ML20028H304

Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Suppl to Comments on Proposed No Significant Hazards Determination, Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20028H304
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/10/1990
From:	Mcgranery J SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20028H305	List: ML20028H304 ML20028H306
References
CON-#490-11072 NUDOCS 9011300164
Download: ML20028H304 (9)

Text

A, - - *

• M- 4 -es-m-e m.--6 d m.Aa &"- --=A4-6 -e- rL---a ++ed~ &#4-- -em-'---- ABd- '

, -W r,-+-in- - ~*ma,AA-o-dCT 10 '90 12100 FROM D.L.A. WASHINGTON DC PAGE.002 ,

l: ..

ff - ..LP L itt' ,

gaHkC i BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLsAR REoVLAToRY ConnIssrox 90 DCT 10 P4 32 l

- , as. .9 .E CFf W #

bycgi Mu . 'l'a d

)

In the Matter of ) bR.' NM

)

Consideration of Issuance of Amendment ) USNRC Docket No.

To Facility Operating License and ) 50-322 i

. Proposed No significant Hazards ) License No. NPF-82

- Consideration Determination and )

Opportunity for HearAng; Long Island )

' Lighting Co.- (Defurled operating )

License) (55 Fed < T.eg. 34098, )

August 21, 1990)- )

)

SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT +

SUPPLEMENT TO COMMENTS ON PROPOSED No SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION, PETITION-To INTERVENE. AND REOUEST FOR-_ HEARING In Shoreham-Wading River Central School District's 4 (" Petitioner") " Comment on Proposed No Significant Hazards Determination and Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing"

filedlSeptember 20,'1990,- Petitioner argued, inter alia, that the

. proposed no significant hazards determination announced in the August 21, 1990' Federal Register-Notice (55 Fed. Reg. 34098) c . regarding the application of the Long Island Lighting Company

("LILCo") for,a " possession only" license was invalid given the statements elsewhere in the Notice whic' -;.4&rly indicate that.

the staff-had yet to complete.its technical review of the many subparts of<the" application when the proposed determination was

- published.- 833 Petition at 33-34. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")-.cannot validly make a proposed determination-that'the amendment poses no significant hazards before completing 9011300164 901010 -7

, L PDR G

ADOCK 05000322:

PDR h[1U E

• OCT 10 '90 12:01 FROM D.L.A. WASHINGTON DC pAGE.003 e

revie*J ct a proposed amendment. And petitioner sought to 1

intervene in a prior hearing on the proposs" amendments.

Since September 20, 1990, other documents have become

available from tha WRC's Public Document Room which further confirm that the proposea no significant hasards determination is a nullity and that a prior hearing is needed. These documents.

letters from LILeo to the NRC dated August 21 and August 30,

1990, were not available from the Public Docustnt Room in time for Petitioner to reference them in its original submission. .-

Thornfore, it is necessary for Petitioner to file this supplament d to draw the Commission's attention to the significance of these documents.

A proposed no significant hazards determination is an announcement that the proposed action, as it stands at the time of that proposed determination, meets the tests of 10 C.F.R. I 50.92. Thus, a priori, a subsequent change to the proposed action after such notice is given nullifies any possible validity of the preceding proposed determination and necessitates a new tect.nical review followed by a new proposed determination with a

new publio notice and a new opportunity to comment.

SNRC = 1752 on August 30, 1990, nine days after the August 21, 1990 Federal Register Notice of the proposed no significant hazards determination relating to LILoo's request for a

• possession only" license, LILco submitted "LILco's pronosed revision to shoreham's fechnical Enecifications to replace those provided in (the 2

. OC T 10 '90 2:01 F R Ot1 D.L.A. WA$H!NGTQN DC 5 AGE.004 I

I original January 5, 1990 License Change Application)." Letter from John D. Leonard, Jr., LILCO Vice President Office of corporate services and office of Nuclear, to NRC dated August 30, 1990 (SNRC-1752) at 2 (emphasis added). This conktitutes a wholesale replacement of proposed ch->nge nuther "21" of the ,

twenty-two proposed changes that compose LILco's request for a

" possession only" amendment as listed by the NRC in its August 21 Notice: " Appendix A, Taehnical Seecificationst revise to reflect a possession only status". 55 Fed. Reg. at 34099 col. 3. In the August 21 Notico, the Commission " determined that the . . .

significant hazards consideration analysis is applicable to each proposed change to the license, items 1 through 21 . . . .a Id.

at 34100 col. 1-2 (emphasis added).

