ML20028H664
| ML20028H664 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/18/1991 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-91-014, SECY-91-14, NUDOCS 9101240351 | |
| Download: ML20028H664 (6) | |
Text
3 i
I RELEASED TOTHE PDR l
m l ~ N9/
4 He 3
4
/.
ddte '
................In#ds l
h#
...... ~
POLICY ISSUE January 18, 1991 (NEGATIVE CONSENT)
SECY-91-014 For:
The Commissioners
. 4 From:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 (SNPS) - THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S (LILCO's) REQUEST TO SHIP FUEL M-SUPPORT CASTINGS & PERIPHERAL PIECES FOR BURIAL
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of LILCO's request to ship 137 fuel
.. )
support castings and 12 peripheral pieces from 5NPS to the k'
Low Level Wastes Repository (LLWR) in Barnwell, South Carolina, and of the staff's proposed denial of this
-l request.
This equipment is necessary for power operation of SNPS.
1 1
Background:
In its letter of September 24, 1990, LILCO informed the NRC staff of its intention to ship 137 fuel support castings
~
and 12 peripheral pieces from the Shoreham sitet to the Barnwell LLWR, LILCO stated that it determined that i
shipment is permitted by SNPS Operating License NPF-82 and j{:
is within the authority granted to licensees under the i
Commission's regulations.
Further, LILCO does not consider I,
. Jl this action to be an irreversible step towards decommissioning because this equipment is available as a long lead item according to information sunplied to LILCO by its nuclear l
steam supply system (?!SSS) vendor.
LILCO provided the following reasons for considering that the shipment of this
].
equipment to the LLWR at this time is necessary:
j 1.
The rapidly escalating cost of burial, 2.
The possibility that New York State sites will be Il denied access to the Barnwell LLWR, and lr 3.
The utility's desire to eliminate the need to provide
.h a separate onsite storage area for this equipment.
In a letter of October 1, 1990, the NRC staff informed LILCO that we expect LILC0 to continue to comply with the terms of LILCO's September 19, 1989, commitment letter and b.
g a
t CONTACT:
b S. Bro,n, PDN0/HRR
!;OTE:
TO PE !GDE PUBLICLY AVA@Ill.I_LliEl' THE 49-214;7 FI!;AL SPE IS MADV'"" " r N
o 1 ) 1. 'b3 f /O ISY OM f i.?
.k 5.~,. 3 )_(
~
( r" 7_ + l a*' ; 'Tll
, _,xQyg '.}j T
J;.
f 0,.
a.
The Comissioners f the NRC's March 29, 1990, Confirmatory Order.
In LILCO's letter of Septer#er 19, 1989 Mr. A. Earley, LILCO's President, committed to the NRC to protect those systems not required for safety in the defueled mode, but necessary for full power operation, as is consistent with NRC regula-t sns and LILCO's license ob'igations.
The NRC's March 29,
)
1990, Confirmatory Ordert stated.
This Confirmatory Order in no vay relieves the j
licensee of the terms and conditions of its operating license or of its commitments covering the continued n.aintenance of structures, systems, and components outlined in its letter of September 19, 1339.
Further, in its October 1, 1990 letter, the staff noted that 1
LILCO's proposed action nuld preclude a timely restart and should be delayed until after a possession-only license is issued to LILCO.
In its letter of November 8, 1990, LILCO informed the staff that it was renewing its intention to ship the 137 fuel support castings and 12 peripheral pieces to the Barnwell LLWR, based on the following:
1.
The Commission's October 17, 1990, Oecision, CLI-90-08, and 2.
The possible clusure of the Barnwell LLWR to shipments from New York Stato.
In its letter of November 14, 1990, the NRC staff informed LILCO that the movement of the fuel support castings and peripheral pieces to the LLWR would require NRC authoriza-tion, and that the staff would consider LILCO's November 8, 1990, letter a request for such authorizatien and would handle th',s request on an exigent basis.
In its letter of November 16, 1990, LILCO supplemented the information provided in its November 8,1990, letter to support the request for authorization to ship 137 fuel castings and 12 peripheral pieces to the Barnwell LLWR.
