ML20154P452
| ML20154P452 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/27/1988 |
| From: | Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154P447 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8810030067 | |
| Download: ML20154P452 (4) | |
Text
-
e 7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LONG ISLAND LIGHT _IN_G COMPA_NY SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION _
DOCKET NO. 50-322 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CONCERNING EXEMPTION FROM 10CFR50.54(w){5)(H The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Conunission) is considering issuance of an exerrption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) to Long Island Lighting Company (the licensee) for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, located at the licensee's site in Suffolk County, New York.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Tdentification of Preposed Action:
On August 5, 1987, the NRC published in the FEDERAL REGISTER a final rule amending 10 CFR 50.54(w).
The rule increased the amount of on-site property damage insurance required to be carried by hRC's power reactor licensees. The rule also required these licensees to obtain by October 4, 1988 insurance policies that prioritized insurance proceeds for stabilization and decontamination after an accidert and provided for payment of proceeds to an independent trustee who would disburse funds for decontamination and cleanup before any other purpose.
Subsequent to publication of the rule, the NRC has been infortred by insurers who offer nuclear property insurance that, despite a good faith effort to obtain trustees required by the rule, the decontamination priority and trusteeship jgh*R88E8%8$52
2 provisions will not be able to be incorporated into policies by the time required in the rule.
In response to these coments and related petitions for rulemaking, the Comission has proposed a revision of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) extending the implementation schedule for 18 months (53 FR 36338, September 19, 1988). However, because it is unlikely that this rulemakir.g action will be effective by October 4,1988, the Comission is issuing a temporary exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(i) until completion of the pending rulemaking extending the implementation date specified in 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1),
but not later than April 1,1989. Upon completion of such rulemaking, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of such rule.
The Need for The proposed Action:
The exemption is needed because insurance complying with requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w)(5)(1) is unavailable and because the temporary delay in implementation allowed by the exemption and associated rulemaking action will permit the Connission to reconsider on its merits the trusteeship provisicc of 4
Environmental Impacts g the proposed Action:
With respect to radiological impacts on the envirer, ment, the proposed exemption does not in any way affect the operation of licensed facilities.
Further, as noted by the Comission in the Supplementary Information accompanying the proposed rule, there are several reasons for concluding that delaying for a reasonable time the implementation of the stabilization and decontaminatien priority and trusteeship provisions of Section 50.54(w) will not adversely affect protection of public health and safety.
First, during the
/I.
period of delay, the licensee will still be required to carry $1.06 billion insurance.
This is a substantial amount of coverage that provides a signifi-cant financial cushion to licensees to decc ttaminate and clean up after an accident even without the prioritization and trusteeship provisions.
- Second, nearly 75% of the required coverage already is prioritized under the decontam-l ination liability and excess property insurance language of the Nuclear Electric l
Insurance Limited-!! policies.
Finally, there is only an extremely small prob-i ability of a serious accident occurring during the exemption period.
Even if a
]
serious accident giving rise to substantial insurance claims were to occur, NRC would be able to take appropriate enforcement action to assure adequate cleanup i
a to protect public health and safety and the environment.
The proposed exemption does not affect radiological or nonradiological effluents from the site and has no other nonradiological impacts.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
)
It has been cone'fuded that thero is no measurable impact associated with the proposed exemption; any alternatives to the exemption will have either no environmental impact er greater environmental impact.
t Alternative Use of Resourcess This action does not involve the use of any resources beycud the scope of resources used during normal plant operation.
4 Agencies and Persons Consulted:
The staff did not consult other agencies or persons in connection with the proposed exemption.
i 4
l
l l
.. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, the Comission concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Comission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed exemption.
For information concerning this action, see the proposed rule (53 FR 36338),
I and the exemption which is being processed concurrent with this notice. A copy of the exemption will be available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Cocument Room, 2120 L Street NW, Washington, D.C., and at the Shoreham-Wading River Public Library, Poute 25A, Shoreham, New York 11786-9697.
Dated at lockvalle, Maryland this 27th day of September
, 1988.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION R
Walter R. Butler, Director Project Directorate I-2 Division of P.eactor Projects I/II
!