ML20246J765

Notice of Stated Petitions Received on Behalf of Shorham- Wading River Central School District Requesting Util Cease Defueling & Destaffing Actions & Return to Status Quo Ante

ML20246J765
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	08/24/1989
From:	Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20246J760	List: ML20246J753 ML20246J765
References
NUDOCS 8909050257
Download: ML20246J765 (3)

Text

- __ - _ - _.

7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-322 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY SHOREHAN NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 LICENSE NO. NPF Notice is hereby given that three Petitions have been received regarding the Shoreham Station. By Petition dated July 14, 1989, James P. McGranery, Jr., on behalf of the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District, reque'sted that action be taken with regard to Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1. By Petition dated July 26, 1989, James P. McGranery, on behalf of Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. (SE2), requested that the same action be taken, on the same bases, as that which he requested in the Petition filed on behalf of the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District. Specifically, the Petitioner requests that the Executive Director for Operations issue an immediately effective order to Long Island Lighting Company to cease and desist from any and all activities related to the defueling and destaffing of the facility and return to the " status guo ante" pending further consideration by the Comission.

The Petitioner further requests that such an order be accompanied by an announcement l of the Comission's intention to fine the licensee a substantial amount per day l for any violation or continuing violation of the Comission's orders.

~

l As bases for his request, the Petitioner asserts that (1) the defueling of the core of the Shoreham Station involves an unreviewed safety question, because it is unnecessary and because the increased risk of accidents in the transfer of fuel to the spent fuel pool outweighs the slight additional margin of safety provided by the spent fuel pool, and, as such, requires prior Comission appraval in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 6 50.59; (2) the issuance of the full-power operating license for the facility was premised, B909050257890Bg2 DR ADOCK 0500 L - . _ - _ - _ - _ - - - --

M among other things, on adequate staffing, and the licensee has now declared to the Commission its intentfon to willfully reduce staffing by about half, which would violate the basis of the issuance of its license and th licensee's prior commitments to the Commission; (3) the lack of maintena activities at the facility is contrary to a March 1989 Operational Readiness Assessment Report; (4) the licensee's plan to substitute fossil-fuel-bu units for the Shoreham Station is a matter that may result in a significant increase in an adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the F i Environmental Statement for the operatir;g license and, as such, presents an unreviewed environmental question that requires prior Commission approval; (5) such an order would allow for a full environmental review pursuant to t National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines, and the Commission's regulations in 10 C.F.R. Part 51; and (6) the issuance of a license amendment authorizing decommissioning major Commission action significantly affecting the quality of the environment and requires an environmental impact statement or supplement to an environmental impact statement as specified fn 10 C.F.R. Il 51.20(b)(5) and(b)(13).

In addition, by Petition dated August 4,1989, Leonard Bickwit, Jr., on behalf of the Long Island Association, requested that action be taken with regard to Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.

Specifically, the Petitioner requests that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, issue an order to Long Island Lighting Company to suspend its " Minimum Posture" activities pending an investigation and an environmental review.

-3 The above described requests are being treated pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The Petitions have been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). By letter dated July 20,1989, the Petitioner's request of July 14, 1889 for immediate action was denied. As provided by section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on the Petitions within a reasonable time.

Copies of the Petitions and the July 20 letter are available for public inspection at the Consission's Public Document Room at 2120 L St. N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20555.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of August 1989.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

__m________ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -