ML20028H306

Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Suppl to Comments on Proposed No Significant Hazards Determination, Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20028H306
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/10/1990
From:	Mcgranery J SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20028H305	List: ML20028H304 ML20028H306
References
NUDOCS 9011300167
Download: ML20028H306 (9)

Text

.

. OCT 10 '90 12:04 FROM D.L.A. WASHINGTON DC FAGE.011 BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY CONNISSION

)

In the Matter of )

)

Consideration of Issuance of Amendment ) USNRC Docket No.

To Facility operating License and ) 50-322

-Proposed No Significant Nazards ) License No. NPF-82 Consideration Determination and )

L.

Opportunity for Hearingt Long Island )

L Lighting Co. (Defueled operating )

License) (55 Fed. Reg. 34098, )

August 21, 1990) )

)

SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, INC.

SUPPLEMENT TO COMMENTS ON PROPOSED No s1GNIFICANT HAZARDS DETERMINATION, ggTITION TO INTERVENE. AND REOUEsT FOR. REARlRG In: scientists and Engineers for secure Energy, Inc.'s

(" Petitioner") " Comment on Proposed No Significant Hazards Determination and Petition to Intervene and Request for Hearing"

~

i filed. september 20, 1990, Petitioner argued, inter alia, that the proposed no significant hasards determination announced in the August 21 1990 Federal Register Notice (55 Fed. Reg. 34094)

-- _regarding the application of the Long Island Lighting Company

("LILco") for a " possession only" license was invalid given the statements elsewhere in the Notice which clearly indicate that the start had yet to complete its technical review of the many subparts of the application when the proposed determination was published. 122= Petition at 35-36. The Nuclear Regulatory

- Commission (#NRC")'cannot validly make a proposed determination thut the amendment pores no significant hazards before completing pgjl30016790203o g ADOCK 05000322-PDR

I

. OCT 10 '90 12:05 FROM D.L.A. UA5H14GTON DC r~ - .ct; review of a proposed esendment. And Petitioner sought to intervene in a pricr hearing on the proposed amendments.

3 since September 20, 1990, other documents have become available from the NRC's Public Document Room which further confirm that the proposed no significant hazards determination is a nullity and that a prior hearing is needed. These documents, letters from LILCO to the NRC dated August 21 and August 30, 1990, were not available from the Public Document Room in time for Petitioner to reference them in its original submission.

Therefore, it is necessary for Petitioner to file this supplement 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  ;

technical review followed by a now proposed determination with a new public notice and a new opportunity to comment.

SNRC - 1752 on August 30, 1990, nine days after the August 21, 1990 rederal Register Notice of the proposed no significant hasards determination relating to LILCO's request for a "possessicn only" license, LILCO submitted "LILCO's cronesed revision to shoreham'a 1

Technical specifications to replace thoSC proVided in (the l

2 i

l

- _ . _ . _ . . ~ .

. - - . . _ . , .._..._.s. _ - -

.OCT 10 '50 2803 F F Ql1 D.L.A. WASHINGTON DC P A G E . 01 "J original January 5, 1990 License Change Application)." Letter from John D. Leonard, Jr. , LILCO Vice president Of fice of Corporate services and office of Nuclear, to NRC dated August 30, 1990 (SNRC-1752) at 2 (emphasis added). This constitutes a wholesale replacement of proposed change number "21" of the twenty-two proposed changes that compose LILCo's request for a Hpossession only" amendment as listed by the NRC in its August 21 Hotice: " Appendix A, Technical Soecifi9 danal revise to reflect a possession only status". SS 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 11 . . . ." 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 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, thn public, 3

' i

OCT 10 '90 12:06 FROM L.L.A. WASHINGTON LC pAgg,gga 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 - 1745 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 holds for (the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) by deleting the Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG) and its associated administrative controls." Letter from John D.

L4onard, Jr. , LTLco vice President of fice of corporate services and Office of Nuclear, to NRC dated August 21, 1990 (SNRC-1745) at 1.

LILCO 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 issua *e of that amendment "would make this current license amendment moot," but " inasmuch as the review and approval schedule for'(the " possession only" naendment) ir indeterminable at this time, LILCO wishes to take advantage of the immediate relief available upon NRC approval of the this current license amendment request." Id. Thus, " License change Application 18" is merely a portion of the larger " Request for a Defueled Operating License" (more properly denoted as an application for a 4

' OC T- 10 '90 12:06 FROM D.L.A. WASHINGTON DC pAGE.015

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

August 30.

