ML20067A836

Submits Fifth Suppl to 10CFR2.206 Request by Shoreham- Wading River Central School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc for Immediately Effective Orders to Cease & Desist from Activities at Plant

ML20067A836
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/05/1990
From:	Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY
To:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20065C649	List: ML20065C645 ML20065C651 ML20067A833 ML20067A836 ML20067A840 ML20067A848
References
2.206, NUDOCS 9102070476
Download: ML20067A836 (3)

Text

-. . . . . . - . . - - _-- . . . - . . . . _ _ . . . -

k T.bcU

%I3 DEM. ,

DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON 1R55 TW E NT%T H IR D STRECT U.u"a yay N.'n'.*,",, W A$ H I N OT O N , D.C. 2 OO 3 7 *I 194 L***S" "'," [*,,,',", *L ., 7Z"',",7.',

- auSewI .=e" '

i=!.".,,: =.' '3f" .. =",l.m -

OTlJ"O'" "='!."'.". . L::"./**L OMN, 7 0 ,* f :"J C.'.".- O' ',7.T . .U.F.T.

70 "O tccceso~c i,o., ..,...oo

= %"O' "J4,", P, ,,, = *',;r"

= .' s .. O,'.0, tctocomea ,eoni .., ,.oo

= 7" a. t*."J"a..  %~'.";:,' ', ""

T='."."O " " 'm';L,. ". #%" CO ma .aa.

O O. .. .. .'.=,"J. u. O.% . Om.,J,=' .. =,.".,."O., =.!.0. .;.".. ,*"

.. '.a,=..l. o. - .. o..vi. .#n om , m .

I '

D ATLANTA

• GLoAG A 3C 4 tC .' 'a s weewruo Wm s **t s m 'r g

= '.0%""

=, =a* = =,"' .

""'""*""" a

"'Z. O'!L"= n'a. '

==. = = = . == "'":ll;;. :::"" ==, = ' = ~- ==r

=/."%, =.",',='*==" = ',',T" = ', ",0 * ' ',;""an*,**

i

"='=. *, , "J.",,";

, =7;'lJJ7 . n .* o..o. .,< ~ i ='=" ""*70,0

. , . =,'";%

= >yy r,g; r, == ,o... . . .... ioon n.o na. .m.n.-n

,y,;'.,g,

=7 =. . .; y,=..

m.. - .. .

r=;.fr a m'=, -'=a" n uco....i n , n . n n

= ' g'i: ,, = = , _ - a -

o, . ,= = g,

• == a a- -'

=l* rg.,,.. = ; rJ., ,, .. .iu c.in

=;.~;;,o,,,.. .ggj. -- .. .ov. . - , s. . . .o. . . .o.

n a . e.i o.. . ,o.. .

6 MSO 10 8 CTEE es ,Pede Cen,

.RI,iF. DI#CCT DIA6 06 0 (202) 857-2929 April 5,.1990

-Dr. Thomas E. Murley Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mail Stop 12-G18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Fifth Supplement to the Section 2.206 Request by

.the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. in USNRC Docket No. 50-322

Dear =Dr. Murley:

This is a further supplement to the above-referenced Request for Immediately Effective Orders with respect to the issues and on the bases set _forth in the original Request dated July 14, 1989, as previously supplemented by our letters of July 19, July 22,: and July 31, 1989, and January 23, 1990.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or

+ " Commission") in issuing, and the Long Island Lighting Company

-("LILCO" or " licensee") in accepting, full power operating-license NPF-82 committed LILCO to maintaining certain levels of staffing as detailed in the license, the Licensee's Updated Safety Analysis Report and the Operational Readiness Assessment Team Report (Shoreham ORAT Inspection 50-322/89-80 (3/11-27/89))

which was transmitted to the licensee by the Regional I Administrator's letter of April 4, 1989, and to maintaining 9102070476 901220 -

PDR hDOCg 05000322 O PDR

. - - _- __.~ -----

l Dr. Thomas E. Murley April 5, 1990 Page.2 I

personnel training and replacement training programs, as specified in the licensing documents and other NRC guidance. By that license, the NRC also required, and LILCO committed itself l to, maintaining, inspecting and operating plant equipment in accordance with the licensing documents and other NRC .

1 requirements consonant with full power operation.

Since the. issuance of that license, LILCO has annou.ted to the NRC, over and over again, by written communication and L'

' management meetings with the NRC Staff that LILCO does not

-currently intend to operate-the choreham Plant, but rather will seek to transfer its-license for that~ plant to the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") for decommissioning.

We contend that LILc0 has announced a unitary series of actions which'it is-improperly segmenting, but which together constitute :a " major . federal action" requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, the Cercil on Environmental-Quality Regulations, and the Commission's own regulationsL(10 C.F.R. Part 51 (1989)).

Since the Shoreham plant.is at the beginning of its life, not at the end of its life by virtue of age or accident,

-the generic environmental' consideration of decommissioning options last year does not operate to remove such a decommissioning proposal from the mandatory requirements of 10 C. F.R. S 51. 20(b) (5) (1988). In any event, the Commission should determine that this course of action proposed by LILCO and others constitutes _a major Commission action significantly affecting the quality of the-human environment. Egg 10 C.F.R. S S 51. 20 (b) (13) and 51.22(b) (1989).

-In these circumstances, the Commission's own regulations forbid.it-from giving LILCO any " form of permission" ~

which may have adverse environmental effects or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives to be considered'until after the NEPA procesr cas been completed. Egg 10.C.F.R. SS 51.100 and 51.101

-(1989).

By_ this supplement, we incorporate in our Request the r= losed comment on an NRC notice regarding yet another segmented to proposal in furtherance of-its decommissioning proposal,

.mely, the proposed reduction of on-site property insurance.

NEPA demands that'LILCO not be allowed to piecemeal or

.mproperly segment this single course of action intended to lead

Dr. Thomas E. Murley April 5, 1990 Page-3 to decommissioning. Concomitantly, NEPA demands that the NRC cease and decease from piecemeal consideration of this unitary decommissioning proposal which has been before it over nine months now and which the NRC has, contrary to its own

' regulatl ns, permitted to go forward until this point.

The Commission must recognize its responsibilities under NEPA and take appropriate actions to require LILCO to maintain a staff adequate to operate the Shoreham facility (including hiring and training) and to conduct inspections and t maintenance of the physical plant in accordance with the i  : roquirements-for a full power operating reactor, all in accordance with the responsibilities of the full ~ power c;erating license,.at least until NEPA~ review of the decommission 1rn

. proposal;is= completed and the proposed action is approvea or denied.- The proposed reduction in on-site property insurance should be denied or, at least, deferred until after publication  ;

of a Final EnvironmentaltImpact statement on the decommissioning 4

c proposal. :10 C.F.R. 5 51.100(a)(1989).

Yours sinceroly, dOi n a. > [-,x f

[ ames P. McGrane , Jr.

Counsel for Shoreham-

[ Wading River Central School District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.

JPM:jmb

' Enclosure r^^ c --

, -- . - n .- - - . - - - - - -- -

t ..

f

,.\ 9: '

DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON

' " ',," ',, 1855 TWENTY-THIRO STRCCT

,7,,,, ."",* ,, j ~ E 'M WA$HlNGTCN, D.C. 3 003 7 *I I 84 U,"'" """ E""",,,,,. ., E,*$

i%'.= =.' '"llk %",LO' -

C'T.'4ll"" = . ~ . " .

l241"%, = =. ' "ll".'"/2 :J:".".*"'

=l*.'O....  : ll"%="  %', *.Ol,

, c a .,, ou c . . . . . . ,.. . OJ"/ , . lO'.'!:llll. "lL*.u".".".

tcaeoata ..oe, ......oo

=

,l::l;".* ':::l,%., 'lll= 6"*."" J" A." L ."."'"JJ:" '

rJ =.  ::::;r,;,,

• ="lllC -

= ' '*."'f. ':: O n o ...... =;;l%,,

':*/ lll"

=

O!'.'X"' = '.N""

.~ . ill" lllll: =ll:- =.".".*.'

=;= = = . =:= *C".l."O,*

. ,'.'U

/ **l lllll"!T =i".i C*. nl0

'"="::r"- O,.":' 3 ?' =:1."L m......

mu . . . .

==- =:== ='. -

Ot ."fl*"'" lll:::# f L""; Y,'.:!. " =

llll f="' ""*.'/" lll:,.. :",",,'.*. 7,:ll:

"*~"a lll%'.'E. '.." " , * " " ' , " ' ' '.ft""lL, -

=f "::'"-  :=' "J." *:ll201. CA"";'" c ::'M i='" Ot."", *

==. =~ = = * . ."',",".=',,  :=a-- ::.. = ,

=:.lv

~;=;;; * ,"lllr,,",

=r l=:=-

-'="

m,........... == :r ==="

, mu .. .... m u ,,

=l, .,,,,,,, =_,,,., , , , , , - -

. s. .  ? ll= ",1"l".02' O. :ll"'"

l*" 'lr"f""

,,,,,,,,,n

..m.......

m.....,_,._,

WUDT R1 p.,,C, .an6 es.

2

% J (202) 857-2929 4 e "-

& ilEcavt0

< n April 5, 1990 E APk 0 51990 f Otilce of the

{eUQWY -

BY HAND N,G k N .O.w Honorable Samuel Chilk

=The Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: "Long Island Lighting Company; Environmental Assessment and Finding of_No Significant Impact" (U.S.N.R.C. Docket No. 50-322)

(55 Fed. Rec. 6566. February 23. 1990)

Dear Mr. Secretary:

These comments are presented on behalf of the Shoreham-Wading River central School District (" School District") and-Scientists and . Engineers for Secure- Energy ("SE ). The Shoreham

- Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham") is located w$" thin the boundarien of the School District. Similarly, several members of SE2 , a .nat'onwide organization of scientists -dedicated to correcting '.he alarming degree of misunderstanding on fundamental, scientific-and. technological issues permeating the national energy debate, also live and/or' work on Long Island in the vicinity cf Shoreham and rely on electricity from its licensee, LILCo.

. . ~ m, s  % . k $.ieb

- - - - . - , , - - - - - - - ,,-m +m , , , , - , n -n-., e w. ,, w no m-r, ..,. ..v. ,, , , , . - -

i

.,[..,

4 s .

Honorable samuel chilk April 5, 1990 Page 2 These comments are occasioned by the Nuclear Regulatory i Commission's "'NRC") announcement that it "is considering {

issuance of Nu exemption from the required on-site primary  :

property damage insurance requirement rif 10 C.F.R. 50.54(w)(1) to '

the Long Island Lighting company ("LIL.0") the licensee, for j operation of the Shoreham, located in Suffolk County, New York." t 55 Fed. Reg. 6566 (February 23, 1990).

J )

S_UMMARY OF COMMENTERS' POSIT 1QH Commontors urge the Commission to withdraw this proposal from consideration and deny or defcr LILCo's request as violative of the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"),

U.S.C. Il 4321 at gas. (1982), the Atomic Energy Act ("AEA"), 42 U.S.C. li 2011 31 11g. (1982), and the Administrative Procedure 42 Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. $5.551-559, 701-706 (1988), as well as the regulations of t.5e Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ"), 40 C.F.R. I 1500 11 Egg. (1988), and of the NRC, 10 C.F.R. Parts 2, 50, & 51 (1989).

