ML20059A458
| ML20059A458 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick, Shoreham, 07109001 File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/14/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | NEW JERSEY, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19311B154 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, MISC-93-01, MISC-93-1, NUDOCS 9310260338 | |
| Download: ML20059A458 (4) | |
Text
I g-322 7/( 900l
.n UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
'93 T 14 ' 29 In the Matter Of STATE OF NEW JERSEY Docket No. Misc. 93-01 Department of Law and Public Safety's Requests, dated October 8, 1993.
SERVED 0CT 141993 ORDER The State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety
(" State of New Jersey" or " State") lodged with the Secretary of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and with the Executive Director of Operations a document captioned as follows:
4 RE:
A REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION BY THE NUCLEAR REGULATORLCORDEISSION,. OR. ater myr'TvELL A -
Wyg;,,,.
PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, AND REQUEST FOR K HEARING PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DOCKET NOS. 50-352 AND 50-353, LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA j
LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, DOCKIT NO. 50-322, SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK and dated October 8, 1993 (New Jersey's filing).
The request in New Jersey's filing for immediate action invoked our procedures under 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206, and the request
]
is currently under review by the Director of the cognizant NRC office.
25:079 oI D7 9310260338 93101 b${.
fl??-
f E"h gDR ADOCK 05000322 1
i
(
C/ritifz : 1lft 1%L jpf
s:
.. With respect to the State's alternative request, characterized as a petition to intervene and request for a hearing, it appears that the state believes it "has. good cause" to be granted late intervention and a hearing on Philadelphia Electric Company's (PECO's) license amendment allowing it to i
receive and possess Shoreham's fuel (New Jersey's filing at 44) and that the Commission erred in not offering intervention and a i
i hearing on Long Island Power Authority's (LIPA's) " transfer and transportation of the [Shoreham] fuel."
Id. at 46.
In this light, the Commission requests answers to two questions:
(1) Whether at this time either matter referenced by the State gives rise to any hearing right under Fiction 189 of the Atoraic Energy Act?
and, if so, (2) Based on the State's October 8, 1993 submittal, does New Jersey meet the applicable standards for intervention under 10 C.F.R.- 522 2147
- gg3, In the interests of expedition the commission is asking for simultaneous responses, not to exceed 10 pages to be filed by the State, PECO and LIPA and served on the other specified responders by 4 p.m Wednesday, October 20.
NRC staff may file by noon Friday, October 22.
Any responder who wishes may file a brief j
reply, not to exceed 5 pages, by noon, Tuesday, October 26.
No
-. e i
f f
I
- e,
-3 Other responses will be permitted.
All filinas are
- be faxed Or hand-dalivered. (Fax 301-504-1672).
For the Commission, o
,3 l
r
k C
j O
~
S L J.
CHILK I**t#
Secreta f the Commis on Dated a gockville, Maryland day of October, 1993 this j
giv f,-
n l
i l
)
)
~
1 3..
5.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
In -.e Matter of STATE OF NEW JERSEY Docket No.(s) "ISC. 93-01
'l (Decartment of Law and Public Safety's Requests)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing C0ffqISSION ORDER DTD 10/14/93
)
have been served upon. the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except
~'
as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.
9
- Thomas A. Borden, Esq.
- tawrence J. Chandler, Esq.
Deputy' Attorney General Office of the General Counsel New Jersey Department of Environmental U.S. Nuclear Rr.gulatory Commission Protection and Energy Washington, DC 20555 Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex Trenton, NJ.08625
- Robert Rader, Esq.-
- Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq.
Kirkpatrick &' Lockhart Winston & Strawn 1800 fi Street, NW, South Lobby, 9th Fl.1400 L Street, N.W.
Washington; DC' 20036 Mlfashingtain?DC 20005
'M9" -
l 4
1 Dated at Rockville, Md. this j
14 day of October 1993 s
k &J
.L Office of'the Secretary of the Commission
]
- FJdiD DELIVERED
- FAXED
)
l
^
EA M
g:..{
vw?
\\
a e r z u c a r, r,o n,w e y,, a, t u r n a '
Statt af Nem 3ctseg j
g NANNh DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PUBLIC SAFETY
- ^"
"* *^*"
XXXXXXXXXXX DIVISION OF LAW RICHAPD J. HUGHE5 JUSDCE COMPLEX Ass s wT on EfAt CN 093 OIRECTOR TPENTON 08C25 (609) 633-8109 October 8, 1993 James M.
Taylor Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Samuel J.
Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Attention:
'n Occketing end Service Branch RE:
A REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION BY THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, OR ALTERNATIVELY, A PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE, AND REQUEST FOR A HEARING
{
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, DOCKET NOS.
I 50-352 AND 50-353, LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, l
{
LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY, DOCKET NO.
50-322, SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
- STATION,
Dear Executive Director and Secretary:
Please accept the following request and petition on behalf of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
("NJDEPE").
NJDEPE hereby submits a request for immediate action in accordance with 10 C. F. R. 9 2.206 above captioned licenses including a stay of the licenses..
Alternatively, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714, NJDEPE
/
Q h{
~ fb dfj?<
EDO --- 0090 7 y.,
New Jersey is An E* qual OpgomaamW--
~~
~
l i
.~
t hereby files a petition for leave to intervene, and a request for a hearing.
This request involves the transfer and transport of irradiated fuel from Long Island Power Authority's ("LIPA")
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Philadelphia Electric Company's
("PECo")
Limerick Generating Station.
Despite NJDEPE's continuing efforts to obtain injunctive relief in the federal courts, the barge shipments began on September 24, 1993 and several shipments have docked at Eddystone, Pennsylvania.
Shipments are expected to continue every five to ten days until the campaign of 33 shipments is completed.
As discussed more fully below, NJDEPE maintains in this request and petition that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's i
staff ("NRC") has violated the National Environmental Policy Act
("NEPA"),
42 U.S.C.
SS 4321 et seq.,
the Coastal Zone i
Management Act ("CZMA"),
16 U.S.C.
SS 1451 e_t seq.,
and the Atomic Energy Act
("AEA"),
42 U.S.C.
SS 2011 et seq.,
by allowing the ongoing transfer and transport of LIPA's fuel to proceed absent any consideration of the potential effects on New Je'rsey's coastal zone, any case specific environmental impact analysis, or any consideration of alternatives to the means of transportation.
NRC staff published PECo's license amendments to receive and possess LIPA's fuel on July 7,
1993.
The environmental assessment ("EA") for PECo was published on May 18, 1993.
The main flaw in this process is that PECo's environmental report 2
i t-
l l
.~
and NRC's EA were prepared when the fuel was to be transported by rail through New York and Pennsylvania. The only means of transportation NRC staff ever mentioned in the three public notices for PECo was that the fuel would be transported by rail.
When the method of transportation and route were changed to allow an unprecedented campaign of 33 shipments by barge 1
I along and through New Jersey's coastal zone, NJDEPE should have been given an opportunity to give NRC comment upon or challenge that change.
Given the last minute change in means and routes of transportation, it is not surprising that the effect and scope of the PECo EA is subject to different interpretations.
In written submissions to Judge Garrett Brown of the District Court of New Jersey, counsel for PECo maintains that NRC staff evaluated in the PECo EA the environmental impacts associated with the fuel transportation. (Exhibit "Ex."
"I",
PECo's Brief in Opposition to Motion for TRO, p.2).
On the other hand, counsel for LIPA maintained that PECo's licence did not pertain to the transportation of the fuel. (Ex.
"J",
LIPA's Brief on TRO, pT20-21). Counsel for NRC has simply maintained that the administrative record is complete and has not squarely addressed the issue of the scope of the EA.
NJDEPE clearly had no reason to be concerned when NRC staff amended PECo's license since the route altogether avoided New Jersey.
Now that the route. and means of transport have been drastically altered and thereby threaten New Jersey's 3
fragile coastal zone, NRC should hear NJDEPE's concerns and take action to address them.
Otherwise, NJDEPE and the public will be left wondering why the possibly safer and cheaper rail alternative was abandoned in favor of this unprecedented campaign of barge shipments. The only evidence in the record as to why the rail alternative was not chosen was that there was
" local opposition" by New York City.
NRC's lack of clarity regarding the purpose and impact of PECo's EA and its tacit approval of LIPA's last minute decision to use barges is an contravenes NRC's and Congress's policy of encouraging public participation in NRC's decisionmaking.
With respect to LIPA, NJDEPE traintains that NRC staff has
- failed, in its approval of the ongoing transfer a r.d transportation of LIPA's fuel, to either issue a proposed license amendment, an environmental assessment, a consideration of alternatives, or an examination of consistency with New Jersey's coastal policies under CZMA.
The only affirmative NRC action taken with respect to LIPA is an EA regarding the proposed exemption from the emergency preparedness requirements pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 50.54(q) which was published on j
September 22, 1993.
Even though NRC staff is now aware of the method of transport, even this EA specifically avoids any indication that the transfer of the fuel will be accomplished by 33 barge shipments.
Counsel for LIPA maintains that LIPA also holds a general license to transport its fuel pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 71.12.
However, NRC staff never performed any EA 4
. ~
regarding this general license.
Such fragmentation of NRC's approval of the ongoing shipments has prejudiced NJDEPE's ability to voice any concerns over the 33 shipments through its waters.
Accordingly, Jursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.206, NJDEPE hereby requests that NRC take the following actions:
- 1) Amend LIPA's license and any approval of LIPA's Decommissioning Plan to specifically address the transfer and transport of LIPA's fuel to PECo;
- 2) Perform an EA, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 51.30, and a determination based on the EA, pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 51.31, regarding the proposed transfer and transport of the fuel by barge from LIPA to PECo which addresses the risks associated with the
]
shipment of the irradiated fuel along and through New i
Jersey's coastal zone; 3)
Perform a Consideration of Alternatives in accordance with Section 102( 2 )( E ) of NEPA and 40 C.F.R.
S 1509.9(b) which addresses the alternative means of transporting the fuel from LIPA to-PECo, including ? ut not limited to, the rail and barge j
alternatives; and e
i 4)
Immediately stay PECo's June 23, 1993 license amendments, the Certificate of Compliance regarding IF-300 issued to Pacific Nuclear Systems, and LIPA's license and general license to transfer the fuel pursuant to 10 C. F. R. 9 71.12 pending completion of the above three NRC actions and compliance with the
~
consistency process under CZMA.
Alternatively, should NRC decide not to take action on the above, NJDEPE hereby requests, in accordance with 10 C.F.R. 9 2.714, leave to intervene, and a hearing.
In either case since the shipments are ongoing, NJDEPE respectfully requests that NRC take immediate action to halt the ongoing shipments until the merits of this petition are addressed.
If action is not 5
b taken before the next shipment has departed, NJDEPE will be compelled to seriously consider pursuing other legal relief, including relief in the Court of Appeals.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND In 1987, 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> of low power testing was performed at the Shoreham facility, but the facility was never placed into commercial operation due in part to the absence of an adequate evacuation plan.
LIPA is _ presently decommissioning the Shoreham facility and is making arrangements for the disposal of the nuclear fuel that was used during the low power testing.
I That fuel consists of uranium, U-235.
The fuel is radioactive, approximately 176,000 Curies, and it therefore must be handled and transported in the manner that precludes the release of radiation.
LIPA is presently transporting the fuel by barge _from the Shoreham facility on Long Island to PECo's docking facility in Eddystone, Pennsylvania.
LIPA commenced shipment of the fuel l
on or about September 23, 1993 and has completed several shipments to date.
A total of 33 shipments is anticipated to be necessary to complete the transport of all of the fuel.
It is estimated that it will take at least seven to ten months to cotaplete the shipments, and that a shipment will take place every five to ten tads.
i 6
The barge route for the 33 shipments is a route from Long Island, south through the Atlantic Ocean 15 miles off-shore of the State's coast, around Cape May, through the State's waters in the Delaware Bay and up the Delaware River, finally docking in Eddystone, Pennsylvania.
In February 1993, LIPA filed with NRC an
" Updated Decommissioning Plan" for Shoreham.
(Ex.
"A").
That plan
~ contained only a brief and tentative discussion of
" fuel disposal alternatives," and LIPA acknowledged that as those alternatives emerged it would have to send any requests "to the NRC as separate licensing submissions."
(Ex.
"A",
Section 3.3.1, p.
3-19).
LIPA has considered at least two other alternatives to the transfer cf the fuel.
One involved sending the fuel to France for reprocessing and the other involved the transfer by tractor-trailer and rail through New York and eastern Pennsylvania.
The second plan faced " local opposition" l
according to a May 1993 NRC inspection report, and had LIPA begin to investigate other alternatives, including shipment by barge. (Ex.
"B").
A more recent newspaper article stated that LIPA officials had " bow [ed] to pressure from New York City officials" in determining not to ship the fuel by rail through New York City. (Ex.
"B").
On March 8, 1993, PECo applied to NRC for a change to its i
operating license that would allow it to receive and possess Shoreham's fuel.
As part of its application, PECo included "information supporting a finding that the preposed change does 7
not involve a Significant Hazards Assessment and supporting an Environmental Assessment."
(Ex.
"C").
The application, although containing much information regarding the handling of 4
the fuel once it reaches Limerick, contains only the following paragraph regarding the transportation of the fuel:
The impact of the transportation of the slightly irradiated fuel from the SNPS site to the LGS site is minimal.
10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4,
" Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor,"
addresses the impact of transporting irradiated fuel and radioactive waste including normal transport and possible accidents.
The proposed shipments meet the i
conditions specified in 10 CFR 51.52(a);
- and, therefore, the environmental impact of the proposed shipments is as set forth in Table S-4.
In any event, the low level of radiation and the substantial elapsed time since the low power operation of the SNPS fuel make the assumptions used in Table S-4 conservative relative to the proposed shipments.
Therefore, Table S-4 bounds the environmental impact of the transportation of the SNPS fuel.
On March 31, 1993, NRC published a notice of its proposal to determine that PECo's
" amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration."
58 Fed. Reg. 16851, 16868
-)
(March 31, 1993).
NRC's only discussion of the mode or route of tradsportation was that it was " planned [to be] by rail." 58 Fed. Reg. at 16867 (Emphasis added).
On May 18, 1993, NRC published an EA and Finding of No Significant Impact
("FONSI")
regarding PECo's license amendments.
58 Fed.
R_eg. 29010 (May 18, 1993).
Although NRC i
e described the " proposed action" as an amendment to PECo's license that would allow it to " receive and possess" the fuel 8
i j
. ~
from Shoreham.
Id.
at 29010, NRC went on to recapitulate PECo's discussion about transportation:
The impact of the transportation of the slightly irradiated fuel from the SNPS site to the LGS site is minimal.
Table S-4 of 10 CFR 51.52, " Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste To and From One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor,"
addresses the impact of transporting irradiated fuel and radioactive waste including normal transport and possible accidents.
The proposed shipments meet the conditions specified in 10 CFR 51.52(a) since it does not (a) exceed 4 percent enrichment, (b) exceed an average irradiation level of 33,000 megawatt days-per-metric-ton, (c) come from a reactor with a power level in excess of 3800 megawatts and is not being.
shipped less than 90 days after discharge.
Therefore, the environmental impact of the proposed shipments is as set forth in Table S-4.
In any event, the low level of radiation and the substantial elapsed time since the low power operation of the SNPS fuel make the assumptions used in Table S-4 conservative relative to the proposed shipments.
Therefore, Table S-4 bounds the environmental impact of the transportation of the SNPS fuel.
[58 Fed.
Reg. at 29011.]
NRC did not identify the mode or route of transportation to be
- used, and the only alternative to PECo's proposal NRC considered was that of requiring the fuel to be disposed of at an appropriate waste facility or reprocessed overseas.
58 Fed.
Reg.
crt 29011.
NRC staff did not address the various alternative modes and routes of transportation, e.g.,
barge versus rail.
On June 23,
- 1993, NRC issued the license amendments requested by PECo, along with a " Safety Evaluation."
The Safety Evaluation analyzed in detail the handling of the subject fuel once it was received at the Limerick facility, but 9
i it expressly excluded any analysis of the " movement of _ fuel from the SNPS to the LGS."
(Ex.
"D").
Notice of the issuance of the amendments was published on July 7, 1993.
58 Fed. Reg. 36449, 36451 (July 7,
1993).
The license was issued by NRC staff without a certification by PECo that the proposed activity complies with the State's CZM program as required by the CZMA, 16 U.S.C.
1456( c )( 3 )( A).
On or about July 7,
- 1993, LIPA submitted to the Coast Guard a proposed " Operations Plan for Marine Transportation of Fuel Shipment from Shoreham, NY to Eddystone, PA."
(Ex.
"E").
This is the first formal document in which LIPA indicated.its intention to move its fuel from Shoreham to Limerick by barge in part through the State's territorial waters and coastal zone.
NJDEPE did not receive a copy of this document until September 3,
1993 when LIPA's general counsel supplied the State with a copy of it.
On several occasions during July of
- 1993, NJDEPE representatives clearly expressed to both PECo and LIPA representatives NJDEPE's objections to and serious concerns with the proposed shipment of nuclear fuel from Long Island through New Jersey's coastal zone to Pennsylvania.
These concerns were first raised when then Commissioner Scott A.
Weiner requested Richard V.
Sinding, Assistant Commissioner for Policy and Planning, to contact a representative of PECo to express the State's concerns.
On July 8th, 1993, and at least on two other occasions, Assistant Commissioner Sinding 10
participated in telephone conversations with PECo's Director of Public Policy, Mr. Jan Freeman.
During these conversations, 1
NJDEPE advised PECo that the State was having an excellent tourist season at the New Jersey shore due in part to improved water quality and enhanced public confidence regarding the safety of the shore.
NJDEPE then expressed its serious i
concerns that 33 shipments of nuclear fuel could potentially have a devastating economic and environmental impact on the State's coastal zone should any one of the shipments be involved in an accident.
Mr.
Freeman advised NJDEPE that the shipments would be equipped with various safety features which would protect the i
State's coastal zone.
Mr. Freeman asked whether NJDEPE would require compliance with any environmental requirements.
Assistant Commissioner Sinding advised him that there were variou-requirements regarding water quality and coastal zone protection which NJDEPE could impose.
In one conversation, 1
Assistant Commissioner Sinding expressed NJDEPE's concern that although the barge would be equipped with various safety measures, the State's coastal community including mayors and citizen groups had expressed similar concerns to NJDEPE and as of that time PECo and LIPA had failed to conduct sufficient public discussion with the coastal community in response to i
i their fears and concerns in order to explain the need for the proposed shipment, the reasons why a coastal route was chosen over an inland
- route, and the various safety measures.
11
I Assistant Commissioner Sinding advised Mr. Freeman that if PECo and LIPA could not address NJDEPE's concerns, it would be very difficult for the State to concur with the proposed shipment at-that time.
Mr. Freeman advised NJDEPE that PECo and LIPA would 3
consider NJDEPE's objection and concerns.
During the July 8th conversation, Dr. Gerald P. Nicholls, the Director of NJDEPE's Division of Environmental Safety, Health and Analytical
- Programs, which includes NJDEPE's radiation protection program, was with Assistant Commissioner Sinding as part of a conference call.
