ML19324A616
| ML19324A616 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/14/1989 |
| From: | Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| 2.206, NUDOCS 8907310441 | |
| Download: ML19324A616 (19) | |
Text
e
)
g c .
.' i m
1 DOW, LOHNES & ALBER'OSON i s ans swcury.rseno erecer I s'
- . - - - - - - - .o n. . .... aeon.n.. ::::. .,,=- !
r-" I": ~::- :
a.n.. .
. .rg g:=;g
'. =18".'"" = r.=,,.,,. '. - wa e . ... . .. , .. ::llrt.u.3llll.
,,,,g
- 33".
5.. '
=.:7g
=,, ,, na ca ui .... .. ... ..,
g r
.%;.=ll;, ,
o '="*
.. llllll:.lllll."
- "lll't.:ll ' E !
lll'lr.:alti , . llO'.':'. " . -..n= llm 7"" ::l M.:
- r.. !
. =s . .=. - _ . .lr ==... =_ r 1 "*!." :"" ll"C '. ~'" "':J
. n".;;.
- O' ""' . *"'*
f:lP*.:,20 :::7!.;l';' ,,, July 14, 1989
- =.'.'l'llllL.
- =;- . ::.;,.:lg. i.'s,t*.*
"". l ll3.".'."."" ll lllT".'.::.lllll = f.lllll"
. 'a;;"".l
!"."' ." 'llll"" 1f7',':llll r ft *
.""t'?'2 ;
""f.' "."""; . :::"J.t"." '" :.":::7
. lll. ."".' - l
- ?."N:"' llllll% (202) 857-2929 4 '?~' llll".".'=" '"""'
""J""""" !
" *0 'f':l' , 7.l.*.".".?."*'"""'
. :"./.J,*lll lllllll":'.3'. llllTt!,J \ ll"ll*.' :;r" :ll'/".'" !
'"" ;- **'" - = :"""" llllll*,!* . ".".*'.t 'l""
lll':.".=.* " ':= :."O. ::lttt.".'." ."' ""J.i" >
'1lllll." '2!rlllll"" "" ' T'
. l'llL' """ 1 "lll".! """ * *llllllT;"' ";* """*'"""'
.. . - . 'OY"a . !
lll:tt.TT.".
- g.,.
!;:lllt. .-
- " ." ..llll"".1 ~ .. i
, , . . . . i
- l"".,'.*g7'
. . . . . - .'.0."'.".*'..**"**'
.. '[
' '""'" ""W'c~t o 'r Stallo, Jr. f Executive Director for Operations !
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 One Whiteflint North l 11555 Rockville Pike I Rockville, Maryland 20852 !
' (
Re: Recuest Pursuant to 10 CFR E 2.206 l
Dear Mr. Stello:
I i
The Shoreham-Wading River Central School District t
(" Requestor") requests, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 (1988), !
that you institute a proceeding pursuant to 10 CFR $ 2.202 i (1988) to require the Long Island Lighting company ("LILC0") i the possessor of a full power operating license for the i Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 to cease and desist i from any and all activities related to, among other things, i the defueling and destaffing of that utilization facility !
and to further require the licensee to return to the status l auo ante, including requirements to reinsert any fuel bundles j removed from the reactor vessel, to drain the cavity, to reinsert the dryer and separator, to pull out the main ,
steam line plugs, and to replace the head and retension the ;
studs. :r o .
O i The Requestor asserts that such a temporarily l [
effective order pending further consideration by the i !
commission is necessary to avoid potentially hazardous ont savinia ontyt 8vitt isto aikanta Ogoasia ses.e-ties itLEPMoht I.6 6 806 8000
} i S ,
. , ....... . vion
,c a.o.. . ..., in .. . via i ..nni
. von. =i. von i en ene ini .o a aiei ne un
,, a . .... . o ,,, n n n . a . . . , n .
p\ :
fh to etSt 8tett? ANNAPOLIS. uanviamo 3:401 4 01 elitPMoht(809i84800 8 IO
- m- . --- . _ _ _ - - - --
c l
l- .
Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr. ,
July 14, 1989 j f
Page 2 l 1
1 1
conditions arising from unreviewed safety questions, violations of the licensee's full power operating license ,
(including its Technical Specifications) and unreviewed i environmental questions. The Requestor asserts further that i LILCO is undertaking a course of action (see Exhibits 1 and l
- 3) on questionable legal authority in a manner which will !
willfully avoid the full and effective Commission j consideration of the environmental consequences of licensee '
actions and announced actions contrary to the provisions of l the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Il 4331 11 A22, the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines, )
40 CFR Parts 1500-17 (1988), and the Commission's own t regulations, 10 CFR Part 51 (1988), by presenting for !
regulatory review only defueling and destaffing plans which !
do not stand alone, but rather are the intital actions in a single course of action to tranpfer the license for Shoreham .
l to another party or parties and to decommission the plant. :
The bases for these allegations are set forth in greater detail below. The need for a temporarily effcctive order is urgent given the fact that the licensee has this day started to defuel. ,
A. THE REOUESTOR ,
The Requestor is Shoreham-Wading River Central !
School District (" District"), a school district duly organized under the laws of the State of New York, located in ;
the-town of Brookhaven, County of Suffolk, State of New York, ;
within which the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is located. '
The District relies upon LILCO for the provision of large '
amounts of reliable electricity for its operations. The District has consumed in excess of 6,000,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year in the past and has paid i approximately $5,000,000 to LILCo for electric power over the ;
last ten years. The District also derives approximately 90% ,
of its revenue from real property taxes assessed against the '
Shoreham Station.
B. THE FULL POWER OPERATING LICENSE On April 21, 1989, the Commission issued Facility operating License No. NPF-82 to LILCO for the Shoreham Station. That license (including all Attachments and Appendices except the technical specifications, NUREG-1357) is Exhibit 2 to this request. As relevant to this request i the following findings, determinations and conditions in that license are cited:
u
'- l
. .. . I l
L Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
July 14, 1989 Page 3 :
b l (1) Finding 1.C statest "The facility will i e operate in conformity with the application, as !
amended, the provisions of the Act, and the i regulations of the commission ...." '
(2) Finding 1.D states: "There is reasonable I assurances .... that such activities will be {
conducted in compliance with the commission's i i
regulations set forth in 10 C.F.R. Chapter I
! l i
)
i (3) Finding 1.E states: "The licensee is '
technically qualified to engage in the ;
activities authorized by this operating .
license in accordance with the Commission's 1 regulations set forth in 10 C.F.R. Chapter It '
t (4) Finding 1.H states: "After weighing the I environmental, economic, technical, and other i benefits of the facility against environmental !
and other costs and considering available ;
alternatives, the issuances of Facility !
Operating License No. NPF-82, subject to the !
conditions for protection of the environment ,
set forth in the Environmental Protection Plan !
attached as Appendix B, is in accordance with 10 C.F.R. Part 51 of the Commission's {
r regulations and applicable requirements have i been satisfied ....
(5) Paragraph 2.B states that: " Subject to the ;
conditions and requirements incorporated herein, the commission hereby licenses the ;
Long Island Lighting Company ... to possess, !
use and operate the facility at the designated i location ... in accordance with the proceduree and limitations set forth in this license
" i t
(6) Paragraph 2.C.(2) incorporates the Technical I
Specifications and Environmental Protection Plan into the license, i (7) Paragraph 2.C. (S) requires the licensee to l l implement and document all required design changes discussed in Attachment 1 and to perform an acceptable procedure verification
,e i
Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr. !
July 14,.1989 Page 4 j i
l.
test for the remote shutdown system design
"[p)rior to start up following the first L
refueling outage...."
r (8) Paragraph 2.E states: "The licensee shall L fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the commission-approved physical I security, guard training and qualification, j L
and safeguards contingency plans ...." ;
(9) Appendix A, Specification 1.26 defines f "0PERABLE-OPERABILITY" as: "A system, sub- i system, train, component or device shall be i OPERABLE or have OPERABILITY when it is i capsble of performing its specified !
function (s) and when all necessary attendant . .
instrumentation, ' controls, electrical power, !
cooling or seal water, lubrication or other 0 auxiliary equipment that are required for the I system, subsystem, train, component or device '!
to perform its function (s) are also capable of l performing their related support function (s)." j (10) Appendix A, Table 1.2 defines five l
" operational conditions" namely, " power }
operation", "startup", " hot shutdown", " cold :
shutdown", and " refueling". " Refueling" is ;
further defined as " Fuel in the reactor vessel !
with the vessel head closure bolts less than i fully tensioned or with the head removed". !
(It does not define any operating condition described as condition "0", "6", or
" Asterisk".)