These various violations are described in detail below.

Commenters also note that the proposed exemption is in direct

conflict with the actions raquested-by them pursuant to their pending section 2.206 Requests, as amended. The comments herein should be considered also as a further supplement to those requests.

BACKGROUND On May 31,.1988, the Commission granted LILCO an exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.54(w) based on

- the fact that LILCO was authorized:to operate Shoreham at power levels no greater than five percent (5%) of full-rated power. 53 Fed. Reg. 21955 (June 10, 1988). This exemption was extinguished by its own terms on April 21, 1989 whan LILCO was granted a full-power operating license.

In a letter to the Commission dated May 22, 1989, LILCO requested another exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 50.54(w) arguing that because its Settlement Agreement prohibits operation of the plant, the risk of an accident is even lower than during the previous exemption period and, therefore, a new exemption is justified.

The Commission rejected LILCO's request in a letter dated July 7, 1989 explaining that, unlike the previous NRC imposed restriction limiting operating levels to 5% of full power '

which the NRC could enforce through civil and criminal penalties,

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

cn.. .-

l Honorable samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 3 the current operating restriction is "self-imposed and for the convenience of LILCo."

dated September LILCO8,renewed its request for the exemption by a letter 1989. It premised its renewal on two events which had occurred since the first requests approval by LILCO shareholders of the Settlement Agreement and transfer of fuel from the reactor to the spent fuel pool.-

The detaf 's of these requests, proposals and decisions are discussed below.

On February 23 1990, the Commission announced that it is "considering" issuance, of the exemption requested in LILCO's September 8, 1989 letter.

55 Fed. Reg. 6566 (February 23, 1990).

The Wotice included an Environmental Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI"). Assessment ("EA") and a I.

PREVIOUS EXEMPTIONS AS PRECEDENT A. Yankee Nuclear on June 28, 1982, the day before reactor licensees were to have complied with the requiremehis of 10 C.F.R. 50. 54 (w) ,

Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (" Yankee"), licansee of the Yankee 4 plant, applied insurance for an exemption provision of that rule.from the minimum on-site property Yankee maintained that it presently carried $ 460 million in property insurance coverage and requested an exemption from the required additions 1 coverage.

Yankee made several points in support of its request including representations that the insurable actual cash v twentyyearold175MW(e)plantwas$69,000,000,glueofthethen that the plant had no outstanding mortgage indenture, and that decontamination and cleanup of the plant following a TMI-type accident was estimated to cost $350,000,000 in 1982 dollars.

In a letter dated August 13, 1982, the NRC notified the licensee that additional information on the decontamination cost study mentioned in the licensee's request and a description of the licensee's efforts to secure the required amounts of coverage would be needed to evaluate the request. Yankee responded _to the NRC's 22, 1983. request for additio--1 information in a letter dated April Along with the tetter, the licensee submitted the 1/ This is in stark contrast to the situation at Shoreham, a brand new, $5.5 billion 805 MW(e) reactor.

l,..

Honorable samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 4 referenced decontamination study and also a decommissioning study.

On June 10, 1983, the Commission granted Yankee an exemption from all but the $500 million primary layer of on-site property insurance.

44 Ped. Reg. 27860 (June 17, 1983). The NRC found that the decontamination study submitted by Yankee was based on conservative assumptions and that the assumptions and methodology used by the licensee were compatible with the findings of the worst case scenario of the accident cost study of light water reactors commissioned by the NRC and performed by Pacific Northwest laboratories, Technoloav. Safety and costs of Decommissionina 1 tsd_Acridentarat Referents Licht Water Reactors Involved in Postu1 2601 Pacific Northwest Laboratoryl NUREG/CR-("Pontulated Accidents") . Id. at 27861. The Commission concluded that "suf ficient that decontamination costsinformation occarring asisaavailable result of to andetermine accident at a reactor degree of Yankee's small size would, with a reasonab1p, of assurance, be covered by $500 million insurance."F Id.

In contrast, Shoreham is at the beginning of its life, with a value 75 times greater than Yankee, with five times the power of Yankoe, and is yet seeking to maintain only 75% of the coverage required for Yankee. And the NRC has not even required LILCO to submit any detailed documentation studies or decommissioning studies, and appears to accept a conclusory scenario one analysis, instead of a severe accident analysis.

B. Bia Rock Point Consumers power company (" Consumers"), licensee of the 72 MW(e) Big Rock Point Nuclear plant, is another smell plant 2/ Yankee, licensed to operate 175 MW(c), represents the upper limit of the small plants granted property insurance exemptions.

The other small plants to receive exemptions have had significantly lower operating capacities. Big Rock Point, for instance is limited to 72 MW(e) and La Crosse and Humboldt Bay are authorized to operate at 50 MW(a) and 63 MW(e), respectively.

Shoreham and Seabrook, the only two large plants to receive ,

exemptions, had licenses below this range at the time exemptions were accorded their licensees, At the time of the Shoreham exemption, LILCO was authorized to operate the plant at only 5%

of full-rated power (805 MWe), or approximately 40 MWe, The Seabrook exemption was based on the fact that the plant was not authorized to achieve criticality at all, that is, zero power.

s -

• Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 5 licensee that requested an exemption soon after the final interim version ot Section 50.54(w) was announced. On June 22, 1982, the licensee requested that it be exempt from carrying all but the primary layer of $500 million. Consumers' central krpsent in support of its request was that its stud'* of decontamination and cleanup costs, following athe worst credible accident," concluded that such costs would total approximately $450 million and, therefore, sufficient.

the $500 million primary layer of coverage was on July 12, 1982, the Commission asked the licensee to provide additional information on topics including the results of premium negotiations, avenues of coverage apart from insurance, and the bases for assumptions contained in the licensee's decontamination study. NRC letter Oated July 12, 1982.

Consumers responded by letter dated August 10, 1982. The licensee explained that it had negotiated u reduction in premiumu for the additional covarage, that lines and letters of credit had been investigated, and provided a detailed description of the bases for the assumptions contained in its study.

1982.

The Commission granted the exemption on November 3, 47 Fed. Reg. 50780 (November 9 1982). In its grant, the Commission noted that the licensee's s,tudy was compatible with the findings of the worst case scenario of the Commission's own study, Enginiated Accidents. The Commission also found Big Rock Point's size a significant factor weighing in favor of granting the exemption request noting both that while certain cleanup activities are not related to core size, the overall cleanup cost would be lower at a smaller plant and that the Big Rock Point plant als below the limit used to exclude small plants from certain NRC requirements," namely, maximum coverage under the Price Anderson Act providing for third party liability insurance and indemnity in the event of an accident. Id. at 50781.

In contrast, Shoreham is at the beginning of its life, with a hugely greater value, with over 11 times the power, and yet Rock LILCO Point. is seeking only 75% of the coverage required for Big Further, the NRC has not required LILCO to detail support for its financial hardshi require Big Rock Point to do so. p argument although it did C. La crosse On June 29, 1982, Dairyland Power Cooperative

("Dairylanda), licensee of the 50 MW(e) La Crosse plant requested an exemption from the excess property insuranc,e requirement of Section 50.54 (w) . Letter from Dairyland to NRC

s . .

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 6 dated June 29, 1982. Dairyland supported its request with assertions that the current $55 million of all-risk property insurance carried was sufficient to cover the decontamination and cleanup costs which it estimated to be less than $39 million, that the insurance amount required by the rule is nearly ten times the value of the plant, and that it had the financial capability, apart from insurance, to cover such costs. Id.

The NRC responded to Dairyland's request with letters dated August 12, 1982 and October 25, 1982 requesting additional in formation. Dairyland sought to provide this information in letters dated September 13, 1982, September 23, 1982, December 20, 1982, and March 7, 1983. In its letter dated September 13, 1982, Dairyland stated that "(a]s of September 1, 1982, we have bound insurance in the amount of $61,812,000 which represents 90 percent of the value at the site." In a letter dated March 29, 1983, Dairyland expressed its intention to maintain only this amount pending the NRC determination on the exemption request.

On September 12, 1983, the Commission partially granted Dairyland's exemption request. 48 Fed. Reg. 41832 (September 19, 1983). The Commission found that because the studies submitted by Dairyland as support for its request were based on faulty assumptions and failed to consider ker t case accidents, they provided insufficient technical justification for a reduction to $65 million. Id. The Commission, however, did find the technical justification provided by the licensee to be sufficient to allow an exemption for amounts in excess of the primary layer of $500 million, consistent with both the exemption granted to Consumers Power Company in the " parallel situation" at Big Rock Point and with the findings in the PNL study, Postulated Accidents, supporting the proposition that a smaller reactor would have lower decontamination and cleanup costs. Id.

Dairyland requested a further reduction from $500 million to $180 million by letter dated July 26, 1985. The licensee asserted that carrying the full amount was an undue financial hardship and that the lower amount was adequate to

" return the plant to a condition ready for decommissioning following an accident." 51 Fed. Rog. 24456, 24457 (July 3, 1986). In support of its new requeet, Dairyland prepared a new report on the decontamination and cleanup costa in the event of a worst case accident at the La Crosse plant (" Core damage equivalent in extent to what occurred at THI-2 is conservatively assumed") which concludes that the " revised total recovery cost

. . . is $152 million." Dairyland letter dated February 7, 1985.

Other technical information submitted by Dairyland analyzed the costs associated with the most severe (scenario 3) accident as

I s

• Honorable Samuel chilk I April 5, 1990 Page 7 l

l evaluated in Postulated Accidents, and concluded that even with a 25% contingency the post-accident recovery costs would amount to  ;

$180 million. SAA Dsiryland letter dated February 19, 1986. On l

June 18, 1986, the Commissioners me' with Dairyland to discuss the staff recommendation that the enemption be granted.

Transcript of Commission Meeting / Briefing on La Crosse etc.Ett dated i June 18, 1986.

The Commission granted the exemption reducing the required primary coverage for La Crosse to $180 million on Juna 26, 1986. 51 Fed. Reg. 24456 (July 3, 1986). The staff found that the maximum credible accident cost studies submitted by Dairyland equivalent to those in Epstulated Accidents upon which the amount requirement in Section 50.54(v) was based, Id. at 24457. The staff also found that "the low inventory of fissionable material and fission products" at the small La Crosse plant would confine the consequences of an accident to a smaller area and, thus, "it is not reasonable to project that the amount of damage for a 50 MW(e) plant would be the same as a much larger plant." Id.

On November 18, 1988, Dairyland also received the temporary exemption from the implementation deadline for the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions added to Section 50.54 (w) . 53 Fed. Reg. 47780 (November 25, 1988). The Notice of this exemption notes that Dairyland has a license "which authorizes possession but not operation" and also that during the exemption period "the licensee will still.be required to carry $180 million insurance." Id. at 47760-61.

