(13))anewLicenseCondition2.C(14),toreadas
{
follows:
j.
The requireewnts set fcrth in LittnSe Conditier.s (9) through (13) will
)
u t apply if the fc110mit.g conditions exist:
l
- 1) The reactor is vo86 of fli fuel succhlies; and
- 2) The spent (tel, with a burrmp of spronrhtely two effective full pner dor, is stored in tto spent fuel Storage pool or other approved storage configuration.
l This request for license amendment, coupled with ti,e licensee's request forexemptionfromtherequirementsof10CFR550.54(q)andproposedchangesto its $horeham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Preparedness Plan, would allow the licensee to cease its offsite emergency preparedness activities.
1 n
l 2
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration determination: The l
Countssion has provided standards for detemining whether a significant harardsconsiderationexists(10CFR50.92). A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration l
t if operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would nott (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences j
of an accident previously evaluated; (2) create the possibility of a new or l
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The licensee has determined that the proposed change does not involve f
i a significant hazards consideration for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, j
Unit 1, on the basis of the following analysis, which was provided in its t
tuhmittel of December 15, 1989:
A.
The Pro">osed Alaendment Does Not involvo a Sigrsificant Increase in l
the FrqdTTity or conseyence or an Acefdent Frevfously Evefuated, i
Tlic probability of a previous 1.y weluated accident will not be l
increased becauso the teendment dou not affect the function or i
N2 ration of any f,ystem or equipstat. but laerely permits the ustation of certain offsite emergency preparedness activities.
i i
No physical changss will be made to the facility as a result of this proposed amendment, and all applicable Limiting Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety Systems Settings, and Safety Limits l
specified in the Technical Specifications will remain unchanged as a result of this proposed amendment. Likewise, the amendment will not degrade the performance of any safety system or increase challenges to any safety system assumed to function in the accident t
analyses.
Moreover, based on its safety Analysis LILC0 has determined that withShorehaminitsnon-operating,defueledcondition the probability of a previously analyzed accident is si9nificantly reduced. The Safety Analysis reveals that Shoreham s spent fuel is in a low burnup condition, and that the amount of decay heat being generated by the fuel as of June 1989 is negligible --
approximately 550 watts. With the fuel in such a low burnup condition, the Safety Analysis indicates that active systems for pool water makeup are not required and that passive cooling in the fuel pool is sufficient to maintain fuel cladding integrity.
l l
q The safety Analysis also establishes that the consecuences of j
previously evaluated accidents are areatly decreaset given Shoreham's defueled status. The Sadety Analysis reviews the j
spectrum of accidents evaluated in the Shoreham Updated Safety i
Analysis Report (USAR) and identifies those events that apply to the storage and handling of spent fuel. Two events have been found to be relevant:
,1)fuelhandlingaccident(USAR[$ection) 15.1.36)and(2)liquidradwestetankrupture(U$AR[Section) i 15.1.32). For the fuel-handling accident the safety Analysis caleviates that the integrated whole-body,and skin doses are less I
than 0.00005 [ percent) of the 10 CFR Part 100 limits. For the liquid radweste tank rupture, the integrated whole-body, skin, and maximum organ (lung) doses are less than 0.0000004[ percent)ofthe 10 CFR Part 100 limits. Given these de minimis doses, it is clear I
that the cessation of offsite emergency preparedness will not result in any increase in the consequences of a previously evaluated accident.
B.
The Proposed Amendment Will Not Create the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of Accident From any Accident Previously Evaluated.
]
Again, the amendment will only remove certain conditions related
)
to emergency preparedness from Shoreham's operating license. The i
i amen 6r.ent itself does not affect the function or operation of any 1
system or equipment.
C.
The Proposed Artndment Doek Nct involve a Significant Reduction in a Mstgin of $sfety.
' lith Shoreham in its r.on-operating and defueled condition the
.cessationofoffsiteeargencypreparednessactivitieswillnot utresse the risk of radfelogical exposure to the offsite u reral public. AA n:ted above, the Sofety Antlysis establis5es ti,::t tha two appli?fole events previous *ey evolusited in the $horeham USAR have no s'gnificant n diological consequences. The Safety Analysis aiso pstulates a " worst cased radiological event, in which the entire gaseous inventory of the entire core is released I
to the reactor building. For this event the integrated whole-body andskindosesarelessthan0.031[ percent)ofthedoselimits established by 10 CFR Part 100.
l The licensee, in its letter of January 12, 1990, consnitted not to place nuclear fuel back into the Shoreham reactor without prior NRC approval.
