ML20044A102

FOIA Request for SECY-89-247 on Proposed Action Re Shoreham & Documents Referred to in SECY-89-247

ML20044A102
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/03/1990
From:	Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON
To:	Grimsley D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FOIA-90-206 NUDOCS 9006280073
Download: ML20044A102 (3)

Text

.__ _ ___ - - _._ _ _ _ _ _. - _ .._- - - . - - - - - .- - - . _ - . - .

_ ppgg,ggg

'I. ' MM '3 '90.17:21 F ROM ' O. L . A. (JASH I NGTON DC

. .) ,

F .

- DOW LOHNES4 AISERTSON tes.m o iNoWo1Ne pgfw ' '

g.. =

fr _d/,ms' & -

PFL - p~,,ge-'y%. ,-

,,0

.. w -

. J ign,h ... is.. twcm.rmo evasst ...n..

. .,.. ..e. .

gg,,

nar .

,,.4

,E5h .

m......,...... --: -C,,-

u .

s g.,g, m ...a.....

. 9? t

,7 ny W

b'.E r*

h' E *Nf4lF

E ,W - W.',.'3ll

=c. gg g.

~

@.g;a J.

!

• e,i2r* #+.,..r,r -

. .e-g,e.w

'n:u..

- * ' - - g,*ts E[.p" .. 191m g% (202) 857-2929

""" E ~' " E E*

. g4L, $$ =

e- - '

May 3, 1990 f b h= .g.EL,,- E- .~

E. ntfa

- *:=. W m,.

6.,*--

..'*J.,., gg.,, ,0 ,,,, ,,,,

VIA.TRLEcoPY FREEDOM Of INFORMATION Nr. Donnie H. Grinsley ACT REQUEST Director .

L on Divisaon of Freedom of Information d

""1 V 0 and Publications services J office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission h [-h -h  ;

L Washington, 0.c. ac555 Oog62g0gJa9005 raannom or m oannTrou not asquman MCCRANE90-206 PDR Deer Mr. Grimeleyl I hereby Pursuant to 10 c.F.R. I 9 23(b) (1989 request one. (1) copy of (a) $ECY-89-247 relating),to propo l

actions regarding the shoreham Nuolear Power station 25, 1989, and which~is-(b) the probably related vote dated sheete, between July 1, 1989 end August (c)'documente referr l 247'which have not yet been pieced in the Public Document Room, and (d) 500-5285.

nrrmlT To ny rnEA L

I do not'believe that the search for the requested  :

J records of 100 pages shouldand, exceed therefore, two hours I do ornotthat believethe records that there are will in excess' be i any charge for the requested search However, and records, if there are pursuant fees totobe 10 l C.F.R. I 9.39(b)&(c)dicate (1949). my willingness to pay such fees in I hereby in charged,ith accord w 10 c.F.R. 5 9.40(a) (1989) so that the search for the ,

records and their release may proceed as' expeditiously se

]

possible. iss>e m un... ewt u ne cam 1 w..,. w . . m . ev .i.am ent i*vmf. GA.'vema.s o f f se 8N.etre.mA4Ms. l'ae d48'

.. aN Ytet, A gy r9#4199{t 1644 maesital it.a .e p4444 Arn.Am' ..eetia 3464e344 ft.4Pm048 47i4i s494464 j it6t**eefs#Jfs$a03 00 ftsteo+4m it hel f 664'.,

. ithsenget ie6.. seg4ees 186150D ta it'pi st+ B433 46t44eJaiseditoseet. fista tru.S

• ggte .latt 1

,,m ,...

1. i.. 6, %&,g, ..10m oc 1

. , s u, oonni. n. oriaster '

May 3 1990 Page$

amounaf FOR FEB WATVaR e

It fees would otherwise be charged, I aise request waiver or reduction of the fees, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 9.41 (1949), on the basis that the records will be used to further the public understanding of the Commission's actions in connectlen with shoreham and to aid the participation of the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (which is e state created and Scientiistis and Engineers for Secure Energy Inc.

entity)is (which a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organisation) in partleipation in proceedings related to the Shoreham Plant. It is diffleult to describe precisely the likely impact on the public understanding of the subject without seeing the records themselvest however, The their avellability vill surely improve public understanding.

public effected hora are all of the people of Long Island who would benefit from the supply electricity from shoreham and whose electric supply and reliability may be damaged by the absence of the Shoreham Plant. The intended asens for dissemination to the general public includes the turnishing of the records to NRC Licensing Boards and the Federal Courts considering various l proceedings on the. question of whether Shoreham should be l decommiss:.oned. Public access Theretoisthe no information commercial would or private be  ;

provided free of charge.

