ML20195G106
| ML20195G106 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1987 |
| From: | Murley T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Miraglia F, Russell W, Starostecki R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20155H227 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-63, FOIA-88-A-34 NUDOCS 8705260234 | |
| Download: ML20195G106 (10) | |
Text
.
e'
/
'o UNITED STATES
,c[,n NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION I
W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20656 4.s ke5 NAY 181987 Docket No. 50-322 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Frank Miraglia. Associate Director for Projects Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Richard Starosteckt. Associate Director for Inspection and Technical Assessment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation William Russell Regional Administrator Region !
FR0u:
Thomas E. Murley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
STAFF REVIEW OF LILCO'S RE0 VEST TO OPERATE SHOREHAM i
AT 25% POWER LEVEL l
Enclosed is the staff's Action Plan for the subject review. Please 1
provide the support as called for in the enclnsed plan.
1 Thomas E. Murley, or Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Action Plan i
cc w/ enclosure:
L. Shao F. Congel W. Kane W. Olmstead J f Reis 1
0 a u. m.y ya,
g t
ENCLOSURE Task Action Plan for Evaluation of I
Long Island Lighting Company's Request to Operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station at 25% Power Leed Organization:
Division of Reactor Projects I/II, NRR Task Manager: Ronnie lo d
i Project Completion Date: July 13. 1907 I
5
(
I 1
I l
l l
J d
i 1
I h
I f
l I
{
i l
i i
ACTION PLAN INTRODilCTION The Long Island Lichting Company (LILCO) has filed a Motion before the Comission on April 14, 1987, requesting authorization to operate the Shoreham Statier at power levels up to Bf of full power. This motion contains a sub-stantial arount of rew material describing the safety of the plant.
For i
instance, it describes a number of physical and procedural changes at the plant since the original Probabilistic Risk Assessment was published.
In light of this new inforeation, as well as the reasonable presumption the Comission will ask for the staff's view on whether the application provides a sufficient basis for the Comissinn to grant the permission sought, the staff has prepared this action plan for accomplishing the review.
1 The three major elements of this action plan are a description of the relevant i
background inferration, a description of the review program and a sumary of i
the recuired staff resources with the corresponding schedules and milestones.
)
The section en background infomation will include sumatits on plant status.
)
heerings status and licensing status.
The section on our review program will descr be the scope of the staff's review of the proposal.
It will identify the nature of the various elements of the staff's review effort. The final section of this action plan will provide estimates for the resource requirements 4
in each of the technical review branches that will be participeting in this a
review effort, along with the corresponding schedules and milestones as indicated in a bar chart. The chart will also identify the interfaces between the various 1
reviewing orpenizations.
A.
PLANT STATUS i
The Shorehan Station is currently (May 15,1987) in cold shutdown. All the
{
start-up tests that can be accomplished with a Si pewer license, including synchronization of the rain generator with the off-site grid, have been corpleted. LILCO has taken advartage of the protracted period of plant shut-down and has accomplished a number of plant enhancements, including those i
called for in the ATWS rule. The plant is ready for operations at power levels above 55 of full power.
I B.
HFArthGS STATUS Public hearings on all issues but those dealing with selected areas of i
emergency preparedness have been completed. There are currently two licensing 1
Boards scheduled to hold hearings on the renaining issues relating to the i
emergency plan. These hearings are not likely to be completed for at least several months.
C.
LICENSING STATUS 4
I LILC0 has an application for a full power license which is currently pending i
before the Comission. Under authority delegated to it by the Comission, The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation first issued a license authorizing fuel loading and criticality testing (.001 power) and later a license j
authorizing operations up to a power level of Si of full power. The St i
license is currently in effect.
1 l
i
i.
1 The staff's iicensing reviews have been completed for all issues that require resolution prior to authorizing oparations above 5% of full power. except for a selected number of issues dealing with the emergency plan, which are currently l
under litigation before two licensing Boards.
In addition, a finding by the i
staff that the Shoreham Station is ready for operations above 5% of full power is also pending, i
j S'AFF REVIEW PLANS i
l The LILCO request to operate Shoreham at 251 power is based on the provisions of 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1) which states that if the emergency planning standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.47(b) are not met, the applicant would still have an opportunity to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Comission that:
- 1) deficiencies in the [emergencyl plans are not significant for the Shoreham t
Station;
- 2) adequate interim compensating mersures have been or will be taken promptly; or 3) there are nther compelling reatnns to pemit plart operation.
LILCO claims that #11 three eierents of 10 CFR 47(c)(1) are satisfactorily t
demonstrated by the analysis contained in its request.
The staff's evaluation should be based primarily on a deteministic safety evaluation, with reliance on the PRA results to confim the results of the i
deteministit evaluation. The staff's evaluation should address the accident secuences and associated offsite releases; considering the Shoreham specific safety features and those characteristics unique to operations at power levels i
up to 25f, of full pcwer. For the dominant accident sequences, the evaluation should consider the severity of offsite consequences, the rapidity of accider.t t
I development and the factnrs which affect the Itkelihood of occurrence.