(11) Appendix B, Para 3.1 states: "The licensee !
may make changes in facility design or l operation or perform tests or experiments :
affecting the environment providing such i activities do not involve an unreviewed .
environmental question, and do not involve a ;
. change in the EPP. Changes in facility design !
or operation or performance tests or u experiments which do not significantly affect" t the environment or that are covered by the ;
SPDES permit are not subject to the ;
I requirements of this EPP. ... Before engaging in ... operational activities which may significantly affect the environment, the
n jo .
l Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
July 14, 1989 Page 5 l
i licensee shall prepare and record an !
environmental evaluation of each such l activity. ... When the evaluation indicates i that such activity involves an unreviewed l
environmental question, the licensee shall 1 provide a written evaluation of such activity I and obtain prior NRC approval. ... A proposed l change ... shall be deemed to involve an !
unreviewed environmental question if it i concerns (1) a matter which may result in a l significant increase in any adverse i environmental impact previously evaluated in i the FES-OL, environmental impact appraisals, ;
or in any decisions of the Atomic Safety and :
Licensing-Board; ... or (3) a matter not ;
previously reviewed and evaluated the . !
documents specified in (1) of this Subsection, !
which may have a significant adverse !
environmental impact." l C. OPERATIONAL READINESS ASSESSMENT f I
On March 3, 1989 the NRC Commissioners specified j that, before the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is authorized !
to operate above 5% power, an operational readiness !
assessment must be made. The report of that assessment, is ;
Exhibit 4 to this request.
In particular, the Requestor draws your attention l to the following findings in that Report (1) In Detail 2.22 " Physical security was f inspected separate from the ORAT inspection, i and was found to be satisfactory." ;
(2) At Detail 2.3.2 under " Facility Management": ;
Management staffing, qualifications, and i performance are acceptable. One open item related to the license's (alg) transition plan ;
for replacing contractors with compar.f i employees is to be submitted for NRC review." !
(3) Under Detail 2.3.2 at " Plant Operations": i "An ample and well-qualified operations staff !
is ready to operate the plant safely. The licensee has committed that each Shift Technical Advisor will train and perform
Ji 65 i I
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr. !
July 14, 1989 i Page 6 ,
I l
assigned duties with his or her assigned l shift." i (4) In Detail 3.2 subpara 3: " Extensive review of (
Figures 1 through 11 with the licensee l
resulted in several changes to the ;
organization charts. While the staffing (
numbers were a snapshot of a changing ,
situation, it was concluded that the numbers
- and qualifications of personnel are adequate '
to support power operation." l (5) Detail 3.6.found the licensee's quality (
assurance organization to be "a significant }
licensee strength" based in part on the l staffing represeptations contained in Figure 2 . i
- to that report '
(6) Para 3.8 found that one of the "open items" is j "LILCo's transition plan for replacing l contractor employees with LILCo employees .
(which) is to be submitted for NRC review." !
9 (7) Para 3.9 presented the inspection teams j
" Conclusions on Facility Management": "Upon ;
resolution of the open item in Detailed 3.8, t the Shoreham Managehtent Organization is ready to assure safe operation at power." :
l (8) And, in general, the ORAT report relies !
extensively on the adequancy of the amount of [
staffing and the particular individuals currently retaining those slots for ito basic
- conclusion that the plant was ready to assure ,
safe operation at power. Ega, e.a., Details I 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.11, 4.13, 5.2, 5.3, 5.9, 6.2, i 6.3, 6.4, 6.10, 7.2, 7.3, 7.14, 7.15, 8.2, i 8.3, 8.4, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4.2, 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, i 10.5, 11.4, 11.7, 12.2, 12.3, and 13.0. .
(9) The Inspection Team Report found the licensee i maintenance program adequate based upon the personnel and the levels of effort inspected and described at Details 5.1-5.15 and 9.1-9.13 and 11.1-11.8 and 12.10.
, - - - - w. - , , ,ee ,- ,- - - - , . - . - - - - ~w- w ~
,1 i
j 4 -
- .i i c Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr. ;
E July 14, 1989 j Page 7 1 (10) LILeo's Vice President-Nuclear operations
[ responded to the operational Readiness l Assessment Team's request to set forth the i i- LILCO program with respect to transiting to a ;
full LILCO staf f from the combined LILCO and contract personnel staff by Letter of March i
!- 30, 1989, which is attached as Exhibit 5 '
p hereto. Writing that letter ono month after !
entering into the so-called " settlement .
Agreement" with the Governor of the State of l
~
l New York. Mr. Leonard stated that the LILCO j Office of Nuclear Operations "has now over 620 ,
LILCO personnel serving in authorized i
' positions and the total number of contract l personnel on site in LILCO vacancies is i slightly over 10p personnel." The letter then - i goes on to state LILCO's plans (a) to convert ;
some contract personnel to LILCO employees, !
