ML20247L213

Responds to 890727 Ltr Re Future of Plant.At Present,Nrc Does Not Need to Issue Order Halting Activities at Facility But Will Continue Onsite Insp to Ensure Activities Comply W/Ol Requirements & NRC Requlations

ML20247L213
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/15/1989
From:	Carr K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Watkins J ENERGY, DEPT. OF
References
NUDOCS 8909220154
Download: ML20247L213 (2)

Text

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -

14

[

.8 UNITED STATES -

o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

(' WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

\ . . . . . *[ September 15, 1989 h CHAIRMAN The Honorable James D. Watkins Secretary of Energy Washington, D. C. 20585

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am responding to your letter of July 27, 1989, concerning the future of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. The Comission is closely monitoring the 4

activities being carried out at the Shoreham facility to ensure compliance with Commission regulations. In that connection,.the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). staff, in public meetings with the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) on June 30 and July 28; 1989, underscored LILC0's obligations to ccnform to all requirements of the license issued by the Commission and all requirements of Comission regulations until such time as the Commission approves changes in l the license. By letter dated August 30, 1989 (copy enclosed), the staff  !

formally notified LILC0 of the requirements that a majority of the Comission believes should be met at Shoreham until disposition of the facility is authorized by the NRC.

As is the case with all facility licenses issued by NRC, the plant Technical l Specifications, which are conditions of the license issued to LILCO, provide '

a degree of flexibility with respect to such matters as staffing depending on the operational status of the facility. At present, the fuel has been '

removed from the reactor and placed in the spent fuel pool. This is an i activity routinely carried out at other licensed facilities and is authorized  ;

under the existing operating license. With the fuel in the fuel pool, the license requirements for staffing are reduced from those required for operation .

in a critical or power operation mode. However, an adequate number of properly  !

trained staff are required to ensure plant safety in the defueled state. You i expressed the concern that the loss of trained staff may result in some delay ,

before the facility could start power operation. However, provided there is {

sufficient staff to satisfy the requirements of the existing operating license  ;

to ensure that the plant is safe in its defueled condition, we do not believe  !

that reduction in staff at the facility warrants enforcement or sanction. l l

Further, there are limitations on the changes that LILC0 can make without NRC approval concerning emergency planning and the licensee's Local Emergency Response Organization (LER0). Shoreham's operating license imposes conditions i relating to the LERO, and a license a.aendment is required in order to change ,

these conoitions. In addition,10 CFR 50.54(q) authorizes the licensee to make ,

changes in the emergency plan without NRC approval only if such changes do not  ;

decrease the effectiveness of the emergency plan. Although LILCO has indicated I that it would like to amend the current license to permit reductions in the LERO in light of the low radiological risk, such amendments would require prior NRC approval.  ;

QVO m ), l vpqpotsy R H Rh

4 Admiral Watkins .. .

The NRC staff made clear at the June 30 and July 28 meetings and in the August 30 letter that it is unacceptable to the NRC for LILCO to permit the Shoreham facility to deteriorate. The licensee will be required to maintain all systems needed for safety in the defueled mode in a fully operable con-dition. All other systems required for full-power operation of the facility are to be preserved from degradation, with such maintenance or custodial services as may be necessary to ensure such preservation.

Moreover, NRC regulations require LILCO to obtain C9mmission approval before decommissioning the facility. In evaluating any proposal for decommissioning the Shoreham facility, the Comission will carefully assess all appropriate issues in determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with the Comission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. Until approval to decommission is granted, the staff has requested a comitment from LILC0 to maintain the Shoreham facility as described above. If LILCO requests transfer of the facility to another person for decommissioning, approval by the Comission is required before such transfer may take place. As in all our actions, NRC will not permit any improper segmentation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. Finally, as you correctly noted in your letter, the Comission's rules require that we offer an oppor-tunity for public hearing on any proposed license transfer and before NRC approval of decommissioning may be granted.

At this time, we do not perceive a regulatory need to issue an order halting activities currently going on at the Shoreham facility. Although LILC0 has indicated its intent not to operate Shoreham and the Agreement between LILCO and the State of New York indicates an intent to decommission the facility, thus far the activities that LILCO is carrying out are authorized under the existing license. The Comission will continue on-site inspections to ensure that such activities comply with the requirements of the operating license and our regulations. If necessary, NRC will issue appropriate orders or sanctions to ensure compliance with Commission regulations in the event of improper activities such as safety violations, violations of license conditione, or the start of decommissioning without Commission approval.