Further, the licensee reiterated its understanding that in accordance with the proposed amendment if it were to place nuclear fuel into the Shoreham
?
t 4
l vessel it must reestablish an offsite emergency response organization comparable in effectiveress to 1 00 which the NRC approved prior to issuance of the $horeham full power operating license. The staff concurs with the licensee's analysis. Therefore, the stiff proposes to determine that the l
l proposed amendment involves no significant hazards consideration.
j Local Public Document Room locationt Shoreham-Wading River Public Library, I
Route 25A, Shoreham, New York 11786 9697 Attorney for licerseet W. Taylor Reveley !!!, Esq., Hunton and Williams, P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 NRC Project Director: Walter R. Butler l
Walter R. Butler, Director Project Directorate 1-2 Div1510: of Reactor Pro.iects 1/l!
'I i
I 1
h i
.o ENCLOSURE 3 J
U J
s!)
7590-01 4W UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM15510N in the Matter of Long Island Lighting Company Docket No. 50-322 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station License No. NPF-82 CONFIRMATORY ORDER MODIFYING LICENSE (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) 1.
LongIslandLightingCompany(LILCO)istheholderofFacilityOperating License NPF-82 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the NRC) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on April 21, 1989. The license authorizes the operation of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in accordance with conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the licensee's site in the Town of Brookheven, Suffolk County, New York.
11.
On February 28,1989, LILCO entered into an agreement with the State of New York to transfer its $horeham assets to an entity of the State for decommissioning. However, LILCO continued to pursue with the NRC its request for a full-power license to operate its Shoreham plant. On April 21, 1989, the NRC issued Facility Operating License NPF-82 to LILCO which allows full-power operation of the Shoreham plant. On June 28, 1989 LILCO's shareholders ratified LILCO's agreement with the State. License transfer is contingent on NRC authorintion. Consistent with the terms of the settlement agreement, which prohibits further operation of the Shoreham
-~
)
.p.
e facility, LILCO has completed defueling the reactor and has reduced its j
staff. Further, LILC0 is proceeding with its plans to discontinue customary j
maintenance for systems LILC0 considers unnecessary to support operation l
when all the fuel is placed in the spent fuel pool, by deenergizing and l
protecting these systems rather than maintaining them in an operational, ready condition, t
Defueling activities began on June 30, 1989. The vessel head was detensioned and removed on July 8, 1989. Fuel movement began on July 13, 1989. Defueling was completed on August 9, 1989. Also during the period of June 30 through August 9, 1989, LILCO was in the process of reducing f
its operating and support staff. LILCO has assured the NRC that it would ensure adequate staffing to conform to the requirementt of its license for the shutdown condition. The staff has concluded that LILCO's site staffing meets the requirements of the Shoreham Updated Safety Analysis
't Report and the Technical Specifications for the plant's defueled condition.
However, staffing is currently below that which would be needed if the f
_ plant were to return to an operating or standby mode.
III.
l The NRC has determined that the public health and safety require that the licensee not return fuel to the ret.ctor vessel for the following reasons:
(1) the reduction in the licensee's on. site support staff below that necessary I
forplantoperations,and(2)theabsenceofHRC.approvedproceduresfor returning to an operational status systems and equipment that the licensee has decided to decctivate and protect rather than maintain until ultimate l
)
I. -
k disposition of the plant is determined. Such systems and equipment include all emergency core cooling systems, most of the plant's safety-related systems, and most of the plant's auxiliary support systems.
If LILC0 were i
to place nuclear fuel into the reactor vessel, this could result in a core configuration which could become critical and produce power without a sufficient number of adequately trained personnel to control operation.
In addition, it is questionable whether necessary safety equipment would be available, On January 12, 1990, the licensee submitted e letter in which it stated that it would rot place nuclear fuel beck into the Shoreham reector without prior NRC approve.l.