Director Nicholls' staff had previously met with LIPA and PECo representatives, including Mr. Freeman, to discuss the technical details of the possible use of a barge and the staff had been briefed on the safety features.
Upon Mr. Freeman's advice, Assistant Commissioner Sinding also contacted a LIPA representative to similarly express NJDEPE's objection and concerns.
When a response from neither PECo nor LIPA was forthcoming, Assistant Commissioner Sinding assumed that the route through the State's coastal zone was abandormd or at least delayed until NJDEPE's concerns were i
addressed.
However, upon return from vacation in the middle'of
- August, 1993, Assistant Commissioner Sinding read in a newspaper article that PECo and LIPA planned to proceed irrespective of NJDEPE's objections.
PECo and LIPA's plan was confirmed when he was advised by his staff that LIPA had submitted an application for NJDEPE's Certificate of Handling.
12 t
E Assistant Commissioner Sinding was very surprised to learn of i
PECo and LIPA's plan to proceed absent NJDEPE's concurrence.
(Ex.
"K",
Certification of Richard V.
Sinding).
On or about July 27,
- 1993, the Coast Guard issued a conditional approval of LIPA's plan.
(Ex.
"J").
The Coast Guard approval did not include any analysis of the risks posed by the proposed shipments nor did it include an ana)ysis of the proposed mode and route as compared to other modes and routes, e.g.,
by rail and/or truck through New York and Pennsylvania.
Equally important, the Coast Guard approval was issued without a certification by LIPA that the proposed activity complies with the State's CZM program as required by the CZMA, 16 U.S.C.
y 91456(c)( 3 )( A).
On about August 9,
- 1993, LIPA submitted to NJDEPE an application for a Certificate of Handling ("COH"), as required by N.J.A.C.
7:28-12.
(Ex.
"F").
New Jersey's Radiation Protection Act, N.J.S.A.
26:2D-1 e_ji seg.,
prohibits the transportation of certain radioactive material into or through New Jersey without first obtaining a COH issued by NJDEPE.
That was the first application by any party to NJDEPE seeking approval of the proposed shipments.
On August 19,
- 1993, NRC issued a
" Certificate of' Compliance for Radioactive Materials Packages" to Pacific Nuclear Systems for the use of its IF-300 cask for shipping the Shoreham fuel to PECo by barge.
(Ex.
"G").
There was no analysis of the risks posed by barge transportation along any 13
)
i 1
specific route, nor of a comparison of those risks versus those
)
i posed by other modes and routes of transportation, such as rail.
On September 8, 1993, NJDEPE-issued a letter to the Coast
- Guard, with a copy to LIPA, providing written notice that NJDEPE would require that LIPA submit. a consistency certification to NJDEPE and the Coast Guard pursuant to the CZMA, 16 U.S.C.
S91451 et seq., certifying that LIPA's proposed i
I activity complies with the State's approved CZM program. (See i
Ex.
"H").
NJDEPE has adopted rules at N.J.A.C.
7:7E which set forth the substantive policies of the State's CZM Plan.
To date LIPA has refused NJDEPE's demands that it withhold shipping the fuel until LIPA has completed the CZMA process and until an adequate environmental assessment and alternatives analysis has been prepared.
On September 15, 1993, NJDEPE sent a letter to the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA") detailing the reasons why a consistency review was required.
(Ex.
"H").
Those reasons included the possibility of an adverse impact on the State's prime fishing
- areas, on marine life that supports endangered species (including that of the bald eagle and peregrine falcon), and on-crucial recreational areas.
Q On September 22, 1993, the Honorable Garrett E.
Brown of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, denied NJDEPE's application for temporary restraints to halt 14
the proposed shipments.
NJDEPE unsuccessfully appealed this order to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the United States Supreme Court.
On October 4, 1993, Judge Brown, extended his September 22nd denial for ten days by which time'a written opinion on NJDEPE's application for a preliminary injunction will be issued.
On September 22, 1993, NRC published an EA regarding the proposed exemption from the emergency preparednecc requirements i
in 10 C. F. R. 9 50.54(q) in the Federal Register on September t
22, 1993 (58 Fed. Reg. 49332).
The scope of the EA was limited to the proposed exemption and only briefly mentioned the transfer of LIPA's fuel.
II.
CAUSES FOR ACTION BY NRC OR INTERVENTION BY NJDEPE The following includes NJDEPE's basis for requesting NRC
)
action pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 and alternatively NJDEPE's causes for intervention as required by 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714( a )( 2 ).
Since the causes for intervention are more specific, NJDEPE respectfully submits that the following satisfy both sets of regulations.
-j A.
Reasons why NRC should take action or alternatively why NJDEPE should be permitted to intervene 1.
NRC failed to consider alternatives under NEPA 15
Under NEPA federal agencies are required to
" study, develop, and describe appropriate alternativas to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflict concerning alternative uses of available resources."
42 U.S.C. 9 4332(2)(E).
Even where an EA is issued, NEPA still imposes an
" independent requirement" that the EA analyze alternatives to its recommended course of action.
Eierra Club, 808 F.Supp. 852, 859 (D.D.C. 1991)(citing 102(2)(E) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. S 4332(2 )(E)).
Thus NEPA requires all federal agencies to take a "hard look" at the environmental impact of their activities and the potential alternatives to those activities.
See, eg., Marsh v.
Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S.
360, 109 S.Ct. 1851 (1989).
Neither NRC, the Coast Guard, nor any other federal agency did so in connection with the proposed shipments of nuclear fuel through New Jersey's waters.*
NEPA's main purposes are to 1) " ensure 'that environmental concerns
[are]
integrated into the very process of agency decisionmaking," and 2)
"'to inform the public that the agency has considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process"." Lower Alloways Creek Tp.
- v. Public Service Electric &
Gas Co.,
687 F.2d 732, 748 (3d Cir. 1982 )( citations omitted ).
Thus, in addition to ensuring that crucial information be given to the agency decisionmakers, NEPA "also guarantees that the
- It is worth noting that where more than one federal agency is involved in approving an action that implicates NEPA, the federal agencies are required to coordinate their activities under the statute.
40 C.F.R.
SS 1501.1, 1501.5, 1508.16, and 1508.24.
16
relevant information will be made available to the larger audience that may also play a role in both the decisionmaking process and the implementation of that decision."
Robertson v.
Methow Valley Citizens, 490 U.S.
- 332, 349, 109 S.Ct.
1835 (1989).
It thereby requires federal agencies to provide the public with information that can provide "a
springboard for public comment."
490 U.S.
at 349.
It is clear from the EA for PECo that NRC staff failed to analyze am alternative means of transporting LIPA's fuel.
That EA was issued in connection with PECo's application seeking the right only to possess the fuel, not to transport it, and the related Safety Evaluation expressly disclaimed any intent to analyze the movement of the fuel from Shoreham to Limerick.
(Ex."G" at 6).
As to alternatives, the EA contained only the following limited statement:
Because the staff has concluded that there is no significant environmental impact associated with the proposed transfer of the SNPS [Shoreham] fuel to LGS i
[ Limerick],
any alternative would have either no impact or greater environmental impact.
The principal alternative would be to deny the requested amendment.
This would not reduce the impacts from operation of the facility since LGS reactors will continue to operate using new fuel obtained from existing sources.
Denial of an amendment authorizing the transfer of the SNPS fuel to LGS could result in the SNPS fuel being disposed of at a Federal high-level waste repository or, through the expenditures of additional resources, reprocessed at an overseas facility for eventual reconstit.ution into fuel. [58 Fed. Reg at 29011.]
These statements fail to satisfy NEPA's requirements for a variety of reasons.
- First, they fail to even identify the 17 i
i
routes and modes of transportation that will be used.
Thus neither the public nor NJDEPE had any opportunity to provide any comment.
It is self-evident that transportation by barge poses different risks, and therefore has different impacts, than does transportation by rail or highway.
Further, it is equally self-evident that the risks of transporting the materials over different routes (e.g.,
urban vs.
rural) are different.
Thus, in order for the EA to be meaningful, it is j
necessary for the EA to identify the alternative routes and mode of transportation that we,re considered and to analyze the risks associated with them.
Otherwise, neither the agency decisionmakers nor the public have the information they need to participate in the decisionmaking process required by NEPA.
Robertson, 490 U.S.
at 349.
Second, and related to the first, the EA completely fails to analyze the alternatives to what we now know is o route and mode that LIPA will use, i.e.,
shipment by barge tawn.the entire length of New Jersey's fragile Atlantic Coast and up even more sensitive portions of the Delaware Bay and River.
There 1s absolutely no discussion of the relative risks of this route and mode as compared to others, including the rejected I
rail shipment that would entirely avoid New Jersey's territory.
Indeed, the evidence (never mentioned in the EA) is that the only reason that rail was rejected in favor of barging was that there was " local opposition," to the cheaper rail alternative.
(Ex."B").
In the absence of a reasonable discussion of 18
alternatives to barging the nuclear fuel through New Jersey and the environmental impacts of those alternatives, the EA is fatally flawed.
42 U.S.C.A.
S 4332( 2 )( E );.
10 C.F.R.
S
- 51. 30( a )( 1 )( ii ) ; Sierra Club, 808 F.Supp. at 870-875.
New Jersey's coast should not be left with the detritus from New York's Shoreham debacle, especially in the absence of a demonstration that the proposed shipment by barge is the most environmentally appropriate way to proceed.
NJDEPE is cognizant that the PECo EA was limited in scope since it was issued prior to LIPA's definitive determination to use a barge for 33 shipments of the fuel.
However, NJDEPE maintains that an alternatives analysis is altogether meaningless if it is performed without any discussion of the alternatives that were actually considered.
It is clear in this case that both rail and barge alternatives were considered.
NRC may not allow the proposed shipments to proceed without complying with the i
procedural aspects of NEPA as set forth in'10 C.F.R.
S 51.30, I
10 C.F.R.
S 51.31, and 40 C.F.R. 5 1509.9(b).
A comparison of this case to other cases where courts have i
reviewed environmental assessments for compliance with NEPA demonstrates the inadequacy of the current EA.
In Sierra Club, the District Court enjoined the Department of Energy from shipping spent nuclear fuel rods through the port of Hampton Roads because it found that the EA regarding those shipments violated NEPA.
The District Court in Sierra Club found that the EA contained an unacceptable alternatives analysis because 19
it analyzed the possibility of bringing the fuel shipments in through only two other ports, rather than the eleven other ports that plaintiff claimed should have been analyzed.
Id. at 869-875.
Because the unexamined alternatives were not
" bizarre," and because the court was faced with a situation
" involving nuclear material where the worst case scenario is catastrophic, if highly unlikely, and the subject of great public concern,"
the court ordered DOE to analyze the l
possibility of bringing the materials through a total of at least five alternative ports, two more than DOE had analyzed.
Id. at 874, 875.
In the present case, NRC staff did far less than DOE had done in Sierra Club; NRC analyzed only the
)
i alternative of shipping the materials to a waste repository, blithely ignoring the non-bizarre alternatives of shipping by rail or truck.
More recently, in Public Service Company of Colorado v.
i Andrus, 1993 W.L.
244090 (D. Idaho June 28, 1993), the District Court enjoined DOE from proceeding to implement a plan for the shipment and storage of nuclear fuel until an adequate EA was prepared.
The EA was found to be inadequate in part because DOE had failed to consider alternatives to trucking the fuel, such as moving it by rail.
Id. at p.8.
It was also found to be inadequate because DOE's " narrow focus on fuel ' receipt and storage' amount (ed] to a segmented approach to the potential environmental impacts associated with this project."
Id. at p.11.
The parallels to the present case in which the EA failed 20
4 1
f to consider any alternative modes or routes of transportation and instead focused almost entirely on how the fuel would be handled once it reached Limerick are inescapable, and indicate that NRC should stay its approval of the remaining shipments 3
from proceeding until an adequate consideration of alternatives has been prepared pursuant to NEPA.
P 2.
NRC failed to perform an EA for the transfer and barge transport of LIPA's fuel.
Under NEPA federal agencies are required to prepare an environmental impact statement
("EIS")
whenever a proposed federal action constitutes a
" major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
42 U.S.C.
6 4332(2)(C);
40 C.F.R.
Parts 1500 to 1517 (regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality ("CEQ"))
10 C.F.R. Part 51 (NRC's regulations regarding NEPA).
In order to make the threshold determination as to whether an EIS is required, the agency is required to prepare an SA, which is accompanied by a Finding of No Significant Impaut
( " FONS L" ) if the EA supports such a finding.
NRC's regulations require that an EA include:
)
(1) The need for the proposed action; (ii) Alternatives as required by section 102(2)(E) of NEPA; [and]
(111) The environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives as appropriate.
[10 C. F. R.
G 51.30(a)(1); see also 40 C. F.R.
9 1501.4; 40 C.F.R.
6 1508.9 (parallel CEO regulations).]
21
Although NRC staff performed an EA for PECo's license amendments, the EA only addressed PECo's receipt and possession i
of LIPA's fuel.
NRC staff has yet to prepare an EA for LIPA's transfer and transport of the fuel by barge.
LIPA and PECo maintained before Judge Brown that the PECo EA was adequate and that no other EA was required since LIPA was covered by a l
l general license to transport the fuel pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 71.12.
However, NRC's regulations require that:
[a]ll licensing and regulatory actions subject to this subpart require an environmental assessment except those 1dentified in 9 51.20(b) as requiring an i
environmental impact statement, those identified in S
51.22(c) as categorical exclusions, and those identified in S 51.22(d) as other not requiring environmental review.
As provided in 5 51.22(b), the Commission may, in special circumstances, prepare an i
environmental assessment on an action covered by a categorical exclusion.
[10 C.F.R.
9 51.21 (emphasis added)]
NRC's regulations at 10 C.F.R.
S 51.22(c) list the many categorical exclusions which do not require an EA; however, a l
general license to transport licensed material pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 71.12 is not one of the listed categorical exclusions.
~
Accordingly, NRC is required by its own rules to prepare an EA for LIPA's general license.
NRC should certainly prepare an EA in this case when it proposes to use the general license to launch an unprecedented campaign of 33 barge shipments.
It should be noted that one of the categorical exclusions is NRC's l
approval of package designs for the transportation of licensed materials pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 51.22(c)l3 but this clearly l
22
4 is only one of the many requirements for a general license.
Moreover, an EA for LIPA's general licence is_not only required but appropriate since PECo's EA clearly did not address the risks and alternatives to 33 barge shipments.
3.
NRC's EA for PECo's license amendments was inadequate.
Since the PECo EA was prepared when the fuel was to be transported by rail, NRC staff clearly inadequately analyzed the actual transportation of ' fuel by barge.
The EA's only attempt to address transportation of the fuel consisted entirely of a reference to Table S-4 in 10 C.F.R.
S 51.52.
j NRC's reliance on the table is misplaced.
The use of the Table S-4 may have been somewhat appropriate for a rail analysis but 1
the Table was not based on any risk data for barges since, at o the time the Table was developed, shipments of irradiated fuel were made only by truck or rail.
See " Environmental Survey of Transportation of Radioactive Materials to and from Nuclear Power Plants" (December 1972) ("the Survey") and its Supplement 1 (April 1975).
The Survey reports that as of December 1972 1
"all shipments of irradiated fuel are made exclusive use, by truck or rail."
(p.34).
As to barge shipments, it reports only that some "may be made in the future."
(Ibid.)
Thus, in developing its Table S-4, the NRC had no data regarding actual shipments of irradiated fuel by barge.
23
Among the alternatives to the then existent regulatory structure that the Survey examined was that of imposing routing requirements.
(pp.56-57).
It recognized that such requirements "could reduce the probability of an accident occurring in many cases," but that if such requirements were to extend shipping distances, the probability of an accident might instead be increased.
(p.56).
It concluded that
"[e]xamination of local conditions would be required in each case to determine whether such restrictions would be advantageous or not."
(p.56, Emphasis added).
In its general conclusion regarding alternatives to the then existent structure, the Survey concluded that the alternatives should j
not be adopted as " general requirements," but that "[a]doptien 1
of one or more of the alternatives in specific cases might be justified."
(p.10).
In PECo's EA, NRC staff failed to analyze any local conditions or routing requirements because it was based upon the assumption of rail transport.
The Department of Energy's
" Historical Overview of j
Domestic Spent Fuel Shipments--Update" (July 19 91 ) ( " the c
Overview") is also relevant.
This document provides "available historic data on most commercial and research reactor spent fuel shipments that have been completed in the United States between 1964 and 1989."
(p.1).
It does not reflect any shipments by barge, but instead reflects that the " shipment mode" for all shipments was either truck or rail.
(pp.8-16).
More importantly, the document clearly identifies the IF-300 as 24
a casks that is designed for rail transport, not barge transport.
(pp.17-18).
Reliance on the Table S-4 for PECo's EA was clearly misplaced since the shipment is going to occur via a mode for which the NRC did not even have any actual data when it developed the generic table upon which NRC staff erroneously relied.
Further, the main reason for permitting the use of generic assessments, i.e.,
administrative efficiency, would not be at all compromised if NRC were to conduct an individualized assessment for a year-long campaign of 33 barge shipments of irradiated fuel.
Such a campaign has never been launched before, and is unlikely to be launched again in the future.
Clearly no undue burden would have been placed upon NRC staff if it had to prepare the type of risk assessment that NEPA requires.
See, ed., Sierra Club v.
Watkins, 808 F.Supp. 852 (D.D.C.
1991); Public Service Company of Colorado v.
- Andrus, 1993 W.L.
244090 (D. Idaho June 28, 1993).
Absent such an analysis, the citizens of the State of New Jersey are left with no reason as to why their coast is exposed to this risk other than that " local opposition" kept it out of New York City.
NEPA demands more, especially given the fact that if the shipments were to be diverted off their designated route they could venture into water deeper than the 400 feet for which the casks encasing the fuel are certified.
(Ex."I",
at p.16).
Moreover, the relevant case law demonstrates that the subject transaction is not one for which a " generic" environmental 25
assessment, such as that set forth in Table S-4, is suitable or I
acceptable.
In Limerick Ecology Action, Inc.
v.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 869 F.2d 719 (3d Cir. 1989), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a
Final Environmental Statement was insufficient to satisfy NEPA in that it inappropriately relied upon a
generic NRC determination.
In the course of reaching its determination, the court held that "it is axiomatic that the generic approach of Baltimore Gas will not suffice where the underlying issues are not generic."
869 F_.,2d at 738 (citation omitted).
Because
" risk equals the likelihood of an occurrence times the severity of the consequences, the risk will vary with the potential l
consequences."
Ibid.
Further, because the consequences of an accident will vary with the density of the population and the makeup of the surrounding non-human environment where an accident could take place, risk will always vary where location can vary.
Ibid.
See also Lower Alloways Creek, 687 F.2d at l
748 (noting that although the NRC had not used a generic 1
assessment in that case, it also would not have been 1
appropriate for it to have done so).
1 In the present case, there are a myriad of factors that can vary risk depending on the mode and route of transportation l
used.
Trains and barges are subject to different kinds of accidents, and the primary consequences of those accidents will vary widely.
For example, retrieval of the cask would be l
26
unlikely to be a significant problem in the event of a railroad accident, but it will almost surely be such a problem in the i
event of a barge accident.
Further, a railroad accident would be unlikely to have any ef fect on New Jersey's economy, while I
history and present record demonstrate that a barge accident l
will have a devastating effect on New Jersey's economy, even if radiation is released only in the levels predicted by NRC.
As a
final
- example, since population distribution will be different for every route, the "' magnitude and location of i
potential consequences from radiation releases'" will also be i
different.
See Limerick Ecology, 869 L2d at 738 (quoting the i
NRC from 48 F.R.
at 16,020).
In short, because each determination regarding the route and mode of transporting nuclear fuel implicates different risks, the NRC's conclusory reliance upon a generic table in this unprecedented campaign of 33 barges violates NEPA.
A comparison of this case to. other cases where courts reviewed EAs for compliance with NEPA demonstrates the i
inadequacy of the risk assessment in PECo's EA.
In Sierra 1
l Club, the District Court held that the EA was flawed because it failed to analyze risks that the NRC claimed were "not credible," although NRC also admitted that the facts.that would create those risks were "possible."
Id.
at 867-869.
Of
- course, in the present case NRC's entire risk analysis was nothing more than a rote citation to a generic table when the 27
decision of the means of transport was not clear to NRC staff.
See also Andrus Lastly, Table S-4 on its face is inapplicable to the issue of how to transfer partially spent nuclear - fuel from one reactor for use at another.
The table states only that it is to used for "the construction permit stage of a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor."
10 C.F.R. 6 51.52.
In the present case, Limerick is well past its construction permit stage.
Further, the table also states that it is to used only if:
Unirradiated fuel is shipped to the reactor by truck; irradiated fuel is shipped from the reactor by truck, rail or barge; and radioactive waste other than irradiated fuel is shipped from the reactor by truck or rail...
10 C.F.R.
- 51. 52( a )( 5 ).
In the present case, there is no irradiated fuel being shipped "from" Limerick.
Instead, the irradiated fuel is being shipped "to" Limerick by barge.
4.
NRC violated NEPA by segmenting the approval of the transfer and transport by barge.
In Susquehanna Valley Alliance v.
Three Mile Island, 619 F.2d 231, 240-241 (3rd Cir. 1980), cert.
den.,
449 U.S.
1096, 101 S.Ct.
893, 66 L.Ed.2d 824 (1981), the Third Circuit held that NRC would violate NEPA if it were to fragment or segment a project into smaller components.
In Susquehanna, NRC failed to require the facility to apply for a construction i
permit prior to building a treatment system for contaminated I
28
- - - ~
=
water, nor did NRC determine whether a license. amendment was required prior to operation of the treatment system.
Plaintiffs claimed that NRC had violated NEPA by failing to prepare any EA and NRC reacted by promptly preparing an EA.
See Susquehanna Valley Alliance v.
Three Mile Island, 485 F.Supp.
81, 82-84 (M.D.Pa.
1979).
The Third Circuit was certainly concerned that:
i
[B]y fragmenting its consideration the NRC postpones preparation of an impact statement until after private parties have been permitted to expend large sums on construction, the resulting change in the status quo has the almost inevitable effect of distorting the later view of both the agency and the reviewing court as to the desirability of the action in question. [Susquehanna, 619 F.2d at 240]
Similarly, in the present case NRC staff has not yet prepared an EA or considered alternatives to LIPA's proposed transfer and transport the fuel through New Jersey's coastal zone.
NRC staff did prepare a cursory EA for PECo's license amendments; however these amendments only address PECo's ability to receive and possess the fuel.
- Moreover, PECo's analysis of the environmental impact, which NRC published in the EA almost word for word, was prepared in March of 1993 when the transportation was planned to be by rail.
See 58 Fed. Reg. 16851, 16867 (March 31, 1993). When NRC staff was aware of the proposed use of barges, it approved Pacific Nuclear Systems' certificate for the barge and the cask without preparing an EA or NEPA alternatives analysis regarding the proposed shipment.
Lastly NRC staff clearly was aware of the proposed use of 29
barges when it published its September 22, 1993 EA for LIPA's exemption from the emergency preparedness requirements without any discussion of the use of barges.
Thus, as in Susquehanna, NRC and the United States Coast Guard have fragmented its review of LIPA's transfer and transport of the nuclear fuel to PECo and thereby avoided their responsibilities under NEPA to assess the environmental impacts of and examine the alternatives to the proposed 33 shipments of nuclear fuel l
through New Jersey's coastal zone.
Similarly, NRC staff and the Coast Guard have fragmented 3
their respective responsibilities in the approval of the i
transfer and transport of the fuel.
NRC staff appears only to be concerned with the integrity of the cask, while the Coast Guard claims that it is not concerned with anything and that LIPA contacted it only out of courtesy.
Neither agency's staff is willing to say that it approved the shipments by barge along New Jersey's
- coast, and neither agency conducted an EA regarding that specific activity.
The effect of this fragmentation has prejudiced NJDEPE's ability to challenge any NRC action.
As previously stated, NJDEPE has no quarrel with and therefore has no interest in challenging PECo's license amendment to the extent that it and the EA does what it says it does, i.e.,
allow PECo to receive and possess the subject fuel.
Further, until now, NJDEPE had no reason to challenge the general permit allegedly issued to LIPA because there was no indication in that general permit 30 i
that it would be used to launch an unprecedented campaign of barging. LIPA's spent fuel along New Jersey's coast. See 10 C.F.R.
S 71.12. Thus, the EA required by NEPA was improperly fragmented and the federal agencies have conducted themselves in such a way that NJDEPE is left with no means with which to challenge that unlawful fragmentation other than this request for NRC action and its current actions in federal court.
5.
NRC failed to require LIPA to obtain necessary approvals.
The Atomic Energy Act ("AEA"),
42 U.S.C.
SS 2011 et sea.
provides that NRC:
shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to regulation of - (1) the construction and operation of any [ nuclear] production or utilization facility or any uranium enrichment facility.
[and]
(4) the disposal of such other byproduct, source, or special nuclear material as the Commission determines by regulation or order should, because of the hazards or potential hazards thereof, not be so disposed of without a license from the Commission.
Pursuant to this authority, NRC has adopted regulations which provide that no person "shall receive title to, own, acquire,
~
- deliver, receive,
- possess, use, or transfer special nuclear material except as authorized in a license issued by the Commission."
10 C.F.R.
S 70.3 (Emphasis added). See 10 C.F.R. 5 70.42.
i According to LIPA's COH app'.ication, the nuclear fuel is characterized as "special nucle a,r material of low strategic significance" and, therefore, is covered by the NRC's licensing 31
requirement.
10 C.F.R. 6 70.4.
NRC violated the AEA and NRC's own regulations by failing to require LIPA to apply for a license amendment or requiring LIPA to amend its Decommissioning M an prior to the proposed shipment of LIPA's fuel.
Although LIPA maintains that it has a general license pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 71.12, such a license onli allows a licensee to transport not transfer licensed materials.
As with the requirement to perform an EA for a general license, NRC's J
regulations at 10 C.F.R. 9 51.22(c), which list the categorical exclusions do not include the specific license to transfer i
Accordingly, NRC is required by its own rules to prepare an EA before issuing a license to LIPA to transfer its fuel to PECo.
6.
The NRC violated the Coastal Zone Management Act
("CZMA"), 16 U.S.C.
SS 1451 et seq., by failing to require necessary consistency reviews.
The CZMA provides for the development of a coastal zone management ("CZM") program by each participating coastal state i
to foster better coastal management and planning.
The coastal states -are intended to be " especial" beneficiaries of the CZMA.
Indeed, in enacting the 1990 amendments to the CZMA, Congress specifically found:
[b]ecause of their proximity to and reliance upon the ocean and its resources, the coastal states have substantial and significant interests in the protection, management, and development of the resources of the exclusive economic zone that can only be served by the active participation of coastal states in all Federal programs affecting such resources
- and, wherever appropriate, by the 32
.i 4
development of state ocean resource plans as part of their federally approved coastal zone management programs.
16 U.S.C.A.
S 1451(m )( emphasis added).
- Thus, the CZMA was specifically enacted to foster better coastal management and u
planning by state agencies, to protect substantial state l
interests.
- Moreover, the legislative history of the CZMA confirms that the CZMA was, in fact, enacted for the special i
benefit of the coastal states as follows:
[The CZMAl has as its main purpose the encouragement and assistance of States in preparing and i
implementing management programs to
- preserve, protect, develop and whenever possible restore the resources of the coastal zone of the United States.
The bill authorizes Federal grants-in-aid to coastal states to develop coastal zone management programs.
Additionally, it authorizes grants to help coastal states implement these management programs once
- approved, and States would be aided in the acquisition and operation of estuarine sanctuaries.
Through the system of providing grants-in-aid, the i
States are provided financial incentives to undertake the responsibility for setting up management programs in the coastal zone.
There is no attempt to diminish state authority through federal preemption.
The intent of this legislation is to enhance state authority by encouraging and assisting the states to assume planning and regulatory powers over their coastal zones.
S. Rep.No. 753, 92nd Cong., 2d Sess.,
1, reprinted in 1972 U.S.
Code Cong. & Admin. News 4776 (emphasis added).
Any applicant for a required federal approval, license, or permit "to conduct an activity, in or outside of the coastal zone, affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that state" is required to include in the federal application a certification that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies of the State's approved 33
CZM program.
16 U.S.C.
6 1456(c)(3 )( A). The definition of
" Federal license or permit" set forth in the CZMA regulations states that a
" Federal license or permit means any authorization, certification,
- approval, or other form of permission which any-Federal agency is empowered to issue to an applicant."
15 C.F.R.
6 930.51(a) (emphasis added).
Furthermore, federal regulations require the states to develop and submit a list, as part of their CZM programs, of those federal approvals which are likely to affect the coastal zone and which the state wishes to review for consistency with its CZM program.
15 C.F.R.
6 930.53(b).
In September 1980, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ("NOAA")
approved NJDEPE's CZM Plan which identifies federal licenses and permits for which applicants must consult the NJDEPE for consistency review pursuant to CZMA.
This list specifically includes NRC
" permits and licenses required for the construction and operation of nuclear facilities under
'he Atomic Energy Act of
- 1954, Sections 6,
7, 8
and 10."
Accordingly, both NRC's approval of PECo's license amendments and LIPA's general license for the shipment of nuclear fuel were " listed" approvals in accordance with NJDEPE's 1980 CZM plan for which consistency certifications should have been submitted to the NRC.
PECo, however, applied for and obtained its NRC license amendments without submitting a CZM program consistency certification to the NRC.
Furthermore, LIPA obtained NRC 34
approval to transfer and transport the nuclear fuel without submitting a CZM program consistency certification to the NRC.
Although LIPA is allegedly shipping under a general license to transport fuel, consistency review applies when such a permit is to be used that affects the interests of New Jersey and its coastal zone.
Therefore, pursuant to the explicit mandate of the CZMA, PECo and LIPA should have submitted their consistency I
certifications to NRC and the NJDEPE.
See, Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
v.
California Coastal Com'n, 520 F.Supp.
800, 803 (N.D. Cal. 1981)("it was Congress' intention to make compliance with the consistency review procedure mandatory as to any applicant for a required federal license or permit").
Since both LIPA and PECo violated CZMA by failing to submit a consistency certification to NRC, NRC should stay the effectiveness of the licenses until such time as the certifications are submitted to and approved by NJDEPE.
In addition, federal regulations provide that
"[n]o Federal license or permit described on an approved list shall be issued by a Federal agency" until state agency review of the application is completed.
15 C. F. R.
S 930.53(e).
Since NRC issued licenses to both PECo and LIPA in violation of 15 C.F.R.
9 930.53(e) and thereby has failed to respect New Jersey's I
i interests in ensuring that federally approved activities conform with the CZM, the NRC should stay PECo's license.
amendments and LIPA's general license to transfer fuel pending compliance with the CZMA.
35 s
4
As to the effect on New Jersey's coastal
- zone, the proposed nuclear-laden shipments will travel through the Atlantic Ocean, outside of but near to New Jersey's territorial waters, for the entire length of New Jersey's Atlantic coast and, more significantly, will directly traverse New Jersey's territorial waters for a significant length of the proposed route through the Delaware Bay and the Delaware River, thus directly affecting New Jersey's coastal zone.
New Jersey's CZM plan includes enforceable policies to protect special areas and priority uses (recreational uses and commercial fishing) within New Jersey's coastal zone.
N.J.A.C.
7:7E-3.1 et seq.
and N.J.A.C.
7:7E-3.1 et seq.
Special areas include, without limitation, shellfish beds (N.J.A.C.
7:7E-3.2), prime fishing i
areas (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.4), finfish migratory pathways (N.J.A.C.
7:7E-3.5),
wetlands (N.J.A.C.
7:7E-3.27),
endangered or threatened wildlife habitats (N.J.A.C.
7:7E-3.38),
critical wildlife habitats (N.J.A.C.
7:7E-3.39), and public open space (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-3.40).
All of these special use areas are found i
in the Delaware Bay region.
In addition, New Jersey's coastal m'anagement specifically protects recreational beaches zone (N.J.A.C.
7:7E-3.22) and specifically makes resort and recreational uses and commercial fisheries uses the highest priority uses in Cape May County (N.J.A.C. 7:7E-7.3).
Despite the foregoing, NRC staff, PECo and LIPA failed to submit to the required consistency review process and indeed have not made any attempt to quantify the potential risk of an 36 1
accidental release of radioactive material in connection with the proposed nuclear fuel shipments in relation to these unique characteristics of New Jersey's coastal zone.
NRC staff, PECo and LIPA have also failed to present any analysis of alternative routes for the shipments.
Such an analysis is critical in this case because the proposed activity may adversely impact the highest priority uses of New Jersey's coastal zone.
NJDEPE is demanding the opportunity to conduct a consistency review of the proposed activity to enable it to evaluate this risk and the potential for mitigating it.
Even if the probability of an accidental release of radioactive material occurring in connection with the proposed shipments were demonstrated to be low, any such release will have a devastating effect on the protected uses of New Jersey's coastal zone and the economy of the coastal zone.
Indeed, any mishap in the shipments, even if there is no actual release of radioactivity, could advereely affect these priority uses.
Two re at examples illustrate the type of devastating effect that the proposed shipments can have on New Jersey's coastar zone and coastal zone economy.
Specifically, in the late 1980's, New Jersey's coastal community suffered a significant loss of income when many of New Jersey.'s beaches I
had to be closed as medical waste washed ashore.
Communities that survive on income from tourism and recreational activities
~
were devastated and have just begun to recover.
In another
- incident, the New Jersey fishing industry was significantly 37
impacted when drums of arsenic were accidentally released in New Jersey's coastal waters.
Although the arsenic never escaped from the drums, there was an adverse affect on the State's coastal economy for several months.
Regardless of whatever actual danger the waste on the beaches or the arsenic sptll posed to those who would use the beaches or consume New Jersey's ocean products, the public perception of the danger sufficed to have an enormous adverse impact on tourism and the market for products from New Jersey's fisheries.
(Ex.
"L").
In sum, New Jersey has had more than its fair share of maritime accidents that have had sever impacts on its coast.
In the present case, NRC's inadequate EA and LIPA and PECo's failure to apply for a CZMA consistency determination, I
or NRC's failure to require the same, make it almost impossible to determine the extent of the risks actually posed by the subject shipments of nuclear fuel.
- However, it is self-i evident that moving 33 shipments of nuclear fuel with a total radioactivity level of 176,000 curies through 50 miles of New Jersey's fragile coast poses a risk of damage to the environment (including endangered species such as the bald eagle and peregrine falcon),
human health, and the State's coastal economy.
B.
.?nterests of NJDEPE 38
The following include NJDEPE's arguments for compliance i
with the intervention standards at 10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 714 ( a ) ( 2 ).
NJDEPE's interests in this proceeding include the potential injury to New Jersey's residents, natural resources, and economy.
NJDEPE is authorized and duty-bound to represent and protect both 1) the interests of the residents of the State of New Jersey, including their health, welfare, and economic well being, and 2) the natural resources of the State, including its water resources, aquatic biota, and ecological systems associated with New Jersey's coastal zone.
N.J.S.A.
13:1D-1 et seq.;
N.J.S.A.
13:19-1 et seg.;
N.J.S.A.
58:10-23.11 et seg.;
N.J.S.A.
26:2D-1 et seq.; and N.J.S.A.
58:10A-1 et seq.
NJDEPE i
has been designated as the lead State agency for overseeing and implementing the State's federally approved Coastal Zone Management
("CZM")
Program pursuant to the Coastal Zone Management
- Act, 16 U.S.C.
SS1451 e t_
seg.
("CZMA").
'Furthermore, NJDEPE is authorized pursuant to the State's Radiation Protection Act, N.J.S.A.
26:2D-1 et seq.,
to administer and oversee the State's program regarding radiation protectdon.
NRC and the Coast Guard's approval of the shipment of irradiated nuclear fuel along the State's coastal zone and through the State's waters on each of the thirty-three separate shipments without compliance with clear nondiscretionary duties to comply with NEPA, AEA, and CZMA will cause irreparable harm to NJDEPE, the State's citizens, and the environment NJDEPE is 39
duty-bound to protect.
NJDEPE will suffer further irreparable harm if the proposed activity is allowed to proceed without a determination that the activity is consistent with the State's CZM program.
This damage includes the potential effect on the State's natural resources, including endangered species, and human health of the State's residents along the entire State coastal zone from Sandy Hook to the populated shoreline south of Philadelphia.
The specific impacts that the proposed activity may have on the State's coastal zone include:
(1) potential adverse effects on all recreational, tourist, and commercial activities on the Atlantic shore and in the Delaware Bay and Delaware River; (2) potential adverse effects on important species in prime commercial and recreational fish 1ng area (including, shad, herring, striped bass, weakfish, drumfish, bluefish, and flounder, as well as shellfish); (3) potential adverse effects on endangered species habitat (including the shortnose sturgeon which is an endangered species on both the federal and the State lists); (4) potential adverse effects on marine life that supports avian endangered species (such as the bald eagle and the peregrine falcon, which are also both listed on the federal and State lists of endangered species);
and (5) potential adverse effects on critical wildlife habitat.
i Any release of radioactive material occurring in connection with the proposed shipments will likely have a devastating effect on the protected uses of the State's coastal 40
zone, as well as the economy of the region and the State.
Any mishap in the shipments even short of a release could adversely affect these priority uses.
The Delaware Bay erea is one of the single most important ecological, commercial and recreational marine resources within the State's coastal zone.
In the late 1980's, the State's coastal community suffered a significant loss of income when many of the State's beaches had to be closed. as medical waste washed ashore.
In addition, the State's fishing industry and tourism industry was significantly impacted when drums of arsenic were released during transport in the State's coastal waters even though the drums containing the arsenic remained intact.
The threat of another devastating incident to New Jersey's coastal region and the State's economy cannot be tolerated without strict compliance with federal safeguards described above to ensure that the shipment of radioactive fuel is carried out in the safest possible manner.
