ML20057F226

Safety Evaluation Supporting Exemption Request from Requirements of 10CFR50.54(q) for License NPF-82

ML20057F226
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	09/30/1993
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20057F208	List: ML20057F207 ML20057F219 ML20057F226
References
NUDOCS 9310140311
Download: ML20057F226 (7)

Text

1 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS SUPPORTING AN EXEMPTION FROM 10 CFR 50.54fo)

FACILITY LICENSE NO. NFP-82 SH0REHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION. UNIT 1 (SNPS)

DOCKET NO. 50-322

1.0 INTRODUCTION

By letter dated January 26,1993, Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) of the [ ode of Federal Reaulations. Section 50.54(q) of 10 CFR Part 50 requires a licensee authorized to possess a nuclear power reactor to follow and maintain in effect emergency plans that meet the standards of 10 CFR 50.47(b), and the requirements of Appendix E, to 10 CFR Part 50.

LIPA's request for this exemption was made pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 1

50.12, which, in part, state that the Commission may, upon application, grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of this part, which are:

l

"(1) Authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security.

l (2) The Commission will not consider granting an exemption unless special circumstances are present.

Special circumstances are present whenever--

...(11) Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule; or (iii) Compliance would result in undue hardship or other costs that are significantly in excess of those incurred by others similarly situated...."

2.0 BACKGROUND

SNPS is a boiling-water reactor located in the town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York, about 50 miles east of New York City on the north shore of Long Island. The SNPS license was amended on July 19, 1991, to authorize possession-only, but not operation, of the reactor located at Wading River, New York. SNPS has been shut down since February 28, 1989, and only operated intermittently at low-power levels during the period July 1985 and June 1987. At the time of the plant's final shutdown, in June 1957, the average fuel burnup was calculated to be approximately two effective full-power days.

Fuel removal from the reactor was completed in August 1989, and all the fuel assemblies are currently stored i

in the Spent Fuel Storage Pool.

Because the fuel heat decay rate is low (220 watts), active cooling of the fuel is not required.

In addition, LIPA has I

entered into a contract with Philadelphia Electric Company to sell the fuel, and anticipates initial fuel transfer to begin in September 1993, and be completed by December 1994.

9310140311 930930 PDR ADDCK 05000322 le F

PDR L

l

.2 The Order Authorizing Decommissioning was issued June 11, 1992.

SNPS is currently in the process of-being decommissioned, and the decommissioning of SNPS is approximately 75 percent complete. LIPA estimates that the facility license will be terminated and the facility will be released for unrestricted use in 1995.

3.0 EVALUATION 3.1 The Exemption Is Authorized by law LIPA maintains that the exemption is fully authorized by law.

The NRC staff agrees with LIPA's contention and has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, this exemption is authorized by law.

3.2 The Exemotion Would Present No Undue Risks to Public Health and Safety On July 31, 1990, LIPA was granted partial relief from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q). The July 31, 1990, exemption granted LIPA relief from the requirements to maintain off-site emergency response capability, and the SNPS Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan (DEPP) was implemented to address on-site emergency response.

LIPA is currently requesting an exemption from the DEPP. Granting an exemption to SNPS is a warranted case because: 1) SNPS is now permanently shut down; 2) the decommissioning of SNPS is now approximately 75 percent complete, and nearly all the radioactive material except for the fuel has been removed from the site; 3) SNPS is permanently defueled, and the fuel source term inventory and decay heat are even lower than the levels that existed in 1990 when relief from off-site emergency response was granted; 4) there is an insignificant radiological risk to offsite population from any credible accident scenario; and

5) SNPS has existing plant procedures to address any events that may require an emergency response.

Both the "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Defueled Safety Analysis Report" (DSAR) and the approved "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning Plan" (DP) analyzed several accident scenarios. The worst-case accident scenario was the fuel damage accident analyzed in Chapter 15 of the DSAR. In summary, the worst-case fuel damage accident assumed all 560 fuel-element assemblies being damaged, and the release of all their fission gases, with no credit taken for containment isolation and filtration of fission products.

The assumption of a complete release of gaseous inventory is very conservative.

Regulatory Guide 1.25,

" Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors" recommends a 30 percent release fraction for a low burnup condition. Even with an extremely conservative analysis, the whole-body dose to an individual located at the exclusion area is 1.08 mrems.

This is considerably less than 1 percent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's

" Protective Action Guidelines" dose of 1000 mrems requiring protective action.

For a defueled reactor such as SNPS, the underlying risks are small, compared with an operating reactor.

In addition, LIPA has developed and implemented emergency operating procedures and station procedures to respond to plant events. These procedures provide for appropriate notifications to, response actions by, and staff augmentations.

l i

3 j

~

Events covered include natural hazards, fuel handling accidents,

fires, contaminated / injured individuals, and several other events. The staff agrees that t

the procedures address all credible events, and these procedures will remain in effect upon granting of the exemption.

Based on review of a LIPA analysis of possible events at SNPS, the staff concurs l

with LIPA's analysis and concludes that there is no credible accident at SNPS, l

in its present mode, that could result in the release of radioactive materials to the environment in quantities that would require protective actions for the public.