In contrast, Shoreham is at the beginning of its life, with a dollar basis about 12 times greater than La Crouse, with over 16 times the power of La Crosse, and seeking only 75% of the coverage which the NRC initially required for La Crosse.

Purther, the NRC has not requested LILCO to detail its decontamination analysis, to present a decommissioning study, or to detail support for its financial hardship argument.

D. Humboldt Bay Unit 3 On May 28, 1982, PG&E, the licensee of the 63 MW(e)

Humboldt Bay Unit 3 requested an exemption from the rule's mininum coverage req,uirement. PG&E argued that the exemption was warranted because Humboldt Bay Unit 3 had been in cold shutdown condition since July 2, 1976 (i.e. , for approximately six years),

l and, therefore, (a) the health and safety risks associated with a l

reactor were low, (b) the presently maintained $100 million in all-risk property damage insurance was sufficient given the

Honorable Samuel chilk April 5, 1990 Page 8 remote risk of an accident resulting in damage to the unit, and (c) the additional premiums would constitute an unreasonable burden on the PG&E ratepayers. PG&E's Application for Exemption dated May 28, 1982.

The NRC res more information on (ponded by current

1) PG&E's asking the licensee(2) premiums; towhich provide other carriers PG&E had contacted and the quotes receivedt (3) PG&E's ability to negotiato premiums reflecting the perceived risks (4)

PG&E's consideration of alternative forms of protection including letters of credit and surety bonds; and (5) existing studies of the projected cleanup costs associated with an accident at the reactor while in the cold shutdown condition. NRC letter dated June 24, 1982. The Commission also granted PG&E a temporary exemption to be effective until the NRC had completed its evaluation of the request. Exemption dated June 29, 1982 (47 Fed. Reg. 30331 (July 13, 1982)).

PG&E responded to the NRC's questions in a letter dated July 28, 1982. The licensee indicated that (a) it presently paid

$340,000 for $100 million dollars of coverage, (b) additional premiums totalling nearly $700,000 were anticipated given the quotat3cns from the various nuclear insurers contacted, (c) the combined premiums of approximately $1,000,000 might be reduced by roughly $300,000 in light of the rate and shutdown negotiations, (d) lines of credit and surety bonds were not viable alternatives, and, finally, (e) while no directly pertinent studies, other than that submitted with the exemption request, had been performed, a decommissioning study revealed that decontamination and disposal of all materials would cost only $63 million in 1981 dollars.

On November 3, 1982, over 6 years after the plant had last operated, the Commission granted PG&E an exemption allowing the licensee to maintain only $100 million in unless and until the plant resumes operation. property 47 Fed.coverage Reg. 50785 (November 9, 1982). In the explanation of the exemption decision provided in the Notice, the Commission adopted most of the arguments advanced in the licensee's request. The commission noted that PNL's accident cost study of light water reactors, E2Etulated Accidenti, s7nsiders three loss of coolant accident scenarios of varying severity because they "present the greatest potential for excessive contamination requiring significant cleanup expense." Id. The commission concluded that because a loss of coolant accident is not a credible event at Humboldt Bay,

$100 million in all-risk property insurance is sufficient to cover any decontamination costs that might arise. Id.

1

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5. 1990 Page 9 The NRC modified PG&E's license for Humboldt Bay to

" possess but not operate" status on July 16, 1985. On July 19, 1988, the Commission by pG&E. 54 red. Reg. 34266 (August 18, 1989). approved the decommissioning plan submitted On June 9, 1989, PG&E requested its on-site property insurance be further reduced from $100 million to $63,160,000.

The licensee its premium maintained payments by that this further reduction would reduce the reduced minimum cove $94,000 annually. It also argued that rage amount would be

• adequate to cover costs of on-site cleanup following accidents because the reactor '

may not be operated and all fuel is stored on-site such that a nuclear criticality accident is not credible." $4 Fed. Reg.

34266 (August 18, 1989). PG&E explained that the new minimum figure ($63,160,000) is the combined book value of the nuclear unit (Humboldt Bay Unit 3, $10,294,000) and two on-site fossil fuel units ($52,966,000)." 54 Fed. Reg. 35738, 35739 (August 29, 1989).

On August 22, 1989, the Commission granted PG&E's request for a further reduction. 54 Ted. Reg. 35738 (August 29, 1989). The NRC concluded that the plant then licensed for

" possession only," "is functioning as a s, pent fuel storage facility, that the risk of criticality is negligibly small, and that the proposed minimum amount of property damage insurance is a d e quate . " Id. at 35739.

LILCO has focused upon the Humboldt Bay exemption.

LILc0 argues that the present cold shutdown condition at Shoreham compares to the cold shutdown condition that existed at Humboldt Bay when PG&E applied for its exemption, making the plants "similarly situated," and that LILCO,therefore, merits an exemption.

The Commission must reject this reasoning because the assertion that the two plants are similarly situated, is untenable. At the time of PG&E's initial exemption request, Humboldt Bay, a small plant of 63 MW(e) with a low book value of

$10.3 million, had been in cold shutdown for six years, was clearly at the end of its useful life, and on its way to decommissioning. Shoreham, on the other hand, is a large plant of 805 MW(e) with a high cost of about $5.5 billion, has been in a shutdown condition for less than a year, is at the very beginning of its useful life, and, despite LILCO's representations to the contrary, decommissioning is not a foregone conclusion in this instance, rurther the NRC has not requested LILCO to detail support for its finan,cial hardship

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 10 argument, reports.

or to present detailed documentation er decommissioning Rather, the decision as to whether the decommissioning of the $5.5 billion Shoreham plant will be permitted must be made by the Commission after preparation of an FEIS evaluating both the consequences of, and alternatives to, decommissioning.

E. Fort Saint Vrain Public Service Company of Colorado ("PSC"), licensee of the 330 MW(e) Fort St. Vrain high temperature gas-cooled reactor, first made a request for an exemption from the excess property insurance requirement of 10 C.F.R. 50.54(w) on March 23, 1983.

Because the Commission interpreted this initial request as merely an annual report, PSC clarified and supplenented its request in a letter dated June 30, 1983. PSC included a study with its March 23, 1989 request indicating that the " total damage insurance including decommissioning costs, clean-up costs and loss of the plant is conservatively estimated at $323,556,480 . . . . " Ett i PSC's letter dated June 30, 1983 at 1. The licensee asserted that the required excess coverage,, above the $500 million primary layer was, therefore, unnecessary to protect its ratepayers and investors against the loss of the plent and cleanup costs following an accident. Id. at 2.

On November 23, 1983, the NRC notified PSC by letter that its exemption request had been reviewed and that PSC had failed to exemption. provide The Commission an adequate explained basis for thatthe itsgrant of the was conclusion based primarily on the finding that the study submitted with the request was "not thorough enough to provide reliable conclusions regarding estimates of (1) likelihoods of plant accidents initiated by internal and external causes, (2) levels of in-plant radioactive contamination, and (3) costs of in-plant decontamination."

NRC letter dated November 23, 1983 at 1. The Commission also pointed out that "despite its unique HTGR design, Fort St. Vrain is somewhat larger (i.e., 330 MW(e)) than those water cooled plants granted exemptions previously -- i.e., La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Humboldt Bay, and Yankee Atomic."

i

. . . . _ _ __ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ________m_.____________._.___._______.___.___.______.___---___-m- - - - - - - - _ _ - - -

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 6, 10:0 Page 11

14. at 1-2. The Octaission found this peint relevant because Postulated Accidents, "found some relationship between reactor size and cleanup cocts." Id. at 2. Havertheless, the NRC concluded that, based on the design differences between Fort St.

Vrain and water-cooled reactors, a rationale for granting the exemption night exist and invited PSC to provide additional information in support of its request.

PSC sought to provide additional justiff. cation for its request in a letter dated December 27, 1983. PSC first described various accident scenarios in support of the assertion that the unique HTGR design " leads to accident scenarjos that are slow to develop and that result in relatively moderate consequences."

PSC letter dated December 27. 1983, at 1-3. Next, PSC claimed that a conservative estimate of decontamination costs, additional decommissioning costs, and writeoff of present plant and fuel book value amounts to a maximum exposure to financial loss of

$323,558,480. PSC added that the $500 million presently carried

" consists of solid, commercial coverage by ANI/MAERP and is not subject to retrospective agreements or other qualifications."

Id. at 3. Finally, PSC listed examples of exemptions from other regulations which have been based on the " inherent safety advantages of the HTGR design" and urged the Commission to grant the on-site property insurance exemption on the same ground.

On March 2, 1984, the NRC concluded that adequate justification had not yet been provided. Ssg Memorandum from P.C. Wagner Summarizing the NRC / PSC meeting of April 5, 1984, Attachment 2. On April 5, 1984, PSC net with the NRC staff to discuss the exemption request. At the meeting the staff explained that the exemptions given to small, low power LWRs were based on studies which evaluated both internal and external events and indicated that such reactors do not necessarily require excess property insurance and that such extensive studies on Fort St. Vrain, or HTGR plants in general, do not exist. Id.

at 1. The Staff urged PSC to decide whether it would pursue the request by providing the necessary justification in the near future or simply withdraw the request because compliance with the rule could not be held in abeyance much longer. Id. at 2.

In a letter dated April 25, 1984, PSC indicated that it was planning to prepare additional documentation to coet the Staff's concerns. PSC mot with the NRC Staff again on May 2, 1984 at which time the Staff advised PSC to obtain the excess insurance required unless the exemption request could be finalized in sixty days. E12 PSC letter dated May 29, 1984.

Having concluded that sixty oays was not enough time, PSC

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 12 purchased $85 million excess property insurance bringing the total coverage up to $585 million. Id. I Despite its continued representations that it would be submitting additional information, PSC seems to have abandoned its exemption request. In its 1985 annual report on property insurance, dated April 4, 1985, PSC indicated that it had $585 million in effect and that it was " actively arranging for additional property damage insurance . . . ." From 1986 to the present, PSC has indicated in its annual reports that it has carried the full amount of on-site property insurance required,

$1.02 billion in 1986 and 1987, and $1.06 billion in 1988 and 1989. Thus, PSC has never been granted any exemption from the excess property insurance requirements of 5 50.54(w). The only exemption from section 50.54(w) that PSC has received was one temporarily delaying the implementation of the decontamination priority and trusteeship provisions of 10 C.F.R. 50.54(w) (5) (1) on September 30, 1988. 53 Fed. Reg. 39688 (October 11, 1988).

In contrast, Shoreham is at the beginning of its life, with a value much greater, with about two and a half times the power, and is seeking to maintain less of the coverage than PSC sought and was denied. And the NRC has not even required LILCO to submit any detailed documentation studies or decommissioning studies, and appears to accept a scenario one conclusory analysis. Further, the NRC has not requested LILCO to detail support for its financial hardship argument.

F. Seabrook On October 17, 1986, Public Service Company of New Hampshire ("PSNH") was issued a license restricting activities at Seabrook Station to fuel loading and precriticality testing only.