In addition to the potential threat the subject shipments pose to human health and the environment, the subject shipments also pose a severe threat to the state's coastal economy even
~
if no radiation were to be released in a maritime accident.
Recent New Jersey history bears out this assertion.
The State's tourism and fishing industries were nearly crippled on two occasions during the last few years when accidents related to hazardous materials occurred.
This harm occurred despite the fact that the accidents resulted in no actual harm or substantial threat to human health or the environment.
(Ex.
41 j
O 4
"L" at pp.lO-ll).
Once the public perceived a threat, it stopped using New Jersey's beaches and eating its fish.
Based on recent history, if one of the 33 barges carrying LIPA's irradiateo nuclear fuel sinks or is otherwise involved in a maritime accident, a significant portion of the public would cease to use New Jersey's beaches or to eat its fish-out of a fear of radiation contamination.
Such a consequence would i
have a devastating impact on the good will and good reputation that is essential to the State's fishing, tourism, and other coastal industries.
Courts have long recognized that threats to a party's good will, customers, business viability, and profits can constitute the legal standard of irreparable harm.
Hansen Savings Bank v.
Office Thrift Supervision, 758 F.Supp. 240 (D.N.J. 1991); Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 749 F.2d 124, 125-26 (2d Cir. 1984); John B.
Hull, Inc.
v.
Waterbury Petroleum Products, Inc., 588 F.2d 24, 28-29 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 440 U.S.
- 960, 99 S.Ct.
1502 (1979);
Zurn Constructors, Inc.,
v.
B.F.
Goodrich Co.,
685 F.Supp. 1172 (D. Kan. 1988); Interphoto Corp. v. Minolta Corp.,
417 F.2d 621 (2d Cir. 1969); Sunbeam Corp.
v.
Windsor-Fif th
- Avenue, 14 N.J.
- 222, 233, 102 A.2d 25, 31 (1953).
In determining whether such losses constitute irreparable harm, courts look not simply to the quantity of harm but also to its l
quality.
That is, they must decide whether the quality of harm l
is irremediable by a monetary damage award.
Zurn Constructors, I
Inc., 685 F.Supp. at 1181.
42
O The loss of confidence in New Jersey's coastal resources that could result from a maritime incident involving the subject fuel is likely to have boundless and enduring negative consequences which are beyond reasonable financial calculation.
Especially given NEPA's purpose of giving the public the level of comfort to which it is entitled regarding the federal government's environmental decision-making, NRC should take the action NJDEPE seeks by preventing any further shipments from taking place until NEPA, AEA and CZMA are complied with.
C.
How NJDEPE's interests are affected and reasons why NRC should tako action or why NJDEPE should be permitted to intervene.
It is clear from the section above that NRC's actions and inaction in approving the transfer and transport of LIPA's fuel that NRC has violated NEPA, AEA, and CZMA.
NJDEPE's interests can only be protected if NRC has adequately examined the environmental risks associated with the
- transfer, has considered the alternative routes to transport the fuel, and has provided New Jersey with its authority to review activities for consistency under CZMA.
NJDEP'E maintains that its interests will not be protected unless NRC does not allow the proposed shipments to proceed and complies with NEPA, AEA, and CZMA.
Should eve.n one of the 33 shipments be involved in an
- accident, the increased radiological risk and the public perception of that risk could potentially affect the natural resources and human health along the entire New Jersey coastal 43
s zone from Sandy Hook to the densely populated shoreline south of Philadelphia.
In addition to concerns over human health and natural resources, much of the New Jersey economy is dependant upon New i
Jersey's coastal zone.
These interests support the factors in 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714(d)(1)(1) & (ii) regarding NJDEPE's right to be a party and the nature and extent of NJDEPE's property,
'l financial, and other interests in the proceeding.
Failure to address the risks in the EA and consider the alternatives pursuant to NEPA clearly jeopardizes the environmental, human health, and economic interests of NJDEPE.
However, proper CZMA review and an adequate EA and consideration of alternatives under NEPA for PECo's license or LIPA's licer.se would provide a greater level of protection for NJDEPE's interests.
Furthermore, NJDEPE has good cause for failure to file a request or petition at any prior date.
As set forth in the March 31, 1993 notice in the Federal Register, LIPA was planning to transport the fuel by rail outside of the State's jurisdiction and thus NJDEPE's interests where not in jeopardy at that time.
NJDEPE's request for NRC action or petition for intervention should be granted at this date because, as discussed above, NJDEPE was only given notice by LIPA on August 9,
1993 that they had finally decided to
)
transport the fuel along New Jersey's coastal zone.
By that
]
time, NRC staff had already issued the PECo license amendment 44
as a final action.*
There has been no delay on the part of NJDEPE once it learned of the intended uses of barges.
By July 1993, only a matter of days after having first been informed that LIPA was contemplating the possibility of shipping their nuclear fuel through New Jersey, NJDEPE expressed to both LIPA and PECo its opposition to the subject shipments.
- Further, within less than 30 days of being informed that LIPA intended to proceed with the shipments despite NJDEPE's opposition, i
NJDEPE, on September 8, 1993, filed formal, legal opposition to I
the shipments.
The filing of, that letter led to a series of discussions between LIPA, NJDEPE, and both parties' counsel, the purpose of which was to seek a resolution of this dispute without having to involve NRC or the Federal District Court.
When it became clear on Monday, September 20, that an amicable i
solution could not be reached prior to the first scheduled date of shipment, i.e.,
September 23, NJDEPE immediately proceeded to file an action in Federal District Court on September 21.
On October 4,
1993, Judge Brown extended his September 22nd denial of NJDEPE's request for a temporary restraining order i
for ten days by which time a written opinion on NJDEPE's i
application for a prelim 1 nary injunction will be issued.
Because the federal courts have thus far failed to grant It is clear from the record that no NRC public notice-ever mentioned the barge option.
Therefore, NJDEPE had no reason to challenge the PECo license until now since some parties are maintaining that the PECo EA covered the risks of the 33 shipments by barge.
45 l
A NJDEPE's requests for relief, NJDEPE is pursuing relief before NRC.
Furthermore, NJDEPE's requests should be granted since NRC i
staff has not proposed to amend LIPA's license nor has it i
prepared an EA or consideration of alternatives for the proposed transfer and transportation of LIPA's fuel.
Since the shipments began on September 23, 1993 and NRC staff has not i
issued any notice on LIPA's proposed transfer and-l transportation of the fuel, the only forum to raise NJDEPE's concerns is pursuant to 10 C.F.R. SS 2.206 and 2.714.
The fact that NRC staff did not address the risks of or alternatives to the proposed shipment in either PECo's license amendment or in any LIPA approval, NJDEPE is limited to this request for relief.
Thus, the factor of the availability of l
other means to protect NJDEPE's interest in 10 C.F.R.
S
- 2. 714 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( 11 ) weighs in NJDEPE's favor since it is NRC's l
responsibility to comply with the requirements of NEPA.
In addition, NJDEPE has been unsuccessful in its efforts to obtain relief in the federal courts and with NOAA.
Accordingly, the
~
j appropriate relief for NRC's failure to comply with NEPA is to stay PECo's
- license, LIPA's
- license, and Pacific Nuclear l
System's certification of compliance pending full compliance with NEPA, AEA, and CZMA.
i With respect to consideration of the factor in 10 C.F.R.
l
- 2. 714(d )( 1 )( 111 ) regarding the effect of any order that may be entered in the proceeding on NJDEPE's
- interest, NJDEPE 46
a maintains that the effect of any order resulting from a proceeding will be positive since it may resolve the unaddressed issues of risks and alternatives pertaining to the ongoing shipments.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above,
?'JDEPE respectfully requests that NRC take the above requested immediate action.
Respectfully submitted, FRED DeVESA ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW JERSEY Attorney for NJDEP
=_-
By:
Thpas A. DotdeV Deputy Attorney General cc:
Attached Service List Office of the General Counsel Charles L. Miller, NRC Project Director Pacific Nuclear Systems, Inc.
tb.lipa. petition 2 47
W Service List LIPA KirkDatrick & Lockhart
-4D Lawrence C.
Lanpher, Esq.
Barry M. Hartman (202)778-9301 1800 M Street, NW South Lobby, 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 Tel: (202) 778-9000 Fax: (202) 778-9300 Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen
$) Paul G.
Shapiro, Esq. or Vincent Gentile Princeten Pike Corporate 1009 Le.nox Drive, Building Four Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Tel: (609) 895-1600 Faxi (609) 895-1329 (Philadelphia Office (215) 592-4329)
PECO Winston & Strawn
- ;3) Robert Rader, Esq.
(202) 371-5745 Mark J. Wetterhahn (202) 371-5703 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3502 Fax: (202) 371-5950
,;> J.W.
- Durham, Sr.,
Esq.
Senior Vice President and General Counsel Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA, 19101 Tel: (215) 841-6798 or 841-4250 (D)
U.S. GOVERNMENT J Bette E. Uhrmacher, Assistant U.S. Attorney Chief, Civil Division United States Attorney's Office 970 Broad Street Newark, NJ 07102 Tel: (201) 645-2841
~
Fax: (201) 645-6284 or (201) 645-2702
~)
Caroline Meredith Zander
~
U.S. Department of Justice Environmental and Natural sources Division General Litigation Section g]})
)
Regular Mail Overnight Mail P.O. Box 663 601 Pennsylvania, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20044-0663 Room 5614 Tel: (202) 272-6211 Washington, D.C.
20004 Fax: (202) 724-5836 1
2 63 es.
b:
T,;,'
ic LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY p
2 SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION NRC Docket No. 50-322
>g UPDATED DECOMMISSIONING PLAN CONTROLLED I
MAR - 5 993 CONTROL COPY
,/6L.
p f.
FEBRUARY 1993 6
O
\\
l
?
)
6.
9::hi'::it f:
3.:.
I
1
'd:
)
j
-des shoreham Decommissioning Plan D
^
g g
3.3.1 Fuel Disposal e
sK Although fuel disposal is not specifically considered part 4
of decommissioning as defined in Reference 3-2, LIPA A
h recognizes that fuel disposal activities must be carefully L
y f5 integrated into the overall plan for decommissioning the
~
Shoreham plant, since removal of the spent fuel is a prerequisite of complete release of the site for E
unrestricted use.
Thus, LIPA's options for fuel disposal are briefly discussed herein; requests for NRC approvals that may be necessary to carry out any of these options will be developed and sent to the NRC as separate licensing submissions.
i
[
As a result of the limited period of plant operation, the total burnup of the fuel is only about two (2) effective full power days, or 48 magavatt days per metric ton.
Presently, all 560 fuel assemblies are stored in the Spent
~
Fuel Storage Pool in the Reactor Building.
LILCO's Defueled Safety Analysis Report (DSAR) (Ref. 3-3) estimates that 1
' I approximately 176,000 Curies of radioactivity are contained p
in the fuel (as of June, 1990).
This estimation is based on a two year decay from the last burnup period.
Gaseous
'O activity in the fuel is primarily krypton-85, comprising I
approximately 1500 curies of the total activity.
LIPA and LILCO are considering three options for the Shoreham irradiated fuel:
( 1 *, shipment to a reprocessing
- acility; (2) transfer of the fuel to anothet license _d g ility;,ano (3) cry storage aT an Independent Spent ruel Storage Installution (ISTSI).
Shipment to a reprocessing facility entails the transfer of the fuel from the store.ge pool to licensed casks which would then be shipped off-site to a licensed reprocessing facility. LIPA is considering two overseas vendors offering reprocessing services.
The second option involves a similar scope of shoreham plant activities, followed by cask shipment to another licenses.
The transfer of fuel off-site for both options is estimated to be completed by aid 1994.
On-site fuel storage is considered an option of last resort because it would not yield the desired result of removing all radioactive i
material from the Shoreham site.
However, these fuel disposal options are still under review and many details p3 have not been determined.
Details on two options that
.7 resulted in permanent removal of the fuel from the vite were provided in Reference 3-14, but even these details are still.:
y.
under review.
For example, contrary to the information in 7
Reference 3-14, fuel might be shipped to a facility other 3-19 February 1993 b.m i
Pa 3 hf Shorehan Deconmissioning Plan I
h[
than Nine Mile Point, Unit 2, and dredging of the Intake
.gt, Canal may be required.
4:
Puel and cask handling activities have been considered by
)
,T LIPA in the development of Shorehan's decommissioning sethodology and the decommissioning schedule which is provided in Section 2.2.
As the schedule and scope of site activities are very similar for both off-site disposal options, the selection of either option vill have no impact on the decontamination and dismantlement activities that are discussed throughout this DP.
The coordination of fuel l
handling and decommissioning activitics, and measures to y
protect the irradiated fuel in the fuel storage pool are discussed in Section 6.1.1.
2 3.3.2 Radioactive Waste Processing 5
During the Shoreham Site Characterization Program, it was
[.
determined that the plant's radvaste solidification and c
f-off-gas systems were not contaminated.
Site G
characterization further revealed that portions of the 2.
liquid radvaste system were slightly contaminated.
It had f.
[' _,h been originally planned that LILCO vould decontaminate this r
(
system using " soft" decontamination techniques to meet the A
\\~/
site release criteria prior to the start of decommissioning activities.
Due to prioritization of work activitics and I
the results of soft decontamination efforts to date, 1
however, this system vill not be decontaminated prior to
=
decommissiong as originally planned.
It is L1PA's current intent to dismantle the contaminated piping in this system
'l and to mechanically decontaminate the tanks and sumps which are contaminated above the site release criteria.
- l The Reactor Building ventilation system vill remain 4
operabic during the duration of decommissioning activities.
y
, w.
Radioactive vastes generated during decommissioning vill be processed as necessary using temporary systems supplied by experienced vendors and contractors where appropriate.
The i temporary waste treatment system vill be connected to existing non-contaminated tanks for storage of processed water prior to discharge.
Once it has been verified that xt the stored processed water meets the allowable discharge limits specified in the Shoreham Offsite Dose Calculation r2 Hanual, the water vill be released through the existing discharge system. These systems may include te=porary S
ventilation with filtration for airborne contamination, portable demineralizers for liquid vaste processing and
.k..,,
compactors for volume reduction of DAW.
In addition, y,)
3-20 February 1993 5'-N
,e?
^
-I o
e u~
f * ** %q
//
%^
NUCt. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION UNITED STATES y7
..[
REGION I f
,[4 / ;l
~
d.
?.
\\,
'*/
ONG oF PRUss!A PENNSYLVANIA 19406-1415 Docket No. 50-322 hir. Leslie hi. Hill Shoreham. Resident Manager Long Island Power Authority Shorenam Nuclear Power Station P. O. Box 628. Nonh Country Road Wading River. New York i1792
Dear Mr. Hill:
SUBJECT:
NRC Inspection No. 50-322/93-01 This letter transmits the results of safety inspections conducted by Mr. R. L. Nimitz and others during the period January 1 - May 7,1993, at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Wading PJver. New York. The inspectors focused their attention on issues important to safety, and based their Sndings on independent observations of on-going activities, interviews, and document reviews.
The inspection Gndings were discussed with you and members of your staff periodically during the inspection and were summarized at the exit meeting on May 7,1993.
Areas reviewed during the inspection are fully discussed in the enclosed inspection repon. The areas reviewed included decommissioning status and activities; action on previous Sndings; termination surveys: organization, staffing. training and qualifications: radiological controls:
radioactive waste activities; maintenance and surveillance; quality assurance: fire protection and security.
The inspectors' review indicated that, overall. decommissioning and termination survey activities were conducted in accordance with the approved Decommissioning and Tennination Survey Plans. Tmining of personnel performing termination survey activities was considered very good.
The inspectors' review of quality assurance oversight during decommissioning indicated that very good oversight was provided. Several unresolved items were identined by the inspectors. These involved replacement of out-of-date procedures. maintenance of final termination survey records.
soil sampling. identification of isolated contamination on the main turbine, and personnel entry into the hotwell. These items are discussed in the enclosed inspection report and will be reviewed funher during a future inspection. Weaknesses associated with document control for i
temporary modi 6 cations were identi6ed by the inspectors but corrected by the end of the inspection. Concerns associated with lifting of heavy loads were identi6ed and are the subject of Special Inspection No. 50-322/93-02. which was issued on June 1,1993.
No safety concerns or violations were identified and no response to this letter is required.
dhibit 3 4
4 specifies that maintenance, that can affect the performance of safety-related equipment.
be properly pre-planned and perfonned in accordance with wntien procedures.
documented instructions, or drawings appropriate to the circumstances.
A LIPA Deficiency Report, LDR 92XO60, was initiated for maintenance action and root i
cause analysis. The maintenance action involved inspection and repairireplacement of the damaged bus bar conductors. De root cause was attributed to: "I&C technicians involved used questionable judgement in deciding to operate the polar crane, and also by not positioning themselves with an unobstructed view.." The corrective action to prevent recurrence included meetings with all I&C technicians to advise them that only qualified personnel are allowed to operate the crane.
The inspector reviewed the documentation that all personnel had attended the requisite training. The licensee
,j subsequently provided similar trauung to other work groups (i.e., contractors and other maintenance personnel) when it was noted by the inspector that these individuals may be working near or around the crane. The inspector did note that only censin maintenance personnel are qualified to operate the crane.
The inspector concluded that the above observation was a licensee identified violation of procedure SP32X002.01, Revision 2, which required that only qualified personnel operate the crane. He inspector reviewed this matter relative to the criteria for exercise of discretion (for non-issuance of a Notice of Violation), specified in 10 CFR 2, Appendix C, and concluded that the licensee met the criteria.
As a result, this unresolved item is administratively closed and considered a non-cited licensee identified violation of Technical Specification 6.7.
4.0 Facility Status The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station was shut down in 1989. The maximum power anained was 5 % reactor power, with a total core history of 2 megawatt tMW) days. In June 1991, a Possession Only License (POL) (effective July 19, 1991) was issued to Long Island Lighting Company (LILCo). On Febmary 29,1992, the NRC approved the transfer of the license to the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). On June 11,1992.
the NRC issued an Order authorizing the decommissioning of Shoreham, ne LIPA Board of Trustees voted on November 30,1992, to award a fuel disposition I
contract to Compagnie General des Marieres Nucleaires (COGEMA) for shipment of the fuel to France. The contract was signed on December 1,1992. However, the licensee has not been successful in obtaining an export permit for the fuel.
On February 25, 1993, LIPA reached an agreement with the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) to transfer the slightly irradiated fuel from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to PECO for use at PECO's Limerick Nuclear Power Station. The agreement provides for transpan of Shoreham Station's fuel (560 fuel elements representing the reactor's initial core load) in special shipping casks by rail from Long D
a 5
Island to the Limenck Station. The shipments wil! use solely designated trains. The transfer would require about 33 separate shipments. Transfer of the fuel from Shortham to the nearest rail head will be accomplished by use of heavy haulers.