Because there is no credible accident at SNPS, in its present state, that could result in the release of radioactive materials to the environment in quantities that would require protective actions for the public, the staff concars with LIPA's contention that the continued implementation of the "Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan," at an annual cost of $500,000, poses an undue hardship and is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.

3.3 The Exemption Would Be Consistent with Common Defense and Security LIPA believes and the staff concurs that the requested exemption is consistent with the common defense and security.

LIPA has proposed no changes, either to the SNPS physical security or fire protection programs, that could compromise the safeguarding of the remaining spent fuel.

i

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION

S i

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and i

finding of no significant impact has been prepared and published in the Federal i

Reaister, September 22, 1993, 58 FR 49332.

The NRC has determined that the

[

issuance of the exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.

5.0 AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED The State of New York was notified of the proposed issuance of the exemption.

7 The State Official stated that the State had no comments on the proposed exemption.

6.0 CONCLUSION

S i

The staff concludes that the special circumstances of both 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) exist. The staff further concludes, based on the considerations above, that: (1) the granting of an exemption is authorized by law, would not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously evaluated, nor create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated, and does not result in any reduction in a margin r

of safety; (2) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner; (3) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations; and (4) the issuance of the exemption will not be inimical to the common defense and l

i l

f I

4 security, nor to the health and safety of the public..Thus the NRC finds LIPA's request for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q). should be granted.

Principal Contributor: Clayton L. Pittiglio, Jr.

Date:

SEE O O N3 TAC #50286

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE DISTRIBUTION: Central File NMSS r/f LLWM r/f JSurmeier MBell MWeber TCJohnson JKinneman/RI OC/LFMB JCopeland SWeiss NMEuf Kras duke d MRKIS6]' IlB5Mes/fii?C0hdbrfsn/NRRc' iBi bili;(t'610s f% elDijtfi bd {i'6s TCop)WsfsFehss i s

In small Box on *0FCi"~line enter: C = Cover E = Cover & Enclosure N = No" Copy 0FC LLDR*

E LLOR*

OGC*

L LD*

NRI7 th dk REkkson PLNJ)

IbOves NAME CPittiglio LBell RFonner b-t-

DATE f/f/93

(,/8'/93 4 /# 93 P/#)93

$/7/93 9[/93

-l jY/93 Path & File Name:s:\\llwmtype\\cecilia\\SNPPEXEM OFFICIAL RECORD COPY fn small Box on "DATE:" line place a: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy H = Hard Copy PDR :

YES X_.

NO Category:

Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:

YES NO X_

Delete file after distribution Yes X No _

IG:

YES N 0.3--

4

/

j security, nor to the health and safety oVthe public.

Thus the staff finds LIPA's request for an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(q) should be granted.

,/

Principal Contributor: Clayton,E'Pittiglio, Jr.

Date:

/

7

/

,/

/

l i

/

/

J' s

,/

/

/

TAC #50286

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE DISTRIBUTION:

Central file NMSS r/f LLWM r/f JSurmeier PLohaus MWeber TCJohnson JKinneman/RI OC/LFMB

1. aWSisi.ll?peland JCo Boies..EiriEC6hcuffinc/NRR SWeiss NMSS:EKraus:TechEd WB1oeCtilDefine?Di'stN bdtioh7 6 "0FCi""lihe~ent'$ri~C"= Cbvbr E'="CoVeF & Enclb' pFPfefe~ fence 2 C

g.

7 surs"N T No" Copy 0FC LLDR*

LLDR*

OGC*

LLDL

1. ~

LLWM LLWM JAdin PLohaus JGreeves NAME CLPittiglio LBell RFonner DATE F//fb3 Path & File Name:s:\\llwmtype\\cecilia\\SNPPEXEM OFFICIAL RECORD COPY In small Box on "DATE:" line place a: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy H = Hard Copy PDR :

YES

.l.

NO Category:

Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:

YES NO 1 Delete file after distribution Yes x No IG:

YES N0 g

4 security, nor to the health and safety of the public. 'Thus the staff finds LIPA's request for an exemption from the requirements'of 10 CFR 50.54(q) should be granted.

f j

Principal Contributor: Clayton L. PittigTio, Jr.

Date:

/

/

./

i i

DISTRIBUTION:

Central File NMSS r/f LLWM r/f JSurmeier PLohaus MWeber TCJohnson JKinneman, RI OC/LFMB JCopeland NMSS:EKraus:TechEd MaElifSmal..U Bo..W"0FCi"' lins ~enteFf' C"= Cover E'=' CovsF f Ericlos'urs N ="NFCopy xes iMConbudenc~ ElBlo6k!to Difine70TstHlist" ion + Copy!PrEferenesi V

g pg

^

0FC LLQRn/) 6 LLDR E

OGC LLDR LLWM LLWM Nfkiglio LBe1TP 6 v RFonner JAustin EWBrach RBangart NAME b[8[f3

[///99 DATE Path & File Name:s:\\llwmtype\\cecilia\\SNPPEXEM OFFICIAL RECORD COPY In small Box on "DATE:" Ifne place a: M = E-Mai1 Distribution Copy H = Hard Copy PDR :

YES NO Category: Proprietary or CF Only ACNW:

YES NO Delete file after distribution Yes '

No IG:

YES NO

'h,' -h 7

l i, jb;.3 ); /

i i