I find the licensee's comitment as set forth in its letter of January 17,1990, acceptable and necessary, and I conclude that with this commitment, the plant's safety is reasonably asssured.
in view of the foregoing, I have determined that the public health and safety require that the licensee's comitment in its January 12, 1990, letter not to place nuclear fuel into the Shoreham reactor vessel without prior NRC approval be confirmed by this Order.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.204, I have also determined that the public heelth and safety require that this Orur be effective imediately. This Confirmatory Order in no way relieves the licensee of the terms and conditions of its operating license or of its comunitments covering the continued maintenance of structures, systems and components outlined in its letter of Septenber 19, 1989.
I
f 1
4 IV.
Accordingly, pursuant to section 103, 161b, and 1611 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.204 and 10 CFR Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, f
that Facility Operating License NPF-82 is modified as follows:
l The licensee is prohibited from placing any nuclear fuel into the Shoreham reactor vessel without prior approval from the NRC, j
V.
l t
Any person other than the licensee adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order may reouest a hearing within twenty days of its issuance. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Chief. Docketing and Service Section. Copies also shall be sent to the Director Office of Enforcement, I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, and to l
the Regional Administrator, NRC Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
If such a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forthin10CFR2.714(a). A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS CONFIRMATORY ORDER.
l
-- m
-. m
---u,.u w-------m g
-ww_--w
E 1
l
(.
5-l 1
If a hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Consission will issue an order designating the time and 3
place of any hearing.
If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this day of
,1990 i
t.
t
/$* %,,"g, tu.
UNITED STATES
!Y-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
i w AssiNotoN, D.C. 20$55 s
J n............
'%. [,
March 27, 1990 RELEASED TO THE PDR OFFICE OF THE t
- i. 9_Q stentTAny thfle '
- * " * * *
- u.....init$.s....,;
~*
MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M.
Taylor Executive Director for Operations a
f.t.
5& t:f.
FROM:
muel J.
Chilk, Secretary J
SUBJECT:
SECY-90-084 - SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION-
- STATUS AND DEVELOPMENTS This is to advise you that the Commission has not objected to the issuance of the proposed Federal Register Notice and confirmatory order.
A suggested change to the text of the draft order is attached which conforms the order more closely to the procedure requirements of 10 CFR 2.204.
In a memorandum of March 22, 1990, to you Commissioner Curtiss asked that you advise him in the event that LILCO proposes to take any actions that, in staff's judgment, would materially and demonstrably affect the methods or options available for decommissioning or that would substantially increase the cost of decommissioning.
Attachment:
As stated cc:
Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick OGC NOTE:
THE SRM AND THE SUBJECT SECY PAPER WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE WHEN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE IS PUBLISHED.
l.
l l
I
\\
l
4.
t IV.
Acceroingly, pursuant to section 103, 161b, and 1611 of the At.omic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.204 and 10 CFR Part 50, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, EFFECTIVE IMEDIATELY,
[I[
that Facility Operating License NPF-82 is modified as follows:
eb
.I The licensee is prohibited from placing any nuclear fuel into the Shoreham reactor vessel without prior approval from the NRC.
\\ 39:
v.
Any person c i- ' " - t M '.
..... i.dversely affected by this Confirmatory Order may reauest a hearing within twenty days of its issuence. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, Attention: Chief. Docketing and Service Section. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcerent, I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C. 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Hearings and Enforcement at the same address, and to l
the Regional Administrator, NRC Region 1, 475 Allendale Road, King of I'
Prussia. Pennsylvania 19406.
If such a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forthin10CFR2.714(a). A REQUEST FOR HEARING SHALL NOT STAY THE IMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS CONFIRMATORY ORDER.
F t~
IM
[p8t:c,,"h.
UNITED $TATES i
f
! ~,.
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i.
E WASHINGTON. D.C 00555 l
I
'%.... + #
March 22, 1990 l
OF FICE OF THE 7
COMMisslONER MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor Executive Director,for Operations f
f6*
e FROM:
James R.
Curtiss fb L-Lb LV
/
h
SUBJECT:
SHOREHAM NUCLEMI POWER STATION - STATUS AND f
DEVELOPMENTS (SECY-90-84)
I do not object to the cource of action proposed by the staff in the subject SECY paper.
I would ask, however, that you advise me in the event that L:LCO proposes to take any actions that, in the
+
staff's judgment, would materially and demonstrably affect the methods or options available for decommissioning or that would substantially increase the costs of decommissioning.
cc:
Chairman Carr Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Remick
/SECY OOC
.,