The staff's j
evaluation should show if the conditions for operating Shoreham at 251 pewer ere such that in the event of an accident involving offsite releases. the demands on the EP are substantially reduced in comparison with operation at i
1 100 power. The evaluation should deterrine if offsite protective peasures.
l when necessary, can be implemented with reasonable assurance. The e.aluation i
should also include an assessment of the "other cerpelling reasons.'
The staff j
evaluetten will be sumartred in a final report.
t j
SCOPE OF REVIEW PROGRAM The 4ta'f actions to evaluate the LILC0 request are divided into five subtasks i
as follows:
l l
1 4
~
i
SUBTASr$ 1 - SAFETY ASSESSWENT FOR SHOPEPAM OPERATING AT 2 A.
A saTety assessment will be performed to evaluate the following:
(1) The efficacy of recent plant teprovements, along with operation at 251 power to reduce the challenge from core melt sequences et Shorehen.
(ii) For a representative set of accident sequences evaluate the dose (whole-body, thyroid) profiles as a function o' distance, fiti) Evaluate the tine element in accident development and release scenarios. Corresponding to each release category, evaluate the needs of quick offsite response fless than 2 hrs.), extended response (510 hrs.) ard delayed response (greater than 24 hrs.).
This subtask consists of applying the parameters unique to the LILCO request in the accident evaluation.
Some of the key input considera-tiens are:
(1) Those effects arising from the 251 pcwer limitation, i.e., reduced fission product inventory; reduced demands on the safety systers; increased time available for actions to mitipate the accident; and the availability of main condenser as heat sink with full turbine bypass for ATWS events; and (2) Those factors related te physical and procedural charges that were not considered in the 100% power PRA; e.g.,
additional on-site AC power; improved Standby liquid Control system capability which is equivalent to about 200% of the 10 CFR 50.62(c)(4) requirerent for mitigation of ATWS events; Automatic Depressurization Systen improverent for accident control; alternate PPCI water source (fron Cendensate Storage Tank) to provide redundant water sources; procedural change to lower reactor water level setpoint for MS!V closure to reduce challences to the SRV and demands on suppression pool.
(iv) Coordinate with the Subtask 3 assessment which is detailed Aelow.
B.
SUBTA$r ? - ASSESSMENT OF 0FFS!TE EPERGENCY PLANNING NECESSARY FOR 5HDREHA.V OPERATING AT 251 POWER.
The assessrent will corsist of the following eierents:
(i) As a preliminary step, review the inadequacies of LILCO's plan and the exercise results as identified by FEMA and those issues pending before the ASL8s for full power operation in consideration of 251 power and to what extent, if any, they are relevant to 251 power l
operation.
g (ii) Assess the significance of those FEMA identified ir.edequacies in the event of an accident during 25% of rated power that would require g
I offsite prctective reasures.
Key eierents for consideration are the Sv l
results of Subtask 1 assessrent pertaining to:
(a) Selection of 5
accident sequences that would result in offsite doses requirine protective masures (i.e. above PAG dese levels); (b) The sir-
l area and population involved; (c) The Commission in CL!-86-13 has detemined thet an ad hoc participatien of State and local governments can be assumed in the event of an accident at Shoreham. The time eierents in accident develeprent and release scenarios evaluated in Subtask (1)(111)areanimportantconsiderationinevaluatingthe adecuacies of preparation for those ad hoc responses.
(iii) Based on an overall review of the orsite and offsite emergency plan for Shoreham provids a,iudperent on the capability to respond to an l
accident during 251 power operation.
l C.
StJBTASK 3 - SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF PROLONGED OPERATION AT 251 POWER A review will be perfomed to exanine the equipment and operational characteristics of protracted off-nortnal eperation of the Shorehen j
plant at 25% power that may have safety implicatinrs. Modifications to the plant and other compensating design features will also be evaluated to assess the potential benefit offered in support of operation at the requested power level.
This review will be as indicated belcw.
Subtask 3a t
i Review the transients and accidents as civen in the SRP to assure that i
operation of the plant up to 251 power will be beunded by the Chapter 15 analysis perforred for full power.
Evaluate whether any special pro-t cedures or operator actions are rtouired to mitigate trsnsients or accidents i
which may occur in low power conditions.
Evaluate whether the time availab1'e for the operator to take action to prevent core vulnerable states l
from occurring will be significantly longer than would be the case for full pnwer. Ivaluate ATWS mitigatinn capabilities during the low power conditions. Assets the modifications to the SLC, the ADS ard the HPCI
)
systen and provide an assessment of impacts on accident mitigation.
Evaluate the corium ring for effectiveness for its intended function in the event of a severe core melt accident. The design and installation i
i will also be evaluated to assure its placement has not impacted the safety j
function of other systems.
Identify control systems which are to be put on "Manual" rather than "Automatic" due to low power conditiers. Evaluate
(
l safety irplicatters of manual operation actions. Also assess the stability of the rectreulation systen, feedwater system and control system for pro-longed operation at these low power levels.
