ML20042G171
| ML20042G171 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1990 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20042G164 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9005110172 | |
| Download: ML20042G171 (5) | |
Text
L i
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA L-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
in the Matter of
)
I F
)
1 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
)
(SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION,
)
UNIT 1)
)
i EXEMPTION 1.
Long Island Lighting Company (the licensee) is the holder of Facility
. Operating License No. NPF-8? which authorizes operation of the Shoreham Nuclear PowerStation(SNPS). The facility is a boiling water reactor located at licensee's site in Suffolk County, New York.
It is currently defueled and the licensee, in its letter of January 12, 1990, comitted not to place nuclear.
fuel back into the Shoreham reactor without prior NRC approval. By Confirmatory Order dated March 29, 1990, "the licensee is prohibited from placing any p
nuclear fuel into the Shoreham reactor vessel without prior approval from the 1
.NRC."
This license provides, among other things, that it is subject to all rules, regulations and orders of the Comission now or hereafter in effect.
l 11.
t l
. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(w), each comercial power reactor licensee shall, by June 29, 1982, take reasonable steps to obtain onsite property damage insurance available.at reasonable costs and on reasonable terms from private sources or to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) that is possesses an equivalent amount of protection covering the facility, provided, among other things, that this insurance must have a minimum coverage limit no less than the combined total of (i) that offered by 9005110172 900430 PDR ADOCK0500g2
c
^
2 l
l either American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) and Mutual Atomic Energy Reinsurance Pool (MAERP) jointly or Nuclear Mutuel Limited (NML); plus (ii) that offered by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL), the Edison Electric Institute (EEI).
ANI and MAERP jointly, or NML as excess property insurance. On August 5, 1987, the NRC amended this regulation to require a minimum coverage limit for the reactor station site of either 1.06 billion dollars or whatever amount of 1
insurance is generally available from private sources, whichever is less (52 FR 28963),
i III.
The licensee prior to this change was required to carry the full amount of on. site primary property damage insurance coverage (1,06 billion dollars).
By letter dated September 8,1989, the licensee requested an exemption to I
reduce the amount of property damage insurance from the full amount of 1.06 j
billion dollars to 337 million dollars. The licensee states that the j
requirement to fully comply with the regulation represents an undue financial herdship and burden, and that maintaining a lower level of primary property damage insurance will reduce the capital cost of the SNPS by 1,66 million dollars a year until LILCO is authorized to transfer owr.ership of the SNPS plant to the long Island Power Authority (LIPA) or some other entity of New York State.
By letter dated September 8, 1989, the licensee provided its justification that 337 million dollars of primary property damage insurance provides an adequate level of coverage to stabilize, clean ap or decontaminate the SNPS plant based on the limited and much less severe accidents that could occur given the SNPS defueled condition.
-3 The NRC may grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations which, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a) are (1) authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security, and (2) present special circumstances.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) special circumstances exist if compliance would result in undue hardship or costs in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted, or costs that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.
By letter dated September 8,1989, the licensee requested an exemption from one of the recuirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1). The licensee has requested that it not be required to carry the full amount (1.06 billion dollars) of the required onsite property insurance until such time as it is authorized to transfer ownership of the SNPS plant to L1PA or some other entity of the New York State. This limit is based on the SNPS's current defueled condition and its previous May 31, 1988 partial exemption from these requirements for operation at up to 5% of rated power (53 FR ?1955),
i LILCO contends that exemption from the requirement for the full amount of onsite damage insurance while in the prolonged defueled condition is justified by the following:
l 1.
Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would 1
not serve the underlying purpose of the rule and is not necessary to achieve its underlying purpose, 50.12(a)(2)(ii), and 2.
Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted and that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated,50.12(a)(2)(iii).
y l
.~
4
\\
LILCO has requested that in lieu of the current required coverage, that it be allowed to carry 337 million dollars of onsite insurance. LILCO calculated.this amount based on the results and methods from NUREG/CR-2601 used to derive the current 1.06 billion dollar required amount, and the I
Comission's authori:ation for this amount of coverage to be provided when it granted an exemption from the insurance requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w) for i
low power operation.
IV.
The staff has reviewed the licensee's request for exemption and finds that requiring the licet.see to carry the full amount of on-site property damage insurance coverage, 1.06 billion dollars, as reouired by 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1), would result in undue hardship, costs in excess of those contemplated l
when the. regulation was adopted and costs in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.
The staff also concludes that issuance of this exemption will have no significant effect on the safety of the public or the plant. Further, the licensee has shown special circumstances as described in the staff's supporting safety evaluation to support the exemption.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined tnat the issuance of this exemption will have no significant impact on the environment (February 23,1990,55FR6566).
Accordingly, the Comission has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1) the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and
~.
a i
5
' l security. Asindicatedabove,compliancewith10CFR50.54(w)(1)wouldresult in undue costs considering the current operational restrictions placed on the Shoreham facility, and costs that are significantly in excess of the cost incurred for similar insurance by the other facilities in similar circumstances.
Thus,specialcircumstancesasdescribedin50.12(a)(2)(111) exist. Consequently, the exemption falls within special circumstances determined by the Commission to be sufficient to support the exemption.
Therefore, the Commission hereby approves the following exemption:
The licensee is exempt from the requirement to carry onsite property damage insurance coverage in the full amount called for by 10 CFR 50.54(w)(1)untilsuchtimethatLILCOplacesnuclearfuelintothe Shoreham reactor vessel, provided that the licensee maintain such onsite property damage insurance in an amount not less than 337 million dollars.
The applicant's-letter dated September 8, 1989, and the NRC staff's letter and Safety Evaluation dated April 30, 1990 related to this action are available for public inspection at the Commission's public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20555, and the Shoreham-Wading River public Library, Route 25A, Shoreham, New York 11786.
The exemption is effective 10 working days from the date of issuance.
F0 THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r'g, ir b vn Division of Reactor jects I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 30th day of April
, 1990.
-