ML20043B495

Requests Voluntary Suspension of Effectiveness of Prospective NRC Administrative Actions to Modify Util Security Plan to Discontinue Local Offsite Emergency Response Measures,Pending Us Court of Appeals Action

ML20043B495
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/07/1990
From:	Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS
To:	Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20043B494	List: ML20043B495
References
NUDOCS 9005300103
Download: ML20043B495 (3)

Text

!

i i .

HUNTON & WILLI AM S 707 Cast Ma1N STntti P. o. Box 1535 I

.100 eswaswav ve uvt. m. w. RICHWOND,VtR03W3A 90019 ,,,[,,,,,,,

w. swine'o=,0 c. eoots tastewont s's too ioco i tattraout sos est itoo "'*#****"""'"'

@4*788 8200 l

t. net vinoimia sana vowan ******

p o.oonstee Tt4cx 6844250 ** ' "'. "o". 'o'"on"to o p

moneo6a. wino.wia est'* TrLtCOPite 804*788 8218 mattson, no.ta ca.ouwa atoos ,

estannomt ope oss sto+ tatt> cont ois soo acoo  !

,... , ,s s ..Z. . o .s o. .

soso cnain enioos moao p. o. som Das l

• .o.oon new anomy,66t ,,t wnt ast e steos

. ... . u , v... .w..

na> out ,on n..noo n o m. May 7, 1990 utta-oat ... en. .sii

,900 oN4 AfkAhtA D4AS A c.it wo. 24566.000029 '

e.o s.., tt. ,t....o.o o.. t,o. 6 ...e .... 8357

.,5. . . . t . . .. . o n .

vettonous aoe oesavoo >

By Telecopy Mr. Nalter R. Butler Director, Project Directorate I-2 Divicion of Reactor Projects I/II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North Building R$55 Rockville Pike Rockville, Md. 20852 '

Requests for Voluntary Suspension of Effectivenecs l of Prospective NRC Administrative Actions concerning Shoreham Nuclear Power Station

_(NRC Docket 50-322. Facility ODeratina License NPP-82)

Dear Mr. Butler:

Late last Friday afternoon, May 4, I received, as LILCO counsel, copies of two letters sent earlier that day to you by James P. McGranery, Jr., counsel for the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District and Scientists and Enginocro for Secure Energy, Inc.

The first of those letters requested that the NRC Staff voluntarily stay the effectiveness of any action which it might take on pending applications by LILCO to modify the physical

-security plan and to discontinue the local offsite emergency response measures (the so-called "LERO" amendment) for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, pending action by the U.S. Court of Appeals on a stay request which Mr. McGranery had not yet i filed on a third matter, namely, the NRC's issuance to LILCO of an exemption from onsite property insurance requirements. Each of these three requests flows from the 1989 agreement between LILCO and New York State that LILCO will not operate the Shoreham plant and will transfer the plant to the Long Island Power Authority for ultimate disposal, pg53OOlos 900523

p. ADOCK 05000322 PDC

.. . l IIUNTON & WILLI AMS  !

J Mr. Walter R. Butler -

May 7, 1990 j Page 2 The second of Mr. McGranery's letters recited that the Staff has agreed to his request, and proposed language memorializing i that agreement. 1 Since LILCO did not receive either timely information or  ;

opportunity to participate in whatever discussions may have taken place on these matters with Mr. McGranery, LILCO has no way of knowing the accuracy of his representations. LILCO understands that Mr. McGranery is not asking the Staff to suspend canpletion of its work on the security and LERO matters, but rather to stay their effectiveness pending the outcome of litigation involving  ;

The balance of thin letter is premined '

onthatdistinction.p'the insurance exempt on.  ;

LILCO objecto to suspension of the offectiveness of either the security or the LERO amendments pending the disposition of litigation on the insurance exemption. None of the matterr, LILCO has sought to modify in the security amondaent and the LEko amend,nent is n9eded in the nonoperatino, defueled state of the i Shoreham plant, and the Staff has ao found in its Proposed Findings of No Significant Hazards Consideration. Thus, absent Mr. McGranery's request, the Staff would act on these mattera in due course, and LILCO believes that this action would in fact take place imminently.

LILCO's analyses to date indicate that those measures would save LILCO on the order of $ 7 to 8 million annually in the case of the LERO exemption, and close to $ 1 million annually in the case of the security amendments. In addition, delay constrains LILCO's administrative flexibility in ways that cannot be easily monetized. On the assumption that the Court of Appeals took a 5 month to decide the stay request, the Staff's granting of Mr.

I' LILCO understands that Mr. McGranery included a similar l request concerning the effective date of the property insurance exemption along with many other requests in a letter dated April

23. LILCO did not specifically object to that request, though it i l

did oppose Mr. McGranery's request generally. However, even that request related to a matter then under consideration direct.ly by the NRC. His present request bootstraps the security and LERO i matters on top of the only matter legitimately before the Court of Appeals (the insurance exemption). Thus analytically the L

insurance exemption is not a legitimate precedent for his current request, and the absence of specific objection from LILCO to L suspension of the effectiveness of the insurance exemption should

( not be taken as an indication that LILCO does not object to the current request.

l l

. ri c pq d'!<. <

IlUNTON & WILLI AMS

. Mr. Walter R. Butler

.May 7, 1990 .

Page 3 l McGranary's request would cost LILCO upwards of $ 600,000 as well as non-monetizable costs. Mr. McGranery's request thus preju- j dices LILCO directly and substantially. l LILCO understands that Mr. McGranery intends to represent to the Court of Appeals that the Staff has voluntarily agreed to stay the security and LERO matters pending the outcome of his  !

appeal from the insurance exemption. This, it may be assumed, I will be used by him as a basis for-an argument that the Court should grant such a' stay itself since the Staff has no objection ,

to it. Thus,'for the Staff to agree voluntarily to suspend the  !

effectiveness of its approval of the LERO and security requests i could be' misused in support of an argument attempting to put a '

measure of-responsibility for the resulting costs on the Staff, rather than isolating it where it belongs, namely, on the party initially requesting the suspension. Since there is no health-and-safety reason to defer their effectiveness, LILCO opposes Mr.

McGranery's request to the Staff. I LILCO also strenuously opposes the notion that the Staff would have agreed to discuss, much less grant, such a request, which directly affects LILCO's license, without giving LILCO an opportunity to participate in the decisien. LILCO requests that the Staff not again consider any such 2X_ arte requests from third parties on matters that affect the Shoreham operating license without ensuring that LILCO is notified and given an opportunity to participate in the decision. .

Thus LILCO requests that the Staff promptly notify Mr. >

McGranery that he is not authorized to represent to the Court of Appeals that the-Staff consents to the imposition of a stay on ,

the effectiveness of the security and LERO exemptions. LILCO also requests that if the Staff has agreed to suspend the effec-tiveness of the security and LERO matters, it rescind that agreement forthwith, since~that agreement was made ex carte, in derogation of LILCO's rights and to LILCO's substantial preju-dice.

Sin erely yo rs,

f. -

Donald P[ Irwin Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company cc: James P. McGranery, Jr., Esq.

Steven F. Crockett, Esq.

Honorable Samuel J. Chilk

(

E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _