ML20244D242

Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Re 850619 & 860327 Requests for Exemption from 10CFR50.44(c)(3)(i) to Allow Reactor to Operate for 120 EFPD Before Containment Atmosphere Must Be Inerted

ML20244D242
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/11/1989
From:	Butler W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20244D241	List: ML20244D237 ML20244D242
References
NUDOCS 8904210229
Download: ML20244D242 (4)

Text

i 4

?

7590-01 U,NITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

]

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l DOCKET NO. 50-322 I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEFT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 1

The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Connission) is considering issuance of an exemption to Facility Operating License No. NPF-36 issued-to the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), the licensee, for the Shoreham i

Nuclear Power Station (SNPS), located in Suffolk County, New York.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action:

The proposed exemption would grant an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44(c)(3)(1) to allow the Shoreham reactor to operate for 120 effective full-power days before the containment atmosphere would have to be inerted. By letters dated June 19, 1985 and March 27, 1986, the licensee requested an exemption to operate the Shoreham reactor for 120 effective full-power days before the containment atmosphere would have to be inerted rather than six months after initial criticality. The change as to when the containment atmosphere would be recuired to be inerted is the proposed action being considered by the staff.

The Nee _d for the Proposed Action:

The licensee's June 19, 1985 and Parch 27, 1986 letters provided technical justification to be allowed to operate the SNPS reactor in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1 while the containment is uninerted for a period during the initial 120 effective full-power days of core burnup. Granting this exemption would allow access to the containment during the power ascension 8904210229 890411 PDR ADOCK 05000322 P PDC

~

1

~

testing program to perform the reouired frequent observations during this initial period of plant operation above five percent of full-rated power.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

• The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to operate the SNPS reactor in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1 while the containment is uninerted for a l period during the initial 120 effective full-pewer days of core burnup.

Grantinn this exemption would allow access to the containment during the power l

l ascension testing program to perfom the required frequent observations during l

this initial period of plant operation. The requested 120 effective full-power days period of ncn-inerted operation is similar to that allowed by 10 CFR 50.44(c)(3)(i). This regulation was written recognizing the reed for frequent l containment entries during power ascension testing programs and allows six 1

months from initial criticality before requiring the containment to be inerted.

The SNPS achieved initial criticality en February 15, 1985, thus the contaiorent must be inerted wherever the reactor is placed in OPERATIONAL CONDITION 1 and above 15 percent of RATED THERMAL POWER. The licensee has not been able to complete the SNPS's power ascension program because the protracted emergency planning litigation has precluded cperation above five percent of full-rated power. Thus the licensee will need a period of non-inerted containment operation to complete its power ascension program similar to that authorized for other BWR plants during the start-up program. The staff has detemined, in a safety evaluation which was issued separately (Safety Evaluation Report, Supplement No. 9), that granting this temporary exemption from ccmpliance with 10 CFR 10.44(c)(3)(1) for containment inerting has no l adverse safety significance and will not endanger life or property or the

)

i common defense, and is otherwise in the public interest. In addition, the exemption in question would not authorire construction or operation, wculd not authorize a change in licensed activities nor effect changes in the permitted types or amounts of radiological effluents. The proposed changes do nnt increase the probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluen* that may be released offsite ard there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would result in no measurable radiological environmental impact. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed exemption does not dffect plant non-radiological effluents and has no other environmental impact.

Therefore, the Comission concludes there are no measurable non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption.

Alternatives to the proposed Action-Since the Commission concluded that there is no measurable environmental impact associated with the proposed exemption, any alternatives with equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated. The principal alternative to the exemption would be to require the licensee to inert the containment within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> after THERMAL POWER is greater than 15 percent of RATED THERMAL POWER, following startup. This would adversely impact the power ascension testing programs by limiting access to the containment for observations while these tests are being conducted during the initial period of plant operation above five percent of full-rated power. It could also have a slightly negative impact on safety because it would tend to restrain the frequency of inspections and observations if abnorr.a1 circumstances develop.

i Alternative Use of Resources:

This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement dated October 1977 for the ,

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

Agencies and Persons Consulte_d:

The NRC staff reviewed the licensee's request and did not consult other '

agencies or persons.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT i I

The Commission has determined not to prepare ar, environmental impact

]

I statement for the proposed exemption. Based upon the environmental assessment, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the cuality of the human environment.

For further details with respect to this proposed action, see the licensee's letters dated June 19, 1985 and March 27, 1986, and the Safety Evaluation Repert, Supplement No. 9, dated December 1985. These documents are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street.

[ N.W., Washington, D.C. and at the Shereham-Wading River Public Library, Route i

25A, Shoreham, New York 11786-9697.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this lith day of April 1989.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

/ b Lt v Walter Butler, Director l Project Directorate I-2 1

Division of Reactor Projects I/II  ;

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

l

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ . _-_ --. --_ __ _ _- _ :