ML20043J085
| ML20043J085 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/14/1990 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20043J081 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006270264 | |
| Download: ML20043J085 (5) | |
Text
..
M.
.l La m Clo '
s UNITED STATES :
g+
g, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 7.
-l_
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655
\\..<*/
l
?
SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION
-SUPPORTING AMENDMENT NO.
4 TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-82 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY SH0kEHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-322
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated January 5,1990 and supplemented by(LILCO): requested anlet 1990, Long Island Lighting Company (the licensee) amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-82 for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.
The supplemental letter did not change the original intent of the application request and did not affect the staff's.
original no significant hazards determination. The proposed amendment would allow the revision of-the Physical Security Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1. This revision involves the reclassification of certain portions of the 31 ant currently designated as " Vital Areas" or
" Vital Equipment." These c1anges w'ould.also eliminate or modify certain other safeguards comitments that reflect this reclassification. One of the modifications is to reduce the security force consistent with the objectives of the revised security prograni for fuel storage in'the spent 3
fuel pool.
)
2.0 EVALUATION Thegeneralperformanceobjectiveandrequirementsof10CFR73.55(a) s)ecify that the physical protection program shall provide high. assurance t1at activities involving special nuclear materials are not hazardous to the comon defense and security and do not constitute an unreasonable risk to the public-health'and safety. The revision to the Physical Security Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, continues to meet theseperformanceobjectivesbasedon(1)thedefueledconditionofthe l
plant, which reduces the potential for an act of radiological sabotage that-would cause a radiological effluent release resulting in radiation L
doses which exceed the 10 CFR Part 100 limits, and (2) the staff's Confirmatory Order of March 29, 1990, which prohibits LILCO from placing 1
any nuclear fuel back into the Shoreham reactor vessel without previous I
approval from the NRC.
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendments involve a finding of no significant hazards consideration, which was published as a Notice in the Federal Register (55 FR 10540) on March 21, 1990, and
. consulted with the State of New York. Accordingly, the Notice afforded the Licensee an opportunity to request a hearing, and provided that "any-9006270264 900614 PDR ADOCK 05000322 P
~
'tj 1
4,*.
4 3
- ;N; y
-2 F
person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding" must file a written petitien for o
leave to intervene, within 30 days, in accordance with the provisions of
' n 10 CFR 2.714. Any such petitions were required to " set forth with particularity the interest of the
)etitioner in-the proceeding, and how e
that interest may be affected by tie results of the proceeding."
4f In response to the published Notice, on April 20, 1990, petitions for 1
..h leave to intervene and requests for hearin j'
Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE 2")g were filed by Scientists and and the Shoreham-Wading River l
CentralScheolDistrict(" District"). Therein, the Petitioners argued p'*
that their interests would be adversely affected by the Application, based on their-view that it constitutes merely one part of Shoreham's 4<
decomissioning and that "the proposed reduction of physical security of 1'
vital plant systems compounded by a reduction in on-site security personnel would unacceptably increase the risk of radiological sabotage and hence adversely affect the radiological health and safety of Petitioner, its students, its employees, and their property." The Petitioners further contend that.the Application will have an adverse impact upon the following asserted interests:
1.
The threat of (unspecified) " distinct injuries in fact as a direct L
consequence of the proposed amendment";
2.
The alleged " endanger [ ment of] the health and safety of Petitioners' members during this unapproved decomissioning," resulting from "LILCO's efforts to save money by shutting down all operations, slashing staff and permanently defueling the reactor";
3.
"[S]everely increased... radiological health and safety risks" to p
the Petitioners and their members, allegedly caused by LILCO's
" continuous refusal to abide by the terms of its Operating License";
i 4
SE 2 and its members' " interest in the radiologically safe and environmentally benign operation of Shoreham to provide them with reliable electricity and to avoid the substitution of fossil fuel plants," which would pose adverse effects on the environment, the trade deficit, the nation's energy security, and the adverse health consequences of air pollution; 5.
The District's purported interest in "the health and environment of almost 2000 students and 500 employees, who live and/or work in close proximity to the Shoreham facility, from both the possible radiological impacts of the proposed amendment and the adverse health and other-environmental consequences of non-operation of Shoreham" such as would be caused by fossil fuel replacement plants;
. E:
m
L t
s
- b..
9_.
t 4 '
- 6.
Petitioners' reliance upon LILCO to_ meet their energy.needs, and their " interest in ensuring that an adequate and reliable supply of
' electricity will be available to meet their-needs and that the electricity provided is available'at reasonable rates" which interest 1
wouldbeadverselyaffectedby"[a]ctionstodismantlethefacility-and build substitute oil-or gas burning plants";
- 7.
The District's economic interest in preserving Shoreham's value as-an operating plant, in that it allegedly provides "approximately ninety-percent of the School District's tax base"; and, 8.