(b) to return "80 or more personnel" to the j office of Nuclear Operations from "other :
positions within" LILCO, (c) "to recruit i personnel through various professional !
periodicals ... and through general I advertising" and (d) to utilize "several :
companies known to be effective in the nuclear I personnel employment area." '
O. THE JUNE 30, 1989 LILCO-NRC REGION I MEETING l i
A meeting between the NRC staf f and LILCO was held !
at Region I Headquarters on June 30, 1989. The following is i an effort to report significant parts of that meeting. If :
l you desire,,the y tape, it will be furnished. j l (1) In initiating that meeting, Mr. William T.
- Russell, the Regional Administrator said among ;
L other things: "This is the type of meeting l l
l that we have frequently with utilities prior ,
to outages. In this case, the circumstances ,
are somewhat different". Mr. Russell also j said "there are some unique elements to the '
I situation at Shoreham, some of the issues l l associated with reducing staffing, and I need to understand what staffing you are going to have available, and how you are going to be conducting this activity."
S
Ib .;
L
.o f i
i
- 1. Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr.
July 14, 1989 ,
Page 8
,l. l' I
(2) Mr. Anthony F. Earley, Jr. , LILCO's President, l u then made various representations to the NRC !
t-saying, among other things; "So we have fairly {
resounding instructions from our owners that we are to pursue the settlement, and as a i result of that vote, the settlement agreement :
L with the State of New York is now effective. l L Under that agreement, LILCO may not operate i the Shoreham Nuclear Plant. I think that's l important as we go forward, and I think !
p everything that we do and that you look at, !
people understand that. We are not permitted !
under that agreement, we cannot and we are committed, we have no intention of operating the Shoreham Nuclear Plant. Under the -
Agreement we are obligated to remove the fuel -
l from the reactor', and we are obligated to work :
with the Long Island Power Authority or some !
other designated state agency to cooperate in i applying to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ;
for transfer of that plant from LILCO to the l Long Island Power Authority or whatever state agency the State designates. LILCO is not {
7 obligated and will not be involved in the t decommissioning of the plant. We have no intention to decommission the plant.
We are j just transferring it."
l (3) Mr. John Leonard, Vice President, Nuclear .
Operations for LILCO then made a presentation [
in which he said among other things: "I think ;
you all know me very well enough that I try to ,
run the show the way you want it run, and there will be no violation in that license, gg lona as I have it in my cower to control it.
In fact, there is a memo that was put out to ;
my managers yesterday to stress point." -*
(emphasis added.) *
(4) And Mr. Leonard later said: "We will begin I under our existing license to reduce our i intensity of effort. We will not continue our modification program and that's an example.
During this interim, no systems or components will be terminally removed fron. the plant. I said " terminally", that is, if we get a call .
from an operating plant to loan them l something, they pay it back, but there will no
l
. l
(_;*. l r :
L Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr. !
July 14, 1989 i Page 9 l
f i r h t
disassembling of the system, or components i during this interim period." j i
(5) Mr. John Scalice, the Shoreham plant Manager, !
then made a presentation in which he said l
amung other things: "Part of our study I assumed that we would not anticipate !
receiving any amendments in our license during
- 1989. We are also working on the assumption, at this point, we will be taking through mid- '
August to have defueled the core." Mr. ,
Russell briefly interjected that the NRC had l received calls "from New York State and from !
the Public Service Commission. They don't !
understand why its going to take until August ,
[to defuel the core). They say it takes less -
time than that to do a normal refueling." i 0
(7) Mr. Scalice went on to say "One of the j objectives of what we are doing during the !
next several weeks in compliance with our i' settlement is to establish a posture that is consistent with maintaining the OL as we have i it now, biat at a least-cost level to us, and that includes the .... we are going to make 1 sure our expenditures are prudent, and we i intend to stay within all the requirements of ;
the existing license ... given the condition i of plant under that license. I'll briefly l tell you what our personnel authorizations and ;
changes will be and then I'll let John i
' precede to tell you the more particulars of :
that plan proceeding. We have had in the past i an authorized personnel level of 837 people, !
we anticipate that after we have completed the ;
defueling activity, we would be down to a ;
total level of 452. That would take place l after we have done the defueling. With i respect to contractors, we currently have i over 500 contractors on the property; that level will drop to approximately just 200."
r (8) A LILCO participant indicated that as to emergency planning LILCo would maintain only the single emergency planning condition that is not tied to a power level requirement and would agt observe the others.
If4 s :3' ,
., ; . l Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr. !
July 14, 1989 Page 10 I t i 1
I l (9) A LILCO participant later indicated that the !
defueling activity would be conducted on a ,
e two-shift schedule not more than six days a !
) week.
L [
(10) And yet later a LILCO participant made a i
- distinction between " operable systems" and :
" functional systems" to justify the j maintenance of some and the lack of :
! maintenance for others.
! {
(11) Mr. Russell, after several questions, asked: I "Am I getting a hair-splitting argument ,
between operable and functional?" A LILCO ;
participant answered "Yes". Mr. Russell ;
continued "... as it relates to maintaining -
l some systems in accordance with the i surveillance on a ... requirement?" The LILCO !
participant further responded: "I think you ;
might be; it's a fine line". j u
(12) After further exchanges, Mr. Russell said: i "It seems to me that this is an area that the !
sooner you can define what is going to be i done, and what will be maintained and what is i not going to be maintained and make that available to the NRC for use, so we don't get 1 into arguments later about something that j should have been maintained that wasn't."
1 (13) After further discussion, Mr. Russell: "We're !
trying to understand ... you might want to use !
a 50.59 review process, and to what extent we ;
are going to have to review those, I don't !
want to become a consultant and do a review
... ahead of time, but at the same time, I !
need to understand what are the objectives so ;
that we can go in on an audit sample basis and !
decide for oursolves whether the appropriate system, operability and functionality had been maintained." i (14) Still later a LILCO participant stated LILCO's .
intent to reduce the engineering department i from about 70 or 80 people to about 56 people, t on another staff to reduce 43 people to 27 people, on another staff to reduce 36 contract personnel to 5.
\
c c:- 7 :
e i l
..' )
l Mr. Victor Stello, Jr. .I July 14, 1989 !
Page 11 l
(25) As these various staff reduction plans were described, Mr. Russell interjected at one i point: "
We issued a full-power license based {
upon certain staffing levels and capability j with the objective of being of able to 1 operate. In fact, we had many meetings -- l some in this room -- and, John, I remember i putting you through the ringer pretty hard on i staffing, and whether you had adequate staff ;
to meet the terms and conditions. You are l proposing to make some rather substantial staff reductions, and yet still operate within !
the terms of a full-power license, that raises potential questions as to whether there should '
be some modifications to that license to ,
reflect the changed status of the plan in !
order to support the reduce staffing !
associated with it." '
(16) After still further discussion by the LILCO !
staff reduction plans, Mr. Russell said at one ,
point: "
I don't know that I have a safety l problem, but I may have a regulatory problem." (
(17) And still later, Mr. Russell said: !
" Regulatory space, that is the condition you ;
are in. If I went to any other facility in a :
refueling outage, and found that there were !
substantially less staff by some 40-50% over '
what was proposed or identified as a condition '
of issuance of the operating license, I would be in enforcement space." '
(18) In discussing the defueling activity further, in particular the advisability of proceeding on one shift per day, instead of two shifts per day Mr. Russell said: "There is somewhat of a trade-off, because I think that there is '
, a potential that you could start losing qualified staff, give that there is not some -
uncertainty that the company is not going to operate the plant." *
(19) Later in discussing emergency planning, a LILCO participant said: "We will be eliminating the 5% power commitment."
4 . , - . . , . - - - - - ---------n -n_, , , , , , , . , . - . ~, ,E
s 4
(
e n"
Mr. - Victor Stallo, Jr.
July 14, 1989 Page 12 (20) Later a LILCO participant addressed the question of NRC correspondence, saying:
"Those that are related to systems that are being maintained operable / functional will be addressed as appropriate or letters that require an NRC response will be address as appropriate. Those that do not require a response, or not directly related'to something that is operable, we will log and file, but we do not intend to take any other action at that time."-
(21) With respect to site security, a LILCo participant said: "The only change that we envision after defueling, for those of you who .
might not be familiar with the site, we have two access points -- the primary and secondary. We are looking at closing the secondary and making that,just a fence line rather than having guards posted there, which would allow us to reduce some of the guard force, and that is allowed under ... as we redefine it."
(22) Later a LILCO participant said that with respect to the area of contracts and procurement, LILCO intends to reduce their staff of about 116 people to 87, and that in the area of contractors, they intend to reduce the current 31 to 9, "the bulk of those being emergency planning people".
(23) And that participant went on to say that LILCo plans a reduction of "about 40 security guards", and a reduction of "40 temporary !
clerical people for a reduction of about 80 in that force from about 206 to 127".