LIPA has encountered local opposition to shipment of the fuel via rail. At the close of j
this inspection period the licensee was evaluating other shipping alternatives including shipment of the fuel by barge. The licensee's plans were to stan fuel shipping activities in June 1993 and end by February 1994. The licensee indicated that fuel transfer will result in all fuel being removed from the Shoreham site, provide for earlier completion of the Termination Survey Program, and provide for earlier license termination.
The reactor vessel has been segmented and the segments have been disposed of. The reactor vessel bottom head was left intact and the licensee was attempting to decontaminate and leave it in place. The reactor vessel head remains on site. All fuel remains in the spent fuel pool.
Contaminated systems continued to be removed and segmented and shipped off-site for burial. Essentially all contaminated systems were removed and disposed of with the exception of the liquid radwaste system and the fuel pool clean-up system. These systems were needed to support decommissioning activities and maintain fuel pool water quality. The licensee installed a temporary fuel pool filter demineralizer to allow for removal of portions of the spent fuel pool clean-up system.
The licensee was conducting activities in accordance with the Decommissioning Plan or.
as necessary, has requested appropriate changes.
5.0 Termination Survev Plannine and Performance 5.1 Plannine and Geneml Information On December 2,1992, the licensee formally submitted the Shoreham Decommissioning Project Termination Survey Plan (Survey Plan), Revision 0, to the NRC for review and approval. The Survey Plan describes the methodology and techniques to be used by the licensee to survey the site for unrestricted access. The NRC reviewed the Survey Plan and provided comments to the licensee in a letter dated December 16. 1992. The licensee subsequently responded to the comments in a letter (LSNRC-2LMS) dated April 15, 1993. The NRC reviewed the response and subsequently approved the Shoreham Decommissioning Project Termination Survey Plan, Revision 0, on April 16, 1993 Atuchment I to this inspection report contains the licensee's termination survey schedule.
5.2 Procedure Reviews As pan of this inspection. the inspectors reviewed the following documents pertaining
i L.L hgencyDropsPlan to Shi @meir tes%smonv i=="HL 5
LShorehamFuel Via New York
&&"%5W5 i
By M ATTHEW !. WALD raise his right hand this t The authontv struck a deal with "Puttmg people under oath has
- The long Island Power Authonty, Philadelphia Eiectne m Februarv to to do with thea ter than substance, bowmg to pressure from New York send Shoreham's 560 oundles of ura, said.
- City officials, yesterday dropped a naum fuel to LsmerTk. The authont plan to ship radioactive fuel from the is to pav Philaddphia Electne $4'5 chairmati, agam spurned the De y
Rodney P.
Frehnghuysen,
- Shoreham nuclear power plant by milhon, 'and Philadelphia Electne rail through Queens and the Bronx to says that the l'enefit to its customer crats' criarge of pnhtical grands Pennsylvania, and said instead that ing, as he had Monday when he will be $70 milhon.
s the fuel would go by barge. But the The source of the authonty's prob.
pealad to the Assembly's two-t
, plan is likely to raise the cost of Repubhcan majonty for the powe tem ts that the Umted States has no shuttmg down the plant by125 mtibon centralized site, permanent or tempo.
"The process by whkh the s subpoena witnesses.
or more, The new plan is for the barge to gorary, to store spent nuclear fue!,
and its authonties issue bonds rw, around Montauk Potnt into the open
,, ocean, and then up the Delaware Riv.
Dinkins Is 'G ratified, be imperfect m many respects "
said before takmg Mr. Crane's,
er to a port near the Philadelphia Yesterday, m a jomt statement, the many. "But never m so many qts t
r Airport, where a shipping cask will be authortty and the Pennsylvama util' ters where bondmg is a com loaded on a Conrail trata for the rest sty described the 70-ton Lof the journey to the umretelt Gener. casks as " virtually mdestructible."shippmg practice, whether tt be the Trea er's office, the New Jersey Turnq ating Station, near Pottstoem/
In an accident, the casks would float,Authonty, the Sports and Expositr T But this, too, is uncertain tecause the authority said. It did not address Authonty or the Health Care FactF Philadelphia may hoki heanngs on the question of which method of ship-Financmg Agency so many rumors o. have there be
' whether et should allow passarge of thement was safer.
f h*1f.deahng, g
- fuel, now that New yow City has Mayor David N. Dinkms said yes-sonal gam and centrahzed mang found it undesirabler terday that he was gratified to learn ment of both the fiscal and pohti De executive director of LIPA, of the decision. " Clearly t
any pro-details of bond issuances."
d Domas DeJesu,retanedyesterdayto posal to ship nuclear was,te through estimate-the addMkstai an ares as densely populated as New Alde to Florio
{*
,new shipping ruotertu$osc of the.. York City A Justice Department mvestt was unacceptable and
.plarrwas ro se:32 0 ecyleen the"c grossly minuided," he said.
tion is under way mto allegations
% shipments were supposed to be com.61berby r 11, the4 y 2 Inrthe-1980's New York City tned kickbacks in the underwnting of M pleted by January, before the Limer-to block shipments with far higher Jersey Turnpike Authonty bondr 5
" adelphin Electnc Company,is to shuttek plant. which is owned by the Phil.
radioactivity from Brookhaven Na-vohnng a company half owned-I tional Laboratory, m Upton, L.I., but Joseph P. Salema, who was Gov. P il to after a lengthy for about three months for refuelmg.whether national or local rules ap-Mr. Salema. mamtammg thal l
legal battle over no's chief of staff until May.
- nia, Now, countmg the threomonth re.
fucting shutdown, when the plant will plied to transportation of radioactivemterest m the firm Armacon Sec e.
wastes, the city lost.
ties Inc., was m a bhnd trust and not be able to accept new shipments, yesterday, however,Mr. DeJesu said he had done nothing w I
the schedule calls for completion by i
that he feared that city lawyers could have delayed soon after the existence of the mvt September of next year.
the stupments, at enormous cost to gatson became public m May.
the authonty.
The Secunties and Exchange Q A Castly Delay The difference is important be.
mission has also asked for >
cause it costs hetweert $2 million and i records from the Sports and En
$2.5 million a month to maintain tion Authonty m connection uti
[
meaning a total of about $20 million* l --
Armacon inquiry.
Shoreham while the fuel is there -
The December refinancmg a he e
In addition, the barge will cost about Lazard Frtres worked like this:
55 milhon more than rail transporta. j LOtteryNumbers b8nkmg house underwrote the 1
l ante of $1.8 b'lhon m new bon tion would have, according to experts.
New York Numbers - 807 i
1 j
the state, half of which was Both costs would fall on LLPA.
$g I
I marked to retire old debt that wa Slowmg the whole process is a lack of shippmg casks for radioactive fuel.
New York Win 4 - 1633 at higher interest rates, and the New York Pick lo-10. II,12 l
half to go into a senes of funds The power authonty has been able to k 15,16,18.19,26,31 36,39. 41,53' obtam only Iwo, so 33 trips roust be capital and debt payment outlays Because the old bonds had A it made. And the barge is slower than 55,61,66,68,69,72,73 l
can dates me dates ded d
the iram, and subject to delays from New York Ta ke 5 - 8.16,20,36, state can pay,them off, the i weather and tides.
y 39 l
s A LIPA spokesman, John B. How.
raised in the new bond sales was 4 I
ard, said, however, that it might have,
New Jersey Pick 3-346 I
to buy short-term Federal Treaf been impossible to complete th New Jersey Pick 4 - 5000 notes from Lazard Frsres. The d i
! shipments by January anyway.e rati C nnecucut DaHy - 314 ing contract from the state, d vation that won Lazard the ref f
L1PA, which acquired Shoreham
' from the Long Island Lighting C misgivmgs by some of Mr. Cr 1
Connecticut Lono - i a 21, man was de W ans pany for 31 af ter an agreementom-l W a 2L 2142 abandon the reactor,is trymg to close ng house ananged tM to of treasury notes whose ma the plant to reheve ntself of thecost of l Sept,13,1993 fi secunty and mamtenance, as i
New York Pkk 10- l' 7 od n '
quired by the Nuclear Regulatory re-3.7,11 15.19'20.23 32.3't 34'3 Commisson, Lazard Freres has not disc
< is0MO a day.
runs to about.' M 63 M 67'68 '6 40'49' wnich
"' 0I U" FU
- S'M ury notes to New Jersey. The A//
Street Journal has put the ft E
{j)
$10 milhon, and that number g
widely taken as fact at today's smn Mr. crane. however - s '
T4
W
,& ~ g;hikEf
,.g.%v,gha,.
..)WQ %f"?
NS$.,O..
... m
-1;.,
c15trF;igW~
. h%
yi fd0 MW.:aH'M[r.!M ar[CM ~a=#E%e ' ',CFR 50390,1,q,g
'$N 3,.. A ~$Nh. g* O M,c.54 5%. ' k
.;;59 %.B t % ~
pme W
,.Tr; f
-PHTfADELPHIA'.WEf'IRIC~ COMPANY -
"" # 1,' 7 Ql-
. n ;,~. -
m mwr.wAcv.w -...
~.
~
i,
.,.- NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS
/ ^
e
- ...:e 1
,,,a f@,'
95545 CFITIERBROO.K BLVD;'
. e.
M
T, ~~'
,3".,..,.,b,fu
@J%r
. g... ' -
WAYNE. PA 19087-5691 ?,,.
y
- l; p
- n.. $
y am t.eace e
.m W
~'i 3
Q.
March 8, 1993 U
-l wucuAm somers osamerxT i.
Docket Nos.
50-352 50-353
+,.
4.
C-1 5:.:
a.M. ~., QM.<'f. :wi -
< W :'..
~
..7,'M9
.v;
~
4.t.A.3 vmpc.g.4. License Nos.-.NPF-39 a.r.?
c
- m. 3.;.f -p
_ y.J <
, - %,y.k...8%.,
b
.n:is R %+ w: f i & y & %h h f S
W '
.g..
yyy-g $2
=g
.a
- .f sN..
W ':
- M %;.% M,4CMtM*P*Y_;..
'.dsei' -Q L.h fi Rgmjy N
y.;-
U.-S n Nuc & ? $5?h O,*'ts M h. ear 4 Regulatory.;Commiss[on h%
- . Mih Ah.W.\\,,fn,: $. ~i. M'. A 7.f'F -
'h' Y,. ATIN t : Docusin g%,y.' %*.
-t r.,
Contirole.De k
% b.
J.6t'sWashin~t'on
'0555
""".Jn____g _,a 47d.0,m=%? W Enk-Q
- q
- --P e
4+m.... x t
?... -.
v
,_ n%Unitsa 10and ;... "-2.b,,. 7 ",e W
W
?,. &~ ~,'ESubjectr.:
U mer rattin, Generatin i
?
0 7 &gcLicena est'.93'03-0 E ',, -
v
.y n
,b..
f Yr n$e t.....h g{.yg Mwo -'
e Y,.
h.
E YY' Y
,' Ge 1e
}:{J.:.y$.?.T,'; g. p an....
Philadelphia. Electric.Companyf(PEco)deqh.Nf' **"""*
~
i,1*.
d+.m.'; *n?MC
.5-
,. 25 Q'7'D uests;a. change to 3
S.
Opera ting 3 Licens e r Nos /t NPF-39'!and
- NPF-(85 Ef or tLime' rick-Generating -
~;P y'
Station, ( LGS ) Uni tF1"snd Uniti'i 2 ;We s'pe ctiOelyn.? Thei propo s ed C.
change revises paragraph 2.B;(5) to allowr,LGSFUnit.:1 and Unit 2, i
rf,d h.
to receive and possess,- but not'separatey such: source;-byproduct, and special nuclear materials,as containeW inithe fuel assemblies N*%
@f,.
and fuel channels from the Shoreham<NuclsarsPower-Station (SNPS)..
d,.
k(l~
.i.. C,%@X@.$TCQ OO h I.7%
i
~
PECo requests this change to authorize.it,;.as the licensee
?
E.1 for LGS,. Unit 1 and Unit 2, to receive.and possess.the slightly.-
SNPS never commenced commercial operation ef'..W,(.}M k'
'e..',,".f.<h h~,-
irradiated.SNPS fuel.
and isEcu'rrently being decommissioned.': Our. objective is to-obtain.the. enrichedeSNPS fuel for eventual'.use -in.the LGS. Unit'
..t.3 and Unit: 2'. reactors'.6' I i Md l
y
.. P ry h containsfinformation supporting a finding that1; p" $h,,
?
the proposed. change.does;notYinvolve a.Significant Hazards
... s.:..f
?
Consideration and information supportin';an. Environmental
.,% ' T 7 g
L Assessment. also contains a description of the SNPS
~
fuel, an assessment of its general suitability for future use at Oc LGS, and the protective packaging and shipping methods that will be used i' this proposed change is approved.
y contains the Operating License pages showing the proposed change.
}
4.^
l 1500E0 Ih!
9303150192 93030s j
7 PDR.ADOCK 05000332 I
5
,W.Y**i'W
__y v-
+-P
_+-----=r---m-.y P-w
~
-E
,d.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission March 8, 1993 We request the NRC's prompt attention to this matter due to schedular considerations related to the movement of the fuel from the SNPS site to the LGS site, and the refueling schedules for LCS Unit 1 and Unit 2.
If approved, we request that the amendments be made effective by June 1, 1993.
l If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours, (l n(t, ?.W ' h1
^
G.
A.
Hunger, Director Licensing Section Attachments N
cc:
T. T. Martin, Administrator, Region I, USNRC w/ attachments T. J.
Kenny, USNRC Senior Resident Inspector, LGS w/ attachments W.
P.
Dornsife, Director, PA Bureau of Radiological Protection, w/ attachments l
l m
I I
~
b COMMONWEALTH OT rr.NNSYLVANIA Ss.
COUNTY OF CHESTER C.
R. Rainey, being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
That he is Vice President of Philadelphia Electric Company, the Applicant herein: that he has read the foregoing Application for Amendment of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 (Operating License Change Request No. 93-03-0) to allow Limerick Generating Station to receive and possess fuel assemblies and fuel channels from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, and knows the contents thereof; and that the statements and =atters set forth therein are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
$i W Vice Pr,esident Subscribed and sworn to
<, 4 A.
before me this O day
'II)W f of 1993.
/
I Ih',' m
's y,fNl( _
G j
<<uv w b A IJW N%4ry nf M I%% Nts Ctte/w i'o. ray Mc Ctvu m'.c f n*, b,,,
l. rfg
a I
E R
I i
ATTACID4ENT 1 4
LIMERICK CENERATING STATION Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 License Nos. NPF-39 NPF-85 OPERATING LICENSE CHANGE REQUEST
" Allow Receipt and Storage of Fuel Assemblies and Fuel Channels from Shorcham Nuclear Power Station" 4
- 1 4
o Supporting Information for Changes - 14 pages 4
l
l:
Licens6 Change Request Attacb=ent 1 No. 93-03-0 Page 2 Philadelphia Electric Co=pany (PEOo), licensee under Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 for Limerick Generating Station (LCS), Unit 1 and Unit 2, requests that these licenses be amended as proposed herein to allow LCS to receive and possess, but not separate, such source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials ta contained in the fuel assemblies and fuel channels f rom the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS).
This Operating License Change Request for LGS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, provides a discussion and description of the proposed change, a safety assessment, information supporting a finding of No significant Hazards Consideration, and information supporting an Environmental Assesse.ent.
We request that, if approved, the change to the Operating Licenses for LCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, be effective by June 1, 1993.
Discussion and Descriotion of the Procesed Chance Paragraph 2.B. (5) of Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-BS states that LCS is authorized:
" Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility."
The word " facility," as used in these licenses, refers to LCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2.
This wording limits pussession of any byproduct and rpecial nuclear materials in fuel elements to that which is prod ced at LCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2.
The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) is the holder of NRC Possession Only License (POL) No. NPP-82 for SNPS.
SNPS never commenced commercial operation and is presently undergoing decommissioning while in a non-operating, defueled condition with all fuel (i.e.,
560 fuel assemblies) stored in the spent fuel pool.
Approval of the following proposed change to paragraph 2.D. (5) of Operating License 400. NPF-39 and NPF-85 will authorize receipt and possession of the slightly irradiated SNPS fuel asLemblies and fuel channels at LCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Approval of the proposed change will result in the beneficial use of the SNPS fuel by its eventual use in the LCS Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactors.
We expect to use only the enriched SNPS fuel in the LCS Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor cores in the future.
Also, approximately 76
e_ _ _ _. _ _
_v 1
i s'
s License Change Request No. 93-03-0 Pago 3 of the SNPS fuel channels may be shipped to Los and used to channel the natural uranium assemblies in the LCS spent fuel pools. The slightly irradiated SNPS zircaloy fuel channels will be shipped separately from the SNPS fuel as radioactive material in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR 172 and 49 CFR 173.
5 The SNPS fuel channels will not be used in the LCS reactors.
i The proposed change to paragraph 2.B.(5) of Operating License i
Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 would authorize LCS:
" Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to
[
possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility, and to receive and possess, but not separate, such source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials as contained in the fuel assemblies and fuel channels from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station."
Safety Ansessment The purpose of these proposed changes is to authorize PEco to receive and possess, but not separate, such source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials as contained in the 560 alightly irradiated fuel assemblies and fuel channels from the SNPS.
LIPA is the licensee for SNPS and would be responsible for the transportation of the fuel from SNPS to LCS.
The following is a description of the SNPS fuel, an assessment of its general suitability for future use at LCS, and the packaging, shipping, handling and storage methods that will be employed to ensure that the enriched fuel can be safely handled and stored at LCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, and to ensure that the enriched fuel remains suitable for future use.
A.
Description of the SNPS Fuel The SNPS fuel ccr.s1Lla of ocu CE6 (P8x8R) pressurized, C-lattice, non-barrier fuel assemblies fabricated by the General Electric (CE) Company.
Of the 560 SNPS fuel assemblies, 340 are enriched to 2.19 weight percent (w/o) U-235, 144 are enriched to 1.76 w/o U-235, and the remaining 76 are natural uranium (i.e., 0.711 w/o U-235).
These fuel assemblies are similar to the LCS Unit 1 initial core described and evaluated in the LCS Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
The SNPS fuel has been operated intermittently at low power (i.e., less than 5% of the SNPS full power rating of 2436 h,
N E
=.
u
-' -~~~~~ ~- --
7_.
St - -
m y _.,,
yy Q. Qg
'~C;
'm n
+g E.
^
A 4
Liconse'Ch'ange Request No. 93-03'-0 Page 4 megawatts thermal) for testing purposes only.
The fuel has been irradiated to a core average exposure of approximately 48
~
megawatt days per metric ton (MWD /MT).
The SNPS fuel was removed from the reactor and placed in the SNPS spent fuel pool in August 1989.
As of June 1992, the calculated decay heat rate for the entire core was 265 watto (i.e., 900 Btu /hr).
The fission product inventory for the entire SNPS core is less than 0.02% of the source term assumed in the analysis of the design basis loss of coolant accident described in the LCS Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR).
i A detailed inspection of two of the SNPS fuel assemblies was performed during August 1990.
This inspection included 'ddy current testing of a number of individual fuel and water rods and a visual inspection of the whole fuel assembly.
This inspection, performed by CE, determined that the SNPS fuel is in excellent condition and is suitable for future use.
