ML20034C441
| ML20034C441 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/05/1990 |
| From: | Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20034C437 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#390-10537 NUDOCS 9005030273 | |
| Download: ML20034C441 (35) | |
Text
.-- - ---_--
DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON 8255 TWENTY. THIRD STREET
=,',T g",, j
=, ' ' * "
WAS HIN OTC N.
O.C.
8 003 7 *I l 94 M,'*,", *"' '""* "",*,,
E,"2". l I
.o u..sI.
='.U"..,- N =.
.e.m l.,s*[
m.
re. l ar
.=,.::.,
=,,,, _ =,,.
,m............
i
,y;
=,.,
,,=r_
= : =,.. = -
=: = -
'= a-* ", alll,.;"-
= = -. =:.--
- =:r
==r
=. =. = r
:
=.-
.:=
= =.
=.:_
=:r:
.... -.. ~....... -
= =.
==-
=. c _
=,, =,
,.
==
~.. n o..
= >....n
=
- -.,.=.g. =; ;,,.,=,,= =,,= q
.
g.~_
y.y n a..........
n a c....... m.
= :.--
=. = = = -
= =.. =.
.. J,
n-~~..
==
=. =.__.r_=_
=:
u =
=. =.
=.
(
=.. -
==
...
.: _.~.
==
= : =_.
==
= =.. _- = =.
== =a
.i l
. = = =,
,.,,,, ~ =,,..
= =,f,,,
...,u n
- - ~ -
gg.,,,
gg,. -.
....... ~,......
n a......... x,
i
.-n..
n =
2 l.
s J
(202) 857-2929 4
REttNE0 l
(
April 5, 1990 5
APR 0 51990 f
Otilceofth8
@eU914fY
- (
BY HAND G
b o
s
. f..
s Honorable Samuel Chilk The Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, D.C.
20555 Re:
"Long Island Lighting Company; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact" (U.S.N.R.C.' Docket No. 50-322)
(55 Fed. Rec. 6566. February 23. 1990) i
Dear Mr. Secretary:
These comments are presented on behalf of the shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" School District") and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy ("SE ").
The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham") is locatesd wkthin the boundaries of the School District.
Similarly, r.everal members of SE, a nationwide organization of scientists dedicated to 2
correcting the alarming degree of misunderstanding on fundamental, scientific and technological-issues permeating the national energy debate, also live and/or work on Long Island in the vicinity of Shoreham and rely on electricity from its 1.icensee, LILCO.
v u o k sua,7 1 y v u
- u a PDR ADOCF; 05000322 p
}
4%
}
Honorable Samuel Chilk' E
' April-5, 1990 Page 2 Commission's ("NRC")These comments are occasioned by the Nuclear Regulatory announcement that it "is considering issuance of.an exemption from the required on-site primary
{
property damage insurance requirement of 10 C.F.R. 50.54(w) (1) ' to the Long Island Lighting company ("LILC0") the licensee, for.
operation'of the Shoreham, located in Suffolk County, New York."
55 Fed. Reg. 6566 (February 23, 1990).
SUMMARY
OF COMMENTERS' POSITION i
commenters urge the Commission to withdraw this I
proposal from consideration and deny or defer LILCO's request as violative of the National Environmental' Policy Act ("NEPA"), ~ 42 U.S.C. Il 4 3 21 31 mag. - (198 2), the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA")', 42 3
U.S.C. 55 2011 31 33g. -(1982), and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. 55 551-559, 701-706-(1988), as well-as the i
regulations of the Council on. Environmental Quality-(WCEQ"),.40 C.F.R. I 1500 at agg. (1988), and of the NRC, 10 C.F.R. Parts 2, 50, & 51 (1989).
These various violations are described in. detail below.
Commenters also note that the proposed exemption:i:s in direct-conflict with the actions requested by them pursuant to-their-pending Section 2.206 Requests, as amended..
.The comments herein should be' considered also as a further supplement to.those requests.
BACKGROUND i
On May 31, 1988, the Commission granted LILCO an exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.54(w); based on.
the fact that LILCo was-authorized to-operate Shoreham at power levels no greater than five percent (5%) of full-rated power.
53 Fed. Reg. 21955 (June 10,.1988).
by its own terms on April 21, This. exemption was extinguished l
power operating license.
1989 when LILCo was granted.a full-In a letter to the Commission dated May 22',
1989, LILCO requested another exemption from the requirements of 10'C.F.R.;5 50.54 (w) arguing that because its Settlement Agreement prohibits operation of the plant, the risk of an accident is even lower l
than during the previous exemption period and,'therefore, a new-exemption is justified.
The Commission rejected LILCo's request in a letter dated July 7, 1989 explaining'that, unlike~the previous NRC imposed restriction limiting operating levels to 5% of full power which the NRC could enforce through civil and criminal penalties,
,?
e' Honorable Samuel'Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 3 Jq the current operating restriction is "self-imposed and for the l
convenience of LILCO."
LILCO renewed ~its request for the exemption by a letter
. dated September 8, 1989.
which had occurred since the first request:It premised-its renewal on two events approval by LILCO shareholders of1the Settlement Agreement and transfer of fuel from-the-reactor to the spent fuel pool.
i The1 details of these requests,-proposals and decisions l
are discussed below.-
On February 23 1990, the Commission announced that it-is "considering" issuance, lof the exemption requested.in LILCO's -
55 Fed.' Reg. 6566 (February 23, 1990).
j The Notice' included an Environmental Assessment (HggM)
Finding'of No Significant Impact ("FONSI").
ggg g 1
'3 I.
PREVIOUS EXEMPTIONS AS PRECEDENT
,q A.
Yankee Nuclear On June 28, to have complied with the requirements of.1CL C.F.R.1982,:the' day before reacto 50.54(w),
Yankee Atomic Electric Co..(" Yankee"),' licensee of-tha'Yankaa
- plant, insurance provision of that rule. applied for an: exemption from the minimum on-si i
Yankee, maintained that-it presently carried S 460 million--in property insurancetcoverage and requested an exemption from the required additional: coverage.
Yankee made several points in1 support of its request' including:
representations that the insurable actual cash v twenty year old 175 MW(e)1 plant was $69,000,000, glue of the then that-the plant-had no outstanding mortgage indenture, and that decontamination and cleanup of the plant following'a THI-type accident was:
j estimated to cost $350,000,000 in 1982 dollars.
In a letter dated August 13 licensee that additional information o,.1982, the NRC-notified _the
{
n the decontamination cost study mentioned in the licensee's request andia description of the licensee's efforts to secure.the required amounts;of coverage would be needed to evaluate the request.
Yankee-responded toz the NRC's request for additional information in a letter dated April ~
22, 1983.
Along with the letter, the licensee submitted the-J.
1/brand new, $5.5 billion 805 MW(e)This is in stark contrast to the situation reactor.
i
,1 Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 4 l
1 referenced decontamination-study and also a decommissioning i
- study, l
On_ June 10, 1983, the Commission granted Yankee an exemption from all but the $500 million primary layer of on< site property insurance.: 48 Fed. Reg. 27860;(June 17, 1983).; The NRC found that the decontamination study submitted by YanP.ee was based on conservative assumptions and that the assumptions and methodology used-by the licenses were compatible with the findings of the worst case scenario of the accident cost study of 1
light water reactors commissioned by the PUtc and performed by Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Technoloav. Safety and Costs of Decommissionina at Reference Licht Water Reactors Involved in Postulated Accidents;= Pacific Northwest-Laboratory; NUREG/CR-2601 (" Postulated Accidents"). Id. ' at 27861.- The Commission -
t L
concluded that "aufficient information'is available to determine that decontamination costs occurring as a result of-an accident r
at a reactor of Yankee's small size would,-with a reasonablp, degree of assurance, be covered by'$500:million insurance."F 14
[
o In contrast, Shoreham is-at the beginning'of its life,.
l with a value 75 times greater than Yankee, with five. times the power of Yankee, and is yet seeking to maintain only 754Lof the coverage-required for Yankee.
Juxi the NRC has not even required I
t LILCO to submit any detailed documentation studies or i
decommissioning studies, and appears to accept a conclusory scenario one analysis, instead of a severe accident analysis.
l 1
i B.
Bia Rock Point consumers Power Company (" Consumers"), licensee of the i
72 MW(e) Big Rock Point Nuclear Plant, is another small plant i
t 2/
Yankee, licensed to operate 175 MW(e), represents tdun upper limit of the small plants-granted property insurance exemptions.
The other small plants to receive exemptions have had-significantly lower' operating capacities.
Big Rock Point, for instance is limited to 72 MW(e) are authorized to operate at 50 MW(e)and La Crosse and Humboldt Bay Shoreham and Seabrook, the only two large plants to receive;and 63 MW(e),_ res exemptions, had. licenses below this range at the time exemptions' were accorded their' licensees.,At the time of the Shoreham-exemption, LILCO'was authorizedito operate the plant at only 5%
i of full-rated power Seabrook exemption wa(80$i MWe), or approximately 40 MWe.
The s based on the fact that the authorized to achieve criticality at all, that is, plant was not Ign power.
t
_..l Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 5 licensee that requested an exemption soon after the final interim' version of Section 50.54(w) was-announced.
On June-22,-1982, thei licensee requested that it be exempt from-carrying all but the-primary layer of $500 million.
Consumers' central-ar p ent in-support of-its request-was that its study of decontamination and cleanup costs, following "the worst credible-accident," concluded that-such costs would total approximately $450 million'and therefore, the $500 million primary layer of_ coverage was,
l sufficient.
On July 12, 1982,sthe Commission asked the licensee to provide additional information on topics including;the results of 4
premium negotiations, and the bases for assumptions contained in the licensee'savenues of coverage ap decontamination study.
NRC letter dated July 12, 1982..
Consumers responded by letter-date'd AugustL10,
}
1982.
The licensee' explained that it had negotiated a-reduction in premiums:
i for the additional coverage, that_ lines and letters of credit had been investigated bases for the assu,mptions contained in'its study.and provided A detailed-d 1
The Commission granted the exemption on November-3, 1982.
47 Fed. Reg. 50780 (November 9 Commission noted that the licensee's-s,tudy was compatible with1982). In'its grant the findings of the worst case scenario.of.the Commission's own study, Postulated Accidents.
The commission also found Big Rock the exemption request noting both that while certain clean activities are not related-to core size, the overall cleanup cost would be lower at a smaller plant-and that the Big Rock Point plant "is below the limit used to exclude small' plants from certain NRC requirements,"' namely, maximum coverage under the Price' Anderson Act providing for-third party'llability insurance and indemnity in the event of an accident.