In response to the NRC's Public Notice, which contained a l'
proposed finding of no significant hazards consideration and which was published in the November 21, 1990, edition of Newsday, a local Long Island newspaper, the staff has received comments in opposition to this proposed licensing action from the U.S. Department of Energy, the Shoreham-L Wading River Central School District, and Scientists and
' Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
These organizations 2The Confirmatory Order also prohibits the licensee from placing fuel back into the SNPS reactor vessel without prior approval from the NRC.
D
- ~ -
- -~
w The Commissioners,
4 argue that LILCO's proposed disposal of the fuel support castings 'and peripheral pieces is a significant step toward the~ decommissioning of SNPI, Further, the counsel for.the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District, and Scientists and Engineers for Secure-Energy, Inc., argues that there is no legal basis for treating this proposed action on " exigent" bases.
Counsel for LILCO in its letter of December 11, 1990, informed the NRC staff that LILCO now believes that it is unlikely to be prohibited by the State of South Carolina from shipping low-level waste to the Bernwell LLWR after December 7, 1990.
LILCO bases this belief on a December 6, 1990, State of New York filing with the State of. South.
Carolina of a report on the status of New York'_s ef forts to comply with the Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments of.1986.
LILCO's counsel recommends in light of this development, that'the NRC staff may wish to reevaluate the NRC's initial characterization of this matter as involving
" exigent circumstances." The staff has decided to no longer handle this license amendment as an exigent matter based on the December 11, 1990, letter.
Discussion:
The staff concludes that there are no adverse safety con-siderations associated with the licensee's proposed shipment and disposal of these components.
During the spring of 1990, LILCO removed all removable components that were radioactive and all sources of radioactivity from the SNPS reactor vessel as part of the site-characterization study.
LILCO conducted this site-characterization study to collect accurate radiological data to support the development of a
-decommissioning plan.
Although LILCO could have returned this equipment to the reactor vessel for storage, LILCO decided to store this equipment in the turbine building.
This equipment was to be-protected as part of the Shoreham equipment preservation program based on LILCO's commitments to the NRC.
Subsequently, LILCO decided, for the reasons provided above, to ship 137 fuel support castings, 12 peripheral pieces, and-the damaged incore instrumentation for burial.
LILCO has completed the packaging of the 137 fuel support castings, the 12 peripheral pieces, and the damaged incore instrumentation for shipment to the Barnwell LLWR.
Each of the 3 shipping boxes containing the fuel support castings l
and peripheral pieces has 1.2 curies of radioactivity.
The I
shipping box containing the incore instrumentation has
, =
0.8 curies of radioactivity.
In Section 11.4 Sclid l-Radsaste Treatment," of the SNPS Safety Evaluation Report l
(NUREG-0420), prepared in 1981, in connection with the issuance of the Shoreham operating license, the staff estimated that the average volume of solid waste to be
6 i
I e;
)
The Commissioners -
.l
.0 shipped annually from SNPS to a licensed offsite LLWR would be about 14,000 cubic feet and would contain less than 5 curies of radioictivity, The radioactivity of this_shii-ment to the Carnwell LLWR is less than the level the staff considered to be acceptable when licensing SNPS.
I
- Similarly, the direct effects on the environment resulting -
from the transportation and disposal-of such components are within those limits that the NRC previously evaluated in Section 7.2, " Transportation Accidents," of the SNPS Final Environmental Statement (NUREG-0285).
Therefore, the staff-concludes that this shipment should not af feet the public health and safety provided that it is transported in accordance with NRC and the Department of Transporation
. regulations.
The removal'of radioactive components as part of the process of removing the facility " safely from service" and reducing
" residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license" would involve " decommissioning" as defined in 10=CFR 50.2.
HoweVer, as indicated in SECY-90-421, December.27, 1990, a licensee may proceed with some activities such as decontamination, minor component disassembly, and shipment and storage of spent fuel, if these activities are permitted under 10 CFR 50.59.
The associated 10 CFR 50.59 assessment of whether the removal of a component _ involves an "unreviewed safety _ question" (requiring prior NRC approval) turns on whether the assess-ment'is made based.on the effect of such a change for a plant licensed to operate or is based on a plant permanently shut down.
The staff continues to view the possession-only license (POL) as the turning point for such assessments.-
Before the issuance of a POL,.the determination of whether.