SE 2's interest in opposing agency actions which interfere with'that-organization's informational purposes, caused by the Staff's pur)orted refusal to conduct an environmental impact statement (EIS), whici allegedly deprives SE 2 of its ability to connent on such an EIS, to advise its members of the environmental risks of alternative actions, and to report the findings to its members and to political leaders.-
. The reclassification of certain portions of vital areas and vital couipment, based in part on'a Spent. Fuel Safety Analysis of August 1989, still provides for the necessary protection of those plant systems and equipment required to support fuel being stored in the spent fuel pool.. Those areas no longer classified as vital contain no equipment required to mitigate the results of en incident associated with spent fuel. The access control 3
requirements and record requirements for vital areas contained in 10 CFR i
- 73.55(d) are being maintained. The NRC will require the reestablishment of a security program that meets the appropriate regulations'for an-i operating plant if LILC0 decides to refuci the Shoreham plant as part of 1
the NRC approval.
-The reduction ef the size'of the security force is consistent with the y
objective: of the revised security plan, NUREG-0907, " Acceptance Criteria E
for htermining Armed Response Force Size at Nuclear Power Plants," and is in accordance with 10 CFR 73.55(h)(3). The-number of armed responders remains within acceptable limits and does not reduce the ability to.
u fulfill the response requirements. This level of security is acceptable e
L partly because fewer areas require responses, the remaining vital areas
~
- are concentrated, fewer visitors enter the facility, and fewer alarms can be activated.
The licensee has retained all the necessary connitments in their proposed security plan to continue meeting the recuirements of 10 CFR 73.55, as applicable to the Operating License and cefueled plant status. These commitments include-armed response, protected area security, access i
authorization program, fitness-for-duty, selected access controls, and i
features of the " Final Secur'+y Settlement Agreement" with Suffolk County and NRC that are necessary meet federal regulations.
J l
o i
y",
.4.
3.0 FINAL NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARts CONSIDERATION FINDING The Comission has provided standards for determining whether a significant hazards consideration exists as stated in 10 CFR 50.92. A proposed amendment to an operating license for a facility involves no significant hazards consideration if operation of the facility in accordance with a prosnsed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the pro > ability or consequtnces of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. A discussion of'these standards as they relate to the amendment request follows (1) Do the proposed changet involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
This change allows the reclassification of certain portions of the plant currently designated as " Vital Areas" or " Vital Equipment" and a reduction in the security force. The purpose of these security requirements is to protect against acts of radiological sabotage and the theft of special nuclear materials. Because these changes create no new sabotage scenarios, there is no significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Do the preposed changes create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
These changes do not result in any physical chang 6. to the facility affecting a safety system, and with the plant in a defueled condition there is a reduction in the potential for an act of radiolocical sabotage. Therefore, the proposed changes will not create the possibility of an accident that is new er of a different kind from those previously evaluated.
(3) Do the proposed changes involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety?
These changes do not involve a reduction in any margin of safety.
The Security plan will continue to maintain a level of protection that is adequate to meet an act of " Radiological Sabotage:
as referredin10CFR73.2(a)."
t Nothing in the submissions of the petitioners affects these conclusions and the Evaluation set out above as petitioners have failed to show or set out l
with particularity how the proposed emendment to revise the physical Security plan for the Shoreiam facility to allow reclassification of currently designated " Vital Areas" or " Vital Equipment" would increase the probebility or consequence of a previously evaluated accident, create the possibility of a new or different type of accident, or cause a significant decrease in a margin of safety, considering the defueled condition of the plant and the Confirmatory Order of Merch 29, 1990, prohibiting the placement of fuel in the Shoreham reac w vessel.
)
l
Based on the above discut e ns, the staff has reached a final finding that the requested amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
4.0 ENVIR0t!PFNTAL CONSIDERATION This amendment relates solely to safeguards matters and does not involve any significant construction impacts. Accordingly, this amendment meets i
the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(12). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.
5.0 CONCLUSION
The Comission made a proposed determination that the amendnent involves I
no significant hazards consideration which was published in the Federal RETORT.(55 FR 10540) on March 21The State of New York dId not have Recister 1990 and consulted with the 5 tate of 1990 cour.sel for the Shoreham-Wading River Central Schoci District; and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc., filed vith the Comission, Petitions to Intervene and Requests for Hearing. The staff discussed these corraents above and reached a final finding that this amendment j
involves no significant hazards consideration, j
The staff has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that:
(1) the amendment does not (a) significantly increase the prcbability or consenuances of an accident previously evaluated. (b) increase the possibiW/ of a new or different kind of accident from ary previously evaluated c,i (c) significantly reduce a safety margin and, therefore, the amendment does not involve a significant hazards consideration; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the pro >osed manner, and (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance witi the Comission's regulations and the issuance of this emendment will not be inimical to the commen defense and security nor to the health and safety cf the public.
Dated: June 14, 1990 e
Princirsl Contributors:
E. McPeek S. Brown
!