14._at.50781.
with a' hugely greater value, with>over'11-times the power, andI yet LILCo is seeking only 75% of the coverage required for Big-Rock Point.
Further, the NRC has not~ required LILCO to detail support for its financial hardship argument although it.did-require Big Rock Point to do so.
C.
La crosse On June 29, 1982, Dairyland Power Cooperative
("Dairyland"), licensee of the 50 MW(e La Crosse plant requested an-exemption from the excess) property'insuranc,e requirement of Section 50.54 (w).
Letter from Dairyland to NRC I
I Honorable Samuel Chilk April-5, 1990 Page 6 I
dated June 29, 1982.
Dairyland supported its request with' assertions that the current $55 million of all-risk. property insurance carried was sufficient to cover the decontamination and cleanup costs which it estimated to be less than $39 million, i
l
'that the insurance amount required by the rule is nearly ten' I
times the value of the plant, and that it;had the. financial 1 1
capability, apart from insurance, to cover such costs.
Id.
j The NRC responded to Dairyland's request with letters-i dated Aupst 12, 1982 and October 25, 1982. requesting additional-1 information.
Dairyland sought to provide this information in letters dated. September 13, 1982, September 23, 1982, December 20, 1982, and March 7, 1983.
In'its letter dated. September 13,.
1982, Dairyland stated that "(a]s of September 1, 1982,_we have-boundiinsurance in the amount of $61,812,000 which represents:90 percent of the value at the site."
In'a letter dated. March 29, 1983, Dairyland expressed its intention to-maintain only this-amount pending the.NRC determination on the exemption request.
On September 12, 1983, the Commission partially 1
granted Dairyland's Sxemption request.
48 Fed. Reg. 41832 (September 19,-1983).
The Commission found.that'because_the studies submitted by Dairyland as support for its request were based on-faulty assumptions and-failed to consider worst _ case accidents, they provided insufficient = technical justification for i
a reduction to_$65 million.
Id.
The Commission, howev;r sufficient;to allow.an exemption provided bysthe licensee,.did find the technical justification to be for' amounts in excess of the primary layer of $500 million, consistent with both the exemption granted to consumers Power _ Company in-the " parallel ~ situation" at 4
Big Rock Point and with the findings in the PNL' study, Postulate.d Accidents, supporting ~the proposition that a smaller reactor would have lower decontamination ~and cleanup costs.
- 14. -
1 Dairyland requested a further reduction from $500 million to $180 million by letter dated ~ July 26,-1985.
The
)
licensee asserted that. carrying the' full amount was an undue financial hardship and that the-lower amount was adequate to
" return the plant to a condition ready for' decommissioning following an accident."
- 51. Fed. Reg. 24456, 24457L (July 3, 1986).
In support of its new request, Dairyland preparodia new report on the decontamination and cleanup costs in the event of a worst case accident at the.La Crosse plant-(" Core. damage equivalent in extent to what. occurred at TMI-2 is conservatively assumed") which concludes that the " revised total recovery cost is $152 million."
Dairyland letter dated February,7, 1985.
Other technical information submitted by Dairyland analyzed the costs associated with the most severe (scenario 3) accident as r
l'
,_.si
-i.
,i..m.m..n i i
.ias.
i.m..i.
..i...u
^-l--
^
c
- i j
l Honorable Samuel chilk April 5, 1990 Page 7 evaluated in Postulated-Accidents,-and concluded that even with a 25% contingency the post-accident recovery costs would amount to
$180 million.
123 Dairyland-letter dated February 19, 1986.- On' t
June 18, 1986, the Commissioners met with Dairylandito discuss.
the staff recommendation that the exemption be granted.
Eag~
Transcript'of Commission Meeting / Briefing on La Crosse'etc.-dated-June 18, 1986.
The Commission granted:the exemption reducing tho'
)
required primary coverage for.La Crosse to.$180.uillion on June 26, 1986.
51 Fed. Reg.:24456-(July.3, 1986).
The-staff found that the maximum credible accident cost studies submitted'by 1
Dairyland equivalent to those in Postulated Accidents upon which~
the amount requirement in section 50.54(w) was based.
L1, at-n 24457.
The staff also found that "the low inventory _of' fissionable material and-fission products" at the small La Crosse.
plant would confine the constgrences of an accidentfto a smaller area and, thus, "it is not reasonable to project-that1the:arsunt of damage for a 50 MW(e)5 plant would be the same as a1much larger plant."
Id.
e on November 18, 1988, Dairyland also received the-temporary exemption from thefimplementation deadline :for the i
decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions.added to Section 50.54(w).
53 Fed. Reg. 47780 (November 25, 1988).
The i
Notice of this' exemption' notes that Dairyland has a license-
"which autherizes possession but'not operation" and also that during the exemption period "the licensee will still'be'reqyired to carry $180 million insurance."
Id.,at 47760-61.
t In contrast,-Shoreham is at the beginning of.its. life,-
L with a dollar basis about la times greater than La Crosse, with si over 16 times the power of La Crosse, and seeking'only 75% of the i
coverage which the-NRC initially required'for LaiCrosse.
Purther, the NRC has not requested LILCO to detail its j
decontamination analysis, to present a decommissioning study, or i
to detail support for its financial hardship argument.
-j D.
Humboldt-Bay' Unit 3 On May 28, 1982, PG&E, the licensee _of :the 63 MW(e) '
l Humboldt Bay Unit 3 requested an. exemption from the rula's.
minimum coverage req,uirement.
PG&E argued'that the exemptionLwas warranted because Humboldt Bay Unit 3 had been in cold shutdown condition since July 2, 1976 (1 3., for approximately six: years),
and, therefore, (a) the health and safety risks associated with a reactor were low, (b) the presently maintained $100 million in i
all-risk property damage insurance was sufficient given the l
i
?
Honorable Samuel Chilk.
April 5, 1990 Page 8 4
-remote risk of an accident resulting in damage to the unit, and (c) the additional premiums would constitute an unreasonable burden on the PG&E ratepayers.
PG&E's ApplicationLfor Exemption H
dated May.28, 1982.
i The NRC res more:information on-(ponded by asking-the' licensee to provide 1)'PG&E's current premiums;1(2) which othtc carriers PG&E had contacted and the quotes received; (3) PG&E's ability to negotiate premiums reflecting the perceived riskt (4)
PG&E's consideration ~ of alternative forms of protection; including letters of credit and surety bonds -and-(5) existing' studies of 3
the projected cleanup costs associated with an= accident at the.
reactor while in the cold-shutdown condition.
NRC letter dated June 24, 1982.
The Commission also. granted-PG&E a temporary-exemption to be effective until the NRC had completed-its i
evaluation of the request.
Exemption dated June 29,'1982 (47 l
Fed. Reg. 30331 (July 13, 1982)).
j PG&E responded to the NRC'sfquestions in a letter dated i
July 28, 1982.
$340,000 for $100 million dollars of coverage,;(b) additional-The licensee premiums totalling nearly $700,000 i
were anticipated-given the quotations from the various nuclear insurers contacted, (c)Lthe i
combined premiums of approximately $1,000,000- might'be reduced by-roughly $300,000 lines of credit and surety bonds were not viablein light of1the-rate and sh (d) alternatives, and, finally, (e) while no directly pertinent 4
studies, other than that submitted with the: exemption request, i
had been performed, a decommissioning study revealed that decontamination and disposai of all materials wouldicostionly $63 million in 1981 dollars.
On November 3, 1982, over.6 years after the-plant had last operated, the Commission granted PG&E an exemption' allowing the licensee-to maintain only $100 million in unless and until the-plant resumes operation. property coverage:
47 Fed. Reg.'50785 (November 9, 1982)'.
In the explanationJof the exemption-decision-provided in the Notice, the Commission adopted most of the Arguments advanced >in the licensee's' request.
The Commission.
noted that PNL's accident cost study of light water reactors, Postulated Accidents, considers three loss of coolant accident-scenarios of varying severity because they "present the greatest potential for excessive contamination requiring significant cleanup Oxpense."
Id.
The Commission concluded that,because a loss of noolant accident is not a credible event at Humboldt Bay,
$100 million in all-risk property insurance is sufficient to j
cover any decontamination costs that might arise.. Id.
i aum
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 l-Page 9 l
The NRC modified PG&E's license /for Humboldt Bay to
" possess but not operate" status on July 16, 1985.
On July 19, 1988, the Cramission approved the decommissioning plan submitted by PG&E.
54 Fed. Reg.-34266 (August 18, 1989).
On' June 9, 1989, PG&E requested its on-site property insurance be further reduced from $100 million to $63,160,000.
The licensee maintained that this further reduction would reduce its premium payments by $94 the reduced minimum coverage,000 annually.. It also argued that amount would be." adequate to cover.
costs of on-site cleanup following accidents because the reactor may not be operated and all fuel is stored on-site'such that a 1
nuclear criticality accident is not credible."
54 Fed. Reg.
l 34266.(August. 18,.1989).
PG&E explained that the.new minimum
{
figure ($63,100,000) is the combined book value-of the nuclear unit:(Humboldt Bay Unit 3, $10,294,000) and two on-site fossil i
fuel units ($52,966,000). " 54 Fed.. Reg. 35738, 35739 (August 29,.
1989).
i On August 22, 1989, the Commission granted PG&E's:
i request for a further reduction.
54 Fed.JReg. 35738
'I 1,989).
The NRC concluded that1the plant thenilicense(August 29, d s for'.
I
" possession only," "is functioning as a s, pent fuel. storage, facility, that the risk of criticalityLis< negligibly small, and that the proposed minimum amount of property damage ~ insurance is adequate."
Id. at 35739.
1 LILCO has focused upon -the Humboldt Bay. exemption; LILCO argues that the present cold' shutdown condition at Shorehan l
compares to the cold shutdown condition that existed at Humboldt Bay when PG&E applied for its exemption, making'the plants similarly situated," and that LILCO,therefore, merits an exemption.
b The Commission must reject.this reasoning:because:the assertion-that the two plants are:similarly. situated, is a
untenable.
At the' time of PG&E's-initial exemption request, Humboldt Bay, a. small plant' of 63 MW(e) with a~ low book value of
$10.3-million, had-been in cold shutdown for six years, was clearly at the end of its useful life,-and on its way to decommissioning.
Shoreham,;on the other hand, is.a large plant of x 805 MW(e) with a high cost of about- $5.5 billion, has been in -
a shutdown condition for less than a year, is at the very beginning of its useful life, and, despite LILCO's representations to the contrary, decommissioning is not a-foregone conclusion in this instance.