(24) At the end of the meeting, Mr. Russell invited
, the undersigned to comment as an observer. At that point, I addressed the representation by ;
LILCO that it would never operate the plant, ,
and that a decision has been made. In particular, I said: "The agreements that they have agreed to have a lot of conditions that could cause the agreements to unravel of their own weight and there are various legal .
a
, . . . . 'e- j
- 3 l
Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr. ,
July 14, 1989 Page 13 o "
L l i
\
attacks currently pending and that may be i 4-pending that may cause the agreements to i unravel. One other point, although LILCO may not operate this plant, it does not mean that (i someone won't operate it. And I would think i that insofar as the staffing and the great '
team effort that has gone into building that staff over the years is undone at this time, <
it could significantly delay the time during which a valuable electrical resource might be i needed."
i (25) Mr. Russell responded: "I want recognize that. That is why I raised the question of !
the reductions in staffing and how we need i handle that from the regulatory standpoint. .
That is not an issue that we are presently !
involved in. We don't have a ... pending '
before the Commission that I am aware of and,
- at this point in time, we have the company's !
statement of what is their intent from an i inspection standpoint. We make sure that the !
activities that are conducted in near-term t are conducted safely." ,
E. THE NEED FOR AN IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE ORDER ,
The regulations provide that the Executive Director f for operations may issue a temporarily effective order
, pending further order "during an emergency as determined by l the EDO" if he finds "that the public health, safety, or interest so requires or that the violation is willful." 10 -
C.F.R. 5 2.202(f). The Requestor asserts that the public ;
health, the public safety and the public interest (where the i public interest is understood to encompass the objectives of ,
I the National Environmental Policy Act) each require an i i immediately effective order to remedy an emargency in this ;
case and that the violations are willful. Of course, it is not nec'essary for the EDO to find that all four conditions exist, but only one of them, in order to issue a temporarily ;
effective order. The independent bases are as follows:
- 1 (1) The defueling of the entire core of the Shoreham Station at this time involves an unreviewed safety question, because the defueling activity is unnecessary. It is inherent in the establishment of acceptable risks in this activity, that there is a risk-benefit analysis taking as its p premise the need to oerform the activity. In this context,
,. - m. . . . , , - e
l l o' r ..
Mr. Victor stello, Jr. j July 14, 1989 '
Page 14 i
defueling activities are considered necessary in the case of !
i an accident or, normally, when the fuel has reached the end ;
of its useful life.
in this case.
Neither of these two conditions obtains !
Further, the very slight, if any, additional i margin of safety provided by the plecement of the fuel in the !
spent fuel pool as opposed to its continued residence in the !
reactor in a cold shutdown condition is more than outweighed )
by the increased risk of accidents in the transfer of that fuel from the reactor to the spent fuel pool. For these l
reasons the Requestor asserts that any review and approval of ,
the defueling activity conducted by the licensee pursuant to '
10 C.F.R. i 50.59 is in violation of that rule and that the i proposed defueling activity requires prior Commission ;
approval in these circumstances. An immediately effective order to require the licences to cease and desist from defueling and take other actions as described in the first .
paragraph this request is necessary and appropriate to t protect the public health and safety, o (2) The issuance of the full power operating license NPF-82 was premised, among other things, upon :
adequate staffing of the facility.to be determined in an l Operational Readiness Assessment Team Report. The details of that staffing was reviewed by the Team (113 Exhibit 4 hereto) and the particular representations by the licensee in Figures 1-12G to that report were relied on by the Team and in turn i by the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation in issuing that license. The licensee has now openly !
declared to the Commission its intention to willfully reduce that staff to about half in the next 30 days. This would constitute a willful violation of the bases of the issuance +
of the license and the licensee's prior commitments to the :
Commission. The Administrator for NRC Region I has openly admitted that if he found a staff at a plant reduced by 40 or 50% "at any other plant" that it would call for enforcement :
actions. Egg Para D.(17) above. There is no reason why the !
Shoreham plant should be treated differently then any other :
plant. In this case, an immediately effective order requiring the licensee to (a) cease and desist all destaffing activities, (b) revoke all cease and stop work orders already ,
issued to contractors, and (c) retransfer LILCO personnel to i the Station is necessary and appropriate to protect the '
public health and safety and to maintain the status gM2 ante l pending further consideration of these matters by the ;
Commission. '
(3) The proposed conduct, or lack of conduct, of i maintenance activities at the Station appear to be contrary i
?
. .: .- l
. .s.