interest which I, the Boh901 Distriot, or SEg have in those ,

records.

gacouns aoT rwxxpr l

I do not believe that the requested' records are exempt from public disclosure Jursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 917(4) l (1989). Itoalso available suggett that these records should be made the publio in accordance with the memorandum from samuel 3. chilk, secretary, to the commissioners on the Subjects l "Public Release of Staff Requirements, Memoranda, Commissioner's i Votes, and SEcY pay,ers# dated December 13, 1939, because more than ten (10) days have passed since the related SRN was issued (August 25, 1989) and placed in the Public Document Room (September 20, 1989). I NEED Pom BYPRb1T10N civen tne cross of matters before the NRC and lapending .

l litigation in Federal court, it is respectfully requested that j the release of the ruquested records.be expedited by telecopy to )

se et (202) 857-2757.

1 l

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

WASHINGTON DC PAGE.883

=- - MAy: 3 '98_17110 FROM t'.L.R.

l! ' Mr. Donnie M. Grimsley l- May 3 1990' v.v.i cenenIMInTIoWp If any sinrification or additional information is required, please oa)1 me at (302) 857-2929. ,

With many thanks for your attention to this matter, I-i ta, si erely , _,

.- , ew ts mes-V. McGranary, .

JPNtjab 001 Joseph F. Scinto, Esq.

Steven F. Crockett, Esq.

u 9

l 1

~ ~

,y. s , .

' NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE-

[.T .. .

f%

+

)

l August- 14. 1989 l l$ SECY-89-247 For: The Commissio(nersNotation Vote) .

From: James M. Taylor L

Acting D.ecutive Director for Operations

?

Subject:

- SHOREHAM STATUS AND DEVELOPMENTS l_

Purpose:

To inform the Commission of the current status of activities

! at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, in accordance with I an April 21,1969 SRM and to inform the Commission of l certain procedural issues raised in connection with the'  ;

i current activities and proposed staff positions concerning these matters.

l Discussion: Haterial Developrients Regarding the Agreement Between LILCO and New York State l ' ' The LILCO shareholders' vote on June 28, 1989 approved the l settlement agreement that would transfer Shoreham to Long l Island Power Authority for decommissioning. The shareholders' l approval was the last action, except for NRC approval _of a

!=

license transfer, needed to complete the sale of Shoreham to New York State.

Plant Status LILCO is proceeding with plans to establish a'" minimum posture" censistent with the terms of the settlement agreement which prohibits further operation of the Shoreham facility.

l

' ~

Defueling activities began on June 30, 1989. The vessel head was detensioned and removed on July 8,1989. Fuel movement began on July 13, 1989. Defueling was completed on August 9, 1989. The reactor vessel will be reassembled and normal water level will be restored as the next activity.

Contact:

Stewart' Brown, NRR af-21444 NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 4%psm -

L, s W 99mn - -

$ s g, M Y

- - ~ . , . . - - - . _ _ . ..- - -

I. *~.'

e ,

o . .

Meetings With LILC0 l

l On June 30 and July 28, 1989, at public meetings. held at' '

the request of the NRC staff, LILCO briefed the staff on its defueling activities and its plans to prepare the. '

4 Shoreham facility for transfer to New York State under its .

agreement.

LILCO emphasized that-it intended to comply with-the-requirements of.its full-power license and the Comission's regulations and that it would submit requests for NRC l approval in accordance with Comission regulations that .I required such approval. LILCO discussed its plans to adopt.

a " minimum posture" consisting mainly of defueling the reactor, reducing staff, and discontinuing customary maintenance for systems considered unnecessary to support operation with all the fuel placed in the spent feel pool. ~

' Defueling of the reactor vessel is an activity permissible H under a reactor operating license, and defueling at '

Shoreham p. resents no safety concern.

LILC0 emphasized that under the agreement LILCO did not plan to decomission the Shoreham facility but to turn the -

("n I facility over to New York State and that the decision on what to do with the plant thereaf ter will be up to New York State.

