ML20056A202
| ML20056A202 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1990 |
| From: | Varga S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20056A198 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9008060130 | |
| Download: ML20056A202 (7) | |
Text
.... -.
7590-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
}
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
EXEMPTION 1.
Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO or the licensee) is the holder of Facility Operating License No. NPF-82, which authorizes operation of Shoreham-Nuclear Power Station (the facility) at steady-state reactor power levels not in excess of 2,436 megawatts thermal.
The license provides, among other.-
things, that it is subject to all rules, regulations and Orders of the Nuclear.
Regulatory Connission (the Commission or NRC) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of a boiling water reactor located'at the licensee's site in Suffolk County, New York. The facility is currently shut down and defueled.
II, j
Section 50.54(q) of 10 CFR Part 50 requires'a licensee authorized to 1
operate a nuclear power reactor to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans which meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Section50.47(b)providesthatbothoffsite-l and onsite emergency plans must meet the standards specified in subparagraphs (1)through(16)of$50.47(b). With respect to offsite emergency preparedness, LILCO states that an exemption from 950.54(q) is necessary because, with the elimination of the Local Emergency Response Grganization (LERO) and the cessation of offsite emergency planning for Shoreham, LILCO will no longer meet.
the emergency preparedness standards for offsite preparedness that are listed 9008060130 900731 3
DR ADOCK0500g2
c
. in 650.47(b) and in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.
With respect to onsite preparedness, LILCO states that an exemption is necessary because, given certain changes associated with the implementation of the Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan (DEPP).LILCO will no longer meet some of the standards specifiedin650.47(b)(3),.(5),and(7).
In, articular, LILCO will not meet the standards for onsite preparedness because under the DEPP the Emergency Operations Facility will be eliminated, the prompt notification (siren) systent will not be utilized, and public information materials will not be distributed to residents of the 10-mile Emergency Planning Zone.
The llRC may grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations which, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), are authorized by law, will-not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security.
Further,10CFR50.12(a)(2)providesthatthe Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present. At least two of the special circumstances enumerated in 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2) apply to Shoreham's situation:
1 (ii) Application of the regulation.in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule and is not necessary to achieve its underlying purpose; and (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are 1
significantly in excess of those contemplated when the regulation j
vas adopted or that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated.
III.
By letter dated December 15, 1989, the licensee requested an exemption from the emergency preparedness requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) based on the facility's defueled condition.
The licensee referenced in its letter the Settlement Agreement with the State of New York whereby Shoreham would not be
l
- l operated under LILCO ownership. As part of the agreement, the Shoreham reactor has been defueled and all irradiated fuel has been stored in the Spent Fuel Pool.
In a letter to the NRC dated January 12, 1990, the licensee committed to not place nuclear fuel back in the Shoreham reactor without prior NRC i
approval. On March 29, 1990, the NRC issued a confirmatory order prohibiting the licensec from placing any nuclear fuel into the Shoreham reactor without prior approval from the NRC.
(55FR12758)
The licensee's December 15, 1989 submittal included a technical report,
" Radiological Safety Analysis for Spent Fuel Storage and Handling " which assesses the radiological consequences of fuel handling accidents for Shoreham in its present defueled configuration.
The safety analysis establishes that Shoreham'sspentfuelisinalowburnupcondition(equivalenttotwofull i
power days) and that the amount of decay heat being generated by the fuel in l
l the spent fuel pool as of June 1989 is negligible -- approximately 550 watts.
With the fuel in such a low burnup condition, the safety analysis indicates that active systems for pool water makeup are not required and that passive cooling in the fuel pool is sufficient to maintain fuel cladding integrity.
Based on its :afety analysis, LILCO has determined that the consequences of previously evaluated accidents are greatly decreased given Shoreham's non-operating, defueled status. The safety analysis reviews the spectrum of accidentsevaluatedintheShorehamUpdatedSafetyAnalysisReport(USAR) and identifies those events that apply to the storage and handling of spent fuel. Two events have been.found to be relevant:
(1) Fuel-HandlingAccident
[USAR Section 15.1.36], and (2) Liquid Radwaste Tank Rupture [USAR Section15.1.32].
For the Fuel-Handling Accident, the safety analysis calculates that the integrated whole body dose (1.74E-06 rem) is_well below
. the Environmental Protection Agency's Protective Action Guides (EPA PAGs) for protecting the public from exposure (1-5 rem whole body dose). For the Liquid Radwaste Tank Rupture, the whole body dose (1.80E-08 rem) is also much less than the EPA PAG limits. The safety analysis also postulates a " worst case" radiological event, in which the total gaseous inventory of the core is released.
