ML19324C221

Responds to T Murley 890915 Ltr Re 10CFR2.206 Petitions. Requests in Shoreham-Wading River School District & Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy & Long Island Assn Petitions for Return to Status Quo Ante Should Be Denied

ML19324C221
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/10/1989
From:	Steiger W LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:	Murley T NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-#489-12283 2.206, DD-90-08, DD-90-8, SNRC-1658, NUDOCS 8911150232
Download: ML19324C221 (16)

Text

, 4 l k.

i yt ,

I ..

• LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

[ p~ g SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STAMON k.a. eeN eie. NORTM eOUNTRY ROAe o WADeNe RlYsR N.Y.11Tret WILLIAM E. SYS9004. JR.

aansuwt vice me.. .,..veu.. ,,...,*"' SNRC-1658 N0y 1 0 1989 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 l

-Attention: Dr. Thomas E. Furley, Director l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ,

LILCO's Response to the September 15, 1989 Letter from NRC (T. Murley) to LILCO (W. Steiger, Jr.)  !

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station - Unit 1  ;

Docket No. 50-322  ;

Refs (1) NRC (T. Murley) letter to LILCO (W. Steiger, Jr.) dated l September 15, 1989  ;

(2) Petition filed pursuant to 10CFR2.206 by J. McGranery, t Jr. on behalf of Shoreham-Wading River Central School  !

' District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy '

dated July 14, 1989 (SWR /SE 2 Petition)

(3) Supplement to SWR /SE 2 Petition dated July 19, 1989 -

(4) Supplement to SWR /SE 2 Petition dated July 21, 1989 j (5) Supplement to SWR /SE 2 Petition dated July 31, 1989 ,

(6) Petition filed pursuant to 10CFR2.206 by L. Bir;kwit, Jr.  !

on behalf of Long Island Association dated August 4, i 1969 (L%A Petition) j

Dear Dr. Murley:

LILCO hereby presents its written response to your ?etter of i September 15, 1989 to me (Reference (1)) . ,

I. Introduction In Reference (1) , you instructed LILCO to review the petitions j filed pursuant to 10CFR2.206 by Mr. James P. McGranery, Jr., on behalf of the shoreham-Wading niver School District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, and by Loonard l' Bickwit, Jr., on behalf of the Long Island Association '

(collectively " Petitioners") and to address each concern raised therein. In Reference (1), you also briefly described the i various bases for the two petitions. In this response, LILCO has recharacterized slightly some of the stated bases of the two ,

AMI 8911150232 891110 i t PDR ADOCK 05000322 P PDC ,

I '

i SNRC-1658 c Page 2 petitions to reflect LILCO's own understanding of what Petitioners are arguing and to address more fully the concerns they are raising. Though several of the arguments being made in the two petitions are similar, for the sake of clarity, LILCO addresses each petition separately.

II. SWR /SE 2 Petition The SWR /SE 2 Petition consists of an initial request, dated July 14 l989, and three supplements, dated Ju'y 19, July 21, and July 31gj .

Because of the multiple supplex.ents to the petition, LILCO has found it difficult in rome instances to distinguish clearly between certain of the bases offered in support of the petition or to identify fully all of the allegations that are being made.

In this reponse, LILCO has attempted to characterize fairly the concerns that the petition raises.

A. Basis (1)

The first basis for the petition is that both the defueling of the Shoreham reactor and the storage of the fuel in the spent fuel pool, which the petition assumes to have been " conducted by the licensee pursuant to 10CFR50.59,* Reference (2) at 14, I involve an unreviewed safety question. Since LILCO has not

! obtained prior NRC approval to engage in these activities, the l petition argues, LILCO has violated 10CFR50.59. The petition l advances at least three separate arguments in support of this i claim.

t l First, the petition argues that LILCO has violated 10CfR50.59 l because the removal and storage of Shoreham's fuel is j

"unnecesrary," given that the fuel has not reached the end of its useful life, as is typically the case when such activities are conducted. The petition asserts that "(i)t is inherent in l the establishment of acceptable risks in (removing the fuel from the reactor), that there is a risk-benefit analysis taking as its premise the need to perform the activity." Reference (2) at 13 (emphasis in original). In the case of Shoreham, the petition argues, this supposed risk-benefit analysis does not apply. The July 31 supplement reiterates that the petition is not arguing that there is great risk in the defueling activity or in the storage of the fuel in the fuel pool per se, but that previous reviews of defueling activities have addressed the acceptability of that risk in light Reference (5) at 3.

l l 1/ By letter dated July 26, 1989, Mr. McGranery informed the NRC l that Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy adopted and '

incorporated by reference as the bases for its petition the bases I

of the petition filed by the Shoreham-Wading River Central School l District.