Egg 53 Fed. Reg. 19361 (May 27, 1988). On October 1, 1987, just days before an amendment to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.54 (w) raising tha required property insurance from $620 million to $1.06 billion was to become effective, PSNH requested an exemption from carrying amounts in excess of $620 million until a low power operating license is granted. Id. PSNH pointed out that because criticality had not yet been approved, the primary system was not radioactive and that given the boron concentration maintained in the reactor, criticality could not be achieved. Given these facts, the licensee argued, "the consequences of any credible accident would not include any significant radiological hazards and the existing insurance coverage should be adequate to compensate for any conceivable condition." Id. The licensee also argued that the extra insurance expense included not only the extra premium, but also would expose the licensee to

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 13 retrospective premium liability (up to 7.5 times the annual premium) in the event of an accident at any insured site. Id. at 19361-62.

On May 11, 1988, the Commission granted the temporary exemption request. In the exemption notice, the Commission emphasized the fact the reactor did anot contain any significant inventory of fission products" having never been allowed to operate at anv level. Id. at 19362. The Commission also made it clear that the exemption was only temporary, to last "only until such time as (the licensee) may be allowed to make the reactor critical and operate at low oower." Id. (emphasis added) . The exemption, itself, limits the exemption to the time period prior to receipt of an operating license. Id. That is, the Commission focused on the absence of authorization to operate.

In contrast, Shoreham has a full power license F , is at 2/ The Commission may now be trying to implement a " backdoor" license amendment for Shoreham, on March 29, 1990, the NRC announced that "public health and safety require that the licensee's commitment in its January 12, 1990 letter not to place nuclear fuel into the Shoreham reactor vessel without prior NRC approval be confirmed by this order." This Confirmatory order was made immediately effective. The NRC advanced two bases for this action:

(1) the reduction in the licensee's onsite support staff below that necessary for plant operations, and (2) the absence of NRC-approved procedures for i

returning to an operational status systems and equipment that the licensee has decided to deactivate and protect rather than maintain until ultimate

, disposition of the plant is determined.

l The NRC has acted in direct violation'of its licensing hearing provisions in this instance.

L First, the Commission gave LILCo L

explicit permission to destaff the plant and " mothball" plant systems on the basis that those activities were consistent with safety under the operating license; now it decides that a license amendment prohibiting operation is immediately necessary because l those actions are inconsistent with safe operation.

The commission has turned the normal license amendment process on its head. LILCo should be required to apply for and (continued...)

1 l% , ,m- .. -_,_ - .y .- .-

i o.. . .

Honorable Samuel chilk April 5, 1990 Page 14 the beginning of its life, with a hugely greater value, with over 11 times the power, and seeking only 75% of the coverage required for Big Rock Point. Further, the NRC has not requested LILCO to detail support for its financial hardship argument.

G. Shoreham >

Two days before the revised property insurance requirements were to become effective (raising the required minimum to $ 1.06 billion), on october 3, 1987, LILCo notified the commission that it would be applying for an exemption from those requirements in the near future and that it would continue to maintain only $620 million until a decision on the exemption request was made. LILCo letter to the NRC, dated october 3, 1987. on November 23, 1987, LILCo submitted its completed request to the Commission. In its request, LILCO aaintained that it presently held only a low power operating license (5% full-rated power, or approximately 40MW(e), for the 805 MW(e) plant)

~ '

2/ (... continued) receive a " possession only" amendment erior to implementation of actions which are inconsistent with a full-power operating license. The Commission is aiding and abetting LILCO to perform an end run around the hearing requirements and NEPA, thus bringing the plant even further along the decommissioning path without any consideration of the environmental impacts of, or alternatives to, the decommissioning action.

Purthermore, this order, as another interdependant part of the series of actions making up the larger decommissioning action, seeks to smooth the way for a grant of the instant exemption request. The commission may think that this order will avoid the need to justify a grant of the exemption on the unprecedented basis of the plant's "non-operational condition" as a function of the licensee's expressed intention to refrain from operating the plant. But the Confirmatory order states that it "in no way relieves the licensee of the terms and conditions of its operating license . . . ." This assertion differentiates this license condition from a " possession only" amendment and thus defeats the argument that the exemption can be based on lack of a full-power license.

And this order itself may be invalid since it is totally inconsistent with prior determinations that the reduced staff and layed-up equipment are consistent with a full power license and there is no reasoned analysis provided for the changed position, only conclusions.

l l

1 Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 page 15 and, due to the delaya concerning emergency planning, the present licensing status might continue for some time. On the basis of this assertion, LILCO argued that it should be required to carry only $337 million in coverage because the full amount of insurance required, $1.06 billion, would constitute an undue economic burden "since, at low power, both the probability of, and damage from a postulated accident are significantly reduced."

LILCO $ 50.54 (w) Exemption Request, dated November 23, 1987, at

4. In support of its request, LILCO attached an analysis discussing the technical aspects of low power operation and estimating at 5% power.actual damage estimates for accidents while operating In addition, the LILCO analysis evaluates the three accident scenarios presented in the Postulated Accidents. LILCO concluded that only Scenario 1, the least severe accident, was appropriate in determining the required insurante coverage for Shoreham operating at 5%.

4 On May 31, 1988, the Commission granted LILC exemption f rom the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.54 (w) .g an53 Fed.

Reg. 21955 (June 10, 1988). The exemption was accompanied by e

Sarety Evaluation prepared by the Staff. The Safety Evaluation restated and concurred with the contentions contained in LILCo's re quest. The Commission allowed LILCO to carry $337 million of on-site insurance, as opposed to the $1.06 billion required by the rule, stating that " compliance with 10 C.F.R. 50. 54 (w) (1) would result in undue costs considering the current operational restrictions placed on the Snoreham facility . . .." Exemption dated May 31, 1988 at 4 (emphasis added). This exemption was extinguished by its own terms on April 21, 1989 when LILCO was granted a full power operating license.

In a letter to the Commission dated May 22, 1989, LILCO requested another exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.54(w). LILCO argued that because its settlement Agreement with the State of New York prohibits operation of the plant, the risk of accident is even Icwer than during the previous exemption period when the plant was operated at up to 5% power and, therefore, a new exemption is justified while Shoreham is subject to the Agreement.

The Commission rejected LILCo's request in a letter dated July 7, 1989 explaining that unlike the previous NRC A/ In recognizing this as one of the very few exemptions granted is a validinprocedent. this area, the commenters do not mean to imply that it In fact, commenters doubt that it would have withstood full judicial review.

1

_ .. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _. _.~_____ _ _._ _ __

l

. \

}

< 1 l l 5

Honorable samuel Chilk

! April 5, 1990 Page 16 i

imposed restriction limiting operating levels to 5% and subject i to NRC enforcement through civil and criminal penalties, the i

' current operating restriction is "self-imposed and for the convenience of LILCO." This judgment is still valid and no i adequate justification has been presented to reverse it.

H. Analysis Heither the fact that shoreham is presently shutdown, nor the mere existence of the settlement Agreement under which LILCO does not operate Shoreham, renders LILCO similarly situated to those licensees previously receiving exemptions. NRC consideration of Section 50.54 (w) 9xemption requests to date has uniformly rested upon one of two c4rcumstantial predicates, the plant's physical characteristics or possession of other than a full power operating license.

The licensees of Humboldt Bay, Yankee Atomic L Crosse, and Big Rock Point, submitted detailed studiesha showing that because of their site, an accident of the severe scale 5/ All of the small reactor licensees receiving exemptions submitted decontamination and decommissioning studies to support their requests. The Commission placed significant emphasis on the exemptions.

results of these studies in granting the requested No such studies were required for the Seabrook or initial Shoreham exesptions. No detailed findings were necessary in the case of Seabrook because criticality had not been achieved nor was criticality authorized for the exemption period. LILCO submitted some technical justification in support of its exemption while the plant was authorized for only 5% power operation. While LIICO's cursory overview of the risk of '

accidents and the cost of decontamination following an accident might be sufficient while authorized for low power operation, a much more thorough study- should-be required when the licensee possesses a full power operating license. Despite the fast approaching July 26, 1990 deadline 10 C.F R. I 50.33(X)(2))- for submission of the decommissioning re(port required under 10 C.F.R.

I 50.75, LILCO has failed to meet the pre-approval requirement placed on other licensees requesting such exemptions in that it has not yet submitted a decontamination and decommissioning report in support of its exemption request.

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

i Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 17 examined in Postulated AccidentsF, would not result in the same magnitude of contamination and thus could be cleaned up at a lower cost. Similarly, Fort St. Vrain, a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor, sought an exemption based on its unique design, but ultimately received no exemption. Both a plant's size and its design are immutable physical limitations which provide a sound foundation upon which to base an exemption.

The exemption granted for Seabrook represents, and the initial Shoreham exemption may represent, the second predicate upon which exemption consideration has been based. Consideration of these requests was predicated in part, upon the fact that the NRC had not issued full power ope, rating licenses.

LILCO has based its latest exemption request on neither of these two traditionally accepted predicates. The Shoreham plant designis neither and, relatively small nor significantly unique in more im operating license. portantly, LILCO presently holds a full-power LILCO points to its Agreement with New York State and argues that because that Agreement provides that LILCO will not operate Shoreham, the risk posed by the plant is significantly decreased, and, thus, an exemption is warranted. The NRC must, as it previously did, consider the Settlement Agreement between LILCO and New York State irrelevant to any consideration of an exemption.

Just as the Settlement Agreement is irrelevant to NRC consideration of LILCo's exemption request, so too is the present 1/ The exemptions granted to those licensees authorized to operate at full-power were all based on studies submitted by licensees postulating the costs associated with a worst case accident. The worst case accident presented in Postulated Accidents, is designated Scenario 3. In granting previous exemptions, the Commission has uniformly made reference to the fact that the licensee had presented a report estimating the costs associated with a Scenario 3 accident or one of a comparable magnitude at the plant in question. Despite the fact that LILCO holds a full-power operating license which makes a Scenario 3 accident a possibility as a matter of law, LILCO argues that the costs associated with the much less serious Scenario 1 accident should be applied in this instance because of LILCO's voluntary cessation of normal operations. A licensee's authorization, rather than a licensee's expressed intent, should be the basis for worst case accident evaluation.

1

l ,t ,'

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 18 shutdown condition of the plant. The plant has been in cold shutdown for less than one year. Even if LILCO continues its self-imposed shutdown, mere shutdowns have never been recognized as a viable predicate for an exemption from the property insurance requirement imposed by Section 50.54 (w) .

Allowing coverage reductions based on operational status alone is unprecedented. Many, sustagnedoutagesofmorethanone,#planghaveendured years two, or even several without their licensees receiving an exemption from the coverage requirement of Section 50.54(w) . The fact that Shoreham's is presently shutdown is, therefore, an insufficient basis for granting LILCO's exemption request.

II.

A DECISION TO GRANT THE INSTANT EXEMPTION REQUEST WOULD VIOLATE THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT.

1 A. Section 50.54(W)

In 1982, when the final interin version of Section 50.54 (w) was adopted 47 Fed. Reg. 13750 (March 31, 1982), the Commission was aware,that in the experience of the industry several large reactors had entered significantly extended outages of more than one year and in some cases several years during which the fuel was taken out of the reactor and placed in the spent fuel pool. Despite this fact, neither the initial version of the rule nor any subsequent amendments to the rule, contain a provision excepting such licensees from carrying the full coverage required by the rule.

Section 50.54(w) does however anticipate that a licensee will either " resume ope, ration" o,r " commence decommissioning" in the wake of an accident. 10 C.F.R. 55

50. 54 (W) (3) (ii) & (iii) (1989). While the rule gives a licensee 2/ Pilgrim 1 was out for all of 1987 and eleven months of 1988.

Peach Bottom 2 was out all of 1988.

A/ Sequoyah 1 and 2 were both out for all of 1986 and 1987.

Nine Mile- Point 1 has been out from December 20, 1987 to the present. Peach Bottom 3 has been out for all of 1988, 1989, and up to the present.

1/ Three Mile Island 1 was out from 1979 through 1984. Both Browns Ferry 1 and 3 have been out from 1986 to the present.

Browns Ferry 2 has been out from 1985 to the present.

~

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 19

' the freedom to choose between these two paths after an accident, a licensee should not be permitted to choose decommissioning prior to an accident and then argue for an exemption based on the fact that the coverage sought is sufficient to a return the plant to a condition ready for decommissioning.a such an argument presumes that the plant is-already headed for decommissioning and 5

that, following an accident and regardless of its severity, no choice between repair and decommissioning would be necessary.

Decommissioning is not a foregone conclusion in this instance, and,.therefore, coverage-to allow repair for the resumption of operation should not be discontinued.

Both the lack of a provision addressing those reactor

' licensees in extended outages and the existence of provisions

- anticipating the possibility of resuming operation following an-accident support the. conclusion that a decision by_the commission granting the instant exemption request would be at variance with the final rule and its purposes.

rurthermore, the regulations promulgated by the commission provide generalized guide 2ines which, among other things, save the Staff from constantly reviewing the equities of '

each individual licensee's situation. If temporary outages and voluntary agreements not to .o viable bases for exemptions, perate.a requests plant wereexemptions found to be for such would

- become routine.and the Staff would be forced to continually perform and evaluate studies reevaluating the risk of a serious accident-as the risk fluctuated with equipment modifications and.

operational status.- A decision to allow LILCo, a full power licensee, an' exemption from the requirements of Section 50.

would undermine its efficacy and~ set a dangerous precedent.gj(w),

B. Section 50.12

1. The Exametion Is Not

• Authorized EV Law a -

Section 5'.12 0 addresses the criteria for the grant of an_ exemption. As a threshold matter, the commission grants only

- thoss exceptions which are a[a)uthorized by law, will not present

' an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent 12/ Already the commission has received an. exemption request from another full power licensee predicated on nothin the defueled condition of the plant and the licensee'gsmore than stated intention not to operate-the plant. U.S.N.R.C. Docket No. 50-312, Letter from the Sacramento MuniciDal Utility District to the NRC dated March 5. 1990.

t

,,w--,- , -, , - . , - - - - - - , - - , - -,x,-- , r.-,--.-, ----,--,,,.w,, ,y -

e,m,, w -,,r.,--,,y-.,v,r-----,,.m,--e-,,,,,-..,--,.um, -e.,,w,w r,.rw-e.,+ - ,

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 20 with the common defense and security." 10 C.T.R. I 50.12 (a) (1)

(1989).

In LILCO's September 8, 1989 letter, upon which the Commission bases its determination that there exists " technical justification" for the exemption, the licensee asserts that the action being requested is plainly authorized by law.

The NRC has the legal authority to modify insurance requirements for licensees and has exercised that authority in the past.

LILCO's letter of September 8, issue of authorization however, is not merely anThe threshold 1989, at page 5.

inquiry into the Commission's power,to take an action, but also encompasses the question of whether that action would violate other pertinent laws. As the commission states in the Statement of Consideration adopting the final version of Section 50.12 As in the exiuting rule, an exemption must be

" authorized by law." Apart from the very fact of granting the exemption relief itself, the crantino_of the exemotion cannot br_1D violation of other acolicable laws. such as the Atomic Energy Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.

Scecific Exemotionst Clarification of Standards, 50 Ted. Reg.

50764, 50776 (December 12, 1985) (emphasis added) . Contrary to LILCO's assertion that this action is " plainly authorized by law," granting the requested exemption andNEPAasdiscuscedelsewhereherein.gouldviolateboththeAEA 11/ LIIro' renewed request for an exemption also states that the request would "have no impact on the ' common defense and security' of the United States." LILCO's letter of September 8, 1989, at page 5. Once again LILCO has been too hasty in dismissing a threshold requirement for a specific exemption.

Nothing in the history of the Atomic Energy Act precludes the Commission from considering the "enern security" of the nation.

The region served by Shoreham is in dire need of the electric energy that the plant could provide. Given the current unavailability of access to significant new natural gas for Long TC snd, if Shoreham is not operated, oil burning plants will have i

be constructed to meet the region's demand. The oil required by such plants will further undermine the nation's energy security by increasing dependence on foreign oil. Under these (continued...)

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 page 21

2. No "Special Circumstances" Justifying This Eyettetion _Are Present.

Even if an exemption meets the threshold requirements giahted unless(a o: subsection on)e(1) of Section 50.12, an exemption will not be or more of the special circumstances listed in subsection (a) (2) of the rule are shown.

a. At least full insurance under Section 50.54(v) is necessary to serve the underivina ouroose of the rule.

In its September 8, 1989 letter requesting this exemption, LILCO argued that its request should be considered under the special circumstance provision which reads:

Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose  !

of the rule; 10 C.F.R. i 50.12 (a) (2) (ii) (1989). LILCo maintained that the purpose of the rule van merely to " ensure that sufficjent funds would be available to stabilize and decontaminate a facility in the event of an accident," and that given the plant's "defueled condition," $337 million in coverage is adequate to meet this ,

purpose. LILCo letter of September 8, 1989, at 9. I LILCO's contention that only $337 million in coveragn is necessary to serve the underlying purpose of the rule in this case is not true. As long as LILCo is a full-power licensee, it must maintain insurance to ensure that sufficient funds will be available to meet the consequences of the worst accident possible in light of the authorization accorded by the operating license.

The Commission based the rule's determination of the minimum amount of onsite property insurance that would be required on the findings contained in Postulated Accidents. Egg 52 Fed. Reg. 28963 ( August 5,1987) . As a plant licensed to 11/ (... continued) circumstances, the Commission should recognize that premature actions consistent only with the plan to decommission Shoreham as proposed by LILCO and the State of New York are inconsistent with the energy security of the United States.

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 22 operate at 805 MW(e) at full power, and, thus, capable of suffering a scenario 3 (the most severe accident postulated in the PNL study) accident, LILCO aust be required to maintain the full coverage.

Section 50.54(w) may also have the independent underlying purpose of ensuring the availability of funds to repair a reactor following an accident. The commission has stated that "Because decontamination insurance is the commission's only concern from the point of view of prote, g public health and safety, coverage to replace the existfn-facility on an "all-risk" basis is beyond the scope of Commission's authority." 47 Fed. Reg. 13750, 13752 (F 2982). This statement implies that replacement la WAN.

scope of the Commission's huthority when the damage in s.a d during a radioloalcal accident. This implication is futsa.;

supported by the fact that the 1987 version of the rule maken reference to the adequacy of the amount of the insurance to support the option of resuming operation after an accident. 52 Fed. Reg. 28963 (August 5, (1987); Alto AAA, 55 Ted. Reg. ,

s (April 2, 1990). And none of tr.ese pronouncements address tai issue of what type (s) and/or amounts of insurance the NRC could require licensees to carry pursuant to its responsibilities to protect the common defense and security or to provide f fa

" program for Government control of the . . . production of atomic energy . .

. so directed as to make the maximum contribution to the common defense and security and the national welfare . . . ."

42 U.S.C. I 2013(c) (emphasis added); also see, 42 U.S.C. I 2133(a). Commenters suggest that these purposes require at least the " minimum" insurance dictated in the regulations,

b. LILCO is not similarly situated to licensees previously granted exemptions from Section 50.54(w).

In it September 8, 1989 letter, LILCO also submitted that it has met the special circumstance provision which reads:

Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are . . . In excess of those incurred by others similarly situated; '

10 C.F.R. I 50.12 (a) (2) (iii) (1989). LILCO argued that given the present shutdown condition of the plent, it is an undue hardship to pay the premiums required of all other reactor licensees. In addition, LILCO claimed that it is similarly situated to other licensoes (particularly PG&E, licensee of Humboldt Bay) which have received exemptions, and, that it would, therefore, be i

L .a , v I

i Honorable Samuel chilk April 5, 1990 Page 23 i

j inconsistent LILCO's with the NRC's treatment'of these licensees to Janv request.

on March 31, 1982, Notice of the-Commission's decision i

to implement'a final interin version of 10 C.F.R. I 50.54(w) was .

1 published in the Federal Register. 47 Fed. Reg. 13750-(1982).  !

The final interim rule required licensees to obtain on-site property insurance by June 29, 1982 to cover decontamination costs in the event of an accident at a nuclear reactor. Between the time the final interim rule was announced and the implementation date,-the' licensees of four small reactors-(Yankee Nuclear,' Big Rock Point, La Crosse, and Humboldt Bay) each applied fox exemption allowing them to carry less than the required minlaus amount of. such insurance. The arguments-presented cy these licensees and the rationales announced by the NRC in granting the requested exemptions belle LILCO's claim that '

it is presently "similarly situated" and should, therefore, also receive an exemption.

LILCO's reliance on " undue hardship or other costs that

• are_significantly in excess of those contemplated when the 3 regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in excess of those incurred'by others similarly situated" is without basis.

Eta 10 C.F.R. I 50.12 (a) (2) (iii) (1989) . In all other instances where the Commission has addressed the reasonableness of the cost of providing the insurance, it has required the licensee to .  !

document those costs for the Commission's consideration. LILCO thas made no1 proffer as to those costs in these.circusatances, and the Commission has not asked for any documentation of those costs. As part of the licensees' presentation on- the '

-reasonableness of the costs in other dockets, licensees have 4

• addressed the relationship between the current 'value of facility and the-amount of insurance to be carried. LILCO has made no

-cuch presentation in this case, nor has the-NRC even asked for any presentation. In ' fact, the amount of insurance required by the rule ($1.06 billion) is less than EDe-fifth-of the cost of.

Shoreham and, therefore, a low not high) amount of insurance to carry on.the facility-in its vir(tually:undepreciated state. Many

-licensees carry much more than the required minlaunt in some Leases, well over $2 billion.

Further, the nuclear insurers take. account of the actual operating status (as opposed.to-license status) of a plant

• in establishing the premium: In the case of a plant such as Shorehan with no fuel in-the core, those insurers may offer a

, discount of-sot ___or more on the premium for the basic insurance.

j This,.in itself, assures that there is no'aundue burden" in cost.

l The real~world prices that insurance in the comparison to the

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 24 risk. Also, it relative economic burden is to be considered, consideration must be given the comparative costs per kilowatt of installed capacity, energy production potential (lifetime), and other factors.

