ML19353A944

Requests Exemption from Requirement of 10CFR50.71(e)(4) to File Annual Copy to Updated SAR by 891207.Required Update to Be Submitted on or Before 900601 & Will Reflect Condition of Plant as of Time Settlement Agreement Took Effect

ML19353A944
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/05/1989
From:	Staffieri V LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19353A925	List: ML19353A924 ML19353A944
References
NUDOCS 8912080136
Download: ML19353A944 (5)

Text

G C -

l

. \

r l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I

}

Before the Dirgq1g[df[lgt of Nuclog.,8eactor Regulatlpa i In the Matter of )

) l E LONG ISLAND LIOliTING COMPANY ) l

) Docket No. 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Pcwer Station, )

Unit 1) )

)

Long taland 1.lghting Company's Request for an Exemption ments.9L101f.R. E 50.71(c)(A

1. Introh01893 Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.12, Long Island Lighting Company (Li!.CO or tho Company) hereby requests an exemption from the requirement imposed by 10 C.F.R.

S $0.71(e)(4) that the Company submit an annual update of the Shorcham Updated Safe

• ty Analysis Report (USAR). Under operation of S 80.71(c)(4), LILCO is required to sub-mit the annual update (Revision 3) to the USAR on or before I)ecember 7,1989. LILCO will not be able to meet this doaolino. Instead, LII.CO requests an extension, until June 1,1990, to submit the update. An exemption from S 50.71(e)(4) is justiflod and should be granted, for the reasons given below.

!!. The Exemption is Authorized by Law, Will Not Present an Undue Risk to the Publio Ilealth and Salety, l and Is Conai= tent with tt}gIpmmorl_ Defense and Soeur tv 1

l The legal standard for obtaining an exemption from specific NRC regulations is 1

provided by 10 C.F.R. S 50.12. The rule uses a two tier test to determine if a licenses's

$h2YI .b P

J

p l i ia \

request for an exemption should be granted. Under the first test, exemptions may bc granted which are authorized by law, will not prcsont an undue risk to the pub- i 110 health and safety, and are consistent with the common i defense and security, i 10 C.F.R. S 50.12(a)(1).

LILCO's request satisfies this standard, first, the NRC is plainly authorized to grant 1.!LCO what,in practical effect,is a six month cxtension of time to submit a reg-ulatory filing. Second, it is evident that granting the exemption would have no impact ,

on the " common defenso and security" of the United States,133 flgrLdLJ'ower & l.lelli CA (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, Units 3 and 4),4 AEC 0,12 (1967). F1-nally, as explained below, the exemption would not present an "unduo risk" to the public health and safety.

The annual update requirement of S 50.71(c)(4) serves to ensure the availability of an updated version of a f acility's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), for use as a reference document for safoty analyses performed by the licensee or the NRC Staff.

Seg, e&, Nuclear Utility Bgggf[iting and_Rg{grm GrouD, DPRM-80-4, 24 NRC 635, 641-42 (1986).O LlLCO is presently completing and intends to submit in the near future Additionally, when the Commission first proposed to require annual updates of a i 1/

nuclear f acility's FSAR, it stated the purpose of such a requirement as follows:

Revision of the FSAR to reflect the current status of a f a-cility's safety related structures, systems and components would be of value to provide a reference document for re-curring safety analyscs performed by the applicant or licens-ee and the Commission.

! 41 Fed. Rog. 49123 (Nov. 8,1976). The Commission reiterated this rationale for the regulation when the final rule was adopted, stating that the rulo is "only a reporting re-quirement to insure that an updated FSAR will be available," and that "[slubmittal of updated FSAR pages does not constitute a licensing action . . . ." 45 Fed. Reg. 30615 (May 9,1980).

i

I

[

l# .

i

. i i

a Delueled Safety Analpl3 Repntt (DSAR), which will ocscribs the Icnl t.f activity needed to protcct the put!!c health and safety for a def ueled Shoreham LILCO intends  ;

to update the Shoreham USAR on or before June 1,1990. In the interim, however, sub-mission of the DSAR will better serve the regulation's stated purpose or pluviding a "reterence document for recurring talety analyses performcd by the . . . licenseo and

' the Commission." 41 Fed. Reg. 49123.