Further, the NRC has not requested LILCO to detail support for its financial hardship 1
l
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 10 argument, or to.present detailed documentation er decommissioning reports..
1 Rather,- the decision as to whether the decommissioning t of the $5.5 billion Shoreham plant will be permitted must'be-made by,the Commission after preparation of an FEIS evaluating'both the consequences of, and alternatives to, decommissioning.
E.
Fort Saint vrain J
Public Service Company of-Colorado ("PSC"), licensee of :
the 330 MW(e) Fort St. Vrain high temperature. gas-cooled reactor,-
first made a request for an exemption from the. excess. property
^
insurance requirement of 10 C.F.R. 50.54 (w). on March-23, 1983.
Because the Commission interpreted this initial request 'as merely; an annual report, PSC clarified and. supplemented.its request in a
PSC included.a: study.with'its March 23, 1989 request indicating thatithe'" total, damage' insurance including decommissioning costs, clean-up costs and loss of the j
i plant'is conservatively estimated at $323,556,480..
- Ema PSC's letter dated June 30, 1983 at 1.
The licensee asserted' that the required excess. coverage,,
above the $500:million: primary-layer was, therefore, unnecessary to protect.its ratepayers and investors against the loss:of the plant and cleanup costs following an accident.
-L1. at'2.
On November 23 1983,'the NRC-notified PSC by letter; that its exemption reques,t had been reviewediand that PSC'had.
i failed to provide an adequate-basis for!the. grant of the exemption.
The Commission explained that:its conclusion was based primarily on the finding.that the study submitted with.the request was "not thorough enough to provide reliable conclusions-regarding estimates of:(1) likelihoods of plant-I 1
accidents initiated by internal and external'.causes, L
j (2) levels-of in-plant radioactive-contamination, and.
(3) costs of in-plant-decontamination.-"-
NRC letter dated November 23, 1983 at 1.
The Commission also pointed out-that L
"despite its unique HTGR design, Fort St. Vrain is:
somewhat larger (i.e., 330 MW(e)) than those water.
cooled plants granted exemptions previously>-- i.e.,
La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Humboldt Bay, and Yankee l
Atomic."
f l
[
-,._.-._.__.m_..,
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 i
Page 11
- 14. at 1-2. - The Commission-found this point relevant because Postulated Accidents, "found some relationship betveen reactor size and' cleanup costs."
Id. at 2.
Nevertheless, the NRC concluded _that, based on the design differences between Fort St.
Vrain and water-cooled reactors,~a rationale for granting >the-L exemption might exist and invited PSC to provide additional.
information in support of its request.
~
t
.PSC sought to provide additional justification for its i
request in. a latter dated. December 27, 1983.
PSC first described i
various accident scenarios in support of.the assertion that the:
unique HTGR' design " leads to accident scenarios-that are. slow to-develop and that result in relatively-moderate consequences."
PSC letter dated December 27, 1983, at~1-3.. Next,~PSC. claimed that a conservative estimate of decontamination costs, additional.
decommissioning costs, and= writeoff of present plant and fuel book-value amounts to a maximum exposure-to' financial-loss of
$323,558,480.
PSC added'that the $500 million-presently carried
" consists of' solid, commercial coverage by ANI/MAERP.and'is not subject to retrospective agreements or other' qualifications."
Id. at 3.
Finally, PSC listed examples of' exemptions.from.other regulations-which have been based on the " inherent safety' advantages of the HTGR design" and urged the Commission to grant L
the on-site property insurance exemptioncon the.same ground.
On March.2,-1984, justification had not yet been-providede-the NRC concluded that adequate-San Memorandum from-P.C. Wagner Summarizing the NRC'/ PSC meetingLof April 5,1984,.
On April'5,'1984, PSC met withithe NRC staff to discuss the exemption request.
At the meeting the staff'
~
explained that the exemptions'given to'anall, low power LWRs were based on. studies which evaluated'both internal and' external i
events and indicated that such reactors do not necessarily require excess property insurance and-that such extensive studies on Fort St. Vrain, or HTGR plants in. general, do notJexist. L1 at 1.
The Staff urged PSC to. decide-whether-it would pursue the request by providing.the necessary justification;in the near:
future or simply-withdraw the: request because compliance with.the rule could'not be held in abeyance much longer. flg. at 2.
1 i
In a letter dated April'25,'1984, PSC. indicated that-it was planning to prepare additional documentation to meetEthe, Staff's concerns.
PSC tot with the-NRC Staff ~again on May 2, 1984 at which time the Staff advised PSC?to obtain the' excess i
t insurance required unless the exemption' request'.could be i
finalized in sixty days.
!but PSC letter: dated May 29, 1984.
Having concluded that sixty days was not enough time, PSC 1
l' i
ns-c..,--
,,, ;c
..-n
.,,.----,..--.--.-..-.c
+ -,,,
-,~,-, - - - - -
L l-Honorable Samuel ~Chilk l
April 5, 1990 Page 12 i
i
,a y
purchased $85 million excess property insurance bringing the total coverage up to $585 million.. Id.
i Despite its continued representations that it would be submitting additional information, PSC seems to have abandoned its exemption. request.
In its 1985 annual report on property insurance, dated April 4, 1985, PSC indicated that it had $585 million in-effect and that it was " actively arranging for additional property damage: insurance.
. -. ".. From 1986 to the present, PSC has indicated in its annual reports that it has carried the full amount of on-site property insurance = required, H$1.02 billion in 1986 and 1987, and $1.06 billion in 1988 and 1989.
Thus, PSC has never been granted any exemption from the excess property insurance requirements of. 5 50.54(w).
The only.
exemption from section 50.54 (w)- that: PSC has ' received-was one j
temporarily delaying'the implementation.of the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions. of 10 C.F.R. 50.54 (w) (5) (1) on September 30, 1988.
53 Fed.. Reg. 39688 (October 11, 1988).
In contrast, Shoreham i:s at the beginning of its life, with a value much greater, with about two and a half times the i
power, and is seeking to maintain-less of the coverage than'PSC sought and was. denied.
And the NRC has not.even' required LILCO to submit any detailed documentation studies or decommissioning studies, and appears to accept a scenario one cor,clusory analysis.
Further, the NRC has not requested LILCO to detail support for its financial hardship argument.
F.
Seabrook' On October 17, 1986, Public Service Company of New Hampshire ("PSNH") was issued a license restricting activities at Seabrook Station to. fuel loading:and procriticality testing only.
ERA 53 Fed. Reg. 19361 (Hay 27, 1988).
On October li 1987, just i
days before an amendment to 10 C.F.R. I 50.54 (w) raising the required property insurance fron'$620 million to $1.06 billion was to become effective, PSNH requested ~an-exemption from-carrying. amounts'in excess of $620 million until a low power j-operating license is granted.
Id.
PSNH pointed out that because i
criticality had not'yet been approved, the primary. system was-not radioactive and that given the boron concentration maintained in the reactor, criticality could not be achieved.
Given these facts, the. licensee argued,'"the consequences of any credible o
accident.would not include-any significant> radiological' hazards and-the existing insurance coverage should be adequate to compensate for any conceivable condition."
Id.
The licensee also argued that the extra insurance expense included not only the extra premium, but also would expose the licensee to
m __
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 13 retrospective premium liability (up to 7.5 times the annual premium) in the event of an accident at any insured site.
Id. at:
19361-62.
On May 11, 1988, the. commission granted the temporary exemption request.
In the exemption notice, the Commission j
emphasized the fact the reactor did "not contain any significant-j t
inventory:of fission products" having never beenJallowed to operate at anv level.
- 14. at 19362.
The Commission.also made it clear that the exemption was only temporary, to last "only.until l
such time as [the licensee) may be-allowed to make the reactor i
critical and-onorate at low nower."
Id.-(emphasis added).
The H-i exemption, itself, limits the exemption to the time period prior-to receipt of an operating license.
Id.
ThatLis, the Commission focused on the absence of authorization to operate.
f In contrast,LShoreham has a full power licensSF, is at 2/
The Commission may now be trying'to implement a " backdoor" license amendment for Shoreham.
On_ March 29, 1990, the NRC-i announced that "public health and safety require that the -
licensee's-commitment-in its January'12, 1990 letter not to place nuclear fuel into the Shoreham reactor vessel without-prior'NRC-l s
approval be confirmed by this order.". This Confirmatory order' was made immediatelv effective.
The NRC advanced two bases for-this action:
I (1) the reduction in the licensee's onsite-support staff below that necessary for plant operations, and (2) the-absence of NRC-approved procedures-for, returning to an operational status systems and equipment that the-licensee has decided to deactivate and protect rather than maintain until ultimate disposition of the1 plant is determined.
1 The NRC has acted in direct violation of'its licensing hearing-provisions in this instance.
First,. the Commission :gave LILCO-explicit permission to destaff the plant and " mothball" plant ~
systems on the basis that_those activities were consistent with safety under the operating licenser now it decides that-a license amendment. prohibiting operation is immediatelylnecessary because those actions are inconsistent with safe operation.
i The commission has turned the normal license amendment process'on its head.
LILCO should be required to apply for-and (continued...)-
d
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990-Page 14 i
the beginning of its life, with a hugely greater value, with over 11 times the power, and seeking only 75% of the coverage required
'for. Big Rock Point.-
Purther, the NRC has,not requested LILCO to detail support for its financial hardship argument.
G.
Shoreham Two days before the-revised property insurance:
requirements were to become effective (raising the required minimum to $ 1.06 billion),'on-October 3, 1987, LILCO. notified the Commission that it would be applying for an exemption from those requirements in the near future and that'it would continue to maintain only $620 million.until'a decision.on'the exemption request was made.
LILCO letter to the NRC,_ dated October 3,_
1987.
On November 23, 1987, LILCO. submitted its completed-request to the Commission.
In its request, LILCO maintained ~that it presently held only a low power operating license-(5% full-rated power, or approximately 40NW(e), for the. 805' MW(e) plant) 2/ _ (... continued) receive a " possession only" amendment prior to-implementation of actions which are inconsistent with a full-power operating:
license..The Commission is aiding andLabetting LILCo.to perform an end run around the hearing requirements and NEPA,-thus-bringing the plant even further along the decommissioning path without any_ consideration of_the environmental impacts of, or alternatives to, the decommissioning-action.
Furthermore, this order, as another interdependent part of the series-of actions making up the larger decommissioning j
action, seeks to smooth'the way:for a grant of the instant i
The Commission may think that this order will j
avoid the need to justify a grant of'the. exemption on the unprecedented basis of the plant's "non-operational condition" as i
a function of the licensee's expressed. intention to: refrain-from operating the plant.
