|
---|
Category:LEGAL TRANSCRIPTS & ORDERS & PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20093G4541995-10-18018 October 1995 Comment Supporting Proposed Rules 10CFR2,50 & 51 Re Decommissioning Procedures for Nuclear Power Reactors ML20058K7381993-12-0303 December 1993 Memorandum & Order CLI-93-25.* Commission Denies State of Nj Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Adjudicatory Hearing Filed on 931008.W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931203 ML20058E0151993-11-14014 November 1993 Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR50 Re Exemptions in Accident Insurance for Nuclear Power Plants Prematurely Shut Down ML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20059A4581993-10-14014 October 1993 Order Requesting Answers to Two Questions Re State of Nj Request for Immediate Action by NRC or Alternatively, Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing. Operations Plans for Marine Transportation Withheld ML20057G2141993-10-14014 October 1993 Order.* Requests for Simultaneous Responses,Not to Exceed 10 Pages to Be Filed by State,Peco & Lipa & Served on Other Specified Responders by 931020.NRC May File by 931022. W/Certificate of Svc.Served on 931014 ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20057F2191993-09-30030 September 1993 Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50.54(q) Eliminating Licensee Requirement to Follow & Maintain in Effect Emergency Plans ML20059B1291993-09-14014 September 1993 Affidavit of Jh Freeman.* Discusses Transfer of Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel from Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Limerick Generating Station.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095H5611992-04-28028 April 1992 Affidavit of Lm Hill.* Affidavit of Lm Hill Supporting Util Position That Circumstances Exist Warranting Prompt NRC Action on NRC Recommendation That Immediately Effective Order Be Issued Approving Decommissioning Plan ML20094G3971992-02-26026 February 1992 Notice of State Taxpayer Complaint & Correction.* NRC Should Stay Hand in Approving Application for License Transfer as Matter of Comity Pending Resolution of Question as Util Continued Existence in Ny State Courts.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092D2931992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer Denying Petitions for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing Re Decommissioning ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086T7541992-01-0303 January 1992 Memorandum of Long Island Power Authority Concerning Supplemental Legislative History Matls.* Supports Legislative History & Argues That License Not Subj to Termination Under Section 2828.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086M0791991-12-16016 December 1991 Certificate of Svc.* Certifies Svc of Petitioner Notice of Appeal & Brief in Support of Appeal in Proceeding to Listed Individuals ML20094E1041991-12-0909 December 1991 Response to Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition ML20086J3521991-12-0909 December 1991 Response of Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition.* Board Should Dismiss Petitions to Intervene for Lack of Standing & Reject All Contentions Proffered by Petitioners.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J6351991-12-0909 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Contentions on License Transfer Amend.* Concludes That License Transfer Amend Contentions Be Rejected & Petitioner Request to Intervene Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091G1971991-12-0303 December 1991 Notice of Appeal.* Informs of Appeal of LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39 in Facility possession-only License Proceeding ML20091G2051991-12-0303 December 1991 Brief in Support of Appeal.* Commission Should Consider Appeal on Basis That Findings of Matl of Facts Clearly Erroneous.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* ML20086C5381991-11-18018 November 1991 Petitioner Joint Supplemental Petition.* Petition Includes List of Contentions to Be Litigated in Hearing Re License Transfer Application.W/Certificate of Svc 1995-10-18
[Table view] Category:PLEADINGS
MONTHYEARML20059B0301993-10-22022 October 1993 NRC Staff Response to Commission Questions Posed W/Respect to State of New Jersey Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing.* Denies Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20059B0621993-10-20020 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission Order of 931014.* Requests That NRC Reject State of Nj Filing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20059B1111993-10-20020 October 1993 Philadelphia Electric Co Response to NRC 931014 Order.* State Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Hearing to Challenge Util Amend to Permit Util to Receive Shoreham Fuel ML20059F0191993-10-0808 October 1993 Long Island Power Authority Reply to New Jersey Filing of 931020.* Licensee Requests That NRC Deny State of Nj Intervention Petition.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C2631992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss.* NRC Should Issue Order Dismissing School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc as Petitioners in Proceeding.W/ Settlement Agreement & Certificate of Svc ML20097C2911992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Dismisses 911203 Notice of Appeal W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees Due to Encl Settlement Agreement. W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1361992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners by Counsel Move ASLB to Dismiss Petitioners as Petitioners for Leave to Intervene & Request for Hearing in Proceeding W/ Prejudice.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C1081992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeal.* Petitioners Hereby Move to Dismiss 910628 Notice of Appeal in Matter W/Prejudice & W/Each Party to Bear Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/ Certificate of Svc ML20097C2891992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioner Consented Motion to Dismiss Appeals.* Appeals Being Dismissed Due to Encl Settlement Agreement.Nrc Should Dismiss Appeals W/Prejudice & W/Each Party Bearing Own Costs & Atty Fees.W/Certificate of Svc ML20097C3241992-06-0303 June 1992 Petitioners Consented Motion to Dismiss Joint Opposition to Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5921992-05-0707 May 1992 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental Filing.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Allow Withdrawal of Supplement for Good Cause Shown. W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5311992-05-0606 May 1992 Long Island Power Authority Comments on SECY-92-140 & Response to Petitioner Joint Opposition to Decommissioning Order.* Util Urges NRC to Adopt Recommendation in SECY-92-140 & Approve Order.W/Certificate of Svc ML20096A5071992-05-0505 May 1992 Suppl to Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Supplements Joint Opposition Prior to Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20095K8991992-04-29029 April 1992 Joint Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Issuance of Decommissioning Order Prior to Hearing & Contingent Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission to Reject NRC Staff Proposal in SECY-92-140.W/Certificate of Svc ML20094G2261992-02-25025 February 1992 Petitioner Notice of Lilco/Long Island Power Authority Exaggeration & of Commencement of State Court Action.* NRC Should Await Ny State Decision Re Matter within Special Jurisdiction.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9021992-02-24024 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to Ltr Request for Dismissal of Pages.* Suggests That Transfer of License Inappropriate at Present Time.W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K9511992-02-21021 February 1992 Response of Lilco & Long Island Power Authority to Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for License Transfer Approval.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20092K8701992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioners Opposition to NRC Staff Recommendation for Approval of License Transfer.* Urges Commission to Reject NRC Recommendation in SECY-92-041 & Remand Matter for Consideration in Normal Proceeding.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2661992-02-20020 February 1992 Petitioner Opposition to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss.* Petitioners Urge NRC to Deny Staff Motion or Defer Action Until Petitioners Have Fully Developed Petitions & Supplied Detailed Contentions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E4011992-02-18018 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions.* Util Urges NRC to Grant Motion & Dismiss Intervention Petitions.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E3161992-02-13013 February 1992 Lilco Response to NRC Staff Motion to Dismiss Intervention Petitions on Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions Be Struck & Petitioners Be Instructed of Possible Dismissal.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2941992-02-0606 February 1992 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Request for Hearing on Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Informs That Util Opposes Both Requests for Hearing.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091E2741992-02-0606 February 1992 Answer of Long Island Power Authority to Intervention Petitions Concerning Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.* Requests That Petitions for Leave & Requests for Hearing Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2811992-01-22022 January 1992 Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition Be Granted & Hearing Be Held.W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20091E2831992-01-22022 January 1992 Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Petition for Leave to Intervene & Request for Prior Hearing.* Requests That Petition for Leave Be Granted & Hearing Held. W/Certificate of Svc & Notice of Appearance ML20086T7231992-01-0303 January 1992 Motion of Long Island Power Authority for Leave to File Supplemental Matls.* Requests That Supplemental Memorandum & Supplemental Legislative History Matls Be Filed. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9281991-12-30030 December 1991 Opposition of Util to Motion for Stay of License Transfer & to Suggestion of Mootness.* Concluded That Relief Sought in Petitioner Motion & Suggestion Should Be Denied. W/Certificate of Svc ML20086Q9171991-12-30030 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Request for Stay & Suggestion of Mootness.* Suggests That Stay Request & Suggestion of Mootness Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8261991-12-19019 December 1991 Suggestion of Mootness Due to Long Island Power Authority Imminent Demise.* Concludes That If Commission Were to Transfer Shoreham Licenses to Lipa,Nrc Could Find Itself W/Class 103 Facility W/O Licensee.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091H8661991-12-18018 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE2 Appeal from LBP-91-26 & LBP-91-39. Concludes That Appeal Should Be Summarily Rejected or Be Denied on Merits.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086N1661991-12-17017 December 1991 Motion for Stay of License Transfer Pending Final Order on Petition to Intervene & Request for Hearing & for Addl or Alternative Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J3521991-12-0909 December 1991 Response of Long Island Power Authority to Petitioners Joint Supplemental Petition.* Board Should Dismiss Petitions to Intervene for Lack of Standing & Reject All Contentions Proffered by Petitioners.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086J6351991-12-0909 December 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioners Contentions on License Transfer Amend.* Concludes That License Transfer Amend Contentions Be Rejected & Petitioner Request to Intervene Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20091G2051991-12-0303 December 1991 Brief in Support of Appeal.* Commission Should Consider Appeal on Basis That Findings of Matl of Facts Clearly Erroneous.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5381991-11-18018 November 1991 Petitioner Joint Supplemental Petition.* Petition Includes List of Contentions to Be Litigated in Hearing Re License Transfer Application.W/Certificate of Svc ML20086C5471991-11-18018 November 1991 App to Joint Supplemental Petition of Shoreham-Wading River Central School District & Scientists/Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc.* ML20082G8971991-08-0909 August 1991 Lilco Responses to Petitioner Filings of 910805 & 06.* W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8441991-08-0707 August 1991 Motion for Offical Notice to Correct Representation.* Moves Board to Take Official Notice of Encl NRC Records to Correct Representation Made at Prehearing Conference. W/Certificate of Svc ML20082G8571991-08-0707 August 1991 Petitioners Response to Lilco Re Physical Security Plan.* Petitioners Suggest That Util post-hearing Filing Does Not Dispose of Any Issue as to Util Compliance W/Settlement Agreement.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0721991-07-22022 July 1991 Petitioners First Emergency Motion for Stay.* Movants Urge Commission,In Interest of Justice,To Enjoin Lilco from Taking Any Actions Under possession-only License Which Might Moot Renewed Application for Stay.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D1541991-07-22022 July 1991 Lilco Response to Petitioner Emergency Motions.* Believes Petitioner Emergency Motions Should Be Denied to End Frivolous Pleadings & Burdens of Time & Resources of Nrc. W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D0841991-07-21021 July 1991 Petitioners Second Emergency Motion for Stay.* Petitioners Urge Commission,Ex Parte,To Enjoin Lilco,From Any & All Acts W/Respect to Shoreham Which Would Be Inconsistent W/Nrc Representation in Court.W/Certificate of Svc ML20076D2071991-07-15015 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (Swrcsd) Appeal from LBP-91-26.* Appeal Should Be Denied Due to Listed Reasons.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4051991-07-12012 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to SE-2s Contentions on Possession Only License Amend.* Concludes That Contentions Should Be Rejected & Request for Hearing on Possession Only License Amend Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D4001991-07-12012 July 1991 Movant-intervenors Motion for Change of Venue of Prehearing Conference.* Intervenors Request Change of Venue of 910730 Prehearing Conference from Hauppauge,Ny to Washington DC Area.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082D3891991-07-10010 July 1991 Lilco Support of NRC Staff Motion for Reconsideration of LBP-91-26.* for Reasons Listed,Nrc 910625 Motion Should Be Granted & Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene in Amend Proceeding Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B4311991-07-0303 July 1991 Lilco Opposition to Petitioner Contentions on Confirmatory Order,Physical Security Plan & Emergency Preparedeness License Amends.* Petitioner Contentions Should Be Rejected & License Amends Denied.W/Certificate of Svc ML20082B3531991-07-0202 July 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Informs That Filing & Svc Requirements Presents No Obstacle to Filing W/Aslb or Svc Upon Any Parties.W/Certificate of Svc. Served on 910702.Granted for Licensing Board on 910702 ML20082B2461991-06-28028 June 1991 Movant-Intervenor Brief in Support Accompany Notice of Appeal.* School District Urges Commission to Reverse & Remand Dismissal Order W/Appropriate Guidance.W/Ceritifcate of Svc ML20082B2571991-06-28028 June 1991 Unopposed Motion for Variance in Svc Requirements.* Petitioners Urge ASLB to Grant Variance in Svc Procedures Requested to Allow Svc of Judge Ferguson.W/Certificate of Svc 1993-10-08
[Table view] |
Text
l
{
+ -
o .
L UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Direptor. Officg_of Nuclear Reactor Reculation
)
In the 7,1atter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGliTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322
\
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. )
Unit 1) )
)
. -- __ - _ . _ . _ _ _)
Long Island Lighting Company's Roquest for an Exemption from the Primary Containment Leak Rate Testing Requirements of 10 C.F.R,. S 50.54(o) and_A_ppendix J.1 Ill.D,I tbrough III.D,3
- 1. Introduction Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S 50.12, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO or the Company) hereby requests an exemption from the primary containment leak rate t
testing requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.54(o) and Part 50, Appendix J.1 !!!.D.1 through Ill.D.3. Two f actors justify the exemption.
First, under the Settlement Agreement between itself and New York State, .
LILCO is contractually prohibited from ever operating Shoreham. Under the Settie-ment Agreement LILCO will maintain the plant in its present defueled condition and will seek to transfer Shoreham to the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) or some other New York State entity.-
Second, with Shoreham in a defueled condition, the entire basis for primary re-actor containment leak rate testing, i.g. to establish and implement a periodic testing program to ensure the continued integrity of a principal tission product barrier to 8912110207 912088
>PDR .ADOCK 05000322
'P PDC
m a .ll t 71 gjy ' * - 2-r mitigate the consequences of design basis accidents, no longer exists at Shoreham., Of -
all the design basis accidents. described in the Shoreham Updated Safety Analysis Re-port (USAR) forlwhich the primary containment is required for mitigation, none are presently possible, 11, llackground On February 28, 1989, LILCO entered into a Settlement Agreement with.New-
~
York State, under which LILCO is contractually prohibited from operating Shoreham notwithstanding the NRC's issuance of a full power license on April 21, 1989. LILCO's
= shareholders voted to approve :the Settlement Agreement on June 28,1989, and it .i l
became effective and legally binding. Under the Settlement Agreement, LILCO will apply to the NRC for permission to transfer Shoreham to the Long Island Power Au-
- thority (LIPA) or some other entity of New York State, j
- In preparation for this eventual transfer, and in accordance with the Amended and' Restated Asset Transfer Agreement between LILCO and LIPA, on July 14, 1989 -r LILCO began transferring _ the fuel from the reactor pressure vessel to the spent fuel- -j
storage pool. Defueling was completed on August 9,1989.. LILCO will maintain
)
'Shoreham in this defueled condition until it is allowed to transfer Shoreham to New i
York State. ,
}
- The regulation from which LILCO seeks an exemption,10 C.F.R. S 50.54(o), pro- 1 vides as follows: 1 4
Primary reactor containments for water cooled power reac- q tors shall be subject to the requirements set forth in Appen- (
L dix J to this part.
i In turn,; 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix J sets forth the criteria and the schedules for the ;
.]
conduct of so-called " Type A," "B," and "C" leak rate tests.
. Speelfically,1 Ill.D.1 of Appendix J requires that, "(a]f ter the preoperational leakage rate tests," a set of "three Type A tests shall be performed, at approximately 1
e F
. .- 3-equal intervals during each 10-year service period." Similarly,1 III.D.2 provides that Type B tests, except tests for air locks, are to conducted during refueling outages, "but I in no case at intervals greater than 2 years." In general, air locks must be tested af ter being opened, as well as at 6-month intervals. Finally, pursuant to 1 III.D.3 Type C tests "shall be performed during each reactor shutdown for refueling but in no case at intervals greater than 2 years."
As explained below, there is no health and safety rationale for subjecting LILCO I
to the testing schedule set forth in Appendix J,1 Ill.D.1 through Ill.D.3. Accordingly, ;
i an exemption from the regulation is justified, j III. Discussion: Shoreham's Defueled Status Provides a Sufficient Basis for Granting an Exemption from the Appendix J Leak Rate Testing Requirements The legal standard for obtaining an exemption from specific NRC regulations is provided by 10 C.F.R. S 50.12. The rule uses a two tier test to determine if a licensee's i request for an exemption should be granted. First, the regulation specifies that the i
NRC may grant exemptions that are
]
(a]uthorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the !
public health and safety, and are consistent with the com-mon defense and security, j 10 C.F.R. S 50.12(a)(1).
Second, the regulation provides that an exemption request will not be considered unless one or more of six "special circumstances" are present. 10 C.F.R. ;
S 50.12(a)(2)(1)-(vi). Specifically,"special circumstances" are present whenever I (1) Application of the regulation in the particular circum-stances conflicts with other rules or requirements of the Commission; or (2) Application of the regulation in the particular circum-stances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule; or (3) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when 1
l
4
,,; ...v-'- 4..
. the regulation was adopted, or that are significantly in ex-cess of those incurred by others similarly situated; or (4) The exemption would result in benefit to the public health and safety that compensates for any decrease in safe-ty that may result from the grant of the exemption; or (5) The exemption would provide only temporary relief f rom the applicable regulation and the licensee or. applicant has made good talth efforts to comply with the regulation; or (6) There is present any other material circumstance not 3 considered when the regulation was adopted for which it would be in the public interest to grant an exemption.
At the threshold, it is clear that two of the considerations in the initial tier of g a the S 50.12 standard present no bar to the exemption being sought by LILCO. First, the action being requested is plainly authorized by law. The NRC has the legal authority to 'l modify the primary reactor containment leak rate testing requirements for a lleensee and has exercised that authority in the past.I Second, granting LILCO's exemption re-
- quest would have no. impact on the " common. defense and security" of the United States.W Consequently, in determining whether an exemption from S 50.54(o) and, in turn, the primary reactor containment leak testing requirements in paragraph III.D.1 through -
Ill.D 3 of Appendix J should be granted, the NRC must consider (1) whether there would be any undue risk to the public health and safety, and (2) whether special circumstances
'1/ LILCO's review of documents from the NRC's Public Documents Room in Washington, D.C., reveals that the NRC has granted exemptions from various Appendix ,
J testing requirements to dozens of other utilities. Additionally, as is evident from !
Shoreham's operating license, LILCO itself has been granted an exemption from the re- f
. quirements of Appendix J,11 II.H.4 and III.C.2. See NPF-82,1 D.(b). !
F' 2/ The Commission has determined that the phrase " common defense and security," [
as used in 10 C.F.R. S 50.12(a), refers principally to "the safeguarding of special nuclear f material; the absence of foreign control over the applicant; the protection of Restrict-ed Datat and the availability of special nuclear material for defense needs." See Florida
. Power & LMht Co. (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station. Units 3 and 4),4 AEC 9, 12 (1967).
4
, g.
- t- ,,
g', f *>' n .] ~
exist to justify the exemption.~ As shown below, LILCO's exemption request satisfies each of these requirements.
A. LILCO's Exemption Request Poses No
. Undue Risk to the Public Health and Safety Given Shoreham's defueled condition, the requested exemption would not present an " undue risk" to the public health and safety. The requirement that a licensee per-form. leak rate testing of the primary reactor containment exists to provide reasonable assurance that the primary containment will function adequately as a principal fission product barrier. This -is made clear in the Supplementary Information that accompanied the rule when the Commission first proposed adding Appendix J to 10 C.F.R.' Part 50. The Commission reasoned that containment systems are provided "to prevent uncontrolled releases of radioactive materials to the environment if the barri-ers provided by-the fuel cladding and the reactor coolant pressure boundary should be breached," and' stated that "[p}eriodic testing is needed to assure that the containment will continue to perform its function throughout the life of the plant." 36 Fed. Reg.
.17053 (Aug. 27,1971).
The Commission reiterated this rationale, both when it adopted Appendix J as a final rule, 38 Fed. Reg. 4385 (Feb.14,1973), and when it subsequently proposed to amend' Appendix J to update testing criteria and clarify questions of interpretation. 51 Fed. Reg. 39538 (Oct. 29,1986). For instance, in the Supplementary Information to.its 1
proposed amendment in 1986, the Commission listed several assumptions " inherent in Appendix J." 51. Fed. Reg. 39538. Significant among these assumptions are the state-monts that "[c]ertain levels of radiation exposure at the plant site boundary shall not ;
be exceeded under . . . operating or . . . design basis accident conditions," and that "[a]
standard loss-of-coolant accident is assumed as the design basis accident." Ida LILCO.
of course, is contractually obligated not to operate Shoreham and, given the plant's m
P f ,
4
[W 6-defueled condition, a standard less-of-coolant accident is impossible. It follows, there-k fore, that cessation of primary containment leak rate testing would not present an r
" undue risk" to the public health and safety, since the primary containment need not (indee'd, with Shoreham defueled, cannot) perform its design function as a principal fis- ,
y slon product barrier.
- e Additionally, under Shoreham's technical specifications (NUREG-1357), the re-i qtilrement to conduct primary containment leak rate testing is linked directly to the plant's Operational Condition. Specifically, S 3.6.1.2 of the plant's technical specifica-
'tions, which sets forth acceptable primary containment leak rates, provides that these-r leak rates must be met whenever Primary Containment Integrity'is required under S 3.6.1.1. . Consistent with the NRC's practice of implementing the provisions of Ap -
pendix J by means of a licensee's technical specifications,3/ Primary Containment In-
-i '
, tegrity is demonstrated in.accordance with Surveillance Requirements set forth in SS L 4.6.1.1 through 4.6.1.4. .
Maintenance of Primary Containment Integrity, however, is required only when ,
_ the plant is in Operational Conditions 1, 2, or 3. N U REG-1357, S 3.6.1.1. If Primary
, Containment Integrity _ is not maintained, ultimately the plant must be placed in cold -- !
' shutdown. Once the plant is shutdown, there is no requirement under the technical-
, specifications that the Surveillance Requirements in SS 4.6.1.1 through 4.6.1.4 be per-fncmed.U Under the Settlement Agreement, of course, Shoreham is and~will remain o shut down.
f 3/ See 51 Fed. Reg. 39538 (Oct. 29,1986).
4/ Specifically, S 4.0.3 of the technical specifications states, in relevant part, that #
.the "[f allure to perform a Surveillance Requirement within the specified time inter-val shall constitute a failure to meet the OPERABILITY requirements for a Limiting Condition for Operation," but also provides that "[s]urveillance requirements do not have to be performed on inoperable equipment."
p.
ll.
,, . n. ; . t os 4 W
in short, with Shoreham defueled, there'is no need to maintain Primary Contain-U #
ment-Integrity and, correspondingly, no requirement under the technical specifications
.to perform' leak rate testing. The fact that the cessation of Appendix J testing would-be entirely consistent .with Shoreham's technical specifications is further evidence that the requested exemption'would not pose an " undue risk" to the public health and safety. - .
B. Special Circumstances Exist That Further Support LILCO's Exemption Request As explained below, at least three of the "special circumstances" listed under 10 C.F.R. S 50.12(a)(2) apply to Shoreham's situation.
'(1)- Application of the Regulation in the Particular Circumstances Would Not Serve the Underlying Purpose of the Rule and Is Not Necessary to
' Achieve its Underlying Purpose Section 50.12(a)(2)(ii) applies to Shoreham's situation. Application of the primary reactor containment leak rate testing requirements would neither serve the underlying . .
. purpose of Appendix J, nor is it necessary in order to achieve the underlying purpose of
..the rule. As'has already been noted, the purpose of requiring a licensee to perform leak rate testing of. the primary reactor containment is to ensure that there will not be an uncontrolled release of radioactive material as a result of the failure of the two other principal fission product barriers, la, fuel cladding and the reactor coolant system, j
=
during an accident. More specifically, the design basis accident that is assumed to .
occur is the standard loss-of-coolant accident as described in S 15.1.34 of the Shoreham USAR. Such an accident simply cannot happen at Shoreham, now that the fuel has a
' been removed from the reactor core and placed in the fuel pool.
l
0 24 d
(2) Compliance Would Result in Undue Hardship or Other Costs that Are Significantly in Excess of Those
, Contemplated When the Regulation Was Adopted and That Are Significantly in Excess of Those Incurred ,
by Others Similarly Situated Section - 50.12(a)(2)(lii) also app!!es to Shoreham's situation. First, requiring LILCO to conduct Appendix J testing would result in undue hardship and other costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted.
It costs LILCO approximately $138,000 to perform a Type A integrated leak rate test
- and approximately $445,000 to conduct _ the Type B and C local leak rate tests each 18-24 month cycle. Yet, as explained above, with Shoreham in a defueled condition, performance of Appendix J testing will not result in any increased protection of the public health and safety. The costs incurred by LILCO during the period before the plant is transferred to New York State will be reflected in the rates paid by the Compa-ny's customers. As'a consequence, requiring LILCO to conduct Appendix J testing im-poses an undue hardship on both LILCO and its ratepayers.