Purther, given the existence of a proposal in fact to decommission Shoreham, the NRC is barred by 10 C.F.R. i 51.100 (1989) from giving this permission to LILCO prior to the publi,ation of an FEIS on that decommissioning proposal, as we have $1scussed above. The existence of this proposal also defeats the allegation of "similarly situated". Such a permission would also violate 10 C.F.R. I 51.101 by adversely af fiscting the ability of LILCO to repair Shoreham in the event of an accident, and thus, would also limit the reasonable alternatives to decommissioning to be considered in the decision-making process.

C. A Grant of LILCO's Exemption Request Would Violate the Commission's Rules for License Amendment Proceeding #-

The exemption, in effect, amends LILCO's operating

' license. As a license amendment, the Commission should have found that it was in the public interest to provida for a hearing on the proposed exemption. 10 C.F.R. I 3.104(a) (1989). Under the provisions of Section 2.714 and Appendix A of Part 2 of the Commission's regulations interested parties should have the opportunity to intervene in this matter. 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714 (1989).

In the Discussion and Comment portion of the announcement of the final rules on " General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," the NRC answered commenters' concerns that the rule violated NEPA stating In response to the concern that decisions on decommissioning will be made without public input, decommissionina involves amendment of thg_oneratina license and the NRC rules provide an avenue for public input with respect to license amendment.

53 Fed. Reg. 24039 (June 27, 1988) (emphasis added) . One such amendment in the chain of actions leading to decommissioning is the grant of a " possession only" amendment which eliminates many of the responsibilities 15 posed upon operating licensees under the Commission's regulations. By granting LILCO an exemption

.a.

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 25 from the requirement of Section 50.54 (>

LILCO to first request and obtain a "pos) session only" license,rather than requiring the Comaission would allow LILCo to circumvent the NRC's anncunced policy and cut off the " avenue for public input."

III. THE PROPOSED EXEMPTION WOULD BE IN DIRECT VIO1ATION OF NEPA AND THE NEPA REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE CEO AND NRC.

The NRC has admitted that an beforeShorehammaybedecommissioned.gISmustbeprepared Egg Letter from Thomas Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to James P. McGranery, Jr. dated July 20, 1989. The NRC has also indicated, however, that it doesn't believe that the environmental review must take place until a formal application for a license amendment to allow decommissioning is received.

Id. This contention, that a formal application is needed to 2

trigger the NEPA process, is untenable. The Commission's NEPA responsibilities must be continual supervision of a facility endures.g met 10 as C.F.R.

long as AEA mandated I 51.10(b) (1989) .

12/ Independent of this admission, an EIS would be necessary in this instance because the scope of the Final GEIS on Decommissioninc of Nuclear Facilities does not cover the present situation at Shoreham. The GEIS " addresses only those activities garried out at the end of a nuclear facilities useful life which permit the f acility to be removed safely from service and the property to be released for unrestricted use." USNRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Research, GEIS on Decommissionina, viii (August 1988)(emphasis added). Thus, the GEIS, which addresses the various acceptable methods of decommissioning a reactor at the and of its useful life, does not cover the case at hand, where the decommissioning of a facility at the very beainning of its useful life is to be considered. Because operation of Shoreham is a viable alternative, the initial issue is not hay decommissioning should be accomplished, but rather whether decommissioning should take place at all. This issue must be the subject of an EIS.

11/ The Commission's HEPA responsibilities cannot be dictated by formalities such as the receipt of applications. 10 C.F.R. I 51.100(a) (1989); 40 C.F.R. i 1508.23 (1988) (" proposal .

. in fact"). LILCO has clearly spelled out its intentions, and yet .

the Commission permits the piecemeal implementation of the plan prior to completion of NEPA review.

1 1

• ,s Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 26

' LILCO has not only repeatedly made known to the NRC its intention to cooperate with the State of New York in a course of action to decommission Shoreham, but has also bepn to take actions pursuant to this goal, including destaffing the plant and "mothballing" plant systems. The CEQ definition of " proposal" includes the statement: "A proposal may exist in fact as well as by agency declaration that one exists." 40 C.F.R. i 1508.23 (1988). Both LILCO's representations to the Commission concerning its intent to transfer the plant to the State of New York for decommissioning and its actions and proposed actions pursuant to this decommissioning goal make it abundantly clear that a proposal for a major federal action exists "in fact" in this instance.

At the time Section 50.54 (v) was promulgated, the Commission was aware of the fact that several full-power licensees had undergone extended outages lasting from one to several years during which time the fuel was stored in the spent fuel pool, and yo: the Commission did not consider such circumstance? co be significant enough to make a separate provision in the rule for such reactors. Furthermore, no full-power licensee in such an extended outage has ever, to the best of our knowledge, received an exemption on the basis of such an outage in the eight years since the final interim version of Section 50.54(w) was announced.

Nonetheless, in the Notice of the proposed exemption, the commission attempts to justify consideration of LILCo's renewed exemption request on the basis of the current non-operational condition of the plant with the reactor defueled and the fuel in the spent fuel pool. 55 Fed. Reg. 6566 (February 23, 1990). Given the fact that a plant's "non-operational condition" is, by itself, an unprecedented basis for an exemption from the property insurance requirements, an exemption under these circumstances must have as its unspoken premise the proposal not to return to operation but to decommission Shoreham has been made. It implicitly recognizes as inevitable LILCo's intentions both to refrain from operating the plant and to transfer the plant to an entity of New York State for decommissioning.

The Supreme court has declared that in some situations an agency must consider several related actions in a single EIS.

Kleoce v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 409-410, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2730-31, 49 L.Ed. 576 (1976). The Ninth Circuit has stated that

"[n)ot to require this would permit dividing a project into multiple ' actions,' each of which individually has an insignificant environmental impact, but which collectively have a substantial impact." Thomas v. Peterson, 753 F.2d 754, 758 (9th 1

, , ,* ,s .,

Honorable Samuel Chilk

April 5, 1990

Page 27 Cir. 1985). The CEQ regulations identify such situations

Section 1508.25 defines " connected actions" as those which are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement.

Actions are connected if they . . . Are

" interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.

" 40 C.F.R. - 5 1508.25(a) (1) (iii) (1988). The proposed exemption here is one part of the larger decommissioning action and clearly relies upon the decommissioning proposal for its justification. '

Thus, the exemption cannot be considered independent from the.

overarching decommissioning proposal which requires preparation 3 of an EIS.

The timing of decisions on proposals requiring preparation'of an EIs is controlled by tha.NRC's regulation providing that "no decision on a nrecosed action, including the issuance of a permit, license, or other form of normission . .: ."' .!

will be issued until the NEPA process:is complete. 10 C.F.R. I-51.100 (1989) (emphasis added) . - - LILCO's exemption request is in furtherance of its decommissioning-proposal in that~the exemption is another step towards decommissioning, relies on the decommissioning proposal for its justification, and is inconsistent with the scope of a license to operate. Thus, a

grant of the requested exemption would violate Section 51.100 -

'because it would constitute a " form of permission" inconsistent

.with the existing license and consistent only with the " proposal. 2

. . . 'in fact" to decommission shoreham.- t The actions which may be taken on a proposal the preparation of,a required EIS and a final decision . are' prior -to limited by the NRC's regulations: Section-51.101. prohibits the Commission from taking any action concerning the proposal "which would (i) have an adverse environmental impact, or (ii) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives." 10 C.F.R. i 51.101(a)(1)

(1989).. A decision to grant LILeo's exemption request would do both.

Shoreham constitutes 1an existing benefit to society in L I

that it is fully licensed and-capable of generating 805 megawatts-of electricity. inca region where electricity.is in short supply.

and reliance on imported oil for electric generation is heavier than any place else in the Nation. The adverse environmental-e ' impact at issue here~1s two-foldt First, any action in furtherance of the decomniissioning scheme has an adverse l

t r

--..a.,.A..-,_-,-- w_...-,..-.._.__-_...--__..____.,._-_._-.-~.___-__,____..____.--------

Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 28 L

environmental impact by making the intended purpose and benefit of the liconse, the supply of e.lectricity in full power operation, noro remote in time and less liksly in fact. Second, because the exemption is in furtharance of the decommissioning proposal, and no final decision on that proposal has been made, it constitutwa irreparable harm to the environment by a risk to the environment in prejudicing the decision presenting making process, which may become irreversible. Ef3 Eiprra club v. Marsh,proposal that is, in creating a nomentum in favor of the 872 F.2d 497 (1st Cir. 1989).

Similarly, the exemption would limit the choico vf reasonable alternatives. Nuclear reactor licensees typically seek to prot.ect their investment and limit the risk of financial losses from an accident; therefore, they naintain the fullent on-sitte property insurance available at all times. This $5.5 billion asset, licensed for full power operation, warrants coverage sufficient to bring the plant back to a condition ready for full power operation, not merely a condition ready for decommissioning. Otherwise, should an accident occur, the alternative of operating the plant could be prejudiced to the extent that the cost of returning the plant to operating condition exceeds the limited coverage sought by LILCo.

LILCO, however, plans to transfer Shoreham to New York State for one dollar asset.

and, therefore, has no incentive to protect the LILCo's actions, including sneking the present exemption, ignore the reasonable alterna tive of operating the plant, In ,

order to presarve this alternative, the caset muet be protected by at least tha $1.06 billion of required insurance.

The commission has stated that it " recognizes a continuing obligation to conduct its domestic licer< sing and related regulatory functions in a manner which is both receptive to environmental concerns and consistent with the Commission's responsibility as an independent regulatory agency for prbtecting '

the radiological health ard safety of the public." 10 C.P.R. I l 51.10(b). In order to zeot this self-recognized obligation in this instance, the commission must. recognize its NEPA responsibilities and deny LIL o's request for this unprecedented exemption, at learit until a final ET5' cn the decommissioning proposal has been published.

Besides circumventing its ovn announced proceduros for license amendments in connection with decomnissioning, the Commission has violated NRC and CEQ regulations calling for preparation and distribution of a draf% Finding of No Significant Iupact in these circumstances.

t l

l

~ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _

l

. a. ', y Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Pags 29 on February 23, dnd Finding of No Significant1990TEract hn Environmental Assessment

("FONSI") for ("EA")

the proposed exemption was published in the Tedaral Register. 55 Fed. Reg 6566 (February 23, 1990). In violation of the NEPA regulations promulgated by the CEQ and the NRC, this Notice made no provision for public comment on the proposed actiqn or the FONSI. 40 s

".P.1. 5 L 501. 4 (e) (2) (1988); 10 C.F.R.

T 51.33(b) (1989).