The staff pointed out that LILCO presently possessed a full-power operating license from the NRC and LILCO-was expected to comply with all conditions of the license and Comission regulations, and that any changes in those .)

requirements would require NRC approval'in accordance with a NRC regulations. LILCO was also to comply with all '

provisions of the FSAR and if it intended to change those ,

provisions, LILCO was obliged to follow the process set forth in 10.CFR 50.59. LILCO asserted'that it recognized  ;

its responsibility to follow the 50.59 process and acknowledged  ;

its comitment to-NRC to provide a description of the l process it had followed in evaluating the proposed " minimum posture"' condition.- The staff will review whether LILC0 has followed the' required process steps. The staff indicated that the approach outlined does not give the staff near-term concerns--but that it was not clear that in the longer term the posture LILCO outlined would be satisfactory.

At the meeting, the staff took a firm position that even though there was not a specific technical specification governing operability or surveillance of particular systems in the shutdown mode, it was not acceptable to us to permit the plant condition to deteriorate. We indicated that we l'

u i

i.

- ~ , , -

~ '

l would not accept "de facto" decomissioning. 'LILC0 assured I

us that it did not intend to permit the condition of plant systems, including "non-safety" systems, to deterjorate.

Another important point that came up during the discussions was the reduction in staffing at the plant. LILC0 indicated l- it was in the process of reducing operating staff from 356

to 269 and support staff from some 230 to about 180 (not l including training staff).- LILC0 indicated that it believed it could accomplish much of this reduction under its present license and Technical Specifications as they applied to the-current shutdown condition.-.To the extent that staff reduction entailed modification of license requirements, LILC0 would l request license amendments from the NRC before such reductions were permitted. Although LILCO asserted that it would ensure adequate staffing to conform to the requirements of the license for the shutdown condition, staffing would be below .

that needed to permit the plant to return to an operating '

or standby mode.

LILCO asserted that it would continue to have significant staff at the facility and would be bud eting some $45 to

( $55 million for the Shoreham facility or the coming year.

A copy of the transcript of the July 28, 1989 meeting is enclosed.

Procedural Questionss Although LILCO's plans would appear to be adequate to ensure adequate facility safety in the defueled condition, the plans raise novel procedural questions-involving the start of decommissioning. Under Comission regulations, a decomissioning plan must be authorized by NRC. _ The approval ,

of decomissioning requires an environmental assessment- ,

L and, in this case, may well require an environmental impact statement. If a prior hearing is held, it would require completion of the hearing process before decomissioning canbeauthorized(orauthorizedinconnectionwiththe hearingprocess),

u Comission regulations do not define the Wht at which decomissioning starts. However, basic NE)A law imposes some constraint: The Comission cannot permit NEPA i

evaluation requirements to be circumvented by segmentation of a major action with significant impacts and authorizing the segments the NEPA ndividually review before (or without) of decomis'sioning. Thus, thecompleting question of when "decomissiocing" starts becomes very important.

'{-

m 4

4

~ -

+

. It might be arped that any reduction from a condition of. - -

" fully ready to operate" with the intent of not returning

• to operation, is the comencement of decomissioning. .But this would require that a plant be kept at full ready j

fA,(fully staffed, fullyisoperable.

ntil decomissioning approved. How andwould fully. this surveillanced) apply to

~ a situation in which it was unclear whether the plant would i be returned to operation, a situation that existed for some period at Dresden 1 and currently exists at. Rancho Seco?

The other end of the spectrum might also be argued: that  ;

decomissioning does not comence while the licensee carries -

out activities not prohibited by-the operating license, and conforms to the minimum requirements of the operating ,

. license and Comission regulations (including the requirements-of safety 10 CFR for the50.59 plant mode and 50.71),i.e.,

( adequate safety in aand defueledcondition). f The staff intends to follow a middle ground, permitting the plant to be put into a " caretaker" non-degraded status .

while adequate decomissioning plans are developed and are being reviewed by the NRC. Such status would require that:

(1) All systems required for safety in the defueled mode are maintained in fully operable status. ,

(2) All systems required for full-power operation of the facility are'to be preserved from degradation, with such maintenance or custodial services-and appropriate documentation-as may be necessary to ensure such q preservation.

(3) There shall be an-adequate number of properly trained staff to ensure plant safety in the defueled state, ircluding the ability to' cope with malfunctions, accidents, and unforeseen events.