An evaluation of the water chemistry history of both the SNPS reactor and spent fuel pool was performed to assess the impact on the fuel.
This evaluation determined that while in the reactor j
or spent fuel pool at SNPS, the fuel was not exposed to an
]
ad<.trse environment that would preclude its future use.
B.
Packaging and Shipping Criteria i
The SNPS fuel will be transported in the IF-300 Series spent fuel cask.
This cask is designed in accordance with all NRC and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations governing the shipment of radioactive material of this type (i.e., 10 CFR 71 and 49 CFR 173).
The cask is operational under NRC Certificate of Compliance 9001. The IF-300 Series spent fuel cask will be used with a 17 element (i.e., fuel assembly) basket designed to accommodate the shipment of slightly irradiated fuel that is intended for reuse.
The holder of NRC Certificate of Compliance 9001 is requesting an amendment of the Certificate of Compliance to reflect the design of the basket and packaging.
Special packaging designed to protect the fuel from damage during 1
shipment will be used inside the IF-300 cask basket.
This packaging will consist of a special stainless steel shipment channel and plastic cluster separators.
The plastic cluster separators will bo inserted between the rods in each fuel assembly to support the rods while the fuel assembly is i
horizontal.
The stainless steel channel vill support and protect cach fuel assembly and hold the plastic cluster separators in place.
l
.l 5
- - * - - =,, -
- e
- - - - ~
[C ~'~
7 r.
s 2
3 License Change Requeqt No. 93-03-0 Page 5 5
The plastic cluster separators consist of ribbed polyethylene 4
[.
counted to a polyethylene outer shell.
The separators are made of the same material as the separators used during shipment of new fuel.
The separators are inserted from opposite f aces and each extends halfway across the assembly width.
A total of 32 pairs of cluster seperators will be used per fuel assembly.
A specially designed installation device will be used to push one i'
cluster separator at a time into position while supporting and aligning the assembly. The separators will be inserted while the fuel is in the SNPS spent fuel pool.
After the cluster separators are inserted and the installation is inspected, the fuel assembly will be moved to the SNPS fuel prep machine and a stainless steel channel will be installed over the
[fuelassemblycontainingtheclusterseparators. The stainless steel shipment channel is similar to a normal zircaloy channsi but has a larger inside dimension.
The top of the stainless steel fuel channel vill have corner clips similar to the nor=al zircaloy fuel channel.
The top of the channel will be bolted to
.the fuel assembly upper tie plate to provide support to the tie plate.
The bottom of the channel will slide over the existing fuel assembly finger springs and terminate below the finger springs in the machined area of the lower tie plate.
C.
Handling of the Cask and Irradiated Puel Upon arrival at the 143 site, the IF-300 cask with the SNPS fuel assemblies will be lifted from the railcar by the reactor enclosure (RE) main hoist to the refueling floor through the equipment hatch.
All cask handling and fuel handling activities are consistent with the methods described in LCS UFSAR Section 9.1.4.2.10, " Description of Fuel Transfer." The SNPS fuel is of the same mechanical design as originally described and evaluated in the LCS FSAR and is compatible with all existing LGS fuel handling equipment.
The RE main hoist,is designed to handle loads with a maximum l
weight of 125 tons while maintaining a safety factor of five (5).
The IF-300 cask weighs approximately 85 tons, including the basket, the 17 fuel assemblies, and the redundant cask lifting yoke.
The RE main hoist is designed so that the failure of any i
single component does not result in a sudden displacement or dropping of the load.
The single failure proof design of the RE main hoist is described in Section 9.1.5.4 of the LCS UFSAR and was reviewed and approved by the NRC in section 9.1.5 of NUREC-0991, Supplement 4,
" Safety Zvaluation Report Related to the Operation for Limerick Generation Station, Units 1 and 2," dated May, 1985.
While handling the IF-300 cask, the requirements of i
)
Jg b
a i
..~.-
.,m..
.?
w i
b%
l 4
'icensa. Change Request.
a.
o-No. 93-03-0 Page 6 U
NUREC-0554, " Single Failure Proof Cranes for Nuclear ?cwer Plants" and NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants" will be met by the use of a single failure proof redundant yoke and by restricting the critical load of the RE
=ain hoist to 110 tons.
Restricting the RE main hoist critical load to 110 tons and the use of cingle failure proof equipment satisfies the single failure criteria and prec?.udes a cask drop due to a single failure.
Therefore, as stated in UFSAR Section 15.7.5, an analysis of the spent fur.1 cask drop is not required.
At no time will the cask be lifted or carried over spent fuel or the reactor cores.
5 E
D.
Storage of Irradiattsd Fuel New fuel and spent fuel are stored in the LCS spent fuel pool as described in the LCS UFSAR, Section 9.1.2,
" Spent Puel Storage."
Spent fuel pool cooling capacity, storage capacity, and the effects of the SNPS fuel assembly packaging material on spent fuel pool criticality have been evaluated.
The contribution of the SNPS fuel to the spent fuel pool heat load is negligible.
The spent fuel pool cooling designed to accommcdate a heat load of 16.3 x 10, system is j
Btu /hr.
The maximum heat rate of the spent fuel for a one-third discharge during refueling is approximately 13 x 10 core Btu /hr.
As of June 1992, the full core calculated decay heat rate of the SNPS fuel was approximately 900 Btu /hr.
The capacity of each of the LCS spent fuel pools is 2,040 spaces.
Currently, a totsi of 3,336 spaces have been installed in both pools and 1,692 spaces contain discharged fuel assemblies.
Storage of the SNPS fuel in the LCS Unit 1 and Unit 2 spent fuel pools will not axceed the Technical Specification (TS) limit for the spent fuel pools and will not preclude full core discharge until approximately the end of 1996.
Plans are currently being
=ade to re-rack the spent fuel pools to increase capacity.
4 LCS UFSAR Section 9.1.2.3.1 describes the criticality analysis for the LCS spent fuel pool.
This analysis assumed fuel assemblies with uniform 3.5 w/o enriched U-235.
This analysis also assumed the presenco of zircaloy channels which is a more reactive configuration than a' fuel assembly stored without zircaloy channels.
The worst case value of X,o under these conditions was determined to be 0.933.
The SNPS fuel has a significantly lower enrichment than the enrichmeat assumed in the j
LCS fuel pool criticality analysis.
The highast average assembly i
i i
j Y
_p p
Wp.
%a w,,
g -
- ~
License Change. Request No. 93-03-0 Attach =ent 1 Page 7 1
enrichment of the SNPS fuel is 2.19 v/o U-235 and the maximum planer snrichment is 2.33 v/o U-235.
Therefore, the criticality analysis in UFSAR Section 9.1 2.3.1 bounds the storage of the SNPS fuel because of the much lower enrichment of the S'.iPS fuel compared to the enrichment assu=ed in the LGS fuel pool criticality analysis.
The SNPS fuel will arrive at LGS packaged with polyethylene spacers and a protective stainless steel channel.
A criticality i
analysis performed by GE evaluated the effect of the polyethylene spacers and stainless steel channels on fuel pool criticality.
The presence of the polyethylene spacers will increase the hydrogen concentration in the vicinity of the fuel and, there-fore, neutron moderation.
However, the lower enrichment of the SNPS fuel compared to the enrichment used in the UFSAR criticality analysis causes a much greater negative effect on reactivity than the positive reactivity resulting from the a
presence of the polyethylene spacers.
Therefore, SNPS fuel i
containing the polyethylene spacers is bounded by the criticality analysis in LCS UFSAR 9.1.2.3.1.
Furthermore, the stainless steel channel", add negative reactivity and, in all cases, the presence of stainleas steel channels lovers the spent fuel pool k,n.
The GE analysis determined that storage of the SNPS fuel in the LGS spent fuel pool, including storage with or without the polyethylene spacers and/or stainless steel channels, will not result in a k equal to or greater than the limit of 0.95 delineated in,yLGS TS Section 5.5.1.1.
E. General Suitability for Future Use The acceptance criteria for the shipment of the SNPS fuel vill be the same as applied to the shipment of new GE fuel, and is specified in GE topical report NEDE-23542 P, " Fuel Assembly Evaluation of Shipping and Handling Loads" dated March 1977.
GE has determined that if the maximum acceleration and loading acceptance criteria for a fuel assembly are not exceeded during
-l handling and shipping, the SNPS fuel will be maintained in a condition suitable for future use at LGS.
To ensure that the SNPS fuel assemblies arrive in a condition suitable for future use, a dummy test assembly will bo inspected after being subjected to a shaker table test to simulate the loading and accelerations expected during shipment.
During shipment, each cask will be instrumented to measure accelerations to determine compliance with the shipping criteria discussed above.
Additionally, one or more fuel assemblics from the first d
=
a g,
4.
t
-se I
- !l,.
, X picense Change Request No. 93-03-0 Page 8 l
k, shipment will be disassembled and inspected before and after g
ship =ent. A procedura for this inspection process will be established.
This inspection procedure =ay be repeated on selected fuel assemblies from subsequent shipments if determined j
necessary, i
All the fuel assemblies shipped from SNPS to LCS will be visually 9
inspected with optical equipment or closed circuit television before packaging to provide a record of the fuel assembly condition on film er video tape.
After packaging, all fuel assemblies will be visually re-inspected to confirm all required plastic cluster separators are in place.
After arrival at LCS, all assemblies will be inspected to the same acceptance criteria used for the receipt inspection of new fuel. Any SNPS fuel assembly that does not meet the acceptance l
criteria established for these inspections will be excluded from future use in the LCS reactor cores unless it is repaired and meets appropriate acceptance criteria.
At the time the SNPS fuel is considered for use in either the LCS reactor cores, a cycle-specific core nuoloar analysis will bo pe rf ormed.
This analysis will be based on the latest NRC approved revision of CE licensing topical report NEDE-240ll-P-A,
" General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Puel GESTAR II."
The effect of the SNPS fuel on the thermal-hydraulic.
stability of the reactor core will also be evaluated in accordance with cur commitments in response to NRC Ceneric Letter 88-07, Supplement 1, " Power Oscillations in Boiling Water Reactors (BWR)."
These are tha same evaluations that would be pe r f o rmed for all reactor reload core designs.
An evaluation was performed to determine if any changes are required to the cycle-specific core nuclear analysis to account for the prior operating history, handling, and transportation of the SNPS fuel.
Each GESTAR II criterion and licensing bases was assessed to dotermine if any special evaluations will be required to utill:e the SNPS fuel in the LCS reactor cores. The conclusion i
was that the SNPS fuel will meet all the licensing bases i
documented in the NEDE-24011-P-A.
Therefore, no exceptions to CESTAR II will be needed when the SNPS fuel is analyzed for use in the LCS reactors.
l Preliminary calculations were performed using the CENIE computerf
]'
using the SNPS fuel in the LGS reactor cores.
The conclusion of code, an NRC approved methodology, to evaluate the feasibility of these calculations was that the SNPS fuel can be used in the LCS reactor cores and will result in significant fuel cost savings.
d Reactor core designs using the SNPS fuel will limit the nu=cer of a
9 1
^
~
O s
A r
9 j
a r
License Change Request No. 93-03-0 Page 9 k
SNPS fuel assemblies utilized each cycle and will use the SNPS assemblins only in low duty locations in tne reactor core.
Only the enriched fuel assemblies will be used in the LCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, reactor cores.
Information Sureertino a Findino of No Sionificant Hazards Conside'ltion We have concluded that the proposed change that authorizes PECo to receive and possess the slightly irradiated SNPS fuel assemblies and fuel enannels at LCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, does not involve a Significant Hazards Consideration.
In support of this determination, an evaluation of each of the three standards set fortn in 10 CFR 50.92 is provided below.
1)
The crocesed chance does not involve a sianificant increase in the erobability er consecuences of an accident ereviousiv evaluated.
As explained below, the receipt and storage of the SNPS fuel and fuel channels at LCS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, will not increase the probability of occurrence of any accident previously evaluated in the ICS UFSAR.
The SNPS fuel is similar to fuel previously received, stored, and used at LCS, and the SNpS fuel is the same mechanical design as originally evaluated for Unit 1 in the FSAR.
Handling of the SNPS fuel will not differ significantly from the fuel handling procedures described in LCS UFSAR Section 9.1.4, " Fuel Handling System." The impact on the LCS spent fuel pool criticality is bounded by the fuel pool criticality analysis in LCS UFSAR Section 9.1.2.3.1.
Furthe rmore, the impact of the SNPS fuel decay heat on the ICS spent fuci pool cooling capacity is negligible.
The radiological consequences of a droppea fuel assembly involving the slightly irradiated Shoreham fuel are bounded by the fuel handling accident involving highly irradiated spent fuel described in LCS UFSAR Section 15.7.4
" Fuel Handling Accident. " The physical consequences of a dropped fuel assembly (i.e., on fuel assemblies and structures) are within the scope of LCS UFSAR Section i
9.1.2.3.2.3, " Dropped Fuel Dundle Analyses." Restricting the RE main hoist critical load to 110 tons and the use of single failure proof equipment precludes a cask drop due to single failure.
Therefore, as stated in LGS UFSAR Section
+
r License Change Request No. 93-03-0 Page 10 15.7.5, an analysis of the spent fuel cask drop is not required.
At the time the SNPS fuel is considered for use in either of the LCS reactor cores, a cycle-specific core nuclear analysis will be performed, and will include the effect on the thermal-hydraulic stability in accordance with NRC Generic Letter 88-07, Supplement 1.
The SNps fuel vill be used only if the results of the cycle specific analysis are
[
acceptable.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve an increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously svaluated.
2)
The crocosed chance dees not create the nossibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident oreviously evaluated.
No physical alterations of plant configuration, changes to set points, or changes to operating parameters are involved in implementing the proposed change.
The receipt, handling, and storage of the irradiated SNPS fuel is essentially the same as the movement of irradiated fuel using a spent fuel cask that is discussed in UFSAR Section 9.1.4.2.1,
" Spent Fuel Cask."
The impact of the SNPS fuel and its packaging material on the LCS spent fuel pool criticality is bounded by the fuel pool criticality analysis in LGS UFSAR Section 9.1.2.3.1.
Furthe rmore, the impact of the SNPS fuel decay heat on the LGS spent fuel pool cooling capacity is negligible.
The proposed change does not affect the function or operation of any system or equip =ent; therefore, the propor>ed change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
3)
Ibe orcoosed chance does not involve a sienificant reductio 3 in a marcin of safety.
The margin of safety established in the UFSAR and maintained by compliance with the Technical Specifications will be maintained.
The offect of the SNpS fuel on LGS spent fuel pool cooling capability, storage capacity, and criticality is bounded by existing analyses in the UFSAR as discussed
l-i
=
r_
2 License Change Request Attachcent 1 No. 93-03-0 Page 11
)
above.
Because the fuel is only slightly irradiated and of a similar design to that used at LCS, the movement of the SNPS fuel does not involve any changes in fuel handling practices, types of fuel handling accidents that need to be considered, or occupational radiation exposure from spent fuel pool operations or fuel transfer.
The proposed change does not increase the rick or degree of radiological dose to the general public from that previously evaluated.
The operating limits established in the Core Operating Limits Report (COLR) will be submitted to the NRC as I
required by TS Section 6.9.1.9 prior to using the SMPS fuel in the LCS reactor cores.
Therefore, the proposed change will not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
l Inferration suceortina an Environmental Assessment The proposed changes have been evaluated against the criteria in 10 CFR 51.21 for the identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring an environmental assessment.
We have concluded that the proposed changes do not meet the criteria for categorical exclusion as defined in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9).
Therefore, in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 51.30, the following information is provided to support an Environmental Assessment.
1)
Need for the Prcoosed Chance The proposed change is requested because transfer of the SNPS fuel to LCS would benefit PEco and its customers by providing a low cost source of fuel for LGS.
Additionally, the proposed change to the LCS operating Licenses would benefit the environment and is in the National interest because of benefits that would accrue from the transfer and utilization of the SNPS fuel at LCS.
These benefits include: recovery of the available energy from the fuel that might otherwise be lost; reduction in the need to mine and process uranium and fabricate fuel assemblies that would otherwise be required; and, reduction in the amount of spent nuclear fuel that would otherwise require storage and dispomel at a Federal high level vasto repository.
- Finally, the transfer of the SNPS fuel to LCS f acilitates the decommissioning of the SNPS.
I
i_._ -.-
+
3
~
License Change Request No. 93-03-0 Page 32
'1l 2)
Alternatives and Alternative l'se of Resources If the proposed change to the LCS Operating Licenses is not approved, the LCS reactors will continue to operate using new fuel obtained from existing sources.
If the proposed
{
change is not approved for the transfer the SNPS fuel to LGS or to another facility, the SNPS fuel vill eventually be 1
disposed of at a Federal high level vaste repository without the beneficial utilization of the energy in the fuel, or will be reprocessed at an overseas facility for eventual reconstitution into fuel. Compared with reprocessing at an overseas facility, the proposed change would require less resources for transportation, and would avoid expenditure of additional resources associated with the reprocessing g
activities prior to the beneficial utilization of the energy in the fuel.
Inasmuch as there are no unresolved conflicts concerning the availability or use of alternative resources associated with p
the proposed change, no further evaluation of alternatives is required.
3)
Environmental Incact of the Prorosed Action The approval of the proposed change to the LCS operatu q Licenses vill result in no significant effect on the hunan environment.
This conclusion considers the potential impact of: normal transport and transportation accidents; the uranium fuel cycle radioactive effluents; low level radioactive vaste; and, occ.pational exposure.
The i= pact of the transportation of the slightly irradiated fuel from the SNPS site to the LCS site is minimal.
10 CFR 51.52, Table S-4,
" Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to and from Light Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor," addresses the impact of transporting irradiated fuel and radioactive waste including normal transport and possible accidents.
The proposed shipments meet the conditions specified in 10 CFR 51.b2(a); and, therefore, the environmental impact of the proposed shipments is as set forth in Table S-4.
In any event, the low level of radiation and the substantial elapsed time since the lcw p0Ver cporaticn of the SNPO fuel make the assumptions used in Table S-4 conservative relative to the proposed shipments.
Therefore, Table S-4 bounds the environmental impact of the transportation of the SNPS fuel.
maimumin-i si
License Change Request No. 93-03-0 Page 13 The impact of the transfer of SNPS fuel to LCS on the uranium fuel cycle is neutral or positive.
The NRC's m
original evaluation of this impact is documented in NUREG-0974, " Final Enviro." mental Statement related to the operation of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2,"
dated April, 1984.
KUREG-0974 used 10 CFR 51.51, " Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data -- Table S-3," to assess the effect of the uranium fuel cycle on the operation of LCS Unit 1 and Unit 2.
Transfer of the slightly irradiated SNPS fuel to LGS and the subsequent future use of this fuel results in a reduction in total amount of uranium mined and fabricated into fuel and a reduction in the amount of spent fuel that will eventually be stored at a Federal high level waste repository.
Therefore, with regard to the uranium fuel cycle, the evaluation in NUREG-0974 remains unchanged.
impact on the radioactive effluents discharged from the The LCS site is neutral whether or not the SNPS fuel is used.