The proposed no significant hazards determination issued August 15, 1990 and published August 21, 1990 cannot possibly be apply to this proposed set of Technical Specifications since they were not formally submitted to the l commission until August 30, 1990.

Furthermore, the August 30, 1990 version of the Technical specifications itself, is merely a " proposed revision."

Until a final set of Technical Specifications have resulted from review by the staff, the staff cannot possibly determine whether or not those Technical specifications pose significant hazards considerations. And more importantly, even if the staff believes that the further revisions submitted on August 30 will not alter the no significant hazards determination analysis, the public, 3

. OCT 10 '90 12:02 FROM D.L.A. WASHINGTON LC EAGE.005 including Petitioner, must be given the opportunity to evaluate such an analysis based on the final version. To deny the public, including Petitioner, the right to informed comment on this agency decisionmaking would be a denial of their rights under the

~

Administrative Procedure Act and the commission's regulations.

SNRC - 1741 By letter of August 21, 1990, LILCO submitted " License

{

change Application $8" requesting a license amendment "to modify the full power Technical Specifications . . . that (LILco) presently holda for (the Shoreham Nucimar Power Station) by b deleting the Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) and its I associated administrativo controls." Letter from John D.

P Leonard, Jr. , LILCO Vice President Office of Corporate Services and Office of Nuclear, to NRC dated August 23, 1990 (SNRC-1745) at 1.

Z LILeo explains that the deletion of this portion of the Technical Specifications is one part of its January 5, 1990 request for a " possession only" license amendment and that issuance of that amendment "would make this current license amendment moot," but " inasmuch as the review and approval schedule for (the " possession only" amendment) is indeterminable at this time, LILCO wishes to take advantage of the imoediate relief availablo upon NRC spproval of the this current license amendment request." 11 Thus, " License Change Application $8" in merely a portion of the larger " Request for a Defueled operatin; Licecuo" (more properly denoted as an application for a 4

- 4

. OCT 10 '90 12:02 FRCM D.L.A. WASHl!4GToti DC PAGE.006

" possession only" license). It is, also, interstitial to the change to the amendment application submitted nine days later on August 30.

What is most revealing about this August 21 request is that this request for one minute (but significant) part of one of the twenty-two proposed changes is supported by a more detailed justification in terms of 10 c.T.R. I 50.92 than was previously provided for all twenty-two changes. LILeo's original significant hasards " analysis" was a at ! ' conclusory parroting of the Section 50.92 standards devoid of factual discussion, much less actual technical analyses. As such, the original analysis did not provide any basis for NRC concurrence.

Nor does the added degree of detail for the interstitial change to t'r technical specifications satisfy the Section 50.92 sta:1dards. To the contrary, it clearly identifies that LILco seeks to remove an independent engineering review group previously determined by the NRC to be essential to the safe conduct of licensed activities at Shoreham. By playing upon the word " operation" and asserting that the plant will not

" operate" again (which petitioner also contests), LILco seeks removal of this important mechanism which is required to assure the safe conduct of gli licensed activities, regardless of whether electricity is produced.

l'1 outing the fact that it is ignoring a great many of the NRC directives for full-power licensees, LILCO tries to turn this disregard for NRC directives into a justification for 5

. OCT 10 '90 l$l O3 FRQM D.L.A. WASH 1t4GT0t1 DC PAGE.007 l I

removal of this important safeguard on the basis of the ISEG's reduced activities. Even if the staff should concur with LILOo's abdication of some of its full power reactor licenses responsibilities, this would provida no basis for relieving tne licensee of the responsibility to conduct IsEG review of those remaining licensed activities which the Staff considers important to safety, safety review can never be considered "no longer prudent." 5NRC-1745, Attachment 1 at 2. 1 The LILCO assertion that the deletion of this I

independent enginaaring review mechanism "does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated because the change is not related ,

to any accident analysis and does not affect the function or h

operation of any system or equipment" is the equivalent of saying ,

that safety engineering review is irrelevant to accident analysis and the function and operation plant systems and equipment. That is a patently absurd position, contradicting the core of the safety ethic which was the basis for the ISEG requirement in the

'- first instance. .

The same logic that describes elimination of the vital IsEG' review mechanism an only " administrative in nature" might attempt to justify a proposal to abolish all NRC Staff' review of  ;

-license applications since that activity is also only

" administrative in nature". Eta SNRC-1745, Attachment 1, Paras.

3.1 and 3.2. It is obvious that this change would ninvolve a significant reduction in a margin of safety" by removing an 6

-m.--,,emew., .y . - , -,w. ,. . , ,- -,o

, OCT 10 ' 90 [E 33 TkOk D.L.A[ 45Hlt4GT0i1 DC FAGE.000 9

engineering review safeguard determined to be essential as a repult of the Three Mile Island experience. Egg SNRC-1745, Attachment 1, Para. 3.2.

l While the Petitioner contests, Ear AA, the LILCO ,

1 assertion that the deletion of the ISEG would not increase the I risk of rediological (probability and consequences) of radiological exposure to the offsite general public, Petitioner also notes the limitation of this LILCo contention implies an increase in radiological risk to persons onsite in violation of Section 50.92. Egg SNRC-1745, Attachment 1, Para. 3.3. 1 l

l I

i I

7 l

l.

l

l

. QCT 10 '90 12:04 v P ot1 D.L.A. IJASHINGTON DC FAGE.009 ]

goNCLUSION I Moreover, while the details provided in SNRC-1745 1

l

demonstrate that that particular application does not meet the  !

l Section 50.92 standards, SNRC-1745 also does a great deal mores j i

It demonstrates that, if the Staff required detailed, rather than I 1

in HARE Yarba conclusory, analysis of all elements of the January l 5, 1990 application, it is more than likely that the LILco analyses of those multitudinous other changes will be found to be equally specious and, therefore, not capable of favorable no l significant hazards determinations. I l

The foregoing identifien additional bases for denial of i 1 a no significant hazards determination, demonstrates further the l l

need for a prior hearing on the application, and specifies additional contentions to be considered in that hearing.

1 Respectfully submitted,

-~ . iv

[]

James P. McGranery, Jr.

Counsel for Petitioner shoreham-Wading River Central school District JpM:$mb L l l l l

l l

l s  !

l l

1

, OCT 10 '90 10:04 FPCM D.L.A. IJ A S H I N G T O N DC FAGE.010 t

CERTIFICATE OF BERVIgg Pursuant to the service requiraments of 10 C.F.R. I 2.712(c)&(d) ( 19,8 9 ) , I hereby certify that before 12:30 p.m. on October 10, 1990, one copy of the foregoing Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Supplement to Comments on Proposed No significant Hazards Determination Issued in Connection with Consideration of LILco's Request for a Possession Only License, Petition to Intervene and Reque'Jt for a Hearing was served, via telefax upon the following:

The Honorable Samuel J. Chilk The Secretary of the Commission office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTH: Docketing and Service Branch (301) 492-1672 Mitzi A. Young, Esq.

office of the General counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -

Washington, D.C. 20555 (301) 443-7725 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esquiro Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 (804) 788-8218 or 19 I further certify that the original and two (2) conformed copies of this document are also being filed by being mailed to the Secretary at the address shown above on October 10, 1990, in conformity with 10 C.F.R. $ 2.708(f) (1990).

A .

JMes P. McGrane / /3r.

Munsel for Petit er Shoreham-Wading River Central School District

.. ._. -