With assurance that the plant is preserved as a physical entity capable of being returned to service without untoward resourceexpenditure-(similartotheeffortneededto the

• returnaplanttoserviceafterenextendedoutage)le staff believes that this provides a reasonable midd groundpermittingsomereductioninexpenditurefromthe fully ready to operate" condition while not permitting the licensee to de facto decomissIon the facility (take irretrievable actions or permit irretrievable degradation; for example, action or degradation which is very difficult to undo) without NRC approval of the decomissioning plan, i

} ..

t 5-Even if the physical facility were preserved it would take l, someextendedperiodoftimetoreturntheplantto operation after the loss of the full complement oY licensed operators. Nonetheless, the staff does not believe that tie loss of.the licensed operator staff should be treated as the equivalent of de facto decomissioning. Provided ',

.there is an adequate number of pro >erly trained staff to ensure safety of the facility in tie defueled condition, the staff does not intend to require that additional staff sufficient to operate the plant at full power be maintained while the decomissioning plan is under development and under NRC review and approval.

The staff will continue-to monitor and evaluate the licensee's activities on an ongoing-basis and if necessary will take appropriate action to ensure plant safety and to ensure that the facility is preserved pendin t

NRC review of decomissioning plans.The g the develogment staff pians to- and meet with LILCO again in about a month.

_10 CFR 2.206 Request em, On July 14, 1989, the Shoreham-Wading River School District filed a request, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206, that the staff institute a proceeding to require LILCO to cease the J '

defueling and destaffing of the. facility. On July 20, 1989, the staff denied the request for an imediately effective cease and desist order. This 2.206 request was

- supplemented by letters dated July 19, July 21, July 26, l

and July 31, 1989. In the July 26, 1989 su Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy.ppler.ent.Inc. joined with the school district in the 10 CFR 2.206 request. The staff is reviewing these requests. On August 4, 1989, the Long Island Association filed a petition to suspend LILCO's minimum posture activities.

DOE Letter On July 27, 1989 wrote to Chairman,Carr Admiral Watkins,support expressing Secretary for of theEnergy, issuance of an imediately effective order prohibiting LILCO from taking-defueling and destaffing actions. This, in effect, would halt LILCO's present course of action for Shoreham

" until-NRC permission is sought and granted. In the July 27th letter, Admiral Watkins also urged that a prior hearing be held, in connection with LILCO's proposed transfer-of the shoreham facility. The staff will be drafting an appropriate response.

o d-w-rw w- e

\i l Procedural Status-roceeding l

There relating is to presently decomi!ending sioningno or adjudicatory transfer of !he Shoreliam  !

facility. Thus, the separation of functions restrictions l L are not applicable at this time. However, there is little L doubt that this matter will involve hearing requests and

,. litigation in connection with any application that may be l-filed requesting such authority, l

' In this connection it should be noted that the portions of this paper discussing procedural questions may qualify for withholding under 10 CFR Part 9.- Accordingly the staff-recomends that the paper not be made public at this time. i If a request for disclosure is submitted, a redacted  !

version will be prepared.

Sumary: 1. NRC approval is required before the facility is )

transferred or decomissioned and before any modifica-tion of license requirements. Before approvin missioningtheNRCwouldofferanopportunity<q_decom- or .

hearing and would prepare as EIS. Before any other transfer is authorized NRC would offer an opportunity for hearing and review safety and environmental _ issues.

The nature and extent of such review would depend on the purpose of the transfer (e.g., decomissioning, other). Before ap mothballing, of specific license conditions, theproving NRC staffmodifications would

_ offer an opportunity for hearing. Depending on its safety significance, the proposed change in license conditions may involve "no significant hazards con-siderations."

2. Pending NRC approval of decomissioning, the staff ,

will require all systems needed for safety in the defueled mode be maintained in fully operable status and that all systems required for full power operation are to be preserved from degradation.

l 3. Pending NRC approval of decomissioning, the licensee L

should maintain an adequate number of properly trained staff to ensure. safety in the defueled state and to cope with malfunctions, accidents and unforeseen events. 1 h

L

-- - '- ^

f, ,

, ; * *, _ * -l

^ j i 7 I

Recomendations: Unless the Comission otherwise directs within 10 days from the date of this paper:

1. The staff positions outlined above will be reflected in public materials prepared by the staff, including meetings with the licensee and others, correspondence and in preparing responses to 2.206 petitions.

2. The paper will be withheld from public disclosure at this time.

J l -

mes M. Tay r Acting Executive Director for Operations knclosure:

Transcript )

l

(

Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB ~ Tuesday, August 29, 1989.

~

' Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be' submitted to the Commissioners NLT Tuesday, August 15, 1989, with an information copy to the Office of.tha Socretary. If the paper

.is of such'a-nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be-apprised of when comments may-be expected.

SECT NOTE: We have issued this paper as a notation vote per i the request of Commissioner Roberts.- '

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners OGC I

OIG REGION I & V EDO SECY

- i i,

- - - ,,-