But the confirmatory order states that it "in no way relieves the-licensee of'the. terms and conditions of its operating license.
This assertion differentiates this license condition from a " possession only" amendment and thus defeats the argument that the exemption can be based on lack of a full-power license.
And tnis order itself may be invalid since it is-totally inconsistent with prior. determinations that the reduced staff and layed-up equipment are consistent with a full power license and there is no reasoned analysis provided for the changed position, only conclusiens.
l
i
+ $
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 15
\\
and,-due to the delays concerning emergency planning, the-present licensing status might continue for some time.
On the basis of this assertion, LILCO argued that it should be required to carry.
L only $337 million in coverage because the full amount.of-insurance. required, $1.06 billion, would constitute an undue' economic burden "since, at' low power,'both the probability of, and damage from a postulated accident are significantly reduced."
LILCO I 50.54-(w) Exemption: Request,' dated November 23, 1987, at 4.
In support ofLits: request, LILCO attached an analysis discussing the technical aspects of low power operation and estimating actual damage estimates for accidents while operating at 5% power.
In addition, the LILCO analysis evaluates the three accident scenarios presented intthe Postulated Accidents.
concluded that only Scenario 1,-the least severe. accident..LILCO' appropriate in determining the required insurance coverage, was l
for' Shoreham operating at 5%.
On May 31, 1988, the Commission granted LILC exemption from the requirements of' 10 C.F.R. 50.54 (v).g an5" Fed.
Reg. 21955 (June 10, 1988).
The' exemption was-accompanie.t Ec Safety Evaluation prepared by the Staff.- The Safety Evaluct.on l
restated and concurred with the contentions contained in LILCO's l
request.
The commission allowed LILCO'to carry $337 million of on-site insurance, as opposed to the $1.06 billion required:by the rule, stating thatL " compliance with 10 C.F.R. 50.54 (w) (1) i would result in undue costs considering the current ooerational restrictions placed on the Shoreham facility.
Exemption dated May 31, 1988 at 4 (emphasis added).
This exemption was i
extinguished by its own terms on~ April 21, 1989 when LILCO was granted a full power operating license.
In a letter to the commission dated May-22,:1989, LILCO requested another exemption from the requirements of.10 C.F.R. 50.54(w).
LILCO argued that because itsl Settlement Agreement with the State of New York prohibitscoperation of the plant,7the risk of accident is even lower than during the previous exemption-period when the plant was operated at up to 5% power and, therefore, a new exemption is justified while Shoreham is subject to~the Agreement.
1-The-Commission rejected LILCO's request in a letter dated July 7, 1989 explaining that unlike the previous NRC 1/
In. recognizing this as one of the very few exemptions F
granted in this area, the commenters do not mean to imply thatLit is a valid precedent.
In fact, commenters doubt that it would have withstood full judicial review.
i..-
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 j
Page 16 k
imposed restriction limiting operating. levels to 5% and subject to NRC enforcement through civil and criminal penalties, the current operating restriction is "self-imposed and for-the convenience of LILCo."
This judgment is still' valid and no adequate justification has been-presented to reverse it =
H.
Analysis Neither the fact that Shoraham is presently shutdown, nor the more existence of the Settlement Agreement under_which
-LILCO does not operate Shoreham, renders LILCO similarly situated to those licensees previously receiving 1 exemptions..-NRC i
consideration of Section 50.54 (w) exemption requests.to -date has uniformly rested upon one of<two circumstantial predicates,.the i
plant's physical characteristics or possession of other than a full power operating license.
The licensees of.Humboldt Bay, Yankee Atomic La Crosse, and Big Rock Point, submitted detailed'studiesb that because of their size, an accident ofithe. severe scaleshowing l
i 1/
All of the small reactor licensees receiving exemptions submitted decontamination and decommissioning. studies to support their requests.
The Commission placed significant' emphasis on the results of these studies in-granting-the' requested i
exemptions.
No such studies were required for the~Seabrook or.
initial Shoreham exemptions.
No detailed findings were necessary in the case of Seabrook because criticality had not been achieved nor was criticality authorized for the exemption period.
LILCO submitted some technical' justification in' support of its exemption while the plant was authorized for only 5% power 7
operation.
i While LILCO's cursory' overview of the risk of.
accidents and the cost of decontamination following an accident might be sufficient while authorized for; low power operation, a much more thorough study should be required ~when the licensee possesses a full power operating license.
Despite the fast approaching July 26, 1990 deadline 10,C.F.R. 5 50.33(k)(2)) for submission of the decommissioning re(port required under 10-C.F.R.-
$ 50.75, RLILCO has failed to meet the. pre-approval requirement placed on other licensees requesting such exemptions in that it has not yet submitted a decontamination'and decommissioning report in support of its exemption request.
l W,
l r
s Honorable Samuel chilk April 5, 1990 Page 17 examined in Postulated AccidentaF, would not result in the same magnitude of. contamination and thus could be cleaned'up at-a-lower' cost.
Similarly, Fort St. Vrain, a high-temperature-gas-i cooled reactor,= sought.an exemption-based on its unique design,-
but ultimately received no exemption.
Both a plant's_ size and-its design are immutable physical _ limitations which provide a-sound foundation upon which to base an exemption.
1 J
The exemption granted for Seabrook'representsi and the initial Shoreham exemption may represent,.the second predicate 1
upon which exemption consideration has been based._ Consideration; j
of~these requests was predicated, in part, upon the fact that the.
NRC had not issued full ~ power operating licenses..
LILCO has : based its latest exemption request on neither i
of these.two traditionally accepted predicates. :The Shoreham plant is neither_relatively small nor significantly. unique'in design and, more importantly, LILCo ' presently holds a full-power 7
operating license.
l LILCO points to its Agreement -with New-York State and-l l
argues that because that Agreement provides7that LILCO will not L
operate Shorehami the risk posed by the plant-is significantly 1
decreased, and, thus, an exemption is warranted.- -The NRC must, as it previously.did, consider the Settlement-Agreement between,
LILCO and New York State irrelevant-to any consideration'of an-exemption.
Just as the Settlement Agreement'is irrelevant to'NRC'
(
consideration of LILCO's exemption request,.so too is the present f/
The exemptions granted to those licenseessauthorized to operate at full-power were.all based on studies submitted by licensees postulating the costs associated with a worst: case accident.
The worst case-accident presented _in Postulated Accidents, is designated Scenario-3.
In granting previous exemptions, the Commission has-uniformly _made reference to the fact that the licensee had presented a. report; estimating the costs. associated with a Scenario 3 accident or-one of a comparable magnitude at the plant in question.
Despite the fact that 'LILCo holds a full-power operating license which nakes a Scenario 3 accident a possibility as a matter _ of law, LILCO argues that the costs associated with the much-less serious Scenario 1 accident should be applied in-this' instance-because of LILCO's voluntary cessation of normal operations.
A licensee's authorization, rather than a licensee's expressed, intent, should:
be the basis-for worst case accident' evaluation'.
J
a t
4 -
\\
. Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 18 1
shutdown condition of the plant.-
The plant has been.in cold 1
i shutdown for less than oneLyear.
Even if LILCO continues its.
.self-imposed shutdown, mere shutdowns have never been-recognized i
as a viable predicate for an exemption from the property.
insurance requirement imposed by Section 50.54 (w).
Allowing coverage reductions based on operational status alone:is unprecedented.
Man sustagnedoutagesofmorethan;one,yplangshaveendured-
.two, 1Mr even 'several years without their licensees' receiving an exemption from.the coverage requirement of Section 50.54 (w).. The fact that Shoreham's is presently shutdown:is,-therefore, an insufficient basis for granting LILCO's exemption request.
II.
A DECISION TO GRANT THE INSTANT EXEMPTION REQUEST.WOULD VIOLATE THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT.
A.
Section 50.54(w)
In 1982,.when the final interim: version of Section.
50.54(w) was adopted 47 Fed." Reg. 13750 (March ~31, 1982), the Commission was aware,that in the experience of the industry several large reactors had entered significantly extended-outages of more than one year and'in some cases several-years during which the fuel was taken out of.the reactor and placed in the spent fuel pool.
Despite this fact, neither the initial version I
of the rule nor any subsequent amendments to the rule, contain a provision excepting-such licensees from carrying the full coverage required by the rule.
l-Section 50.54(w) does however, anticipate that a licensee will either " resume ope, ration" or " commence l'
decommissioning" in the wake of an accident.
- 50. 54 (w) (3) (ii) & (iii) (1989).
While"the rule gives aolicensee n
2/
Pilgrim 1 was outofor all of 1987 and eleven months of 1988.
j Peach Botton 2 was out all of 1988.
1/
Sequoyah 1 and 2 were both out for all of 1986 and 1987.
Nine Mile Point 1 has'been out from December 20, 1987 to.the present.
Peach Bottom-3 has been out for all of 1988, 1989, and-i up to the present.
2/
Three Mile Island 1 was out from 1979 through,1984.. Both Browns Ferry 1 and 3 have been out from 1986 to the present.
Browns Ferry 2 has been out from 1985 to the present.
i
s i
.9 1
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 19 1
the' freedom to choose between these two pathe after an accident, i
a licensee should not be permitted to choose decommissioning.
prior to an accident and-then argue for an exemption based on the fact that the coverage sought is sufficient to " return the plant to a' condition. ready-for decommissioning."
such.an argument presumes that the plant is already headed for decommissioning and
.that, following an. accident and regardless of its severity, no choice between repair and decommissioning would be necessary.
Decommissioning is not a foregone conclusion in.this instance, and, therefore,-coverage to allow repair for the resumption'of operation chould not be discontinued.
Both the 1ack of-a provision addressing those reactor-
~
licensees in extended l outages and the existence of provisions anticipating the possibility of resuming operation following an accident support the conclusion that a decision'by the Commission' granting the instant exemption request would.be at' variance with 4
the final rule and its purposes.
l Furthermore, the regulations promulgated by-the..
commission provide generalized guidelines which, among other r
things, save the staff from constantly reviewing the equities of each. individual licensee's situation.
.If temporary. outages.and voluntary _ agreements not to o viable bases for exemptions, perate a plant =were found to be-requests for such exemptions would become routine and the Staff would be forcedLto continually perform and evaluate studies reevaluating the risk ofia: serious accident as the risk fluctuated with equipment modifications'and operational status.
A decision to allow LILCO,-a full l power.
licensee, annexemption from the requirements of.Section 50.
wouldundermineitsefficacy.and.setadangerous.precedentgj(w),
B.
Section 50.12 1.