The shipment of the SNPS fuel assemblies will meet the packaging and shipping criteria required for shipments of new fuel, so there will be no increase in fuel failure probability due to the shipping process.
Specifically, an increase in fuel failures either due to shipping effects on the fuel or the design of the fuel is not likely as a result of the shipping criteria and inspections that vill be employed.
Finally, no increase in radioactive liquid and gaseous effluents is expected as a result of the receipt, unpacking, and inspection of the SNPS fuel.
The impact of the transfer of SNPS fuel to LGS on the generation of low level radioactive vaste will be low.
Solid waste in the form of Dry Active Waste (DAW) including fuel assembly packaging materials will be shipped offsite for volume reduction and disposal.
The volume of DAW will be minimized, wherever possible, by the re-use of packagAng and shipping material for the multiple shipments required to transfer all of the SNPS fuel.
The impact of the transfer of SNPS fuel to LCS on occupational exposure will be within existing estimates for i
LCS.
The slightly irradiated Shoreham fuel will be packaged inside shipping caska designed to handle highly irradiated spent fuel assemblies.
The casks will be opened and unloaded while submerged in the LGS cask storage pit, and handling of the slightly irradiated fuel will be the same as handline the hichly irradiated fuel during refueling operations.
Appropriate actions to maintain exposure as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) will be taken.
I
, l. g yg7{----
g & _g.
y x.
License Change Request Attachuent'l' No. 93-03-0 Page 14 i
Non-radiological impacts at the LCS nits are limited to Bl removal of paving materici sufficient to permit wheel clearance on 600 feet of existing rail e.pur and the replacement of a number ot' railroad ties.
Since the work is minor and the site area was previously disturbed during sito preparation and construction, this type of environmental impact has been previously addressed and no further environmental assessment of this activity is required.
Therefore, we have concluded that the NRC does not need to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement in connection with the issuance of this amendment to the LCS operating Licenses in accordance with criteria of 10 CFR 51.22(b).
Cenelusion The Plant Operations Review Committee and the Nuclear Review Board have reviewed this proposed change to the Operating Licenses for LGS, Unit 1 and Unit 2, and have concluded that the changes do not involve an unreviewed safety question, do not involve a significant hazards consideration, and do not endanger the health and safety of the public.
i
=
4 E
e
'i ATTACHMENT 2 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-352 50-353 License Nos. NPF-39 NPF-85 PROPOSED OPERATING LICENSE CHANGE D
List of Attached Pages License No. NPF-39 Page 1 - For Information Only Page 3 i
License No. NPF-85 Page 1 - For Information Only Pages 3 and 4 1
l
f
. n AfM_
/
e, UNITED STATES I. ~
'y i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION s.
- ' ~.,8 7 2 00 3 7 3 3
,I wasmetow..s. c. : sss 3
%s y
+....
(
38851255%
PHILADELPHI A ELECTRIC CCMPANY UCCKET NO 50-352 gl LIMERICX GENERATih6 STATION, UNIT 1 FACILITY OPEi<ATING LICENSE License No. NPF-39 1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Co Tnission (the Comission or the NRC) has found that:
The application for license filed by Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's k
-egulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I, and all required notifica-tiens to other agencies or bodies have been duly made; 3.
Snstruction of the Limerick Generating Station Unit 1 (the facility) has been substantially completed in conformity with Construction Permit No. CPPR-106 and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act and the regulations of the Comission; i
C.
The facility will operate in confomity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Comission (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.D. below);
D.
There is reasonable assurance: (i) that the activities authorized by this operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be -
conducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I (except as exempted from compliance in Sectim 2.D.
below);
E.
The licensee is technically qualified to engage in the activities authorized by this license in accordance with the Comission's regula-tiens set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; F.
The licensee has satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part l
la0, " Financial Protection Requirements and Indemnity Agreements", of l
- he Ccmission's regulations; G.
The issuance of this license will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of tne public;
/
4
,l
<te, I
3, (f ~ p $ $. ! b '
1 M 8 I)4
.j s
h I
_3_
(3)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CTR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to reccive, possess and use at any time any byproducts, source and special nuclear material as scaled neutron sources for reactor startup, sealed sources for reactor instrumentation and radiation moni' tor-ing equipment calibration, and as fission detactors in amounts as i
i required; (4)
Pursuant to the Act and,10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source or 1
special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; and (5)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may
{,.].
be produced by the operation of the facility, and te receive and possess, but not separate, such source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials as contained in the fuel assemblies and fuel channels from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
C.
This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the condi-tions specified in the Comminion;s regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.0.'below) and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commissicn now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:
(1)
Maximum Power Level __
The licensee is authorized to c;,erate the f acility at reactor core power levels not in eress of 3293 megawatts thermal (100% rated power) in s.cordance with the conditions specified herein and in Attachmant 1 of this license. The items identified in At tachment I I
to this license shall be completed as specified. is haceby incorporated into this license.
(2)
Technicalj p_ce.sfications and Environmental Protection Plan The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A and the En-vironmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B, both of which are attached hereto, are hereby incorporated into this license.
1 The licensee shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Soccifications and The Environmental Protection Plan.
i I
I r
.,v.
.v._,,
S 4
c.
L N
/D.,
3893262360 umrto stms 7
'e q
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COI.? MISSION j
l wasecrow.o. c. osss
=
%,...../
f PHILACELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DOLKET NO. 50-353 LIMEDICK CEMERATING STATION, UNIT 2 FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE License No. NPT-85 1.
The Muclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission or the NRC) has found that:
A.
The application for license filed by Philadelphia Electric Company
~
(the licensee) cc:rolies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's a
regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I, and all required notifica-tions to other agencies or bodies have been duly made; a
8.
Construction of the Limerick Generating Station Unit 2 (the facility) has been substantially completed in conformity with Construction Permit No. CPPR-107 and the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act and the regulations of the Comission; C.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, as amended, the provisions of the Act, and the regulations of the Comission (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.0. belew);
D.
There is reasonable assurance: (i) that the activitiet authorized by this operating license can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public and (ii) that such activities will be corducted in compliance with the Comission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chaoter I (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.D. below);
E.
The licensee is technically qualified to engage in the activities i
authorized by this i::ense in accordance with the Comission's j
regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; I
F, The licensee has satisfied the applicable provisions of 10 CFR Part
'T 140, " Financial Prctection Recutrements and Indemnity Agreements,"
of the Comission's regulations; G.
The issuance of this license will not be inimical to the comon
~
def en se: and security or to the health and safety of the public; i
I f
k/
q3,
(
AUG 2 5 '.311 s
i
, #16 9
(
- 3.-
i l
(4)
Pursuant.to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70 to receive,
}
possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radicactive apparatus or components; and i
(5)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear raterials a; may be produced by the operation of the facility, and to receive and possess, but not separate, such cource, byproduct, and special nuclear materials as contained in the fuel assemblies and fuel l
char.nels from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
l C.
This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the conditions specified in the Cornission's regulations set forth in 10 g
CFR Chapter I (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.0.
below) and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Comission now or hereaf ter in ef fect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:
5 (l)
Maximum Power t.evel s
Philadelphia Electric Company is authorized to operate the 4
facility at reactor core power levels of 3293 megawatts thermal j
(100 percent rated power) in accordance with the conditions specified herein.
(2)
Technical Specifications I
The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B, and hereby incorporated into this license. PECo shall operate the f acility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the i
Environmental Protection Plan.
(3)
Fire Protection (Section 9.5, 55ER-2)*
The licensee shall maintain in effect all provisions of the l
approved fire protection program as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report for the facility through Revision 58 and i
as approved in the SER through Supplement 9, and in the Fire Protection Evaluation Report through Revision 12, subject to the following provisions a and b below:
s
- The parenthetical notification following the title of license conditiens denotes the section of the Safety Evaluation Report and/or its s'upplements wherein j
the license condition is discussed.
9303150196 930300
?~
2
- - - - - ~
~
'9 V:
i w
a
.).
e i
a.
The licensee shall make no changes,to features of the approved fire protection program which would decrease the j
level of fire protection in the plant without prior 4
approval of the Coernission. To make such a change the licensee must submit an application for license amendment
^
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.90.
i b.
The licensee may make changes to features of the approved fire protection program which would decrease the level of fire protection without prior Comission approval after such features have been installed as approved, provided such changes do not otherwise involve a change in a license l
condition or technical specification or result in an unreviewed safety question (see 10 CFR 50.59). However, j
4 the licensee shall maintain, in an auditable form, a current record of all such changes including an evaluation l
of the effects of the change on the fire protection
~
program and shall make such records available to NRC inspectors upon request. All changes to the approved program made without prior Comission approval shall be reported to the Of rector of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, together with supporting analyses, annually.
(4)
Physical Security and Safeouards The licensee shall fully implement and maintain in effect all provisions of the physical security, guard training and qualification and safeguards contingency plans previously approved by the Commission and all amendments and revisions to such plans made pursuant to the authority of 10 CFR 50.90 cnd 10 CFR 50.54(p). The plans, which contain Safeguards Information protected under 10 CFR 73.21, are entitled: " Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2. Physical Security Plan," with revisions submitted through October 31, 1988; " Limerick Generating Station, l
3 Units 1 & 2, Plant Security Personnel Training and Qualification Plan,' with revisions submitted through October 1, 1985; and
" Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Safeguards Contingency Plan." with revisions submitted throegh November 15, 1986.
l D.
The facility requires exemptions from certain requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 and 10 CFR Part 70. These include (a) exemption from the requirement of paragraph III.D.2.(b)(li) of Appendix J, the testing of containment air locks at times when the containment integrity is not required (Section 6.2.6.1 of the SER and SSER-3)
(b) exemption from the requirements of paragraphs II.H.4 and I!!.C.2 of Appendix J. the leak rate testing of the Main Steam isolation Valves (MSlVs) at the peak calculated containment pressure Pa, and exemption from the requirements of paragraph Ill.C.3 of Appendix J that the measured MSIV leak rates be included in the sumation for the local leak rate test (Section 6.2.6.1 of SSER-3), (c) exemption from the requirement of paragraphs II.H.1 and III.C.2 of Appendix J, i
g,A/i,., < s &
psa cec,
o
- l W~
f
+I UNITED STATES-1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/
?,
W AEMN GT ON, O C. 20SSMm June 23, 1993 Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Mr. George A. Hunger, Jr.
Director-Licensing, MC 52A-5 Philadelphia Electric Company Nuclear Group Headquarters Correspondence Control Desk P.O. Box No.195 Mayne, Pennsylvania 19087-0195
Dear Mr. Hunger:
SUBJECT:
LICENSE AMENDMENT TO RECEIVE, POSSESS, AND USE SHOREHAM FUEL, LIMERICK GENERATING STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2 (TAC NOS. M85941 AND i
M85942)
I The Comission has issued the enclosed Amendment No. 62 to Facility Operating License No. NPF-39 and Amendment No. 27 to facility Operating License No.
NPF-85 for the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2.
These amendments consist of changes to the Operating License for each unit in response to your application dated March 8,1993, as supplemented by letter dated June 2,1993.
j These amendments would revise paragraph 2.B.(5) to the Operating License Nos.
NPF-39 and NPF-85 for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2, respectively, to allow the licensee to receive, possess, and use, but not separate, such source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials as contained in the fuel assemblies and fuel channels from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
6 4
.2:hibit J
e.
i
~
i Mr. George A. Hunger, Jr. June 23, 1993 A copy of our Safety Evaluation is also enclosed.
Notice of Issuance will be included in the Comission's biweekly Federal Reaister notice.
Sincerely,
/S/
Frank Rinaldi, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No. 62 to License No. NPF-39 Amendment No. 27 to License No. NPF-85 2.
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures:
See next page DISTRIBUTION i
Docket File M0'Brien(2)
CMcCracken OC/LFDCB NRC & Local PDRs FRinaldi/JShea NWagne*
EWenzinger, RGN-I PDI-2 Reading DNash IDinitz CAnderson, RGN-I SVarga JMoore OGC JJoiner, RGN-I JCalvo RJones DHagan CMiller EReis GHill(4)
RBenero AHodgdon Wanda Jones, P-370 i
GArlotto LPittiglio LBell JRichardson N0sgood LPhillips FCongel LKopp MSlosson AThadani JHayes CGrimes RCunningham JAustin ACRS(10)
RBangart CMacDonald OPA
- Previously Concurr,ed 0FFICE PDbuk-[
PDI-2/Pld //
PRPB*
SRXB*
SLPB*
6 NAME Mhik FRina LCunningham RJones CMcCracken I fN3 0 k93 05/19/93 05/19/93 05/20/93 DATE
/
0FFICE NRR/ILPB*
NMSS/IMTB*
NMSS/LLDR*
OGC*
'PDI-2/D NAME MSlosson CMacDonald JAustin APH CMiller
- DATE 05/21/93 05/21/93 05/24/93 05/27/93 6 /23/93 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: LI85941.AMD P
Mr. George A. Hunger, Jr. June 23, 1993 A copy of our Safety Evaluation is also enclosed.
Notice of Issuance will be included in the Comission's biweekly Federal Reaister notice.
Sincerely, Y
wn Frank Rinaldi, Project Manager Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
1.
Amendment No. 62 to License No. NPF-39 Amendment No. 27 to License No. NPF-85 2.
Safety Evaluation cc w/ enclosures:
p See next page a
l I
tt -
Mr. George A. Hunger, Jr.
Limerick Generating Station, Philadelphia Electric Company Units 1 & 2 cc:
r J. W. Durham, Sr., Esquire -
Mr. William P. Dornsife, Director
+
Sr. V.P. & General Counsel Bureau of Radiation Protection Philadelphia Electric Company PA Dept. of Environmental Resources n
2301 Market ~ Street P. O. Box 8469 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105-8469 Mr. Rod Krich 52A-5 Mr. James A. Muntz Philadelphia Electric Company Superintendent-Technical 955 Chesterbrook Boulevard-Limerick Generating Station Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087-5691 P. O. Box A-Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Mr. David R. Helwig, Vice President Limerick Generating Station Mr. James L. Kantner Post Office Box A Regulatory Engineer Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Limerick Generating Station P. O. Box A Mr. John Doering Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Plant Manager j
Limerick Generating Station Library i
P.O. Box A US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Region I j
i 475 Allendale Road Regional Administrator King of Prussia, PA 19406-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 49 Region I Mr. Larry Hopkins 475 Allendale Road Superintendent-Operations King of Prussia, PA 19406 Limerick Generating Station P. O. Box A Mr. Neil S. Perry Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 Senior Resident Inspector US Nuclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 596
- Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 Mr. Craig L. Adams Superintendent - Services Limerick Generating Station i
P.O. Box A Sanatoga, Pennsylvania 19464 O
i I
- *
- C v ag_
f.
, ?.,
.f
'$ e r ) 9 UNITED STATES T h q4 l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION'
% - 17, y
wasHINotoN, o C 20555act PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-352 LIMERICK GENERATING STATION. UNIT 1 AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 62 License No. NPF-39
- 1. 5 The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment by Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) dated March 8,1993, as supplemented by letter dated June 2,1993, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Comission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; 6
B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Comission;
.=
C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the'Comission's regulations; D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
)
i 1
i i.
, i l
2.
Accordingly, paragraph 2.8.(5) on page 3 of Facility Operating License L
.No. NPF-39 is hereby amended to read as follows:*
.)-
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility, and to receive and possess, but not separate, such source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials as contained in the fuel assemblies and fuel channels from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
1 FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f
C)& f n1&
l Charles L. Miller, Director.
Project Directorate I-2 l
Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor.hagulation L D
Attachment:
Page 3 of Operating i
License No. NPF-39 Date of Issuance: June 23, 1993 q
i l
)
l l
- Page 3 is attached, for convenience, for the composite license to reflect i
this change.
i l'
L 1
. (3)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to receive, possess and use at any time any byproduct, source and special nuclear material as sealed neutron sources for reactor startup, 9
sealed sources for reactor instrumentation and radiation monitoring equipment calibration, and as fission detectors in amounts as required; (4) Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source or I
special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; and (5)
Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility, and to receive and possess, but not separate, such source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials as contained in the fuel assemblies and fuel channels from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
C.
This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the I
conditions specified in the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I (except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.0.
below) and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Comission now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:
(1) Maximum Power level The licensee is authorized to operate the facility at reactor core power levels not in excess of 3293 megawatts thermal (100%
rated power) in accordance with the conditions specified herein and in Attachment I to this license. The items identified in Attachment I to this license shall be completed as specified. is hereby incorporated into this license.
(2) Technical Soecifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B, as revised through Amendment No. 62, are hereby incorporated in the license.
PEco shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.
Amendment No. 62, n
f***"*4 p
g%
g.~
4.
e.
UNITED STATES
- 4 i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t,-
,f wassmoros. o.c. mse PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-353 1
LIMERICK GENERATING STATION. UNIT 2 i
AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE Amendment No. 27 License No. NPF-85 i
1.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has found that:
A.
The application for amendment by Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) dated March 8,1993, as supplemented by letter dated June 2,1993, complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter I; I
B.
The facility will operate in conformity with the application, the provisions of the Act, and the rules and regulations of the Commission; uv C.
There is reasonable assurance (i) that the activities authorized by this amendment can be conducted without endangering the health and safety of the public, and (ii) that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations';
i i
D.
The issuance of this amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and
.)
E.
The issuance of this amendment is in accordance with 10 CFR Part i
the Commission's regulations and all applicable requirements have been satisfied.
6 i
1
,.n v
~
. 2.
Accordingly, paragraph 2.B.(5) on page 3 of facility Operating License No.
NPF-85 is hereby amended to read as follows:*
D Pursuant to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility, and to receive and possess, but not separate, such source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials as contained in the fuel assemblies and fuel channels from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
3.
This license amendment is effective as of its date of issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M
M Charles L. Miller, Director Project Directorate I-2 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Attachment:
j Page 3 of Operating i
License No. NPF-85 Date of Issuance: June 23, 1993 i
l
)
- Page 3 is attached, for convenience, for the composite license to reflect this change.
t
i i (4)
Pursuant. to the Act and 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to receive, possess, and use in amounts as required any byproduct, source or special nuclear material without restriction to chemical or physical form, for sample analysis or instrument calibration or associated with radioactive apparatus or components; and
'l (5)
Pursuant to the Act ano 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70, to possess, but not separate, such byproduct and special nuclear materials as may be produced by the operation of the facility, and to receive and possess, but not separate, such source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials as contained in the fuel assemblies and fuel channels from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
C.
This license shall be deemed to contain and is subject to the conditions specified in the Commission's regulations set forth in 10 CFR Chapter 1.(except as exempted from compliance in Section 2.0.
below) and is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act and to the rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the additional conditions specified or incorporated below:
(1) Maximum Power level Philadelphia Electric Company is authorized to operate the facility at reactor core power levels of 3293 megawatts thermal 3
(100 percent rated power) in'accordance with the conditions specified herein.
v (2) Technical Soecifications The Technical Specifications contained in Appendix A and the Environmental Protection Plan contained in Appendix B, as revised through Amendment No. 27, are hereby incorporated into this i
license.