I want to assure you that the dismantling or degradation of the Shoreham facility will not be permitted until the Comission has authorized decomis-sioning. Further, the Comission will not authorize decommissioning until the safety and environmental reviews of such a proposal are carried out and the necessary opportunity for public hearing, in accordance with the Comission's regulations, has been provided.

Sincerely, eW.

Kenneth M. Carr '

Enclosure:

As stated

{

l 1

I

_ _ _ _ _ .___________-__________-_______________D

--o LA 4 UNITED STATES -

,, 1[

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .

wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20555 k.....[i_I -

' AUG 3 01989 4

Mr. Anthony F. Early, Jr.

President-

. Long Island Lighting Company LExecutive Offices-175' East Old Country Road

.Hicksville, New York 11801 =,

Dear Mr. Early:

At our meeting on July 28, 1989 LILCO outlined in general terms its plans, over the. coming months,' to reduce expenditures while continuing to assure facility -

' safety and continued compliance with 'the requirements of its Operating License

'NPF-82 and the Commission's regulations. At the meeting..the staff indicated' to you that while the approach outlined does not give the staff near-term concerns, it is not clear that in the longer term the posture outlined by

'LILC0 would be satisfactory. The staff also pointed out that it was unaccept-

. able to the staff to permit the plant to deteriorate. LILC0 responded with its assurance'that it did not intend to permit the plant to deteriorate and >

emphasized that you-were budgeting some $45-55 million for the next year for!

t .the:Shoreham facility.

Now that the reactor has been defueled, we believe it would be valuable to again meet to discuss the specifics of your program for assuring facility

. preservation.- I have asked Mr. Brown, the NRC Shoreham Project Manager, to set up such a meeting with your staff before September 15, 1989.

'In this connection, LILCO is requested to provide the NRC with its written commitment to assure,. for an extended period, (until decommissioning or other disposition of the facility is authorized by NRC) that:

5)- All systems required for safety in the defueled mode are main-tained in fully operable status.

2) All systems required for full-power operation of the facility

'are to be preserved from degradation, with such maintenance and custodial services and appropriate documentation as may be necessary to ensure such preservation.

3) There shall be an adequate number of properly trained staff to ensure plant safety in the defueled state, including the ability to cope with malfunctions, accidents, and unforeseen events.

At such a meeting LILCO should be prepared to reiterate, but in greater detail, LILCO's specific plans to assure these criteria are satisfied. Such plans ff'0 b O f S

}F M B 8 0 1989

'Mr. Anthony F. Early, Jr. should be provided to the NRC in writing before the meeting, or if this is insufficient time, shortly thereafter.

We also wish to discuss your plans to maintain the approved Emergency Plan and the LERO organization in conformance with the requirements of the license and 10 CFR 50.54(q) until such time as modifications may be authorized by NRC.

Lastly, at the meeting on June 30, 1989, your staff promised to provide Mr. Russell with a written description of the process followed by LILCO in selecting the operating status to be maintained for the various plant systems in the defueled conditions and the process followed in determining the intended staffing changes. This comitment was recognized and reiterated by Mr. Daverio at the meeting on July 28,1989. That information has not yet been

.provided._It_.is important that this information be promptly provided so that the NRC staff has an opportunity to review it before the September meeting.

Sincerely.

0 >

[d.+xs.4> b * "/

Taomas E. Murley, Director 0 ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation se

h 1 M '

The S'ecretary of Energy .

4 i Washington, DC 20585 l f A

~

p July 27, 1989 Admiral Kenneth M. Carr Chairman, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Admiral Carr:

I undar:;tand that, pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, an application or applications will be filed shortly with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) seeking the required consent of the NRC for (1) LILCO's surrender of its full power operating license in favor of a possession-only license for its Shoreham facility; (2) transfer of the possession-only license to LIPA; and (3) the decommissioning of Shoreham by LIP.A utilizing the technical services of the New York Power Authority (NYPA) to perform the decommissioning activities. These NRC authorizations will be sought solely to effectuate an agreement among LILCO, LIPA and New York State pursuant to which the Shoreham facility is to be sold for a token consideration in order to dismantle it before it ever generates electricity commercially.

The dismantling of this invaluable energy resource, the safety of which has been affirmed by the NRC through years of technical review and extensive litigation, would be a colossal mistake. Shoreham's destruction would be contrary to every principle associated with the establishment and maintenance of a sensible national energy policy and would be inconsistent with the provision of an adequate and reliable supply of energy in the Northeast. Further, dismantling of this facility will necessitate the increased use of fossil fuels and the concomitant adverse environmental impacts associated with their use--the very impacts which the Bush Administration is striving to mitigate and, where possible, avoid.