L , . - _ _ _ _ J

P 'SWRC-1658 Page 3 of the benefit to be achieved

( h , either reloading of new fuel

. for continued operation or, in rare cases, mitigation of an accident) which is totally lacking here.

Second, the July 19 supplement argues that the storage of Shoreham's fuel in the fuel pool may reduce the " margin of I

safety' because 4 the public health and safety would no longer be protected by a combination of barriers provided by (a) the reactor vessel itself, (b) the primary containment and (c) the secondary containment, but would only be protected by the secondary I containment once the fuel is in the spent fuel pool.

j Reference (3) at 1-2. The July 31 supplement repeats this l assertion, arguing that the NRC should order LILCO to return the fuel to the reactor vessel i

i where the health and safety of the l

public will be protected not only by the secondary containment, but also by the primary containment and the reactor vessel itself ..s.

Reference (5) at 3.

Third, the July 31 supplement claims that at the meeting between LILCO management and the NRC Stafd on July 28, 1989, LILCO itself conceded that it had not completed the allegedly necessary safety analysis regarding transfer and storage of the fuel. Reference (5) at 2-3.

As a threshold matter, the petition has incorrectly assumed that the defueling of Shoreham and subsequent storage of the fuel in the fuel pool are activities that have been conducted pursuant to 10CFR50.59. As a result, the assertion that LILCO has violated 10CFR50.59 is entirely misplaced.

Section 50.59 (a) (1) provides that the holder of a license authorizing operation of a production or utilization facility may (i) make changes in the facility as described in the safety analysis report, (ii) make changes in the

r .

'5WRC-1658 Page 4 procedures as described in the safety analysis report, and (iii) conduct tests or experiments not ,

?

described in the safety analysis report, without prior commission l approval, unless the proposed l change, test or experiment involves  ;

a change in the technical bpecifications incorporated in the  :

c license or'an unreviewed safety question. ,

What the petition overlooks is that the removal of the fuel from Shoreham's reactor is not a " change" in the facility, a " change" in the facility's procedures, or a " test or experiment" at all. <

To the contrary, the movement of fuel from the reactor vessel to the spent fuel pool, and the subsequent storage of the fuel in  !

the pool, is an activity typically associated with normal nuclear j plantoperationsandonethatispermjptedbyShoreham's '

technical specifications i%) REG-1357) . Accordingly, the provisions of 10CFR50.59 do not apply to LILCO's defueling i l activities.

Moreover, even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that  ;

! the defueling of Shoreham is a " change" to the facility or to procedures within the meaning of 10CFR50.59, the petition fails '

to demonstrate that such change involves an "unreviewed safety question." The regulatory test for determining whether an f "unreviewed safety question" exists is provided in 10CFR50.59 (a) (2), which states that a e

proposed change, test, or -

experiment shall be deemed to i involve an unreviewed safety question (i) if the probability of '

occurrence or the consequences of '

an accident or malfunction of .

equipment important to safety previously evaluated in the safety analysis report may be increased; l 2/ In your' July 20, 1989, letter to Mr. McGranery, in which you 3enied the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District's 4 l

request that the NRC take immediate action to stop LILCO's '

activities at Shoreham, you stated that the "defueling of the i

I reactor vessel is an activity permissible under the terms of Facility Operating License NPF-82." See Letter from Thomas E.

Murley, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, to James P.

McGranary, Jr., counsel for Shoreham-Wading River Central School l

District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy at 2 l (July 20, 1989).

l 1

~

[4 i

SNRC-1650  ;

', Page 5 }

1 or (ii) if a possibility for an accident or malfunction of a ,

different type than any evaluated previously in the safety analysis  !

report may be created; or (iii) if  ;

the margin of safety as defined in  ;

the basis for any technical ]

specification is reduced.

Clearly, in advancing its " risk-benefit analysis" argument, the petition does not even begin to try to assess the defueling of r Shoreham against any of the three criteria specified in ,

10CFR50. 59 (a) (2 ) . LILCO has identified nothing in either the language of 10CFR50.59, the regulatory history of the provision, i or NRC case law to support the assertion that " inherent" in the l NRC's definition of "unreviewed safety question" is the "need" to perform the activity at issue.

In asserting that storage of the fuel in the fuel pool may reduce the " margin of safety," the July 19 and July 31 supplements come ,

closer to putting forth an arguement that attempts to assess i defueling against the standardb in 10CFR50.S9 (a) (2) . But the petition still fails to demonstrate that an "unreviewed safety -

question" is involved. The risks associated with the movement of fuel from the reactor vessel and the subsequent storage of the '

fuel in the fuel pool, outside the primary containment, have previously been analyzed in Section 15.1.36 of Shoreham's Updated l Safety Analysis Report.

Finally, it is simply not true that LILCO itself has conceded that at the time of defueling it had not completed the allegedly '

necessary 10CFR50.59 safety analysis. The then-uncompleted l

safety analysis to which LILCO personnel referred at the July 28 meeting with the Staff is an analysis that was being developed by .

LILCO's Nuclear F.ngineering Department to support certain license l Emendment and regulatory exemption requests that LILCO intends to l submit to the NRC in the future. See Transcript of Managenent 1

Level Meeting between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Long ,

Island Lighting company at 14 (July 28, 1989). LILCO was not l' required to complete and submit this analysis to the NRC prior to defueling Shoreham.

B. Basis (2)

The petition's second basis is an assertion that LILCO's reduction of staffing at Shoreham constitutes a " willful violation of the bases of the issuance of the license and the Reference (2) licensee's prior commitments to the Commission."

at 14. In particular, the petition refers to the staffing ,

information contained in the Operational Readiness Assessment Team (ORAT) report as evidence of LILCO's supposed " commitments" to the NRC with respect to staffiny at Shoreham. The July 31

, .. ,,..-.,.--,.,-.----,.,--..,.,_..._.-..,,.,.--__.,_-.__._.,,,.....,-,__,-_,,__-.,.w_,.,

s

• SNRC-1658 Page 6 s

supplement to the petition cites the then-pending transfer of Mr.

John D.. Leonard, Jr. from the Office of Nuclear Operations as further evidence of a need for the NRC to issue an immediately effective order to halt LILCO's staffing actions. Reference (5) ,

at 3-4.

LILCO does not know what the SWR /SE 2 Petition means when it claims that LILCO's destaffing activities constitute a

" violation" of the " bases of the issuance of" Shoreham's operating license. The ORAT Report did not create any commitments on LILCO's part to maintain a given level of staffing at Shoreham in all circumstances. As a licensee, LILCO must meet ,

the requirements imposed by applicable 11RC regulations and Shoreham's operating license. The Company is conmitted to meeting these requirements and has, in its view, done so. The Company is under no regulatory or licensing obligation, however, to maintain staffing at Shoreham at a level suitable to support power operations when, in fact, the plant is not being and will not be operated by LILCO.

Similarly, LILCO is under no obligation to keep Mr. Leonard as the head of Nuclear Operations. Mr. Leonard's successor is fully qualified to assume that position, a fact that the petition cannot and does not dispute.

C. Basis (3) '

[

l The third basis for the petition is the claim that the alleged I lack of certain maintenance activities at Shoreham " appear (e) to l be contrary" to the ORAT report. Reference (2) at 14-15. The

! July 31 supplement amplifies on this complaint by stating that (1) there is no " Operational Condition 6 in LILCO's Technical Specifications," and that (2) the Technical Specffications contain no definition of the terms " functional," *xecursd," and

" preserved," as used by LILCO to classify the level of Reference (5) at maingynanceofthevariousplantsystems.