What is most revealing about this August 21 request is l

that this request for one minute (but significant) part of one of I

the twenty-two proposed changes is supported by a more detailed i

justification in terms of 10 C.F.R. 5 50.92 than was previously provided for all twenty-two changes. LILco's original significant hazards " analysis" was a mere conclusory parroting of i 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 the Technical Specifications satisfy the  !

section 50.92 standards. 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 j 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 l removal of this important mechanism which is required to assure j the safe conduct of gli licensed activities, regardless of .

whethar electricity is produced.

Flouting the fact that it is ignoring a great many of 1

the NRC directives for full-power licensees, LILCO tries. to turn  ;

this disregard for NRC directives into a justification for 5

i

.OCT .0 '90 10:07 FROM D.L.A. WASHINGTQN DC pAGE.016 i

l removal of this important safeguard on the basis of the ISEG's reduced activities. Even if the Staf f should concur with LILCO's abdication of some of its full power reactor licensee responsibilities, this would provide no basis for relieving the licensee of the responsibility to conduct ISEG review of those remaining licensed activities which the Staff considers laportant I

to safety. Safety review can never be considered "no longer prudent." sNRc-1745, Attachment i at 2.

I The LILco assertion that the deletion of this independent engineering 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 operation of any system or equipment" is the equivalent of saying that safety' engineering review ir irrelevant to accident analysis l

and the function and operation plant systems and equipment. San SNRC-1745, Attachment 1, Paras. 3.1 and 3.2. 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 es 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". Aan SNRC-1745, Attachment 1, Paras. ,

3.1 and 3.2. It is obvious that this change would " involve a l-significant reduction in a margin of safety" by removing r.<-

6 ,

1 1

. OCT 10 '90 12:07 FROM D.L.A. WASHINGTON DC PAGE,0l?

engineering review safeguard determined to be essential as a result of the Three Mile Island experience. 133 SNRC-1745, Attachment 1, Para. 3.2.

While the Petitioner contests, g3r 33, the LILCO assertion that the deletion of the ISEG would not increase the l i

risk of radiological (probability and consequences) of l 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. 133 SNRC-1745, Attachment 1, Para. 3.3 I

f 7

. OCT 10 '90 12:00 FPOM D.L.A. WASHINGTON DC pAgg,ggg 00NOLUE TQH Moreover, while the details provided in SNRC-1745 demonstrate that that particular application does not meet the Section 50.92 standards, SNRC-1745 also does a great deal more:

It demonstrates that, if the Staff required detailed, rather than in hans verba conclusory, analysis of all elements of the January 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 significant hazards determinations.

The foregoing identifies additional bases for denial of a no significant hazards determination, demonstrates further the need for a prior hearing on the application, and specifies additional contentions to be considered in that hcAring.

Respectfully submitted,

, _k~~,.

James P. McGranary, Jr.

Counsel for Petitier.er Shoreham-Wading River central school District JPM: jab 8

i l

e 00T 10 '90 12:09 FROM D.L.A. WASHlt4GT0t1 DC ppst,gg9 CERTIFTEATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to the service requirements of 10 C.F.R. $

2.712(c)&(d) (1989), I hereby certify that before 12:30 p.m. on october 10, 1990, one copy of the foregoing Scientists and Enciocers for secure Energy, Inc. Supplement to Comments on Prt pydf] No significant Hazards Determination Issued in connection with Consideration of LILCo's Request for a Possession only License, Petition to Intervene and Request for a Hearing was served, via telef ax upon the following:

The Honorable Samuel J. Chilk The Secretary of the Commission office of the Secretary _g: M$

U.S. Nuclear Requlatory commission 1-Washington, D.C. 20555 . @3

~' er ATTN: Docketing and service Branch f,,$m Q..

(301) 492-1672 c .. $ h::

n .,,e ---

Mitzi A. Young, Esq. ;l

]3 office of the oeneral Counsel  ;

~*

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission E3 Washington, D.C. 20S55 (301) 443-7725 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esquire 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. I 2.708(f) (1990).

h. ..

Jp(Mes P. McGranary, pF4 CWunsel for Petitioner shoreham-Wading River Central School District I

• • TOTAL PAGE.019 ++