For this event the whole body dose (1.08E-03 rem) is still well below the EPA PAG limits.
Based on a review of LILC0's analysis of possible events at Shoreham, the Comission concurs with the analysis and concludes that there is no credible accident for Shoreham in the defueled condition which could result in the release of radioactive materials to the environment in quantities which would require protective actions for the public.
The licensee intends to maintain a level of emergency preparedness that is commensure.te with the lessened risks associated with a defueled Shoreham when the licensee receives the requested exemption.
The licensee's submittal includes a proposed Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan (DEPP) which LILCO would implement in lieu of the current Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency l
Preparedness Plan.
In con h netion with implementation of the DEPP, LILCO will disband the Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) and cease all offsite emergency planning and preparedness activities for Shoreham.
The NRC staff has reviewed the Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan based on the acceptance criteria included in the planning standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b),
the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR 50, and the guidance criteria of NUREG-065/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Procedures in Support of Nuclear d
w
l
,,
- e,
i
.o 5-Power Plants," dated November, 1980.
The staff review took into consideration the current defueled condition and inherent low risk of Shoreham. The NRC staff also reviewed the Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan based on the requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(d) for a license authorizing only fuel loading and low power testing. The requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(d) address the lower risk associated with low power operation and are generally appropriate for reviewing the offsite aspects of the Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan.
Based'on this review, the Commission has concluded that the Shoreham Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan provides an adequate basis for an acceptable state of emergency preparedness for Shoreham in its non-operating and defueled condition, and the plan provides reasonable assurance _that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radio-logical emergency at Shoreham.
IV.
The licensee's request for exemption, based on the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.12, is reasonable in light of the highly reduced offsite radiological risk associated with Shoreham's non-operating and'defueled condition. The requested exemption is (1) authorized by law, is consistent with the common defense and security, and will not present an undue risk to the tublic health mi safety, and (2) presents special circumstances.
Regarding the existence of special circumstances which justify the exemption,-
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) applies to Shoreham's situation.
For operating nuclear plants, emergency planning is essential to safety-and the NRC's emergency planning regulations exist to ensure that adequate protective measures can and will be taken to protect the public health and safety in the event of a radiological e
a a
.o<
.f
- emergency. The Comission concurs in LILCO's analysis that no credible accident can occur at Shoreham in its defueled configuration that would adversely affect the public health and safety in terms of offsite emergency preparedness.
Considering the oefueled condition and low-burnup fuel at Shoreham, requiring LILCO to continue to meet the full range of NRC's emergency planning regulations is not necessary in' order to achieve the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(q).
With the level of emergency preparedness provided by the DEPP, LILCO will be fully capable of responding adequately to the spectrum of credible accidents that could occur at Shoreham in its defueled condition.
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(iii) also applies to Shoreham's situation.
The licensee states that it spends approximately $7. million annually to maintain its current level of emergency preparedness.
Incompliancewith10CFR550.54(q) and certain conditions in Shoreham's license, the LERO organization continues to be maintained and trained to respond to an accident that cannot credibly occur at Shoreham in its defueled condition. Currently, LILCO is required to regularly train LERO workers and conduct drills on a quarterly basis. Moreover, in the absence of an exemption, LILCO will be required, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.IV.F, to conduct a full participation exercise of its offsite emergency plan by the end of 1990. Conducting such an exercise, which would also involve the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the NRC, would require an extensive amount of resources and effort. Based on Shoreham's defueled, low-burnup. condition, this expenditure is unnecessary and presents an undue hardship on the licensee.
l
y 9.- <
,o;
?
7 i
i For these reasons, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, (1) the exemption requested by the licensee's letter dated December 15, 1969, 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, and(2)specialcircumstancesarepresentasdescribedabove.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the following exemption:
"The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is exempt from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) for emergency preparedness, provided.that: (1) the reactor is void of all fuel assemblies; (2) the spent fuel, with a burnup of approximately two effective full-power days, is stored in the spent fuel storage pool, or other approved storage configuration; and (3) the.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan is implemented.
This Exemption will remain in effect unless and until revoked by the Comission.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Comission has previously determined that the granting of this Exemption wi" have no significant impact on the environment l
(55 FR 31111).
i This exemption is effective upon issuance.
FOR THE NtlCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
Wa,
ire Division of Reactor P cts - I/II Office of Nuclear React Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 31stday of July,1990 l
1