}
l i
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
l July 14, 1989 j
Page 15 l
1 to the ORAT report. Compare Para C.(9) above Eith Para i D.(4), (7), (10), (11), (12 , (13), and (20) above. It l appears that the licensee ma)y be under heavy pressure from I the Chairman of the New York Public Commission to put cost J considerations ahead of NRC required maintenance. 133, Exhibit 3. In these circumstances a direct order to the !
licensee to continue maintenance in accordance with its '
license and Technical Specifications and prior commitments to l the Commission is necessary and appropriate to protect the J public health and safety and the viability of the plant. !
(4) Facility Operating License No. NPF-82 at Appendix B, Para ?.1 forbids the licensee from making changes '
in facility operations affecting the environment if the :
change would involve an "unreviewed environmental question" and would "significantly affect the environment" without
. I obtaining " prior NRC approval".' That part of the license ,
states that a proposed change shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed environnental question, if it concerns (1) a ,
matter which may result in significant increase in any l adverse. environmental impact previously evaluated in the FES- :
OL or a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the :
FES-OL which may have a significant adverse environmental impact. Exhibit 6 hereto consists of the summary and {
conclusions, section 8 (Need for the Station), and Section 10 (Benefit / Cost Summary) of the Final Environmental Statement
- relhted to the operation of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 (NUREG 0285). These sections represent the bases for '
the conclusions that the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is -
i needed, that it is the preferable alternative realistic i source of electric energy, and that it has a favorable cost ,
benefit analysis for the people of Long Island. The opposite !
conclusions are represented in Exhibits 1 and 3 hereto and '
are the bases for the licensee's current course of conduct. ;
The applicant's plans to substitute fossil fuel burning units l at some time in the next 12 years for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is certainly a matter which "may result in '
significant increase in any adverse environmental impact l previously evaluated in the FES-OL" especially in view of the increased awareness that now exists with respect to the greenhouse.effect, acid rain and global warming, as well as
- the national security aspects of reliance on imported oil and ,
gas. As such, these matters involve "unreviewed environmental questions" which require prior Commission !
approval pursuant to the license. This addresses not only the source of energy, but also its cost and the need for electricity on Long Island. Therefore, the licensee in pursuing its current course of conduct in defueling,
l l
l l1 Mr. Victor Stello, Jr. '
July 14, 1989 Page 16 1
destaffing, transferring the license and decommissioning the !
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is and would be in violation !
of NPF-82, Appendix B, Para 3.1. For'these reasons, an (
immediately effective order to the licensee to cease and desist all defueling and destaffing activities and return to i the status gE2 Anta as elsewhere described herein is ;
appropriate and necessary. ;
.(5) A cease and desist order requiring a return to I the status gMS DDt1 at the beginning of the defueling and l destaffing activities is necessary and appropriate in the ;
public interest to allow for a timely and full environmental review of the licensee proposed course of action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Counsel on Environmental Quality' Guidelines and the Commission's regulations in Part 51. Exhibits 1 and 3 hereto clearly .
l indicates a unitary course of action leading from defueling :
and destaffing through transfer of the license to *!
decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. This ;
was also clearly disclosed in the June 30, 1989 LILCO/NRC i Region I meeting, as described above in Section D. At that i meeting, the licensee did attempt to say that it "will not be :
involved in the decommissioning of the plant". Eam Section !
D.(2) above. However, this is clearly contradicted by Section 5.3 of the Amended and Restated Asset Transfer Agreement which is an Exhibit 3 to Exhibit 1 heretc. That
- Section states that "LILCO will pay LIPA for Coats i Attributable to Shoreham" where " Costs Attributable to :
Shoreham" are defined to include "all costs incurred by LIPA l or NYPA after the Closing Date attributable LIPA's or NYPA's i ownership, possession, maintenance, decommissionina or ;
dismantlina of Shoreham". Exhibit 3 to Exhibit 1 hereof at ,
Section 1.11(c) (emphasis added). Thus, while LILCO may not ;
be involved in the management of decommissioning or dismantling, it is responsible for the ultimate sine gMA D2D of decommissioning and dismantling, namely, the total financial support of that activity. !