The Atomic Energy Act provides that any person whose interests may be affected by the issuance of a proposed operating license amendment may request a public adjudicatory hearing to contest the proposed amendment.

Important questions exist regarding the technical, managerial and financial qualifications of LIPA to hold an NRC license for the purpose sought, and these matters raise considerations of the type which, under the Commission's regulations (10 CFR 50.92), require that a requested adjudicatory hearing be conducted before the Commission approves the proposed amendments.

[$0$h ,

p -

[ -

o -

2 The Commission also has discretion pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and its regulations to hold a prior hearing if it determines that such a hearing should be held in the public interest. There could hardly be a stronger case than this one for the exercise of such discretion.

Significant issues of first impression are obviously raised by the proposal to transfer a new, baseload electric generating facility, possessing a full power operating license, to an entity with no expertise in and no experience with nuclear facilities for the express purpose of tearing it down. In addition, once the license transfer and dismantling are authorized and commenced, the consequences would be irreversible and the availability of any remedy following a hearing on the significL41 public issues involved would be entirely foreclosed.

In this regard, I am extremely concerned that the plans recently announced by LILCO for defueling the reactor and for drastic reductions in plant staffing will have the effect of disabling the facility before LILCO and LIPA ever approach the NRC with the aforementioned license amendment requests. There have been disturbing reports in the public media that, following dispersal of the Shoreham operations staff as currently planned, it may take as long as two to three years to reassemble the operating staff required to safely operate Shoreham.

LILC0 should not be allowed to disable the facility indirectly prior to formal approval by the NRC of the decommissioning of the plant through the license amendment process. I would urge the Commissior, to monitor closely any actions, such as defueling, destaffing or reduced maintenance, which are intended to commence the dismantling. In this regard, the Department would support the issuance by the NRC of an immediately effective order prohibiting LILC0 from taking actions which, in effect, initiate the decommissioning process for Shoreham before NRC permission is sought and granted for that action following a full adjudicatory hearing.

I also strongly urge the Commission and the NRC staff not to consider the various steps leading to the dismantlement of Shoreham (license surrender, license transfer, and decommissioning) as independent requests for discrete actions which can be segmented for purposes of the NRC's required safety and environmental review. These actions must be viewed as integral parts of the basic and overriding plan to dismantle Shoreham that was actually memorialized in a written agreement. The possession-only license and LIPA's qualifications to hold an NRC license can be assessed properly only in the context of the activities to be authorized under the license. These license amendment requests should only be considered in light of both a full analysis of the decommissioning plan required by the NRC's regulations and a full evaluation of the consequences of destroying Shoreham required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

In this case, the written agreements among the parties clearly establish that the impending request by LILCO for a possession-only license is  !

intended to formally initiate the process of dismantling Shoreham.

Certainly the Commission should treat this license amendment no differently than do the parties to this ill-censidered plan. Under

_ _ _ ___ - _______- _ -_ - - -- ~)

3 l these circumstances, approval by the NRC of action leading to the dismantling of a newly completed, licensed nuclear facility in the face of increasing energy reliability problems on Long Island is clearly a

" major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." Accordingly, NEPA requires that a detailed comprehensive environmental impact statement must be prepared and circulated for public comment prior to the approval of any of the impending license amendment requests. Aside from the significant environmental impacts associated with. alternative energy sources, with the exacerbation of the energy reliability problems on Long Island and with the decommissioning itself, there are alternatives to the impending proposal which are obviously superior.to dismantling the facility.

The Shoreham plant is a significant domestic energy source that is capable of meeting the electricity requirements of Long Island and the surrounding region in a safe, reliable and economical manner for years to come. The dismantling of Shoreham would be a grave mistake even if the energy situation on Long. Island were more favorable. Taking this action under present circumstances would be simply irresponsible. Thus, it is obvious that the proposal for the NRC to authorize the destruction of the plant raises, and requires the NRC to address, issues involving power needs, alternatives and other important environmental considerations in an EIS. Following completion of that document, these matters should be fully evaluated in the public hearing afforded those whose interests may be affected before the NRC determines whether to permit Shoreham to be destroyed. The interests of this Department, the Northeast and the Nation will be affected in a far-reaching manner by the Commission's ultimate decision in this matter.

Sincerely, James D. Watkins Admiral, U.S. Navy (Retired) cc: Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner James R. Curtiss

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