Subtask 3b d
The present design of the onsite AC power systems will be assessed to identify the additional onsite AC power capability beyond that required by the Standard Review Plan. The relative effectiveness of the present AC power system will be assessed and the likely impact this systen would have on the likelihood of station blackout will be addressed.
3
i D.
SUBTASK 4 - ASSESSMENT OF NRC REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO LILC0'S FF0VE5T TO OPERATE SHOFEHAM AT 25% POWER The assessment will provide the staff with guidance on the applicability of the Comission's regulations to the LILC0 request and address various procedural issues raised.
E.
SUBTASK 5 - REVIEW 0F OTHER COMPELLING REASONS FOR GRANTING THE MOTION TO OPERATE 5HOREHAM AT 25s POWER This review will examine if there are other compelling reasons under 50.47 (c H 1) for LILCO's request to be granted.
!Y. _PRINCIFAL NRC STAFF ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED A.
Project Directorate I-2. Division of Reactor Pro.iects !/II.
Has overall lead responsibility in managing the task and coordinating the staff efforts in the evaluation as well as inputs from other agencies, if needed.
Results of the staff evaluation will be suvarized in a report to the Comission.
Manpewer Estimate: 0.2 man-year FY 1987 8.
Risk Application Branch. Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Prep redness. Has the responsibility of perfoming accident and risk assessment reviews as discussed in Subtask 1.
Manpower Estimate: 0.3 man-year FY 1987 C.
Emergency Preparedress Branch. Division of Radiation Protectier and Erergency Preparedness and DR$5. Peg 1.
Has the responsibility of perforning an assessment of the scope of offsite protective measures required and the adequacy of LILC0's plan.
The elements of this assessment are discussed in Subtask 2.
Manpm.er Estimate: 0.3 man-year FY 1987 D.
Reactor Systems Branch. Mechanical Engineering Branch. Division of Engineering and System Technology.
Have the responsibility of examining any safety implications of prolonged oparation at 251 power as discussert in Subtask 3.
Manpower Estimate: 0.3 man year FY 1987
6-E.
Electrical Systems Branch, Division of Engineering and Systen Tech-nology. Has the responsibility for evaluating the reliability of on-site emergency power system taking into account availability of the TDI diesels, the Colt diesels, the EMD diesels and the gas turbines, as described in subti'sk 3b.
Manpower Estimate:
').1 man-year FY 1987 F.
Instrumentation and Control Systems Brench, Divisien sf Engineering i
and System Technology.
Is responf.ible for providing support, for Subtask 3a in assessing the stability of plant control systens and the adequacy of instrumentation for operation at 25% power.
Manpewer Estimate: 0.1 man-year FY 1987 G.
Plant Systems Branch, Division,of Engineering and System Technology.
Has the responsibility in assessing the accident mitigation features of the corium ring and the relative effectiveness of this feature.
Manpower Estimate: 0.1 man-year FY 1987 H.
Division of Reactor Projects, Region I.
Has the recponsibility of evaluatirg the licensee and its facility, operator training for readiness to operate at 255 power and identify any need for Tech Spec changes.
Manpower Estinate:
0.1 man-year FY 1987 I.
Raactor Licensing Branch, Office of the General Counsel. Has the responsibility to provide guidance to the staff on regulatory and legal issues related to LILCO's request.
Manpower Estinate: 0.15 man-year FY 1987 i
l l
l 1
i
0 1
/7 3
/7 62
/
6
=
g I
l b
b 9
I I
C
[
(
1
/
6 2
1
/
^
5 5
O E
/
6 7
S 7/
5 0
7/
5 3
1
/
5 6
/5 9
2/
4 22/
4
)
)
)
)
)
)
A 8
C D
E F
(
(
(
(
(
(
- e lu I
d P
P I
e E
EG h
P PF o
C c
R RR e
G S
2 D
D P
O k
I
,S T
s B
BS S
P B
a D
A PR E
R L
T P
R ED D
D R
- I l
1
- Ii' ji j!
.I{
4f;!!:i!:!
t
- !1 i
9 4
A 1) Issue draft Task Action Plan Request DOE for subtask 5 input Peceive DOE input Start draf t report
- 5) Complete draft report
) Start final reportReceive coments on draf t report J
/ Complete final report 1 NPR approved final report B (1) Start subtask 1 Input progress to EPB i
- 2) Coordinate with EP8 a subtesk 2 i
- 3) Coordinate with DEST a subtask 3
- 4) Complete draft subtask 1 report 1
(5) Review draft report complete C (1) Start suhtask 2 Coordinate with RAB (2) Complete suhtask 2 inputs (3) Review draft report complete i
D (1) Start subtask 3 Coerdinate with RAB (2)Corpletesubtask3reportinputs (3) Review draft report complete E (1) Start plant readiness, Tech Specs and traininn review
(?) Review completa, provide inputs to report on problem areas (3) Review draft report complete F (1) Inform Comission of Action Plan i
(2)Inputstodraftreportcomplate (3) Review draft report complete l
i
'This schedule assums no ma,ior iterative reviews that may becore necessary as the staff review progress.
1
- SICB, SPLB, SRXB. SEIA, EMEB l
_ _, _ _. _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _. - _ -.