.\loreover, apart from those changer, associ:tod witn defueling, no significarit al- .

terations have bocn mado to the plant since the last US AR update. LILCO's preliminary review indicates thht Revision 3 of the USAR w!!! contain less than 40 changes, all of them relatively minor. Since, under the seitiennent Agteenient LILCO will r.ot uporete Shoreham, submission of the DSAR will provide the NRC with the most pertinent infor ,

mation regarding the defueled Shoreham plient. Granting LILCO an cxcmption in theses circumstances clearly will not present an "unduc risk" to the public health and safety.

III. The Exemption Would Provido Only Temporary Relief and LILC0 Jim.MetDNifA1Lh.E DXMAggm plyyttittittagelitligy /

The exemption request also satisfies the second tier cf the NRC's exemptiont

- standard, which provides that an exemption will not be considered unless one or more of six "spuolal circumstances" listed under S 50.12(a)(2) exist. The "special circum-stance" identified la clause (v) sppiles to LtLCo s situation. Spomhcally, this proviator, states that (tihe exemption would provide only temporary relief from the applicsble regulation and the licensee or app!! cunt has made good f aith ef f orts to comply with the regulation.

10 C.F.R. S 50.12(a)(2)(v).

As has been noted,in requesting the exemption, LILCO does not scck to be ex-cused entirely from the requirement that it submit an update to the Shoreham USAR.

Rather, i.ILCO requests temporary relief. In the form of an extension of time until Jutte 1.1990, to submit the vpdJte.

l

l 4

c-

\

In addition, LILCO has mado a good faith effort to comply with the update re-  !

quirement.2/ Updating the Shoreham USAR is, under ordinary circumstances', a time consuming task requiring intensive effort on the part of plant personnel. In light of the Settlement Agreement with New York State, moreover, LILCO is not only responsible f for meeting all of its obilgations under its operating license and NRC regulations, but is engaged in preparing the DSAR and various other technical and regulatory documents to support future !! cense amendment and exemption requests, as well as an application  ;

to transfer Shoreham's license to an entity of New York State. As a consequence, per- .

sonnel that normally would have been available to work exclusively on the annual USAR update have also had to spend considerable time and effort preparing the DSAR and other related documents.

Once LILCO has submitted the DSAR, clearly the NRC's consideration of that document will be of significant, if not overriding, regulatory concern. The inf ormation contained in the DSAR and related submittals will be of paramount importance to the NRC in determining the future posture of the Shoreham plant. With these practical considerations in mind, LILCO has made a good f aith determination that the develop-ment of the DSAR prior to the completion of the annual IJSAR update is an appropriate ordering of priorities and a prudent allocation of resources. Accordingly, the exemp-tion request satisfies the "special circumstance" standard of i 50.71(c)(4), i IV. Conclusion For the reasons given above, LlLCO respectfully requests an exemption from tho

requirement of 10 C.F.R. S 50.71(e)(4) that it file an annual update to the Shoreham 2/ Prior to the Settlement Agreement with New York State, LILCO compiled with the update requirement by submitting on December 2,1986, its initial update of the Shoreham Safety Analysis Report. (SNRC-1296). Revisions 1 and 2 were submitted on December 4,1987 (SNRC-1397) and December 5,1988 (SNRC 1519), respectively.

l

I: 5*.

5 4

USAR by December 7,1989. The required update w!!! be submitted on or before June 1, 1990, and will reflect the condition of the plant as of the time the Settlement' Agree-

' ment took effect and LILCO became contractually obilgated not to operate the plant.

Re pectfu r$pd -

L . ' ,UA 8/1//7 Vic tor'A'. $tif (

General Cou <

Long Island L hting Company i

Long Island Lighting Company '

175 East Old Country Road lilcksville, New York 11801  !

l DA TED: December 5,1989 l

l  !

I i