ML20012C760
| ML20012C760 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1990 |
| From: | Staffieri V LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012C758 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9003230177 | |
| Download: ML20012C760 (4) | |
Text
'iA
'j 6 w,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-i,
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
,nefore the' Director, Office of Nuclear-Reactor Regulation
[
E
)
In the Matter of
)'
_?
).
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)-
Docket No. 50-322' (Shoreham NucleariPower Station,
)
1:
Unit 1)
)
H
)
Long Island Lighting Company's Request for a Limited Scope Exemption from the Fitness-for-Duty Requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 26 I.
Introduction Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 26.6, Long Island Lighuing Company p
[
(LILCO or the company) hereby requests a_ limited scope exemption from the' fitness-for-duty requirements imposed by 1,0 C.F.R. P.6.2.
Specifically,.LILCO requests that the scope of its s
o
? Fitness-For-Duty Program (FFD), which otherwise fully complies with.10CFR26,.be limited to only those persons who have unescorted access to any area which contains equipment necessary c.
to support and maintain the continued safe storage or handling of spent. fuel.
At Shoreham, only " vital aress" as defined in the Shoreham Physical Security Plan contain such equipment.
LILCO
-also1 requests that the exemption be granted snd remain in effect until such time as the NRC approves the final disposition of LLILCO's operating license.
ADOCK0500gfg{2
{%g 9003230177 900315 1
DR e
k
+
[
II..The Exemption Is Authorized by Law, Will Not Endanger. Life Or Property Or The Common Defense And Security And Is In The Public Interest The legal standard-for obtaining an exemption from the fitness-for-duty regulations is provided by 10 C.F.R. 26.6, which provides that the Commission may grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this Part as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger-life or property or'the common defense and security and are otherwise in the publicyinterest.
LILCO's request satisfies this standard.-
First, the NRC is plainly authorized by law to grant LILCO a i
reduction in the number of persons subject to the full provisions l
-1 of the rule.
In fact, in a recent letter to Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), licensee of the Rancho Seco nuclear q
s plant, the NRC indicated that SMUD could obtain relief from the l
full requirements of 10 CFR Part 26 by submitting an exemption request.
See Letter from Thomas E. Murley, Director of Nuclear Reactor Reoulation to David Boggs, SMUD General Manager (Jan. 18, 1990) at 2.
Second, the exemption will not endanger life or property or
?
the common defense and security for the following reasons:
1.
Shoreham has been defueled and all fuel has been placed in the spent fuel storage pool.
i l
. d
'2.-
Under the. Settlement Agreement with the State of New. York, LILCO is contractually prohibited from ever operating Shoreham.
3.
Design basis accidents for Shoreham in a defueled condition are described in Chapter 15 of the Defueled Safety Analysis Report submitted via SNRC-1664 (January 5, 1990).
Only two accidents have been found to be relevant:
(1) Fuel Handling Accident and (2) Liquid Radwaste Tank Rupture.
Because of the low burn-up condition of Shoreham's spent fuel, the amount of decay heat being generated is negligible and thus active systems for pool water cooling are not required.
4.
Granting the exemption would have no impact on the " common defense and security" of the United States.
See Florida Power and Light Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4), 4 AEC 9, 12 (1967).
Consistent with the NRC's intentions in promulgating the fitness-for-duty rule, the general objective of LILCO's FFD program is to provide reasonable assurance that Shoreham personnel are reliable, trustwortny, and not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, or mentally or physically impaired from any cause, which in any way adversely affects their ability to safely and competently perform their duties.
See 54.
Fed. Reg. 24468-(June 7, 1989).
The FFD Program promotes a safe work environment and will continue to meet this objective by ensuring that the work force in the program will be drug and l
t
1 Q.
A alcohol free.
LILCO requests only a limited reduction in the
. ' scope of_ personnel subject;to the requirements of-the program, a
e; reduction ^that, given Shoreham's defueled condition, will not endanger life or property.1/
Third, the exemption should be granted because it is in the
- public interest.
If' granted, LILCO's request will result in a yearly reduction of over 300 chemical abuse tests described and required by 10CFR26.24, with corresponding reduction.in the burden and costs of such tests to the Company.
Such savings will benefit LILCO's'ratepayers.
Even apart from cost, however, the exemption is in the public: interest because conforming the scope of Shoreham's FFD Program to reflect the defueled condition of the plant accommodates both the goals of the Program and LILCO's legitimate interest in. minimizing the impact of the Program on
- those personnel who are not allowed unescor'ted1 access to " vital areas" of the plant.2f 1
By the literal terms of Paragraph 26.2, Shoreham's FFD Program must apply to " personnel required to physically report to a licensee's.
Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) in accordance with licensee emergency plans and procedures."
on L-December 15, 1989, LILCO submitted, under cover of SNRC-1651, a L
request for, inter alia, NRC authorization to implement the Defueled: Emergency Preparedness Plan (DEPP) in place of the
. current.onsite emergency plan.
Under the DEPP, the EOF is no longer needed and has been eliminated.
Thus, in this specific
- regard, the present request for a limited scope exemption fully conforms with LILCO's previous request for regulatory relief.
2/
In promulgating its new fitness-for-duty regulations, the NRC itself stated that it was " sensitive to the issues raised in o
- opposition to random testing in general," and that, as a L
consequence,.had " designed the rule to minimize, to the extent possible, the expense and burden of the chemical testing component.
." 54 Fed. Reg. 24473 (June 7, 1989).
H l
7..
' : ::, y, _
. ;.e'
- III. Conclusion e-
-For the reasons given above, LILCO respectfully requests a limited scope exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part-i 1
2
.2 until such time as the NRC approves the final disposition of 6
LILCO's operating license.
Respectfully submitted,
?
Victor A. E a fleri General Cou el Long Island Lighting Company
+
Long Island Lighting Company
' 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville,-New York 11801 l'-
Of Counsel:
Hunton &.Willaims 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
3 r
-m