(6) The commission's regulations recognize that '
the issuance of a license amendment authorizing the decommissioning of a nuclear power reactor and any other action which the Commission determines is a major Commission :
action significantly affecting the quality of the human i environment requires an environmental impact statement or a supplement to an environmental impact statement. 10 C.F.R. S
- 51. 2 0 (b) ( 5 ) and (13) (1988). Those regulations also .
recognize that the Commission need not passively wait for a license application, but that the commission " recognizes a -
k i
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr. '
. July 14, 1989-Page 17 continuing obligation to conduct its domestic licensing and related reaulatorv functions in a manner which is ... T receptive to environmental concerns...." 10 C.F.R. Il 1.10 (b) . (1988) . At present, the NRC is devoting significant regulatory attention to the activities at the Shoreham ,
Nuclear Power Station and the Administrator of NRC Region I has. expressed the concern that the activities currently being conducted by the licensee perhaps require application for a *
- q. license amendment. San Section D.(15) above. ;
If the Commission does not issue a cease and desist order including an order to the licensee to restore the plant -
and staff to the status gun ante at this time, it would be allowing the licensee to whittle away the scope of the action actually being considered to the point where there would be.an insignificant staff to operate the plant and the .
plant itself may have deteriorated to the po3nt where several years might be required to make it available once again as a ,
valuable source of electricity to the people on Long Island and in the Northeast.
l The timing of an environmental impact statement has i l been the subject of censideration by the Courts. In the '
L context of the liquid metal fast breeder reactor program, the '
l Court of Appeals addressed the appropriate point in time to require an overall environmental impact statement on that l'
program. In Scientists' Institute for Public Information.
Inc. v. AEC, 156 U.S. App. D.C. 395, , 481 F.2d 1079,
[ 1093 (1973), the Court said:
I "In our view, the timing question can best be answered by reterence to the underlying policies of NEPA in favor of meaningful, timely information on the effects of agency action.
The court emphasized that:
L ,
" Answers to questions like these require agency expertise, and therefore the initial and primary responsibility for st riking a balance between the competing concer ; must rest with the agency i'self, not with the courts. At the same time, h- ever, some degree of judicial scrutiny of i an agency's decision that the time is not yet ripe for a NEPA statement is necessary in order to E
I-)-- f -. . , _ . , , . --e .- _ . . . . _. , . . . . _ , ,
[s 4 .-
'Mr. Victor Stallo, Jr. '[
- July 14, 1989 Page.18' I E , ,
ensure that the policies of the Act are not being frustrated or-ignored. Agency. decisions in the ;
environmental area touch on fundamental personal '
interests in life and health, and these interests have always had a special claim to judicial protection."
156 U.S./ App. D.C. at ,
481 F.2d at 1094 (footnotes omitted). And later the Supreme Court, in considering '
whether the Department of the Interior was required to prepara a regional EIS for several geographically related :
actions with respect to coal mining, said:
"The determination of the region, if any, with .
respect'to which a comprehensive statement is necessary requires the weighing of a number of c, . relevant factors, including the extent of the interrelationship among proposed actionn and practical considerations of feasibility. Resolving i
8 these' issues requires a high level of expertise and properly left to the informed discretion of the responsible federal agencies."
L l Kleece v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 412, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2731 (1976) (citation omitted). ;
The Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines require that an EIS "shall be prepared early enough so that
. it can' serve practically as an important contribution to the L decisionmaking process and will not be used to rationalize
[ or justify decisions already made (55 1500.2(c), 1501.2, and 1502.2). 40 CFR 5 1502.5. As is sometimes said, this
, requirement does not allow agencies "to meet their ,
l responsibilities by locking the barn door after the horses are stolen". Lathan v. Voloe, 350 F. Supp. 262, 266, aff'd
[' 506 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1974) (footnote omitted).
l I,f the Commission remains passive, the Commission will indeed be left with the sorry task of " locking the barn door after the horses are stolen."
(7) The Chairman of the New York Public Service Commission has been reported to have observed that the only regulatory actions which the NRC can take against the licensee in these circumstances would be to suspend or revoke L
. 1
, .: y y . .a
[. '
Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.
p July 14, 1989 r
.Page 19 the operating license which is the ultimate objective of Ned~'
York State.and the licensee. EAR Exhibit 3 hereto. The a course of action suggested by the Requestor herein testifies
.to the contrary. Further, the Requestor suggests that any
' immediately effective orders issued pursuant to this request be accompanied by an announcement of the Commission's intention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.205 to fine the licensee a substantial amount per day for any violation or continuing violation of'the Commission's orders in an amount that would deter any economic incentives which the licensee may have to L violate the orders.
REQUEST FOR PARTICIPATION If you decide to constitute the requested proceeding, the Requestor desires to participate in the
. proceeding as an intervernor pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 (1988).
(
Respectfull su mi ed, O .-
M -s. .
J des P. McGranery, Jr.
Counsel for the l
Shorehim-Wading River , .
L Central School District !
JPM:jmb l Enclosures I
l 1
I i
- _. _ _ _ _ - _ _ - -