The Exametion Is Not' " Authorized :BV -Law" Section 50.12 addresses the criteria.for the grant of an exemption.
As a threshold matter,'the commission grants.only those exemptions.which are."[ajuthorized'by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety,=and are consistent 19/
Already the commission'has received anLexemption request _
i from another full power licensee predicated on nothin the defueled condition.of the plant and:the licensee'g more than s stated intention not to operate.the plant.
U.S.N.R.C. Docket No. 50-312, Letter from the Sacramento Municinal Utility' District to the NRC dated March 5.
1990.
. ~
1
- c Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 20 I
l with the common defense and security."
10 C.F.R. 5 50.12 (a) (1)
(1989).
l-In LILCO's September 8, 1989 letter, upon which the Commission bases its. determination that there exists " technical i
justification" for the-exemption, the licensee asserts that the action being requested is plainly authorized by-law.'
1 l
The NRC has theclogal authority to modify insurance l
requirements for licensees and has exercised,that.
. authority'in the past.
LILCO's letter of September 8, 1989, at page 5.
The threshold issue of authorization, however, is not merely-an inquiry into the Commission's power to take an action, but also encompasses.
i the question of whether'that action would violate other pertinent l
laws.
As the Commission states in the Statement of Consideration adopting the final varsion of Section.50.12:
I l
As in the existing rule, an' exemption:must be
" authorized by' law." - Apart from.the'very l
fact of granting the exemption relief itself, the arantina of the exemotion cannot'ba in-violation of other annlicable laws, such as the Atomic-Energy Act or the National Environmental Poliev-Act.
SDecific Exemotionar Clarification of~ Standards, 50 Fed. Reg.
l 50764, 50776 (December 12, 1985) (emphasis.added). - Contrary to LILCo's assertion that this action.is " plainly authorized by law," granting the requested exemption y.o,uld violate both the AEA and NEPA as discussed elsewhere herein."
11/
LILCO's renewed request'for an. exemption also states-that-the request would "have no impact on the ' common defense;and t
security' of the United States."
LILCO's letter of September 8, 1989, at pagw 5.
Once again LILCO has:been'too hasty.in.
dismissing a threshold requirement for a specific-exemption.
Nothing in the history of'the Atomic Energy Act precludes the Commission from considering the " energy security" of the nation.
The region served by Shoreham is in dire need of thefelectric energy that the plant could provide.-
Given the current unavailability of access to significant new natural gas'for.Long Island, if Shoreham is not-operated, oil burning plants will have to be constructed to meet the region's demand..The oil re by such plants will further undermine the nation's energy quired security by increasing dependence on foreign oil.- Under these L
L (continued...)
L l
i 4
l
.i
.c
<s Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 i
Page 21 i
l 2.
No "Special Circumstances" Justifying This Exemetion Are Present.
Even if an uxemption meets the threshold requirements:
of subsection (a) (1) of Section 50.12; an exemption will not-be-granted unless one-or more-of the special-circumstances listed in-1 subsection (a) (2) of the rule are:shown.
l At least: full' insurance under section a.
50.54(w) is necessary to serve ;the
'l
-underivina eurnese lof the rule.
j In its September 8,_1989. letter: requesting this =
exemption, LILCO argued that its request should be considered
'l under the special circumstance provision which reads:-
Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the-i underlying purpose of the rule orais not necessary, to achieve the underlying purpose of the rules 10 C.F.R. I 50.12(a)(2)(ii (1989).
LILCO maintained that the-purpose of the rule was mer)ely to " ensure that sufficient funds' would be available to stabilize and decontaminate a facility.in the event of an accident," and that given the plant's "defueled condition," $337.million in coverage is adequate to meetithis purpose.
LILCO letter of September 8, 1989, at 9.
LILCO's contention that-only $337 million"in. coverage is necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule'in'this~
case is not true.
As must maintain insuranc.long asfLILco is a full-power licensee, it e to-ensure-that sufficient funds will be available to meet the consequences of theLworst accident possible-in-light of the authorization accorded by the operating license.
]
The Commission based the rula's determination of'the minimum amount of onsite property' insurance that would be required on the findings contained in Postulated Accidents.
(
-Egg
. August 5,.1987).
As a plant licensed to 11/
(... continued) circumstances,'the Commission should recognize that premature actions consistent only with the plan to decommission Shoreham as proposed by LILCO and the State of New York are inconsistent:with the energy security of the United-States.
l a.
i Honorable Samuel Chilk
)
April 5, 1990 Page 22 7
i operate at 805 MW(e) at full. power, and, thus, cepable of I
i-suffering a Scenario 3 (the most. severe accident postulated in the PNL study) accident, LILCo must be required to maintain the full coverage.
1
- Section 50.54 (w) may also have the independent' f
a i
underlying purpose of ensuring the availability of funds toL repair-a reactor following an accident.
The Commission has i
i stated that "Because decontamination insurance is the Commission's only concern from the point of view of protecting; public health and safety, coverage to. replace the existing facility on an "all-risk" basis is beyond the scope of the commission's authority."
47sFed. F.eg._13750, 13752-(March 31, 1982).
This statement. implies that replacement 13 withir. the scope of the Commission's authority when the' damage is sustained-during a radioloalcal accident.. This implication is further l
supported by the fact that the 1987 version of the rule makes reference to the adequacy of the amount of the insurance'to support the option of resuming operation'atter.an accident-52 Fed. Reg. 28963 (August 5, J (1987) ;- Alag 333, 55 Fed.-Reg._12163 (April 2, 1990).
And none of these pronouncements address-the issue-of what type (s) and/o/ amounts.of insurance the NRC could.
require licensees to carry pursuant to its responsibilities to protect the common defense and security;or to provide for a
" program for Government control of-the..
.... production of atomic energy... so directed.as to make-the maximum' contribution to l
the common. defense and security and the-national welfare l
42 U.S.C. I 2013(c) (emphasis added);.also see, 42 U.S.C.
2133(a).
Commenters suggest that these purposes require at least the " minimum" insurance dictated inlthe regulations.
b.
LILCo.is not similarly situated to licensees previously granted. exemptions from Section 50.54(w).
In it September 8,.1989 letter, LILCO also submitted i'
that it has met the special circumstance provision which reads:
Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are.
in excess of-those' incurred by others similarly situated; 1
10 C.F.R. 5 50.12 (a) (2) (iii) (1989). - LILCO argued that given.the present shutdown condition of the plant, it is an undue hardship to pay the premiums required of all other reactor _ licensees..
In addition licensees, LILCO claimed that it is similarly situated to other-(particularly PG&E, licensee of Humboldt Bay) which have received exemptions,.and, that it would, therefore, be
-$--ym3 e,w w
w-,vg,-
-e,pti.,.w,-y a
m
.,.m-.--
m-m.**m,,e sewes ws.w
-mm.p e v ae w w. -*se mi am.,i sww w' w em e
pr e etMN--
P at-FMa-*'=
1 1
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 23 l
l 1
inconsistent with the NRC's treatment of these licensees to deny 1 LILCO's request.
b On March 31, 1982, Notice of the commisrlon's-decision to implement'a final interin version of 10 C.F.R. 1 50.54 (w) was L
published in the Federal Register.' 47 Fed. Reg. 13750 The final interim rule required. licensees to obtain.on-s(1982).
ite property insurance by June 29, 1982 to cover decontamination costs in the; event of an accident at,a nuclear reactor.--Between-the time the final interim rule was announced and the-implementation date, the licenseesLof'four small reactors'(Yankee Nuclear, Big Rock Point, La Crosse, and Humboldt-Bay) each applied for exemption allowing them to carr required minimum amount.of such insurance..y less than the
.The arguments presented by.these licensees and the rationales announced.by-the 3
NRC in granting.the requested exemptions belle LIICO's claim that it is presently "similarly situated" andishould,-therefore, also receive an exemption.
i i
LILCO's reliance on " 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 similarly-situated" is without basis.
Ett 10 C.F.R. i 50.12 (a) (2) (iii) (1989).
In all:other instances where the Commission has addressed the reasonableness of the cost of providing the insurance, it has required the. licensee'to document'those costs for the Commission's consideration.
LILCO has made.no proffer as to those costs in these circumstances, and the Commission has not asked for any documentation of those i
costs.
As part of the licensees' presentation on the reasonableness of the costs in other-dockets, licensees have addressed the relationship between-the. current value-of facility and the amount of insurance to be carried.
LILCO'has made no-such presentation in this case, nor has'the NRC even asked'for any presentatien.
In fact, the. amount of' insurance required by' the rule ($1.06. billion) is less than one-fifth of,the. cost of Shoreham and, therefore, a low (not high): amount of. insurance to carry on the facility in its virtually-undepreciated state.
Many licensees carry much more than tho' required minimum; in some-l-
cases, well over 11_h1111on.
Further, the nuclear insurers:take account of the actual operating status (as opposed to license status) of a plant in establishing the premium:
In.the case'of a plant such as Shoreham with no fuel in the core, those: insurers may offer a discount of 50% or more on the premium for the basic insurance.
This, in itself, assures that there is no." undue burden" in cost.
The real world prices that insurance in the comparison to the k
I
b Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 24 risk.
Also, if relative economic burden is to be considered consideration must be given the comparative costs per kilowatt of pacity, energy production potential (lifetime), and other fact r j
Further, given the existence of a proposal-in fact to decommission Shoreham,.the NRC is barred by 10 C.F.R.-l 51.100 (1989) from giving this permission to LILCO prior to the publication of an FEIS on that decommissioning proposal, as we have discussed above.
The-existence of this proposal also defeats the allegation of "similarly situated".
Such a permission vould also1 violate 10 C.F.R. 9 51.1011 by adversely.
affecting the ability-of LILCO to repair Shoreham in the event of an accident, and thus, would also limit the reasonable alternatives to decommissioning to-be= considered in-the decision-making process.
C.
A Grant of LILCO's Exemption Request Would Violate the Commission's Rules for License Amendment Proceedinas.
i The exemption in effect, license.
As a license a,mendment, the: Commission should haveamends LILCO's oper found that it was in the public interest to provide for a hearing on the proposed exemption.
i 10 C.F.R. 9 2.104(a) (1989).
Under the provisions of section 2.714: and-Appendix A of Part 2 of the commission's regulations interested parties should have the opportunity to intervene in this matter.
10 C.F.R. $ 2.714 (1989).
In the. Discussion and Comment portion of-the announcement of the final rules on " General. Requirements'for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," the NRC answered commenters' concerns that the rule violated NEPA stating:
In response to the concern that decisions on decommissioning will be made without public input, decommissionina involves amendment of-the coeratina license and the NRC rules provide an avenue for.public. input with respect to license amendment.
