ML20044A550
| ML20044A550 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1990 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044A549 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006290197 | |
| Download: ML20044A550 (5) | |
Text
-. - -. -
i g,
5 1
7590-01 UtilTED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' in the Matter of.
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322
.(ShorehamNuclearPowerStation Unit 1)-
A EXEMPTION w
3 1.
LongIslandLightingCompany(thelicensee)istheholderofFacility Operating License No. NPF-82, which_ authorizes full power operation of the ShorehamNuclearPowerStation(SNPS). The facility is a boiling water reactor, i
currently shutdown and_defueled, located at the licensee's site in Suffolk County, New York. The license provides, among other things, that the licensee is subject to all rules, regulations and orders of the Consiission now or her'.after in effect.
u n
II.
By letter dated December 8, 1989, the licensee requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(o) and, in turn, the requirements of Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50 related to conducting containment leak rate tests.
Pursuant to Appendix J to 10 CFR Part 50, each commercial power ructor-licensee is required to perform periodic tests to demonstrate the integrity of priinary containment. The licensee seeks an exemption from performing these periodic tests. On March 16, 1990, the staff sent a letter to the licensee that provided temporary relief from compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(o) and Appendix J, Sections III.D.1 through III.D.3. This exemption supercedes that temporary March 16, 1990 letter,
[.0
$Dobkbb
[2 P
c, 4. 111.
In its-letter of December 8, 1989 requesting this exemption, the licensee provides justification that the exemption would not pose an " undue risk to the public health and safety" as a basis for granting this exemption, under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12. In addition, the licensee cites three "special circumstances" set forth in 10 CFR 50.12 as applicable to its exemption request.
Because it is contractually obligated not to operate Shoreham--and given that the plant is shutdown and defueled, and the reactor vessel internals are are being removed--the design basis loss-of-coolant accident has no j
significance at Shoreham. Thus, the basis for primary containment leak rate testing to ensure continued integrity of principal fission product barriers to mitigate the consequences of the design basis accident no longer exists. In addition,Shoreham'sTechnicalSpecification(TS)requirementstoconduct primary containment leak rate testing are tied to the plant's operational i
condition. If containment integrity is not maintained, TS require that the plant be placed in cold shutdown. As noted above, the' plant is shutdown and defueled, and the reactor vessel internals have been or are being removed.
. There is no requirement that containment leak rate testing be performed as a i
condition of cold shutdown. The fact that nonperformance of Appendix J testing is consistent with Shoreham's Technical Specifications is cited as further evidence that the requested exemption would not pose an " undue risk" to public health and safety.
As the first "special circumstance" applicable to this exemption, the licensee states that continuing to apply containment leak rate test requirements would neither serve the underlying purpose of Appendix J, nor is such testing
.necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. As noted above, the
. purpose of requiring containment leak rate tests is to ensure that there will-not be an uncontrolled release of radioactive material as a result of the failureofthetwootherprincipalfissionproductbarriers(fuelcladdingand L
l reactorcoolantsystem)duringanaccident. Specifically, the design basis ac:ident that is assumed to occur is the standard loss-of-coolant accident c'escribed in Chapter 15, Accident Analysis, of the Shoreham USAR. With fuel removed from the reactor vessel and stored in the fuel pool, such an accident is not credible at Shoreham.
As part of its second "special circumstance", LILCO states that contucting Appendix J containment leak rate testing would result in undue f
hardship and costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation was adopted. Specifically, it costs LILC0 approximately
$138,000 to perform a Type A containment integrated leak rate test, and approximately $445,000 to conduct the Type B and C local le:.k rate tests each 18-24 month' cycle. Powever, and as explained above, with Shoreham shutdown and defueled, performance of Appendix J testing will not result.in any increased protection of public health and safety. The costs incurred by LILCO as an NRC licensee will be reflected in the rates paid by the Company's customers. Thus, requiring LILC0 to conduct Appendix J testing imposes an undue hardship.on both LILCO and its ratepayers.
The remainder of the second "special circumstance" relates to LILCO's assertion that reouiring compliance with Appendix J would subject it to costs that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated. That is, the NRC has granted exemptions from Appendix J to other
.~.
y.l
~
4 utilities in similar situations. As examples, LILCO cites the Appendix J Type AexemptiongrantedBostonEdisenCompany(BEco)forPilgrimNuclearPower Station in December 1986, and the Type B and C exemption granted the Tennessee Valley Authority for its Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, in July 1988.
As its third "special circunstance" under 10 CFR 50.12, LILCO states that this exemption is only temporary, because it would terminate should the plant be placed in some Operational Condition (mode) for which Primary Containment Integrity is required. In addition, LILCO notes that it has made a good faith effort to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J in the past. LILCO cites tests conducted when it received its fuel loading license in 1984, and subsequent' tests conducted in 1986 and 1987.
Based on its review of the exemption request, the Comission finds that granting l
this exemption presents no undue risk to the public health and safety and special circumstances exist as set forth in 10 CFR 50.12.
IV.
The NRC may grant exemptions from the requirements of regulations that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), are (1) authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the comon defense and security, and (2) present specia' circumstances.
The Comission has reviewed the licersee's request for this exemption from
'1 therequirementsof10CFRPart50,10CFR50.54(o)and10CFRPart50 Appendix i
J containment leak rate testing. The Comission finds that the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the comon defense and security. Further, the licensee has shown special circumstances as described above.
i l
i
~
?
6 j Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, th1 Commission has determined that the issuance of this exemption from 10 CFR 50 etppendix J 1eak rate testing will have no significant impact on the environmant (55 FR 25753 ).
Accordingly, the Commission hereby approves the following exemption:
The licensee is exempt from performing containment leak rate testing-requiredby10CFR50.54(o)and10CFRPart50,AppendixJ,aslongas Shoreham Unit i remains shutdown, defueled and in Operational Condition 5 (ShutdownorRefuel).
s The licensee's letter, dated December 8, 1989, the NRC staff's letter dated March 16, 1990, and the NRC staff's letter and Safety Evaluation dated 6/25/90
, related to this action are available for public. inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. and the Shoreham-Wading River Public Library, Route 25A, Shoreham, New York 11786.
The exemption is effective upon issuance.
F0 E NUC R
ATORY COMMISSION Division of Reactor P ects I/II Office of Nuclear Rea r Regulation Dated at Rockville Maryland this 25 day of dune 1990.
w