4-5 Basis (3) is flawed in two principal respects. Firsta the petition has again misconstrued the significance of the ORAT l report. The ORAT report described the state of operational readiness at Shoreham at the time the inspection was conducted, -

3/ LILCO has since modified its classification program to use terms " operable," " functional," and " protected." LILCO has the previously described to the NRC Staff its plans for implementing its lay-up program. See letter from Anthony F. Earley, Jr.,

LILCO President, to Thomas E. Murley, Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (September 19, 1989).

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

n s

SNRC-1658

,- Page 7

)

and' served to aid the Commission in determining whether to issue LILCO an operating license. The findings made by the NRC~ Staff  ;

in the ORAT report did not themselves, however, impose on LILCO l' any requirement to perform some specified level of maintenance ,

<t above-that which is required by NRC regulations and the terms and

conditions of LILCO's operating license. LILCO believes that it has met these requirements. Nothing in the petition demonstrates otherwise.

Second, as explained below, in complaining that LILCO is in violation of its license Pscause neither " Operational Condition 6" nor the. terms " functional," " secured," or " preserved" are '

defined in Shoreham's technical specifications, the petition misunderstands what the technical specifications require and tries to elevate form over substance.

l Under Shoreham's operating license, maintenance activities for various plant components and systems are described in the p " surveillance requirements" set forth in the plant's technical specifications . Failure to meet a given surveillance requirement is not, with few exceptions, a violation of the technical i

I specifications per so. Shoreham's technical specifications '

provide that (f)ailure to parform a Surveillance Requirement within the specified ,

l' time interval shall consitute a failure to meet the OPERABILITY L

requirements for a Limiting L Condition for Operation.

l Exceptions to these requirements

! are stated in the individual specifications. Surveillance l requirements do not have to be performed on inoperable equipment.

s NUREG-1357 at 3/4 0-2.

In other words, except for those specific surveillance requirements that must be performed at all times, failure to ,

perform maintenance on a given system as required by the applicable surveillance requirement merely renders that system

" inoperable" for purposes of plant operation. Once a system is rendered " inoperable," within a specified time period, either the system's " operability" must be restored or the specified " action" requirements must be met, up to and including plant shutdown. In order to resume operation after shutdown, the applicable surveillance must be performed and the sytem's " operability" reestablished. As long as the plant remains shut down, however, the technical specifications do not require that surveillance be performed on the " inoperable" system. LILCO's plans to cease

-surveillance of certain systems do not violate Shoreham's l

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

I -16.

Basis (4) is predicated on a misreading of Apper dix B. Appendix B, 3.1 provides, in relevant part, that (b)efore engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may significantly affect the environment, the licensee shall prepare and record

i

.. 1

' .- (

l O s SNRC-1658

, Page 9 an environmental evaluation of each such activity. Activities are excluded from this requnrement if aTI measurable nonradiodovical effects are confined to the on-site 3reas previously disturbed during

~

site preparation and facility construction. When the evaluation indicates that'such activity involves an unreviewed

- environmental question, the

' licenses shall provide a written evaluation of such activity and obtain prior NRC approval.

NPF-82, Appendix B, 3.1 (emphasis added). As the highlighted portion above maker evident, prior NRC approval must be obtained only if the activity to be undertaken itself has some  :

" measurable" environmental consequences offsite. Indeed, absent

.this threshold consideration, the licensee need not even prepare i a written evaluation of the activity.

l The petition does not contend, nor can it, that the actual activities.being addressed by the petition, e.g., the defueling i.

and destaffing of Shoreham, have any measurable offsite environmental consequences. Instead, the petition speculates that LILCO's decision not to operate Shoreham'will lead to a .

greater reliance on fossil fuel plants, and that this reliance will, in turn, result in a "significant increase" in a previously evaluated " adverse environmental impact." Yet the petition's speculation about the environmental consequencec of the substitution of fossil fuel plants for Shoreham is directed solely towards some possible future action. Such speculation does not demonstrate that LILCO's current activities in defueling the plant and transferring staff have any measurable offsite environmental consequences. Absent such a demonstration, the petition fails to establish that LILCO is in violation of NPF-82, Appendix B.

E. bases (5) and (6)$!

As best LILCO can determine, ac its fifth basis, the petition appears to be arguing that, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a full environmental review must be conducted l before the NRC may permit LILCO to take any actions that may be directed towards (1) the transfer of Shoreham to the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) or (2) the plant's eventual l

4/ LILCO does not perceive a clear distinction between bases (5) and (6) as the petition has characterized them. Accordingly, LILCO discusses both bases at the same time.

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

..- .SNRC-1658 ,

-Page 10 decommissioning. Reference (2) at 16. For its sixth basis, the ,

petition asserts that, by giving tacit approval to LILCO's defueling and destaffing activities at Shoreham, the NRC is violating its own NEPA-implementing regulations, which require that the NRC perform an environmental review before authorizing the decom Reference (2) l at16-18.gyssioningofanuclearpowerfacility. ,

The July.19 and July 21 supplements cite various newspaper articles that purport to describe the defueling and destaffing of Shoreham as being part of a " continuum of. actions" leading ,

towards decommissioning. The petition argues that this lands

. credence to its position that the !?RC's tacit approval of LILCO's activities violates NEPA. Reference (3) at 2; Reference (4) at 2-5. The July 31 supplement goes so far as to suggest that LILCO is engaging in a " stalling tactic" so as to allow the plant to ,

" decommission itself" and thereby presumably avoid prior environmental review. Reference (5) at 5-6.

Bases (5) and (6) of the SWR /SE 2 Petition are a challenge to NRC regulations. In implarenting the responsibilities imposed on it by NEPA, the NRC has determined through generic rulemaking that the appropriate time to begin the environmental review process for decommissioning is when the licensee submits, pursuant to 10CFR50.82, an application for a license amendment to terminate its license and decommission its facility. The NRC's NEPA-implementing regulations, as amended when the NRC revised its decommissioning regulations on June 27, 1988, establish that once such an application is made, the licensee is to bsgin the i

environmental review process by submitting a supplement to its prior environmental report. Specifically, these regulations provide that (e)ach applicant for a license amendment authorizing the 3ecommissioning of a production or utilization facility covered by 5/ The July 14 petition, citing 10CFR 51.20 (b) (5) , states that

( the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant necessarily requires l

the preparation of a site-specific environmental impact statement (EIS). Reference (1) at 16-17. This, of course, is incorrect.

l' When the NRC amended its decommissioning regulations last year, L

it removed subparagraph (b) (5) from 51.20 and eliminated the l requirement for a mandatory site-specific EIS for decommissioning. Under the NRC's current regulations, a site-specific EIS need be prepared only if the Staff's initial environmental assessment identifies impacts for a particular I

plant that are significantly different from those studied generically in the NRC's Final Generic Environmental Impact I Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (May 1988)

(NUREG-0586 ) . See Fed. Reg. 24039, 24052 (June 27, 1988).

l

e I '

[o SNRC-1658

'Page 11 i' 51.20 . . . shall submit with its application . . . a separate document, entitled " Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report -

Post Operating License Stage,"

which will update " Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Stage," as appropriate, to reflect any new information or significant environmental change ,

associated with.the applicant's proposed decommissioning activities . . . .

10CFR51.53 (b) (emphasis added) . .

Once the applicant has submitted its supplement to the ,

environmental report, the responsibility for conducting the L environmental review shifts to the NRC Staff. Again, the NRC's regulations make it clear that-the Staff need not begin its review until the licensee's decommissioning amendment and environmental report supplement have been submitted.

Specifically, the regulations, as amended, state that l

(i)n connection with the amendment l of an operating license to authorize the decommissioning of a production or utilization facility covered by 51.20 . . . the NRC Staff will prepare a supplemental .

environmental impact statement for the post operating license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, which will update the I

l prior environmental review.

10CFR51.95 (b) (emphasis added) .

The assertion that the NRC should begin its environmental review I of Shoreham's decommissioning before an application to terminate and decommission has been submitted is a challenge to the NRC's generic determination that the process neen not start until'such an application has been filed. One cannot use the 2.206 See, petition e.g, L process as a vehicle to challenge NRC regulations.

General Electric Co. (Vallecitos Nuclear Center, License No.

SNM-960), DD-79-9, 9 NRC 744, 753 (1979). For this reason alone,

> the allegations raised in bases (5) and (6) of the SWR /SE 2 Petition should be disregarded.

Nevertheless, in an effort to give fair treatment to the petition's concerns, bases (5) and (6) might be alternatively characterited as truly being not a challenge to the NRC's NEPA-I L

1 - - . . . - . _ - . - - . . . - - _ - . . - - . - - - , - -. - .- - -

s .

t SNRC-1658 7

., Page 12 implementing regulations, but as a complaint that LILCO is avoiding the formal requirements of the NRC's decommissioning -

regulations by engaging in a pattern of activities constituting "de facto" decommissioning. Even when characterized in this fashion, however, bases (5) and (6) lack merit.

LILCO is not engaging in de facto decommissioning because, while LILCO cannot and will never operate Shoreham, none of the actions that LILCO has taken so far with respect to Shoreham are '

inconsistent with the future operation of the plant by some '

entity other than LILCO. As LILCO has already explained to the NRC Staff, those systems at Shoreham that are not required for '

safety in the plant's present defueled mode will be kept in a

" protected" or layed-up mode. Thus, the steps that LILCO is currently taking with respect to Shoreham ensure that the plant will not " decommission itself" pending transfer of the plant to some entity of New York State.

III. LIA Petition The LIA Petition consists of a single document, dated August 4, 1989. As best LILCO can discern, four separate bases for the LIA Petition have been advanced. LILCO addresses each in turn.

t A. Basis (1)

The first basis of the petition is an argument that certain actions taken by LILCO with respect to Shoreham are in violation L of 10CFR50.59. The petition asserts that (c)utting staff, disregarding Commission upgrade orders, reducing maintenance and surveillance, and

[ deactivating procedures -- all of l which are part of the " minimum l

) posture condition" at Shereham --

l will undoubtedly increase the risks of accident or malfunction that would be associated with operating i

the plant as contemplated by the i license and raise safety issues l

that have not been "previously  :

evaluated." l Reference (6) at 6-7. Arguing that LILCO cannot " elude the l requirements of 50.59 on the ground that no violation of the licensee's technical specifications has yet occurred," the petition asserts that "a violacion (of 50.59) has occurred" and that LILCO "should be made to comply with the requirements of 50.59." Reference (6) at 8. The petition goes on to argue that "even if the Commission is not prepared to make such a finding, it should institute an investigation into the issue." Reference (6) at 8.

e SNRC-1658

Pcga 13

.The argument that LILCO has violated 10CFR50.59 does not differ in any material way from similar allegations made in the SWR /SE 2 Petition. LILCO has already explained why its approach to

? Shoreham is permissible under the terms of its license and why the requirements of 10CFR50.59 do not apply to movement of fuel ,

l from the reactor to tha spent fuel storage pool and the fuel's

?

, storage therein.

As for the petition's alternative suggestion that the NRC should institute an investigation, it is important to remember that the NRC Staff has met with LILCO on three occasions, each publicly noticed, to discuss Shoreham's status. In addition, through cor-respondence, LILCO has sought to keep the NRC fully apprised of.

every significant action the Company has taken with respect to  :

the plant since the Settlement Agreement want into effect. The '

NRC Resident Inspector >at Shoreham has also been kept informed of LILCO's activities. Finally, the NRC Staff conducted a one-week

. inspection of LILCO's activities at Shoreham on September 18-22, 1989. At the conclusion of that inspection LILCO was told by the Staff that the company's actions with respect to Shoreham appear-ed to be reasonable. In short, the Staff has.already conducted thn sort of investigation that the petition has requested.

B. Basis (2)

As its second basis, the petition argues that "New York State authoriti,es, through the settlement agreement, have assumed un- l authorized control over the Shoreham license" in violation of the i Atomic Energy Act and NRC regulations. Reference (6) at 9.  !

Given this alleged State control over LILCO's conduct of activi- 1 ties at Shoreham, the petition suggests that "even if LILCO were j to determine that public safety or plant maintenance consider-ations require an expenditure of funds, that determination 7ay be ' !

effectively overruled by the state." Reference (6) at 12.6 6/ While not advanced as a reparate basis, the July 19 i supplement to the SWR /SE 2 Petition also appears to allege that New York State is exercising impermissible control over LILCO's l activities with respect to Shoreham. The July 19 supplement l argues that the NRC Staff should order LILCO to cease and desist i and return to the status guo ante so that the NRC may determine l whether the economic objectives of the New York State Public Service Commission and the Licensee are consistent with the responsibilities accepted pursuant to the full power operating license, or whether the New York State Public Service Commission is subjecting the Licensee to unlawful '

economic pressures that would cause violations of the commitments the Licensee has made in obtaining its license.

Reference (3) at 4.

y L.. n SNRC-1658 F Page 14 h

1' LILCO has not surrendered control over Shoreham to New York

~

i State. As LILCO.has repeatedly stated to the NRC, as long as LILCO is the licensee of Shoreham, LILCO fully intends to abide y

• by all of the terms and conditions of that license and all i

pertinent NRC regulations. It is true that under the settlement-

!: Agreement, LILCO is obligated not to operate Shoreham and to E cooperate with New York State in obtaining NRC permission to ,

transfer the plant to an entity of the State. 'In all matters 1

-concerning regulatory compliance and conduct of plant activities under the license, however, LILCO continues to exercise its own -

' independent judgment. While LILCO forosees no c.)nflict between its obligations under the Settlement Agreement and its duty as an NRC licenses to protect the public health and safety and

.otherwise comply with NRC regulations and the terms of its license, should-any such conflict arise, LILCO intends to do whatever is required of it'to meet its NRC obligations.

I l

L C. Basis (3) 1 The' third basis of the LIA petition is an assertion that a >

"de. facto. decommissioning" of Shoreham is taking place.

! Reference (6) at 12-13. t As has been explained above, LILCO is not engaging in de facto decommissioning. Those systems at Shoreham that, under the plant's technical specifications, need not be kept in an

" operable" status with Shoreham in its defueled condition will be protected from degradation through a lay-up program. Those systems will be maintained in this " protected" condition pending Shoreham's transfer to an entity of New York State.

D. Basis (4)_

Finally, as its fourth basis, the petition argues that to prevent a "frustratien" of NEPA's purposes, the NRC must halt LILCO's activities at Shoreham, pending an environmental review.

Reference (6) at 16. The petition adds that the NRC cannot escape its NEPA responsibilities by claiming that its environmental obligations are not triggered until the filing of a formal decommissioning application.

Reference (6) at 13 As with the SRW/SE 2 Petition, the argument that the NRC must undertake an environmental review now, prior to the filing of an application to terminate Shoreham's license and decommission the plant, is a challenge to NRC regulations that may not be brought in the guise of a 10CFR2.206 enforcement proceeding.

( ,3 '-

C ,

SNRC-1658  !

Page 15 s

IV. Conclusion The requests made in the SWR /SE 2 and LIA Petitions that the NRC L issue an order to-LILCO to cease and desist its activities at L Shoreham and return to the status guo ante should be denied. As the information presented above demonstrates, the actions that LILCO has taken with respect to Shoreham are consistent with both ,

the plant's operating license and NRC regulat. ions.

Very truly yours, L 7

/ ,

l W. E. Steige ,

l Assistant Vice President Nuclear Operations DRH/ap cc S. Brown  !

W. T. Russell F. Crescenzo i

e

, ., ,,--r , -,--~e--a .,_n,,,m,--,---,---w--,w-r..e-+,r-w., - - -- s ------rw,------ , - -e, ---w--- , - - , , - -wn, , nev., - - , - - m,,,,,,n.- - - - - - - - , -

w <

1 -

• . s AFFIDAVIT STATE OF.NEW YORK )

-t 852 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK )

b

'I, WILLIAM E. STElGER, JR., being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Assistant Vice President - Nuclear Operations for the Long Island Lighting Company. I am authorized on the part of said Company to sign'and file with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

. Commission the enclosed letter (SNRC-1658) for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. This response was prepared under my supervision and direction; and the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief..

.,4/A$nf k1 f

I William E.&Steiger, JA.

4 Sworn to before me this

/0 W day of MuteglA 1989 J

'  ! T4 L

WKilAM J. HAGGERTY"  !

Nagory Putdic, State of New York No.4712115 Quellfledin suffook county jc)g Commlesion Empiree July 31, l s i

'l 4 J