53 Fed. Reg. 24039 (June 27, 1988)(emphasis added).
One such amendment in the chain of actions leading to decommissioning is.
the grant of a " possession only" amendment which eliminates many of the responsibilities imposed upon operating licensees under the Commission's regulations.
By granting LILCO an exemption-1 n
l N
ll l
I
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 25 l-from the requirement of Section 50.54 LILCO to first request and obtain a "p(w) session only" license,rather than r os the Commission would allow LILCO to circumvent the NRC's, announced policy and cut off the " avenue for public input "
III. THE PROPOSED EXEMPTION WOULD BE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF NEPA AND THE NEPA REGULATIONS-PROMUMATED BY THE CEO' AND NRC.
The_NRC has admitted that'an beforeShorehammaybe-decommissioned.}IS-mustbeprepared-333 Letter-from Thomas Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to James i
P. McGranary, Jr. dated July-20,_1989.
The NRC'has also indicated, however, that it doesn't believe that the environmental review must Make place until a formal application for a license amendment to allow decommissioning is_ received.
Id.
This contention, that a formal application is needed to trigger the NEPA process, is untenable.
The commission's NEPA i
responsibilities must be continual supervision of a facility endures.g, met as long as - AEA mandated 10 C.F.R. 5 51.10(b) (1989).
12/
Independent.of this admission, an-EIS would be'necessary in this instance because the scope of the Final GEIS on Decommissionina of Nuclear Facilities does not cover the present situation at Shoreham.
The GEIS " addresses only those activities carried out at the and of a nuclear facilities useful life which permit the facility to be. removed safely from service and the 3
property to be released for unrestricted use."
USNRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Research, GEIS on Decommissionina, viii (August 1988)(emphasis added).
Thus, the GEIS, which addresses:the various acceptable methods of decommissioning?a reactor at the and of its useful' life, does not cover the case at hand, where the decommissioning of a facility;at the'very;beainnina of its a
useful life is to be considered.
Because operation of Shoreham-is a viable alternative, the initial issue is not' hex.
decommissioning should be accomplished, but rather whether decommissioning should take place at all.
This issue must be the subject of-an EIS.
11/
The-Commission's NEPA responsibilities.cannot be-dictated by formalities such as the receipt of applications.
10 C.F.R. 5' i
51.100(a) (1989); 40 C.F.R.
5 1508.23 (1988)
(" proposal.
in fact").. LILCO has clearly spelled ; out-its intentions, and yet the Commission permits the piecemeal implementation-of the plan 1
prior to completion of NEPA review.
i
D I
t Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 l
Page 26 1
i LILCO has not only repeatedly _ made. known to the NRC its intention to cooperate with the State of New-York in a course of' action to decommission shoreham, but has also_ begun to take-actions pursuant to this goal, including destaffing the plant and 1
"mothballing" plant systems.
The CEQ definition of " proposal" includes the statement: "A proposal may exist in fact as,wellias by agency declaration that one exists."
40 C.F.R.
5 150s.23 (1988).
Both-LILCO's representations to the-Commission concerning its intent to-transfer the plant to the State of New 3
-j York for' decommissioning:and its actions-and proposed actions i
pursuant to this decommissioning goal make it-abundantly. clear that a proposal for a major federal action' exists "in~ fact"-in this instance.
At the time Section 50.54 (w) was promulgated, 'the 4
Commission was aware of the-fact that several-full-power licensees-had undergone extended outages lasting from one to several years _during which time the fuel was= stored:in the spent fuel pool, and yet the Commission did not consider such circumstances to be significant enough to make a-separate provision in the rule for such reactors.. Furthermore, no full-i power licensee in such an extended outage has ever,fto the=best
'i of our knowledge, received an-exemption on the-basis-of such an outage _in the eight years since'the' final'interia version of Section 50.54(w) was announced.
Nonetheless, in the Notice of the_ proposed exemption, the Commission attempts to justify' consideration of LILCo's renewed exemption. request on the basis of the current non-operational condition of the plant with the reactor defueled and the fuel in the spent fuel pool.
55 Fed. Reg. 6566 - (February 23,-
1990).
Given the fact that a plant's'"non-operational condition" is, by itself, an unprecedented basis for an exemption from the property insurance requirements, an exemption under these
- i circumstances must have as its unspoken premise the proposal not to return to operation but to decommission Shoreham has been a
made.
It implicitly recognizes as inevitable LILCO's intentions both to refrain from operating the plant and to transfer 1the:
plant to an entity of New York State for decommissioning.
. l The Supreme Court has declared that.in some situations an agency must consider several related actions:in a single EIS.
Kleone v. Sierra Club, J
427 U.S. 390, 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2730-31, 49 L.Ed. 576 (1976).
The Ninth Circuit has stated that
"(nlot to require.this would permit dividing a project into multiple ' actions,' each of which individually has an insignificant environmental impact, but which collectively have a substantial impact."
Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 758 (9th
4 4 9 -
t Honorable Samuel Chilk I
April 5, 1990 l'
Page 27 Cir. 1985).
The CEQ regulations identify such situations:
Section 1508.25 defines " connected actions" as those which j
are closely related and therefore.should be discussed.in the same impact statement.
Actions are connected if they:
. Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.
40 C.F.R. 5 1508.25 (a) (1) (iii) (1988).
The pro here is one part of the larger decommissioning. posed exemption-action and clearl relies upon the decommissioning proposal for its justification. y Thus, the-exemption cannot be considered independent from the overarching decommissioning proposal'which requires preparation of an EIS.
1 The timing of decisions on proposalstrequiring preparation of an EIS is controlled by the NRC's regulation providing that "no decision on a nronosed action, issuance of a permit, license, or other form of normission. including the will be issued until'the NEPA process is complete.
10 C.F.R.'l a
51.100 (1989 (emphasis added)..
LILCO's exemption request isoin furtherance o)f its decommissioning proposal-in that the exemptio is another step-towards decommissioning, relies on the decommissioning proposal for'its justification, and is.
l inconsistent with the scope of,a license to operate.-
i Thus,Ja grant of the requested exemption would: violate Section-51.100 a
because it would constitute a " form of permission" inconsistent 1
with the existing license and consistent only with the." proposal in fact" to decommission Shoreham.
The actions which may be.taken on a proposal prior to the preparation of a required EIS and, a. final: decision are limited by-the NRC's regulations Section 51.101 prohibits the Commission from taking any action concerning the. proposal "which' would (i) have an adverse environmental impact, or. (ii) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives."-
10 C.F.R. I 51.101(a) (1)
(1989).
A decision to grant LILCO's exemption request would' do both.
Shoreham constitutes an existing benefit to society in that it is fully licensed and capable of generating'805 megawatts of electricity in a region where electricity is in short supply and reliance on imported oil for electric generation is heavier than any place else in the Nation.
The adverse environmental.
impact at issue here is two-fold: First, any action in furtherance of the decommissioning scheme has an adverse
- I I
I l
3 Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 28 environmental impact by making the-intended purpose and benefit of the license, the supply of electricity in full power operation, more remote in time and less likely in fact.
- Second, because the exemption is in furtherance of the decommissioning proposal, and no final decision on that proposal-has been made,-
.it constitutes-irreparable harm to.the environment by presenting a risk to the environment in prejudicing the decision-making process, that is, which may become irreversible.in creating a momentum in favor of the. proposal 8.ta sierra club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d-497 (1st Cir. 1989).
Similarly,-the exemption would limit-the choice of-1 reasonable alternatives.
Nuclear reactor licensees typically seek to protect their investment and limit the risk of financial losses from an accident; therefore, they maintain the fullest on-site property insurance available at all' times.- This $5.5 billion asset, licensed for full power: operation, warrants coverage sufficient to bring the plant back to a condition ready for full power operation, not merely a condition ready for decommissioning.
Otherwise, should an accident occur, the alternative of operating tho' plant could be prejudiced to the extent that the cost of returning'the-plant to operating i
condition exceeds the limited coverage sought by LILCo.-
i LILCo, however, plans to transfer Shoreham to New York State for one dollar and, therefore, has no incentive,to protect the~
asset.
ignore the reasonable alternative of operating the plant.LILCO's actio order to preserve this alternative, the asset must be protected In by at least the $1.06 billion of required ~ insurance.
The Commission has stated that it recognizes a continuing obligation to conduct its-domestic.lic i
1 related regulatory functions in a manner which is t
f espo sa n e e de t h
e radiological health a d safet ub 0b.
In order'to meet this-self-recognized obligation in n tance, the Commission must recognize its NEPA
$S
- X p
ea unt a
nt d
on 9'
proposal has been published.
I Besides circumventing.its own announced procedures for-license amendments in connection with decommissioning, the Commission has violated NRC and CEQ regulations calling for preparation and distribution of a draft Finding of No Significant Impact in these circumstanc.es.
i
v i
. g l
Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 29 on February 23, 1990 an Environmental Assessment "EA")
P and Finding of No significant Impact ("FONSI") for the propo(sed j
exemption was published in the Federal Register.
55 Fed. Reg 6566 (February. 23, 1990).
In violation of the NEPA regulations presulgated by the CEQ and the NRC, this Notice made no provision for public comment on the proposed action or the FONSI.
40 i
C.F.R. l 1501.4 (e) (2) (1988); 10 C.F.R. I 51.33(b) (1989).
section 1501.4(e)(2) of the CEQ regulations provide that when a proposed action is "one which normally requires an environmental impact statement" or is "without precedent" an
" agency ahall make the finding of no significant impact available for public review for 30 days before the agency makes its final determination whether to prepare an environmental impact statement and before the action may begin."
40 C.F.R. I 1501.4 (e)(2) (1989) (emphasis added).
The NRC's NEP this mandate but couch it in permissive terms.gregulations echo 51.33 10 C.F.R. I i
circum (b) (1989). The proposed exemption action meets both of the stances listed by the CEQ and the NRC regulations as indicative of the need for a draft FONSI.
t The exemption sought by LILCO in this instance is unlike any previously granted in that it is predicated upon an l
agreement with a third party not to operate the plant and the i
present shutdown condition of the plant.
In the EA, the Commission makes no mention of the settlement Agreement, except in relating the licensees contentions, and instead repeatedly mentions the present "defueled condition" of the plant as justification for the action.
As was previously.noted, considsration of an exemption from the on-site property insurance cr9erage rule predicated on the mere fact that a plant is in the cold shutdown condition is "without precedent."
The proposed exemption action-would also require preparation of a draft EA as a proposed action which normally 11/
While the NRC attempth to back away from tha'uandatory wording of the CEQ version of the regulation, the CEC's mandatory language is controlling.