Philadelphia Electric Company shall operate the facility in accordance with the Technical Specifications and the Environmental Protection Plan.
(3) Fire Protection (Section 9.5. SSER 2)*
The licensee shall maintain in effect all provisions of the approved fire protection program as described in the Final Safety Analysis Report for the facility through Revision 58 and as approved in the SER through Supplement 9, and in the Fire l
b Protection Evaluation Report through Revision 12, subject to the following provisions a and b below:
The licensee shall make no change to features of the approved a.
fire protection program which would decrease the' level of fire protection in the plant without prior. approval of the Commission. To make such a change the licensee must submit an application for license amendment pursuant to 10 CFR l
50.90.
- The parenthetical notation following the title of license conditions-denotes the section of the Safety Evaluation Report and/or its supplements wherein the license condition in discussed.
l
f
'<( '2 UNITED STATES.
s NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
\\' %,
/
wasmuorou. o c. 2ess>ce SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDHENT NOS. 62 AND 27 TO FAr.!LITY OPERATING LICENSE NOS. HPF-39 AND NPF-85 I
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY LIMERICK GENERATING STATION. UNITS 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-352 AND 50-353
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By le'tter dated March 8,1993, as supplemented by letter dated June 2,1993, the Philadelphia Electric Company (the licensee) submitted a request for changes to paragraph 2.B.(5) to the Operating License Nos. NPF-39 and NPF-85 for the Limerick Generating Station (LGS), Units 1 and 2.
The requested changes would allow the receipt, possession and use of the fuel assemblies and fuel channels previously irradiated in the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS). The fuel was fabricated by General Electric Company (GE and consists of 560 GE6-(P8XBR) pressurized, C-lattice, non-barrier fuel assem)blies.
The p
560 fuel assemblies include 340 enriched to 2.19 w/o U-235,144 enriched to 1.76 w/o U-235, and the remaining 76 are natural uranium (i.e., 0.711 w/o U-235).
These fuel assemblies are similar to those utilized in the LGS, Unit 1 initial core loading.
The supplemental letter provided clarifying information that did not change the initial proposed no significant hazards con:;ideration determination.
The fuel was used at SNPS in a limited testing program at 5% power.
It has been irradiated to a core average exposure of approximately 48 megawatt days per metric ton (MWD /HT).
The estimated core fission inventory is less than 0.02% of the source term, and its decay heat rate is approximately 265 watts (i.e., 900 Btu /hr) as of June 1992.
The fuel transport between the two sites will utilize the GE IF-300 Series spent fuel cask.
t The GE IF-300 has received an NRC Certificate of Compliance (No. 9001), that has been amended to address the specific pay load to be utilized for the proposed transport of the SNPS fuel to the LGS site.
The staff has confirmed that 1) a current amendment to the NRC Certificate of Compliance No. 9001 has been issued for the spent fuel t
cask; 2) a security plan has been established for the transport of the subject fuel; 3) an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact has been issued; and 4) a complete technical evaluation of all aspects affecting the receipt, possession and use of the subject fuel at the LGS site has been performed.
i 2.0 EVALUATION
~
The staff has addressed all pertinent issues associated with the proposed fuel transfer, as applicable to the loading and transport from the SNPS to the LGS, and the unloading, storage, and use of the fuel assemblies and the fuel channels at the LGS.
The specific issues addressed by the staff in this i
. evaluation include the determination of the applicability of the Price-Anderson Rule; the evaluation of the criticality aspects of receiving, storing, and using the slightly irradiated fuel; the radiological assessment; and the handling of the heavy loads and cooling of the subject fuel and components.
y 2.1 Price-Anderson There are no unresolved financial protection issues involved in the use of Shoreham spent fuel at Limerick. Price-Anderson coverage would cover the fuel from the SNPS to the LGS and would also extend to the fuel while it is being used at the LGS and to the natural uranium fuel assemblies that would be used to test for damage.
See Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
2.2 Storace and Use of the Irradiated Fuel Storace of Irradiated Fuel The criticality analysis for the LGS spent fuel pool, as described in the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Section 9.1.2.3.1, assumed fuel assemblies with a uniform 3.5 w/o U-235 enrichment.
The analysis also assumed D
the presence of zircaloy channels.
The resulting worst case k '.,95.
was 0.933, which meets the NRC limiting criterion of k no greater than b The highest average assembly enrichment of the $NPS fuel is 2.19 w/o U-235 and the maximum planar enrichment is 2.33 w/o U-235.
Based on the lower enrichment, the reactivity of the storage array of the SNPS fuel in the LGS storage pool will result in a lower value of k,,, than was calculeted for the LGS fuel.
The SNPS fuel will be packaged for transportation to the LGS with polyethylene spacers and a protective stainless steel channel.
GE, therefore, evaluated the effect of these spacers and channels on the spent fuel storage pool k The stainless steel channels were found to lower the reactivity of the sp,,n,t e
fuel pool k,,,in the polyethylene spacers tends to cause a reactivity in in all cases. However, the increased neutron moderation due to the hydrogen GE has determined that the lower enrichment of the SNPS fuel, compared to the enrichment used in the LGS criticality analysis, causes a much greater negative reactivity effect than the positive reactivity addition caused by the polyethylene spacers.
Therefore, the storage of the SNPS fuel in the LGS spent fuel pool is acceptable since it results in a k,,, of less than 0.933, I
thus meeting the NRC limit of no greater than 0.95 Use of the SNPS Fuel in the LGS Core A detailed inspection of two of the irradiated SNPS fuel assemblies was performed by GE in August 1990. This inspection, which included eddy current testing of individual fuel and water rods as well as a visual inspection of the entire fuel assembly, verified that the SNPS fuel was suitable for future In addition, an evaluation of the water chemistry history'of both the use.
SNPS reactor and spent fuel pool determined that the fuel has not been exposed to an adverse environment that would preclude its future use.
)
~
, PECo will ensure that the SNPS fuel assemblies arrive in a condition suitable for future use by inspecting a dummy test assembly after it has been subjected to accelerations and loadings at least as great as those expected during B
shipping and handling.
The acceptance criteria will be the same as applied to the shipment of new fuel, as specified in NEDE-23542-P, " Fuel Assembly Evaluation of Shipping and Handling Loads," dated March 1977.
In addition to disassembling and inspecting at least one fuel assembly from the first shipment, all assemblies shipped from the SNPS to the LGS will be visually inspected before and after packaging as well as upon arrival at LGS. Any assembly that does not meet the acceptance criteria used for the receipt inspection of new fuel will be excluded from future use in the LGS cores unless it is appropriately repaired.
The staff finds the acceptance criteria as well as the tests and inspections used to determine the suitability of the SNPS fuel for future use at the LGS acceptable.
Before operation with the SNPS fuel, a cycle-specific core nuclear analysis will be performed based on the latest NRC-approved version of NEDE-24011-P-A,
" General Electric Standard Application for Reactor Fuel GESTAR II."
The effect of the SNPS fuel on the thermo-hydraulic stability of the core will also be evaluated based on NRC Generic Letter 88-07, Supplement 1, " Power I
Oscillations in Boiling Water Reactors (BWR)." These are the same evaluations performed for all the LGS reload cores and are acceptable.
In addition, an evaluation was performed to determine if any analysis changes are required to account for the prior operating history, handling, and transportation of the SNPS fuel. The SNPS fuel was found to meet all the licensing bases documented in NEDE-240ll-P-A and, therefore, no exceptions to GESTAR II will be needed when the SNPS fuel is analyzed for use in the LGS cores.
PEco has stated that only a limited number of the SNPS fuel assemblies will be used each cycle. These assemblies will only be placed in low duty core locations. The staff finds this limited use in low power locations acceptable.
Conclusion of Storace and Use of the SNPS Fuel The staff has reviewed the criticality aspects of storage of the irradiated SNPS Fuel in the LGS spent fuel pools and the suitability of this fuel for future use in the LGS cores.
The impact of the SNPS fuel and its pa'ckaging material on the LGS spent fuel pool criticality was found to be bounded by the i
fuel pool criticality analysis presented in Section 9.1.2.3.1 of the LGS UFSAR.
In addition, before the SNPS fuel is used in an LGS core, a cycle-specific analysis, which will include the effect on the thermal-hydraulic stability, will be performed in accordance with NRC-approved methods to 1
determine its acceptability.
l 4
l i
I 1
. 2.3 Radioloaicil Assessment In the submittal from PECo, it was stated that SNPS fuel had been irradiated 3
to a core average exposure of approximately 48-Megavatt-days-per-metric-ton and that the fuel had been removed from the reactor and placed in the SNPS spent fuel pool in August 1989.
The submittal indicated that the slightly irradiated fuel contains 0.02% of the source term assumed in the design basis loss of coolant accident described in the LGS UFSAR.
PEco also stated that
{
the radiological consequences of a dropped fuel assembly involving the SNPS fuel are bounded by the fuel handling accident involving highly irradiated spent fuel described in the LGS UFSAR Section 15.7.4, " Fuel Handling Accident."
They stated further that while handling the IF-300 cask, which weighs 85 tons including the basket,17 fuel assemblies, and a redundant cask-lif ting yoke, the requirements of NUREG-0554, " Single-Failure-Proof Cranes for Nuclear Power Plants" and NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power q
1 Plants," would be met by the use of a single-failure-proof redundant yoke and
{
by restricting the critical load of the reactor enclosure main hoist to 110 tons.
PEco also stated that restricting the reactor enclosure main hoist
{
critical load to 110 tons and the use of single-failure-proof equipment precludes a cask drop due to single-failure. Therefore, an analysis of the spent fuel cask drop is not required.
9 The staff has assessed the consequences of a fuel handling accident involving the SNPS fuel. The staff is in agreement with PECo that existing analysis for fuel handling accident involving highly irradiated fuel at the LGS, which is described in the LGS UFSAR Section 15.7.4, bounds any potential fuel handling accident associated with the SNPS fuel.
In addition, such a postulated accident is also bounded by the staff's analysis of the consequences of a fuel handling accident, which was presented in NUREG 0991, " Safety Evaluation Report Related to the Operation for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2."
The staff has also concluded that, as a result of the steps PEco is taking to meet the requirements of NUREG-0554 and NUREG-0612, an analysis of a spent fuel cask drop accident is not required for this licensing action.
2.4 Fuel Handlina and Coolino The licensee plans to move the fuel from the SNPS via barge to a PEco site along the Delaware River and then to the LGS by rail. The shipping container will be the GE IF-300 series spent fuel cask with a basket design that can hold 17 fuel assemblies.
The railcar will be moved into the reactor building under the refueling hoist-way.
The reactor enclosure crane will lift the cask from the railcar through the open hoist-way via the yoke designed for lifting the 1F-300 cask.
The cask will then be moved to the cask pool,-located.
between the Unit I and Unit 2 spent fuel pools. The cask top will then be removed and individual fuel assemblies will be moved from the cask to the spent fuel pool for Unit 1 or Unit 2 thrbugh open slot B in either pool.
The licensee plans to inspect the shipped fuel sometime after it arrives once the cask is in the LGS cask pool.
Note that this safety evaluation is only concerned with the movement of the fuel handling cask within the reactor i
building and cooling of the SNPS fuel after removal from the transfer cask.
i s
\\ I This evaluation addresses two aspects considered in the licensee's submittal and does not address the transfer prxess from Shoreham to Limerick.
The two issues considered in this evaluatian are:
(1) Heavy loads handling which
)
invclves the movement of cask containing the SNPS fuel within the confines of 1
the LGS reactor building, and (2) The capability of the LGS spent fuel storage pool cooling system as regards cooling the SNPS fuel assemblies stored in the
- pent fuel pool.
Heavy load Handlino The reactor enclosure crane, with which the licensee plans to move the IF-300 series cask, has been found acceptable for use as a single-failure-proof crane.
The specified maximum critical crane load is 110 tons, while the IF-300-type cask with basket,17 assemblies and yokes, weigh about 85 tons.
The crane bridge and trolley have travel limit switches to prevent movement of the crane over spent fuel.
The special lifting device, or yoke, has 2 independent components; the standard lifting yoke and a redundant yoke.
The standard yoke engages the cask trannions with the standard yoke's J-hooks; the yoke cross-members hold cables which are used to remove the cask head.
The redundant yoke has a b
cradle into which the cask is lowered before moving.
Each yoke is designed in accordance with the criteria of ANSI 14.6-1977; each is designed with a safety factor of 3 to minimum component yield stress and 5 to minimum component ultimate stress, thus complying with the criteria of a single-failure-proof lifting device.
The licensee will follow the same load path that would be encountered in moving highly irradiated fuel from the plant except in reverse, i.e., movement will be from hoist-way to cask pool instead of reverse.
The head of the cask containing the Shoreham fuel will not be removed until the cask is in the cask pit, under water.
After the head is removed, the SNPS fuel may be moved into either the LGS, Units 1 or 2 spent fuel pool or may be removed for examination, at the licensee's discretion.
Removal and subsequent 3
examination is to be conducted in accordance with applicable safety requirements.
i y
The load path from the hatch-way to the cask storage pit has been determined to be a safe load path, i.e., a path which avoids spent fuel and redundant safety shutdown equipment in the unlikely event of a load drop.
Coolino of the Fuel Assemblies There are no thermal / hydraulic concerns because of the extremely low heat generaticn rate for the irradiated core," 900 BTU /HR.
This value may be contrasted to the capability of one of the Limerick fuel pool cooling systems.
)
. Each unit has 3 pumps and 3 heat exchangers.
With 2 pumps and 2 heat exchangers operating and a pool filled with spent fuel assemblies generating up to 16,320,000 BTU /HR, the fuel pool water is maintained below 140*F.
6 Conclusion for Fuel Handlina and Coolina The staff finds that movement of the series IF-300 cask from its entrance into the reactor building to the cask pool to present no handling problems since the reactor enclosure crane and yoke constitute a single-failure-proof handling system, in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.1.6 of NUREG-0612, " Control of Heavy Loads." Such compliance assumes the possibility of a load drop to be negligibly low.
In addition, the path of the cask, from entrance into the fuel handling building to the cask pool bypasses irradiated fuel and dual or redundant safe shutdown systems so that the cask, even were a load drop to occur, would have no effect upon spent fuel or the capability of the plant to shut down safely.
The movement of individual fuel elements into either spent fuel pool from the cask also presents no problem beyond that normally encountered, and provided for, when moving irradiated fuel from either pool into a cask when such fuel has been irradiated as part of an operational core.
As noted above, in Section 2.2, there are no thermal / hydraulic concerns because the Shoreham fuel elements are generating very little heat as compared to the capability of the spent fuel pool cooling system.
Therefore, the staff finds the movement of the Shoreham fuel inside the LGS and subsequant storage in the spent fuel storage pools to be acceptable in that such movement and storage will be in accordance with applicable criteria, from a heavy loads and fuel handling aspect and from a thennal/ hydraulic aspect. All other concerns, including that of spent fuel pool storage criticality and movement of fuel from the SNPS to the LGS are addressed elsewhere.
3.0 STATE CONSULTATION
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, the Pennsylvania State official was noi.ified of the proposed issuance of the amendments. The State official had no coments.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, 51.32, and 51.35, an environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact have been prepared and published (58 FR 29010) in the Federal Reaister on May 18, 1993. Accordingly, based upon the environmental assessment, the Comission~has determined that the issuance of this amendment will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment.
i
i
5.0 CONCLUSION
j l
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, I
that:
(1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendments will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Principal Contributors:
F. Rinaldi L. Kopp J. Hayes
?
N. Wagner T
I. Dinitz Date: June 23, 1993
)
"9 p
istano 200 Gird:n City Plaza
. Richard P. Bonnifield Garden City, NY 11530 Power (516) 742-2200 General Counsel Autnonty August 31, 1993 s
Carol Grelecki, Esq.
Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex Box CN 093
- Trenton, NJ 08625
Dear Ms. Grelecki:
As you requested, I am enclosing a copy of the Marine operations Plan, including the route map (Enclosure 5.6).
Please let me know if you have any questions.
)
Sincerely, O
Richard P.
Bonnifield Enclosure i
i i
I
(
).
E':hibi t ;
U5 Department ofTronsponction Captain of the Port 120 Woodward Ave.'
Long Island Sound New Haven,'CT 06512 United Slotes (203)468-4464 Coast Goord 16465 Mr. L. M. Hill Shoreham Nuclear Power Station JUL 27 EG3 P.O. Box 628 North Country Road Wading River, NY 11792 Dear Mr. Hillt I have reviewed your Long Island Power Authorit'y (LIPA)
Transportation Plan for the shipment of Nuclear FDel from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station to Philadelphia Electric Company's (PECO) Limerick Generating Station in Pennsylvania.
Your plan's final approval is contingent on satisfactory internal structural inspections of the Loveland barges to be used for the fuel shipments.
These inspections shall be coordinated with Marine Safety Office, Philadelphia, Pa.
Your point of contact for inspections is LT Pat McLaughlin at 215e27144852 In your plan, you identified the route and waypoints that the vessel will be using during its voyage to Eddystone, Pennsylvania.
Should the towing vessel find cause to deviate from this route, immediate notification shall be made to my Port Operations Department at (203) 468a4464.
They can also be reached on CH 16 VHFeFM by calling Coast Guard Group Long Island Sound.
While transiting the Captain of the Port Long Island Sound zone, the towing vessel for the barge shall make position reports to Coast Guard Group Long Island sound on CH 16 VHFnFM at the following positions:
1.
Leaving Shoreham Nuclear Power Station; 2.
Clearing Plum Gut; 3.
Clearing Montauk Pt. Passage; 4.
When due south of Fire Island Inlet; and 5.
If there is any unusual circumstance or difficulty encountered.
I While I cannot dictate reporting requirements for other Captain of the Port zones, I strongly suggest you contact these offices to determine if they have any specific requirements.
Inclosure (1) is a list of the COTP zones and their telephone nu.mbers through which you will be transiting.
fL
)
JUI. 2 7 Igg If an emergency arises during the barge transit', all Coast Guard operation centers can be reached on VHF;FM channel 16 for assistance.
Should the towing vessel and the barge have to seek safe harbor for any of the emergencies described in paragraph 3.5 of your transportation plan, the towing vessel captain should obtain clearance from the applicable CaptLin of the Port prior to entering the harbor.
s Members of my staff will perform a final onsite inspection of each shipment including the primary and escort towing vessels prior to departure from the Shoreham facility.
Please contact LCDR Tim Skuby or LTJG Dan Schroder of my staff if you.have questions regarding this matter.
Sincere H.
CE DICKEY Captain, U.S ast Guard Captain of
- Port, Long Islan Sound Encis (1)
COTP Contact numbers i
~
l
~
CAPTAIN OF THE PORT OFFICES AND CONTACT NUMBERS i
Captain of the Port Long Island Sound (203) 46B 4464 Captain of the Port New York (212) 66827919 Marine Safety Office Philadelphia
-(215) 271 4899 h
i i
i e
I I
4
+
1
.j
\\
1 6-m r
1
{J l
)
=
=
w w
g j
3
..