Section 1501.4 (e) (2) of the ChQ cegulations provide that whoo a proposed action is "one which novmally requires an environmietal inpact statement' or is "without precedent" an

" agency angli make the finding of no significant impact available for public review for .30 days before the agency makes its final determinat4".n whether to prepare an environmental impact statement 4 nd before the action may begin." 40 C.F.R. I 1501.4 (e) (2) IN 9) (emphasis added). The NRC's NEP is man (d) e but couch it in permissive tera 6.gjregulations 10 C.F.R. echo

. 33(b) (1989). The proposed exemption act 'c" meets l both of the circuastances listed by the CEQ and the NRC ref;;2Ttions as indicative of the need for a draft FONSI.

The exemption sought by LILCo in this int tance is unlike A/; previously granted in that it is predicat(d upon an agreeAnnt wJth a third party not to operate the plan \nd the vresera _ nhuts wn condition of the plant. In the G, in comminut9n na\ is no mention of the Settlement Agreemeus except in relatlag t)e licensees contentions, and inccead repsocidly mantions the J onent "defueled condition" of the plant as '

juoti ficetion lcn the action. As was praviously noted, consideration of an exemption from the on-site property insurance coverage l'ulu predicated on the mere fact that a plar.t is in the cold shutdown condition is "without precedent."

The proposed exemption action would Liso require preparapion of L draft EA as'e proposed action which normally 11/ While 7he NRC attempts to back away from the mindatory wording language ofisthc CEQ con' version of the regulation, the CEQ's mandatory rolling. The CEQ regulations implement the s

"betion-forcingr pFovisjons of NEPA. 40 C.F.R.

The CEQ atates tntt Jts regulations are " applicable 6 1500.1 to and(1988).

binding on all TeacraC Agencies for implementing the procedural provisions of {NEPA), MNcept where compliance would be inconsistent with other statutory requirements." 40 C.F.R. I 1500.3 1988 (enphasis added). No statutory conflict exists in this cas(e, an)d, thus the CEQ regulations are binding on the NRC l

\

, n a . - - ,

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

,;.~ .

. n *,f. ;;

1 Honorable Samuel chilk-April 5, 1990 Page 30 requires _ preparation of an EIS. As one part of the overarching

-decommissioning proposal, a proposal requiring the preparation of an EIS,.-a draft EA sheuld have been: prepared and published.

The NRC version of~the regulation on when a. draft FONSI should be prepared adds to that of the CEQ by urging preparation of a draft finding when it "will further the purposes.of NEPA."

10 C.F.R. I 51.33 (b) (2) (1989). NEPA a:4 Xs to ensura that adequate consideration is given to the environmental impacts of i agency actions.and that the decision-making process is structured in such a way that environmental consideration is meaningful. If-for.no other reason, a draft FONSI-should have been prepared in thie instance'in furtherance of these purposes. Instead, the NRC appears to be-allowing the decommissioning action to be divided 1

'into discreet steps which-pu>portedly have no significant: impact individually. Rather than furthering.the-purposes of NEPA, the NRC11s _playir.g a Esignificant role in undermining those purposes in-this case.

'As a discreet' action,.the exemption proposal is without precedent. As a-partfot the larger decommissioning-action, the 1 exemption is part of an action which requires preparation of an '

EIS.' And asian action with-important NEPA' implications, the exemption merits comment.in furtherance-of the purposes of'NEPA.

For alt of these reasons, a; draft 1 finding of no significant impact should have been prepared 11n this instance. Under the terms .or the NRC regulation, that draft should have been

" accompanied by or include (d) a request for comments on the _

proposed; action and on the draft. finding withinfthirty (30)-days,

' or- suchitonger period; as may beispecified in 'the' notice of the draft findingf... ..." 10 C.F.R. $.51.33(c) (1989); 3.tg Ala.g 10 C.F.R. i.51.119(a) ( 1989).

The environmental assessment.of this exemption request was inadequate. 1First;of all, the. scope of the EA was improper.

D in-thatsthe Commission focused only upon the proposed. property L ' insurance exemption and failed to recognize that proposal as an L ' interdependent part of the larger decommissioning proposal. The i

Commission ~is. allowing the decommissioning proposal to-be divided into severcl purportedly discreet actions which, when considered L

alone, have no significant impact. The pro

however,' cannot be< considered in a vacuum. posed exemption, Itihas no independent

' utility; only in the. context of the decommissioning _ proposal does it make anyfsense. Thus,-although the proposed 1 exemption p standing alone might arguably have no1 tangible environmental impact,'any auch argument is untenable-because the exemption--

cannot utand alone. Rather, the exemption is'just one more step in the inching.implementationlof the decommissioning proposal.

E l

i -a _ _ - - _ __- -

-s , .

Honorabic samue) Chilk April 5, 1990 PGge 31 An EIS covering the decommissioning proposal is required before any actions-constituting a part of, or limiting the alternatives to, that proposal are implamented. The EA propored in connection with this exemption request is insufficient in its scope and cannot justify a finding of no significant impact.

The EA provides no discussion of the context of this exemption, namely, the decommissioning proposal. . The EA merely contains a series of conclusory statements all based on the Staff determination that "337 million dollars is commensurate with the clean-up cost associated with a postulated eccident while the reactor is defueled and the fuel is in the spent fuel pool." 55 Fed. Reg. 6566 (February 23, 1990). The mere finding that $337 million will fund the cleanup of Shoreham after an accident in the defueled condition begs the question: Why is a plant licensed for full power operation in a defueled condition and why does the Commission believe that it will remain in that condition?. only the decommissioning plans outlined in the Settlement Agreement have brought the plant to its present defueled and non-operational condition. Only the existence of the Settlement Agreement allows the commission to presume that the defueled condition will-continue.long enough for an exemption to be practical. The EA makes no mention of these facts, however, because a discussion of these issues would make it abundantly clear that this exemption is to be premised on the decommissioning proposal.

Second, neither the basis for the proposed action nor the environmental impacts of that action are explained in adequate detail to allow for a meaningful evaluation of the action or its consequences.

Third, the EA conveniently neglected to mention that LILCo.had previously made an almost identical exemption request which was rejected. That rejection stated that "the insurance requirements of' 10 C.F.R. 50.54 (w) are appro that possess full power operating licenses."priate Letterfor from plants NRC to LILCO dated July 7, 1989. LILCO still holds an full-power operating license, and yet the EA contains no explanation as to L

l 1

1. 'i e

-Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 32 why thg, finding presented in the previous denial is not still valid."

In the previous denial, the NRC notti that "no Federal restriction exists prevunting full power ope'/ats on cf the Shoreham plant" and described the Settlement Agreement as a "non-operating restriction" that is "self-impcsed and for the convenience of LILCO." FRC Letter to LILCO, dated July 7, 1989.

The Commission now seems to have taken the anomalous position that while a Settlement Agreement purportedly prohibiting a licensee from operating a plant cannot serve as the basis for an exemption, the direct result of that Agreement, the defueled condition of the plant, may provide that basis. Will any defueled condition, regardless of its impetus and the utility's licensing status, now be considered an acceptable basis for.an exemption? If the answer to this question is yes, as it must be in order to be consistent with the NRC's previous denial, the basis for such an unprecedented new policy should be explained in sufficient detail to allow informed comment.

Fourth, along with its failure to adequately explain the basis for the proposed action, the EA provides an inadequate basis for the finding of no signiricant impact. In evaluating the " Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action," the NRC disingenuously states that "[t]he proposed exemption affects only the amount.of on-site. primary property damage insurance coverage and'does not affect the manner of normel facility coeration." 55 Fed. Rcg. 6566 (February 23, 1990) (emphasis added) . LILCO holds a full-power license and, therefore, " normal facility operation" would mean running the plant at between sixty or more percent capacity ~. The proposed exemption, however, would necessarily prohibit any operation of the plant. Thus, contrary to the NRC's representation, the exemption would affect " normal facility operation."

11/ LILCO renewed its request on the basis of the adoption of the Settlement Agreement by the LILCo shareholders and the transfer of the fuel from the reactor-to the spent fuel pool.

The Commission's denial, however, in no way indicated that LILCO's request was inadequate because the Settlement Agreement was not yet effective. Furthermore, the adoption of the Settlement Agreement by the shareholders took place on June 28, l 1989, over a week before the NRC denied the request on July 7, '

1989.' Consideration of the renewed request, therefore, seems to be predicated upon nothing more than the fact that the fuel is now in the spent fuel pool. l l

l

V ev. ey Honorable Samuel Chilk April 5, 1990 Page 33 Fifth, in the same section of the EA, the NRC makes the equally paradoxical assertion that "the possibility that the environmental impact of licensed activities would be altered by changes in insurance coverage is extremely remote." Id. The

" licensed activities" include full-power operation of the plant.

By ensuring that the plant may not be operated, the exemption does, indeed, have an impact on the environment.

Finally, the EA is also flawed to the extent that the Staff "dic not consult other agencies or persons." Id. Given the urgent need for energy in the area which would be served by the plant, any decisions-inconsistent with the full power operation of Sh Taham should be made only after consultation with interested agencies on the federal and state level. For instance, the U.S. Department of Energy (" DOE"), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and pertinent New York State-agencies should all have been consulted. Any of these agencies might very.well have disagreed with the NRC's finding that this

exemption which ef fectively taken away LILCo's ability to legally operate the plant has no environmental impact. The commission's failure to consult these agencies (or at least DOE given the strong expressions of interest in Shoreham by both the DOE Secretary and Deputy Secretary) further-invalidates the finding of no,significant impact which rcSts upon the conclusions contained in the environmental assessment.

Conclusion For all-of the foregoing reasons, the commission should either (1) withdraw its proposal to approve the requested exemption and deny-that request, or (2) announce its intention to defer decision .until after publication of- a Final: Environnental Impact Statement on the decommissioning proposal.

Respectfully submitted, i

mes P. McGrane Jr.

Counsel for Shoreham-Wading River Central' School District and and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.