NRC approval is required under 10 CFR 50.59 is ~ based on the effect of such a change on the licensed power operation of the plant.
LILCO'.s proposed permanent disposal of the fuel support t-castings and. peripheral pieces is not allowable under 10 CFR 50.59 since SNPS currently has a full power operating license and these components are' required f.or L
power operation.
In addition, disposal of these components goes beyond " minor component disassembly." Thus,-the l'
disposal of these components would be encompassed within the general guideline that the staff has used to determine the start of the " decommissioning" as defined-in 10 CFR 50.2.
That-provision defines the term " decommission" as "to remove (as a' facility) safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license." Since SECY-89-247 was submitted on August 14, i
r
The Commissioners i 1989, the staff has generally considered that a proposed action does not constitute the start of decommissioning if
-that action could be reversed without requiring substantial cost or substantial time.- To " reverse" the current proposed
~
actiorn LILCO would require a substantial amount of time (approximately 60 weeks would be needed to fabricate replace-ment components).
Thus, if this action is authorized, the plant could not be operated for at least 60 weeks for this reason alone.
In CLI-90-08, the Commission decided that the resumption of operation was not an issue that the NRC was required to address in assessing National Environmental Protection Act-(NEPA) alternatives, and that it is solely a licensee's judgment to permanently shut down a facility.
Nonetheless, the. staff has used the standard of reversibility to deter-mine which actions that fall within the definition of
" decommissioning" and require prior NRC approval.
Because the staff considers that " substantial time" would be required to reverse this action proposed by LILCO, it would be considered to be an irreversible. action and, thus, included in the 10 CFR 50.2 definition of " decommissioning."
Therefore, this proposed action requires prior NRC approval.
The staff believes _that it may be acceptable for the NRC to approve decommissioning activities in stages or in individ-ual steps before granting the approval of the final decommissioning plan that is submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82.
If the actions would not foreclose or materially affect the cost of decommissioning options for the facility (although the action obviously affects future options for these particular components), and otherwise satisfies 10 CFR 51.101, such activities could be approved by the staff.
However, such an incremental approval should await 1the submittal of at least preliminary decommissioning information, and we have urged licensees to wait for the approval of a POL before submitting any such requests.
The type of preliminary decommissioning information we would consider necessary to support such actions would be 4
analogous to that information required by 10 CFR 50.75(f).
In its letter of April 16, 1990, LILCO submitted a decommis-sioning report prepared by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) in consultation with the New York Power Authority (NYPA); LILCO has executed a settlement agreement under which it will transfer Shoreham to LIPA for the sole purpose of decommissioning.
The staff has reviewed _this submittal and has found that LIPA's decommissioning report does not provide sufficient information in a number of areas, such as decommissioning funding, to meet the informational require-ments of 10 CFR 50.75(f) or an acceptable equivalent.
- Thus, the staff cannot accept LIPA's decommissioning report as a basis to support any decommissioning work at SNPS.
4 The Commissioners -=
LIPA in its letter of December 29, 1990, submitted a decommissioning plan and a supplement to the Enviro mental Report for SNPS.
The staff is currently reviewing.hese submittals.
The stat'f recognizes that additional guidance may be needed and has sought guidane- -.n this matter in a memorandum to the Commission of Novt er 9, 1990.
The staff has also provided a paper (SECY
- -421) which describes the approach taken and the criteria used in addressing the decommission-ing process for the Fort St. Vrain facility.
The staff has continued to act on the basis of the preexisting guidance and on the basis of the concepts outlined above.
Therefore, the staff proposes to deny LILCO's proposed amendment.
If LILCO continues to assert that the NRC lacks the authority to rule on such a shipment and ur,dertakes to make such shipment despite the NRC's denial of a license amendment, the staff would be prepared to issue an order to prohibit the action.
Recommendation:
Unless the Commission otherwit,e directs within 10 days from the date of this paper, the staff will issue a denial of LILCO's request to ship the 137 fuel castings and 12 peripheral pieces to the Barnwell LLWR for disposal.
T. Tay F E cutive Di ector for Operations St.CY NOTE:
In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on Friday, February 1, 1991 that the Commission, by negative consent, assents to the action proposed in this paper.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissicners OGC IG LSS GPA REGIONS EDO ACRS ACNU ASLBP ASLAP SECY
.