Second, requiring LILCO to comply with Appendix J-would subject the Company to costs that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.
The NRC has granted exemptions from Appendix J to other utilities in analogous situa-tions.
For instance, the NRC' granted Boston Edison Company (BECO) an exemption from Type A testing for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station near the outset of Pilgrim's a recent extended outage. Se_e Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station), Dock-
~
et No. 50-293 (Dec.1,1986)("BECO Exemption"). The NRC, af ter stating that " Type A testing is performed to assure that primary containment leakage is within acceptable limits during plant operation," noted that Pilgrim "will not be operating prior to the end
! of [a refueling outage] next spring, at which time a Type A test will be successfully l: performed." BECO Exemption at 2. The NRC concluded that, thus, the " performance
7 g3 b g f? ~ .g. ,
W
'h fof an earlier Type A test to meet the 18-month schedular requirements is unnecessary y to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule."Id2 l
Similar reasoning led the NRC more recently to grant the Tennessee Valley Au-thority (TVA) an exemption from Type B and Type C testing for the Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1. Sje Tennessee Valley Authority (Sequoyah Nuclear Plant. Unit 1), Docket
[ No.- 50-327 (July 14,1988)("TVA Exemption"). Sequoyah Unit I was shut down for p refueling in August 1985, at which time all Type B and C leak rate tests were per-formed. . With the plant in cold shutdown following refueling for a period extending be-yond August 1987, TVA sought an exemption from the two year testing requirements for Type B and C tests. The NRC granted the exemption, stating as follows:
The staff has considered the Appendix J exemption request from the Type B and C tests and has concluded that it is jus-tified on a one-time basis since Unit I has been in Mode 5 (cold shutdown) for this period and containment integrity is not required when the reactor is in the cold shutdown condi-tion. Furthermore, prior to entering Mode 4-(He'atup at <
Power), the licensee will conduct the Type B and C leakage i
. tests in order to ensure containment integrity. Accordingly, the staff concludes that this Appendix J exemption is justi-fled.
TVA Exemption at 3.
The situation that exists at Shoreham is, in large measure, indistinguishable from those that existed at Pilgrim and Sequoyah Unit 1. Requiring LILCO to conduct Appen-dix J testing for a defueled Shoreham would plainly impose on the Company costs that q are significantly in excess of those incurred by other utilities in similar situations. 1 (3) The Exemption Would Provide Only Temporary Relief from the Applicable Regulation and the Licensee Has Made Good Faith Efforts to Comply with the Regulation .l Finally, 5 50.12(a)(2)(v) applies to Shoreham's situation. First, the exemption is only temporary, as it would terminate should the plant be placed in some Operational Condition for which Primary Containment Integrity is required. Second, LILCO has made a good faith effort to comply with the regulation. Since receiving a license to i
l-i ll l
D
. . . ;- '
load fuel, NPF-19, on December 7,1984, ULCO has performed periodfeally primary contajnment M rate testing, in compliance with Appendix J.0/ Moreover, under LILCD's systems lay-up program, even Without Appe.'xfix J testing the pipes and valves for -which such testing is designed will be protected from degradation pending Shoreham's transfer to New York State. .
c .
IV. Conclusion For the reasons given above, LILCO respectfully requests that the NRC grant the Company an exemption from 10 C.F.R. S 50.54(o) and, in turn, the primary contaln-ment leak rate testing requirements of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix J 1 IILD.1 through III.D.S.
Respectfully submitted,
\
n Al y y ~-~..
(
fletor A.'Sgfffteri General Colmsel Long Island Lighting Company
. Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road
. Hicksville, New York 11801 Of Counsel:
Hunton & Williams 707 gast Main Street
' P.O. Box 1585 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: December 8.1989 g/
For instanos, on January 19-21, 1987, an unannounced Containment Integrated Leak Rate Test (CILRT) was conducted at Shoreham by the NRC. Within the scope of the Inspection, no violations were observed. NRC Inspection Report 50-322/87-02 de-scribes the results of this inspection. In addition, on April 21,1987, LILCO submitted to the NRC lts own report on the results of the CILRT, as well as a summary analysis of the local leak rate tests conducted in 1986.
-. . . .