. e

(. 46566 federal Remeur / Val 55. No. 37 / Friday. Febroery 23. 1990 / Notices Therefnre, the Comnussion concludes (Decket th 60-3221 that there are no signjficant atnount of eegwred on-soe darmage g insurance, from 106 bilhon deMars to nonta diological envamumental impacts n @ "

associated with the proposed exemption 337 rr.allimi ddiare se coastaessure te amendment. Finding of No Signif6 cant impact * " * ' ' ' " "

postulased atradem wenie she reassar es

.l!ternartir to the Pmposed Action The U.S. Nuclear Remaiatory defuebd mad the fuelis an ahe speat feed Commission (the Comnussroal ts pool. Tims, the red = cad cove:spe Because the Conmusnon's ataff has conaxienng tassance of an exemptmn concluded that there is no sigmficant authonzod by the proposed crempt6en is from the regiured on.stte pnmary ermronmentalimpact associated with sufficient to fund cleanSp of property damage sasurance requrrement radialopcalimpacts aspecisWlwith the proposed exempnon amendment. of 10 CFR 60.54f w)(1) to the Long Island nny eJtercstive to this amendment will Lighting Compatry1LILCO) the hcensee- any EMeta tn the defeded comhtlon.

have ertherno sigmficantly different for operation of the Sboreham Naclear In addition, the exemptren en queetron i ensironmentalimpact or greeter Power Stat en(SNPSt located in Soffolk would net authenre comrtraction er environmentalimpact. CountyAew Yort operstmn.wod not amborize a change The pnnerpalahwnstive would be to in heetraed activtties not effect changes Environmental Assesament in the permitted types or amounts af deny the requested esemption ra

/dentrfication o/Propored Acton ogical unts. Nsbadent amendment.This would not reduce -

environmental ernpeet, as a result of he proposed action wouM grant an radiological releases wm nel diIfar Irors plant operations. pemptim from the mquirewds d 10 thcse determined previously, and the proposed exemption does not otherwise CFR 50.54(w)(1) to reduce the full Alternot/re use of Resources arnount of required on site pnmary affect facility isdiological e.muents or This action does rmt trrvolve the use of property damane msarance. fly Aarter occupa tional expssures. Widu26asd to any resources not prevmusly considered dated September 8.1989. the hoemsae pote.Mnon rdWWpaas tk in the "Finall'nytronmentalStatement proposed exempon does not anect related to the operation of the Vogtle

[mo of n na propeh" plant n n-rad alogicala me and has Electric Generatmg Plant. Units 1 and 2" insurance from 1.06 billion dollars to 337 "

O"# "" *W dated March 1983. million dollan until such tune es the '

NRC should approve the transfer of there ane norneanerehlesnelsAapcalor Agencies ondPersons Consulted Shoreham to the Long island Power unvadmlogmal ewire nepects

,l Authonty or some &r erday d New associated with the prwpomad 2

The Commission's staff reviewed the licensee's request that supports the York State. The reduction in the amount "

• P'* *-

of required on sue prunary property proposed exemptian asnendment. The damage insurance is the proposad action Alternative to the PropoisedAction staff did not consult other ageneres or being considered by the staIL pen nas. Since the Commistian concluded eat The Needfor the Propored Action * " ' * " *

. Finding Of No Slgnificant Impact The licensce's Septernber 8,1939]etter impacts easociated wMh the ympeeed The Comnussion has determined not provided technical justiDestion that W exempton. any ahernatnes with equal to prepare an environmentalimpact miillon dollars of primaryproperty or greater ermronrner tai tmpacts need not be evaluated.

statement for the proposed exemption damageinsurance provides an adequate amendment. level f coverage to return the Sm The pnncipal alternatives to the Dased upon the foregoing exemption are to require the licensee to f,"c ss$or **"Y I " " 'I "

environmental assesstnent. we conclude b accident that the proposed action will not have a considering the cunent non operations; primary pmpany damageinsurance or conditlen. Granting the exemption a er amant gwster than W mh sigruncant effect on the gaality of the

~ request relieves the licensee from the d liars.However,theNRCsisifhad

~ human environment.

unnecessary financial burden of d e termined that 33r million 4f c Hans la For further details with respect to this canying insurance coversee of 1.06 sufGcient to fund cleanSp of 7

action. see the request for the exemption billion as required by 10 CFR radiological impacts associated with amendment dated September 0.8.19tR 50.54(wK1]. any acadanda de 4dneW condition.

which is available for publicinspenties Requiring tnme than 2milliondeMaes

at the Catamisman's Public Docmnent fcY'08r nmentalinspoctsq,theProposed woute impese a a umn ,,,, g,,,negag Room. 2120 L S'reet. NW., Wastungson.

DC and at the Burke County Public butden and would ried erh*

The proposed exemption affects ordy protection ed the envror=wm ff;' " '^ '#' " '

P'"

amage ance o\ Ndoee Attemative Use ofResourcan -

Dated at Rockville.htaryland, this Oath day not aflect the manner of normalfacshlyThis action does not invahe the vee of of February 19A operallon or the risk clfacildy ar.cidents. While the change in any tesources not previously considered For the Nudear Regulatayasumssen. Insurance coverage may affect the in the mal Environn.estad mana= emes Davut B. htthews, financial arrangements of the licensee for the Shemham Nooieur Power Station.

Director.>werorarsosawM Dimioso/ and have some economic consequences.

Reaaor n oieas-lat, ogge ofNacar the possibility that 6e ecstronmental Agencies andPersarw Ceasseted nyouor g,pa impaet oflicensed activities weddbe (FR Doc. uo.4m) %d 24-ect & 45 am) altered bychartges in insuramoe The NRC atarff reviewed the Ucensee's coverage in extrueelyvernote ne sanff request 1md dld adtroceutt ether has deterantwi dat4 feductionin the agencies or persons.

i m

'" ~ "-d w "f

.* a

.g' Federal R:gister / Vol. $$. No. 37 / Friday February 23. 1990 / Notiers 1 . -- 6567

. Findings of No Significant impact

' rescheduled, or whether changes hau matters relatmg to the integnty of The Commission has determined not been made in the agenda far the March reactor pressure vessels, to prepare an envtronmentalimpact 1990 ACRS and ACNW fuu Committee Thermo/Hydrou//c Phenomeno. Date e statement for the proposeo exemption. meetmgs can be obtainea by a prepaid telephone call to the Office of the to be determined (March). ldaho Falls, Based upon the foregoing

) environmental assessment. the staff Executive Director of the Committee ID. The Subcommittee will review the concludes that the proposed action will (rec r details of the modifications made to the 3 not have a significant effect on the hPhon g y ,,

RELAP-S MOD-2 code as specified in qunuty of the human environment. betw een 7.30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Eastem the MOlb3 version.

For further details with respect to this Time' Joint Thermo/HydraulicPhenomeno action. see the licersee's letter dated ACRS Subcommittee Meetings and Core Performance. Date to be Septemoer 3.1989. This letter is determined (March /Apn)). Dethesda.

available for public inspection at the AdvancedPressurieed Water MD. The Subcommittees will contmue Reactors. March 6.1990, Bethesda, MD. their review of boiling water reactor

, Commission's Public Document Room.

2t201. Street. NW, Washmston. DC and The Subcommittee will continua its core power stability pursuant to the core at the Shoreham. Wading River Public discussion and review of the power oscillation event at LaSaue Library. Route 25A. Shoreham. New Westmgh'ause RESAR (SP/00) design. County Station. Unit 2. .

MechonscalComponents. March 7

, York 11*8G-9097 Quality and Quohty Assurance m 1990. Bethesda Mr. The Subcommittee DJted al pockville. Maryland, this 15th day wiU review nuclear power plant valve Design and Construction. Date to be

, of February two. determined ( Apn!) (tenta tive). Dethesda.

concerns includirup (1) Status of the For the Lclear Reeulatory Comrmssion. MOV procram. (2) the status of the MD The Subcommtttee will discuss the

, Walter Butler, performance based concept of quality-i jhack val.c program. (3) the status of g

\

D:recwr. PrMeet Direewmte l-2. Dimson ot .he diagnostics for check valves (4)

Reccror Prmects till. Olisce of Nuclear procrams on valves Important to safety. YY '

neceror /leev/o: ion. i e. butterfly valves and (5) related /oint Severe Accidents and

[FR Doc. 90-4tr6 Filed 2-?,Mo. 8 45 aml ulke concerns.

sauwa coot F90-0, PrebobilisticRisA Assessment. Date to Scverc Acefdents. March 21.1990 be determined (May/ June). Dethesda.

Dethesda MD.The Subcommittee will MD. The Subcommittees will continue docuss the staffs Severe Accident their review of NUREG-1150. " Severe Advisory Committee on Reactor Research Plan (SARP).

Categuards (AC'Mi) ond Advisory AdrencedPressunzed Water Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five Committee on Nuclear Waste ( ACNW); U.S. Nuclear Power Plants".

Reactors. March 20.1990. Dethesda. MD.

Proposed Meetings The Subcommittee wdl review the Decor Heut Remova/ Systems. Date

to be determined (June / July). Dethesda.

in order to provide advance licensing review basis document being developed by Combustion Engineenng MD. The Subcommittee will review the information regarding proposed pubhc meetings of the Advisory Committee on for the system 80+ standard design. ypa udon o%nde Issa 23, Decoy Heat RcmoralSystems. March RCP Seal Failures.n Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)

3,1990(tentativel. Dethesda, MD The Decoy Hear RemovalSystems. Date SLbcommittees and meetings of the ACRS full Committee, and of the Subcommittee wiu review the NRC to be determined. Bethesda, MD. The staffs proposed resolution of Genenc Subcommittee will explore the issue of r

Adv-:sory Committee on Nuclear Waste

' issue M. CE PORVs." the use of feed and bleed for decay heat (ACNW). the following preliminary Serulatory Policies andPracticeJ.

schedule is published ta reflect the removelin PWRs.

Marc'h 28,1990. Betheada. MD. The

current situa tion, taking into account Auxiliary and Secondary Systems.

aaditional meetmgs which have been Subcommittee wdl review the NRC Date to be determined. Dethesda, MD.

scheduled and rnectings which have staf f s Draf t Rule for license renewal.

l

/oint utreme Externo/ Plienomeno The Subcommittee wdl discuss the:(1)

, , , been postponed or cancelled since the Critena being used by utilities to design J last list of proposed meetings published cadSevere Accidente.~ March 27.1Wo.

Eethesda, MD.The Subcommittees will Chilled Water Systems. (2) regulatory January 25,1990 (55 FR 25S4). Those review the Individual Plant Examination requirements for Chilled Water Systems meetmgs which are definitely schedukd for External Events (IPEEE) program' design, and (3) criteria being used by the have had, or wdl have, an individual /oint Containment Systems and NRC staff to review the Chilled Water

' notice published in the Federal Register Structure / Engineering. Apnl4.1990. SI at**' desi8""

approxirnately 15 days (or more) pnor to Bethesda, MD. The Subcommittees will Re//obility Assurance. Date to be the meeting. It is expected that sessions discuss the developcnent of a position or determined. Bethesda, MD. The

( of ACRS fun Committee and ACNW l recommendations regarding new Subcommittee will discuss the status of meetmgs designated by an astensk P) containment design critena for future implementation of the resolution of US!

l l will be open in whole or in part to the plants, public. ACRS full Comaittee and A-46. " Seismic Quahfication of

}

' OccupationalandEnvironmental Equipment in Operating Plants." and ACNW meetings begm at it30 a.m. and Protection Systeois. April 25,1990, other related matters.

ACRS Subcommittee meetings usually Bethesda, MD.The Subcommittee will begin at 8:30 a.m. The time when items /oint Regulatory Activities and reviews the Advance Notification of Containment Systems. Date to be lisied on the agenda will be discussed Proposed Rulemaking (ANFR) on hot dunng ACRS fullCommittee and ACNW particles. determined. Bethesda, MD. The meetmgs and when ACRS Materials andMetallurgy. May 1 Subcommittees will review the proposed Subcommittee meetings will atart will be 1990. Bethesda, MD. The Subcommittee f nal revision to Appendix l to 10 CFR published prior to each rneeting. will review the proposed resolution of part 50. "Primt.ry Reactor Containment Information as to whether a meeting has Generic issue 29. "Dolting Degradation Leakage Testing for Water Cooled been firmly scheduled, cancelled, or or Failure in Nuclear Power Plants." and Power Reactors."

l

! I