The CEQ regulations implement the
" action-forcing" provisions of NEPA.
The CEQ states that its regulations are " applicable to and40 C.F.R.'l 1500.1 (1988 binding on all Federal Agencies for implementing the procedural provisions of [NEPA), except where compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements."
40 C.F.R. 5.
1500.3 1988 (emphasis added).
No statutory conflict exists in this cas(e, an)d, thus the CEQ regulations are binding on the N
?
9 h
n, e.--.
_,,--,--w, n-mn.-
,-2--..,,.,..,n.n...---.
,-,.-..-.n--~n.~,.,
--,,---_a.-.-
..s Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 30 requires preparation of an EIS.
As one part of the overarching decommissioning proposal, a proposal requiring the preparation of an EIS, a draft EA should have been prepared and published.
The NRC version of the regulation on when a draft FoHSI should be prepared adds to that of the CEQ by urging preparation of a draft finding when it "will further the purposes of NEPA."
10 C.F.R. I 51.33 (b) (2) (1989).
NEPA seeks to ensure that.
adequate consideration is given to the environmental impacts of agency actions and that the decision-making process is structured in such a way that environmental consideration is meaningful.
It for no other reason, a draft FONSI should have been prepared in this instance in furtherance of these purposes.
Instead, the NRC appears to be allowing the decommissioning action to be divided into discreet steps which purportedly have no significant impact-individually.
Rather than furthering the purposes of NEPA, the NRC is playing a significant role in undermining those purposes in this case.
As a discreet action, the exemption proposal is without precedent.
As a part of the larger decommissioning action, the exemption is' part of an action which requires preparation of an EIS.
And as an action with important NEPA implications the exemption merits comment in furtherance of the purposes,of NEPA.
For all of these reasons, a draft finding of no significant impact should have been prepared in this instance.
Under the terms of the NRC regulation, that draft should have been "accospanied by or include (d) a request for comments on the proposed action and on the draft finding within thirty (30) days, or such longer draft finding. period as may be specified in the notice of the 10 C.F.R. I 51.33(c) (1989); Rat & lag 10 C.F.R. I 51.119(a) (1980).
The environmental assessment of this exemption request was inadequate.
First of all, the scope of the EA-was improper in that the Commission focused only upon the proposed property 1
insurance exemption and failed to recognize that proposal as an interdependent part of the larger decommissioning proposal.
The commission is allowing the decommissioning proposal to be divided into several purportedly discreet actions which, when considered alone, have no significant impact.
The pro however, cannot be considered in a vacuum. posed exemption, It has no independent utility; only in the context of the decommissioning' proposal does it make any sense.
Thus, although the proposed exemption standing alone might arguably have no tangible environmental impact, any such ar cannot stand alone.gument is untenable because the exemption Rather, the exemption is just one more step in the inching implementation of the decommissioning proposal.
l I
- )
. n 1
j l
Honorable Samuel chilk April 5, 1990 Page 31
)
)
An EIS covering the decommissioning proposal is required before any actions constituting a part of, or limiting the alternatives
-1 to, that proposal are implemented.
The EA prepared in connection i
with this exemption request is insufficient in its scope and J
i cannot justify a finding of no significant impact.
i i
The EA provides no discussion of the context of this j
exemption, namely, the decommissioning proposal.
The EA merely i
contains a series of conclusory statements all based on the Staff-i
)
determination that "337 million dollars is commensurate with the clean-up cost associated with a postulated accident while the-i reactor is defueled and the fuel is in the spent fuel pool."
55 i
Fed. Reg. 6566 (February 23, 1990).
The mere finding that $337 l
aillion will fund the cleanup of shoreham after an' accident in l
the defueled condition begs the question:
Why is a plant licensed for full power operation in a defueled condition and why i
t doas the Commission believe that it will remain in that condition?
Only the deccanissioning plans outlined in the
~
settlement Agreement have brought the plant to its present defueled and non-operational condition.. Only the existence of the settlement Agreement allows the Commission to presume that the defueled condition will continue long enough for an exemption L
to be practical.
The EA makes no mention of these facts, however, because a discussion of-these issues would make it i
abundantly clear that this, exemption is to be premised on the decommissioning proposal.
i second, neither the basis for the proposed action nor f
the environmental impacts of that action are explained in adequate detail ~to allow for a meaningful evaluation of the action or its consequences.
Third, the EA conveniently neglected to mention that LILCO had previously made an almost identical exemption request which was rejected.
That rejection stated that "the insurance requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.54 (w) are appro that possess full power operating licenses."priate for plants Letter from NRC to LILCO dated July 7, 1989.
LILCO still holds an full-power operating license, and yet the EA contains no explanation as to i
i E
e i
i ie ; 8...
l i
i Honorable samuel Chilk i
April 5, 1990 Page 32
)
l whythgj finding presented in the previous denial is net still valid.
l In the previous denial, the NRC noted that "no Federal restriction exists preventing full power operation of the Shoreham plant" and described the Settlement Agreement as a "non-operating restriction" that is "self-imposed and for the convenion'ce of LILCo."
NRC Imtter to LILCO, dated July 7, 1989.
The Commission now seems to have taken the anomalous position that while a settlement Agreement purportedly prohibiting a i
licensee from operating a plant cannot serve as the basis for an L
exemption, the direct result of that Agreement, the defueled condition of the plant may provide that basis.
Will any defueled condition, reg,ardless of its impetus and the utility's t
l licensing status, now be considered an acceptable basis for an j
exemption?
'If the answer to this question is yes, as it must be 1
in order to be consistent with the NRC's previous denial, the l
basis for such an unprecedented new policy.should be explained in sufficient detail to allow informed comment.
Fourth, along with its failure to adequately explain the basis for the proposed action, the F.A provides an inadequate basis for the finding of no significant impact.
In evaluating the " Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action," the NRC f
disingenuously states that "[t]he proposed exemption affects only i
the amount of on-site primary property damage insurance covercge-L and.does'not affect the manner of normal facility eneration."
55 l
Fed. Reg. 6566 (February 23, 1990) (emphasis _ added).. LILCO holds a full-power license and, therefore, " normal facility operation" would mean running the plant at between sixty or more percent 1
I capacity.
The proposed exemption, however, would necessarily l
prohibit any operation of the plant.
Thus, contrary to the NRC's representation, the exemption gegld affect " normal facility 3
operation."
I J
J 15/
LILco renewed its request en the basis of the Ldoption of j
the Settlement Agreement by the LILco shareholders and the.
)
transfer of the fuel from the reactor to the spent fuel pool.
The Commission's denial, however, in no way indicated that' LILCO's request was inadequate because the Settlement Agreement was not yet effective.
Furthermore, the adoption of the settlement Agreement by the shareholders took place on June 28,'
1989, over a week before the NRC denied the request on July 7, 1989.
Consideration of the renewed request, therefore, seems'to q
be predicated upon nothing more than the fact that the fuel is now in the spent fuel pool.
(
e 4
,*?
- s i
Honorable Samuel chilk l
April 5, 1990 i
Page 33 L
/
1 Fifth, in the same section of the EA, the NRC makes the equally paradoxical assertion that "the possibility that the L
environmental impact of licensed activities would be altered by changes in insurance coverage is extremely remote."
Id.
The l
" licensed activities" include full-power operation of the plant.
By ensuring that the plant may not be operated, the exemption L
does, indeed, have an lapact on the environment.
l Fithally,theEAisalsoflawedtotheextentthatthe Staff "did not consult other agencies or persons."
Id.
Given i
the urgent need for energy in the area which would be served by the plant, any decisions inconsistent _with the full power operation of Shorehan should be made only after consultation with interested agencies on the federal and state levtl.
For instance, the U.S. Department of Energy (" DOE"), the Federal l
Energy Regulatory' Commission, and pertinent New York State agencies should all have been consulted.
Any of these agencies might very well have disagreed with' the. NRC's finding that this exemption which effectively takes away LILco's ability to legally l
operate the plant has no environmental impact.
The Commission's failure to consult these agencies (or at least DOE given the l
strong expressions of interest in Shoreham by both the DOE J
Secretary and Deputy Secretary) further invalidates the finding L
of no significant impact which rests upon the conclusions contained in the environmental assessment.
Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, the Commission should either (1) withdraw its proposal to approve the requested exemption and deny that request, or (2) announce its intention to defer decision until after. publication of a Final Environmental Impact statement on the decommissioning proposal.
i Respectfully
- ubmitted, mes P. McGranary Jr.
Counsel for Shoreham-Wading River.
Central School. District and and Scientists-and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
....,,,,,..__,,-...,~#.
,.--.,,%,,,,.,q..,,_w
,.-.mw.,~
e-mmc,_,,
-,e...,..,,m,..m,.._yo-.
- m
______~_.7--
s
[* w$.Ms Federal Repetee / Vol $1. No. 37 / Foday. Febrassy 23. 1880 / Netions o,
Therefare the Carnaussaan concludes (Dece@t 8th to-Stti
=
that there are no saga,ificant etneunt c(eespased en este desaage n enra diolopcal envuvamertial impac ts M
insurance.from 1884palhes douas te aasociated with the proposed examption En AusseemeM and 337 maluen h as cassencetarete omendment.
wbtb the clem.mp east assammend undi a The U.S.Nockear Reselatory postulatest n==a== estate the sessaar as
.llternarrre to the PmposedAcre.os Commisanoo(the Camerussealis detenhed and the fuella to tue spent test Because the n==meds stailhas canandonne usosaae of an exepspuan pootThes thetenecedemosese e
oncluded that there is no significar t from the regtured on-sue pnmary authorsted by the psopseed exemplien is enyttonmentalimpact associated with property damase aneurance teaturrement sufficient to fund ejeneSp of the proposed exempuan amendment.
of to CR 50.Mlwl(1) to the lang idend radialopealimpoets assometed wedi
..ny aherceuve to this amendment will 1.ightma Compatry tLILCO) the licensee-any accident en the deles 4ed ccmdition.
have erthat no sagshcaatly d.!!erent for opuanan af & Shmhasn Nealear In addition. the exempoon in tresetum enuronmentalimpact or gresser Power Stanon (SNPS). located in Soffolk wouhi titri a uthorree canetreenan trr envaronmentalimpact.
County,New Yask.
operstkm.would not stribertse a thenp in herused settttnes not effect changes The pnncipalalternetive would be to Environmental Assemenset inthe ptnninedlypes or announts of Yl'
- fb'*$
identificatron of Propeeed Actwn
,,'gy, environmentalanpacts as a trsoit of The proposed action would grant an Plent oPatione' exemption from the requirements of 10 those determined previously, and fbe Ahernouve Useof Aesources CR 50:54(w)(1) to reduce the full proposed exemption does act ciberedse amount of required on. site pnmary affect facility ram--W aMuants or occupatinaal axpenurse. Wish angaml io n
runen al te en related to the operation of the Vogtle u o ryd
"'N"*"'"j"""9"8'b"8*8 Electnc Generstreg Plant. Urtits 1 and 2" insurance trom 1.00 billion doflers to 337 dated March 1955.
million dollare unul enditeseme she M --
~ 8""
NRC should approve the transfer of 0"* * **
"A"I'#**I *'
Ayencies and Persons Consuhed Shoraham to the Lonalaland Power non-redsological eavvessemanal tapacts g
j The Commission's sta!!teviewed the y,,,om,ug,,,,gyog3,,
associated with the propened licenace's reemt that supports the York State.The reduction in theannount ex m phan.
j proposed exemptes amendssent. The of required on.stte paruary property damage inaarance as de proposed action Alternative to the PipposafAction staff did not comeult other ageness or belag considered by the sigL Shoe theCommissuseeneladed enat P""ons-The Needfor the ?mposed Actu.
them em ne seessurableseessonmoonel m
finding Of No Significant impact The licensee's September L 1909 letter two mociowd M Was ymposed The Camnuation bas detennmed not provided technical justinceuon that 337 exempMon. any shornatrrce wieiegsel 1o prepare an environmentalimpact million dollats of primary property of greaterermrenmemsHepects need statement for the proposed exempoon damageinsurance provides an adequate not be eveleated.
amendment.
Iml of coveren to atm the SMS Theprincipal alternatives to the exemption are to require the licensee to flosed vpan the foregoing g$," g$"
haccident vnvironmental assesament, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a connadering the cunent non operational pnmampany damaghance m ugraficant effect on the quahty of the condition. Ctanting abe axem
"*"b"' """I 8 '"I"' 08" 387 human environment, requot reHeves thelisensee hties donata.Flowaker,'the NBC stalfhad om the
~
For further details wtth respect to the unnecessary financielburden of determined that337milliondellaasda carrymg meerence coversee of1.08 sufSchant to fund cleasepel acuon. see ee request (or the exemptina billion as reyired by 10 CM radiologicalimpacts associated with amendmeeldaaed September 2& 1988.
50.54(wK11 any acadenun es shaleshed condi46mi.
Wh *h
- \\\\*bi*f C'
Environmentalknpocts of the P. reposed wh ""a g
Action bureen and would notmalamane DC and at the 8tese Cesary Public The proposed emoveption affects only protection cd theasesommons.
I brary, ourth Stoest. Wayeeeboro, db*ap ih a
ry 33,,o,jv, p,,,7,,,o,,,,,,
- '8'"
.9 Dated at Rockvh. Maryland, thi :oth day not a!!ect the manner of asansdischty of february toso, operation or the zak affacihtY This actioGoes notlose6ee she wee of accidents. While the cha in any resourcu mat poemeestyesamulmed ror the Nuclear BagulataryCosunasaan.
Insurance coverage may the in sbe Finol tavisemeested teseissues need a. m ehsen, financial arrangements of the licensee lot theShemheen Nealeer Dewee sg gg,
mrector.hoass amarsumer E4 th neioa d and have some economic consequences.
ReocarProsecu-las Dyme ofN.amaar the Possibfifty that Ibe envttonmentat ReacarAeeWasos impact oflicensed activities wouldbe Agencies andPersons Cesaashed lIll Dec. 9MassMisd8-aMit &es am)
The NRC steff revhrwent 8se henness's
-~~
e M
St""d*i}d"#t#'"dt'th'r has 4,saiend ani.end.s.iion s. the
- acia -P aaa*-
h.o)'
o, Feelseed Rosater / Vol. 55. No. 37 / Friday. February 23,1990 / N:Uces aggy nodings of No El rhot impact rescheduled, or whether changes have matters reletmg to the integnty of i
=
The Commission has determmed not been m6de m the agenda far the March to prepare an envtronmentalimpact 1990 ACRS and ACNW full Committe*
teactor pressure repels.
statement for the proposed exemption.
meetmps can be obtained by a prepaid Thermo/Hydroulic Phenomeno. Date e
Based upon the foregomg telephone call to the Office of the to be determmed (March). ldabo Falls, s
environmental assessenent, the staff Execuuve Director of the Committee ID. The Subcommittee will review the details of the modifications made to the concludes that the proposed action will
$fhPh g: 7 a s jo he RELAPe6 MDD-2 code as specified in not have a sienificant effect on the quality o.f the human environment.
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m Eastern the MOD-3 version.
For further details with respect to this Time
- Mnt hermo/HydmailicPhenomm SeptemDer 3.1989. This lettet is ACRS Subcommittee Meetings and Core Performance. Date to be action, see the licensee's lettet dated determined (March /Apnll. Bethesda.
available fer public inspection at the AdroncedPtessuraed Iroter MD. The Subcomnuttees wdl continue Commission's Ablic Docurnent Room.
Reactors. March 6.19D0. Dethesda, MD.
their review of bohing water teseter 2100 L Street. NW., Washmeton. DC ar.d The Subcommittee wdl continue its at the Shorchsm. Wading River Pubhc discussion and review of the ccre power stability pursuant to the core Llbtery. Doute 2sA. Shoreham. New Westmghouse RESAR (SP/DO) dc e'sn.
power oscillation event at LaSalle York 11*b6-9097.
Mechanico/ Components. Mutch 7 County Station Unit 2..
Dated at Rockville. Maryland this nth day 1990. Bethesda, MD. The Subcomnuitee Quality ond Quality Aasurance m wdl review riuclear power plant valve Desyn and Construction. Date to be of February teuo.
for the Eclear Regulatory Commeon.
concerns including:(1) Status of the determined (Apn!) (tenta tive). Be thesda, MOV procrom. (2) the status of the MD.The Subcommittee will discuss the Walter tiutter, theth valve pro ram. (3) the status of performance. based concept of quality-.
omsor.Prmet arectomte1 :. Umswn m te diegnostscs or check valves (4) what it means, its implementation, and Rrottor vrmecu till. Office of Nucteur Recciar Reevianon.
prottsms on valves important to safety.
4, s e.. butterf)y valves, and (5) related joint Scre te Accidents and trR Doc. a)-4tro filed 2-::-44 a 46 ami s ahe concerns.
smo coes me.com Sacre Acc# dents. March 21.1990, Probobilistic flisA Assessment. Date to Dethesda, MD. The Subcommittee will be determmed (May/ June). Bethesda, escuss the staffs Severe Accident MD. The Subcommittees wdl continue A*fvlacry Committee on Reactor Research Plan (SARP).
their review of NUREG-Itto. " Severs taloguares(ACRS)and Advloory Adrenced Pressurszed it'oter Accident Risks: An Assessment for five Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNWh Reactors March 22,1990. Bethesda. MD.
U.S. Nuclear Powtr Plante".
Proposed Mootings The dubcommittee will review the p,c,y y,yf g,3.oro/ Systems. Date to be determmed (Jone/ july). Bethesda, feNpek byComb at on MD.The Subcommmee will review the in order to provide advance 8
information regarding proposed public g n er n meetings of the Advisory Committee on for tr.e system 90+ standard design.
y posed tmluuon,,oMenec16m 23 neactor Safeguards (ACRS)
Decay Heat Remorc/ Systems. March RCP Seal Fallures, St.beemmittees and meetmps of the
- 3.1990 ltentativel. Bethesda, MD. The Decoy //eot Removo/ Systems. Date ACRS fullCommittee,and of the Subcommittee wdl review the NPC to be determined. Bethesda, MD.The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste staffs proposed resolution of Generic i ACNW). the following preliminary Inue M. "CE PORVs."
Subcommittee will explore the issue of schedule is published to reflect the Sc;ulatory Policies and Practice.t.
".he use of feed and bleed for decay heat removalin PWRs.
current situation. taking into account March 28.1990, Dethesda, MD. The accitional meetings which have been Subcommittee wdl review the NRC Auxiliary andSecondary Systems, scheduled and meetings which have staffs Draft Rule for license teriewal.
Date to be determined. Betheeda MD.
been postponed or cancelled since the
/omt Ertteme ErternoiPhenorneno The Subcommittee will discun the:(1) last list of proposed meetings pubbshed andSevere Accidents.-March 27.1990.
Critena being used by utilities ta design 1,inuary 25.1090 (55 FR 25641. Those Bethesda, hD.The Subcommittees wdl Chilled Water Systema. (2) regulatory meetmas which are definitely scheduled review the Individual Plant Exammation requirements for Chilled Water Systems have had, or will have, an mdividual for External Events (IPEEE) program.
design, and (3) criter's being used by the Joint Containment Systems and NRC staff to review the Chilled Water notice published in the Fedoest Register StructuralEngmeenig. Apnl4.1990 E '* *'d N F
approximately 15 days (or more) pnor to Bethesda, MD.%e Subcommittees will Reliability Assurance. Date to be the meeting. It is expected that omtons of ACRS full Committee and ACNW discuss the development of a position or determined.Betheads.MD De tecommendations regarding new Subcomrnittee wdl discuss the status of meetmgs designated by an astensk (*)
contsinment design entena for future implementation of the resolution of USl l
wt!! be open in whole or in part to the plants.
A-46. " Seismic Quahfication of public. ACRS full Conunittee and ACNW meetings begin at t30 a.m.and OccupationalandEnvironmental Equipment in Operating Plants." and ACRS Subt.cmmittee meetings usua!!y Trotection Systems. Apnl 25.1990.
Other related matters.
begm at k30 aJn. The time when items Bethesda, MD.The Subcommittes wal reviews the Advanca Notification of foint Regulatory Activities and hated on the agenda wdlbe discussed Prooosed Rulemaking (ANPR)on hot Containment Systems. Date to be dunng ACRS full Committee and ACNW partteles.
determined.Bethesda,MD The meet:ngs and when ACRS Materials andMetallurry, May 1.
Subcommittees will review the proposed Subcommittee meetings will start wdl be 1090. Bethesda, MD The Subcommittee final revision to Appendix l to to CFR pubhahed prior to each meeting.
wdl review the proposed resolution of Part 50, " Primary Reactor Containment information as to whethee a meeting has been firmly scheduled, cancelled, or Genene issue 29. " Bolting Degredation Leakage Testing for Water Cooled or Failure in Nuclear Power Plants." and Power Reactors'"
l i
a