ML19332G156

Application for Amend to License NPF-82,ceasing Offsite Emergency Preparedness Activities & Implementing Emergency Preparedness Plan for Facility

ML19332G156
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/15/1989
From:	Steiger W LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML19332G153	List: ML19332G152 ML19332G156 ML19332G199 ML19332G607
References
NUDOCS 8912200234
Download: ML19332G156 (6)

Text

-_

.. a o .

L '

f LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION Docket No. 50-322 1

APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NPF-82 i

I. Introduction Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.90, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) hereby requests an amendment to Facility Operating License NPF-82 for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. This amendment is necessary in order for LILCO to implement the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Defueled Emergency Preparedness Plan (DEPP). Accord-ingly , LILCO requests that this amendment be made ef f ective concur-x_) rently with NRC approval of the DEPP.

II. Descriptd n of Proposed Amendment >

LILCO seeks to revise NPF-82 by adding a license condition that suspends the effect of License Conditions 2.C (9) through 2.C (13) during Shoreham's current non-operating and defueled condi-tion. Specifically, the proposed amendment would add on page 6 of NPF-82, immediately following the text of License Condition 2.C (13), a new License Condition 2.C (14) to read as follows:

(14) The requirements set forth in License Con-ditions (9) through (13) will not apply if <

the following conditions exist:

1) The reactor is void of all fuel assemblies; and l 3 2) The spent fuel, with a burnup of approxi-mately two effective full power days, is

) stored in tre spent fuel storage pool or other approved storage configuration.

8912200234.891215 iPDR_ ADOCK 05000322

{p FDC

vi r ,

4 o-  !

It N I L3 b a h If the NRC approves this amendment, and also grants LILCO's request .f r 1 L .for.an-exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. S 50.54(q),

f i LILCO intends to cease all offsite emergency preparedness'activi- l ties'at Shoreham, including no longer maintaining the Shoreham Nu-  ;

clear Power Station Local Offsite Radiological Emergency Response .

Plan and disbanding the Local Emergency Response Organization l

[' ,

(LERO).

i III. Soent Fuel Storace Safety Analysis 1 1

In addition to the "no significant hazards consideration"

- analysis set forth in Section IV below, this license amendment re- t b quest incorporates by reference the Radiological Safety Analysis l p

L x_/ for Spent Fuel Storage and Handling, NED 4170024 (Rev. 0)(" Safety L Analysis"),.which is Attachment 3 to LILCO's submittal. The Safety i Analysis, which has been prepared by LILCO's Nuclear Engineering ,

i Lo Department, .provides an assessment of' radiological risks and conse-quences associated with the storage and handling of Shorr>am's low

[

'burnup first cycle spent fuel. [

v IV. Analysis of No Sionificant Hazards Consideration Pursuant to 10'C.F.R. S 50.91(a)(1), LILCO has performed.a "no significant hazards consideration" analysis, assessing the proposed amendment using the standards set forth in 10 C.F.R. S 50.92(c).

' Based on this analysis, as presented below, LILCO has determined that the-proposed amendment does not involve a significant hazards

/~ , ,

-t -

consideration.- .

't. )

F l

+  ;

y 0; 1

- [

( )

s A. The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Significant Increase in the Probability or Consecuences of an Accident Previously Evaluated i

First, the proposed amendment does not. involve a significant increase in either the probability or the consequences of an acci-

[ dent previously evaluated. The probability of a previously evalu .

y ated accident will not be increased because the amendment-does not affect the function or operation of any system or equipment, but merely permits the cessation of certain offsite emergency prepared-ness activities. No physical changes will be made to the facility as a result of'this proposed ;mendment, and all applicable Limiting i

Conditions for Operation, Limiting Safety Systems Settings, and-

/~3- -Safety Limits specified in the Technical-Specifications will remain V' unchanged.as a result of this proposed amendment.. Likewise, the-f- amendment will'not degrade the-performance of-any safety system or increase challenges to any safety system assumed to function'in the accident analyses.

Moreover, based on the Safety Analysis, LILCO has-determined that, with Shoreham in its non-operatina defueled condition,fthe-probability of-a previously analyzed accident is-significantly reduced.- The' Safety Analysis reveals that Shoreham's spent fuel is in a low burnup condition, and that the amount of decay heat being R

generated by the fuel as of June 1989 is negligible -- approxi-mately 550 watts. With the fuel in such a low burnup condition, the Safety Analysis indicates that active systems for pool water

['s_s l -- makeup are not required and that passive-cooling in the fuel pool l

is sufficient to maintain fuel cladding integrity.

1

?

~

.L.

N

< ;'6* g o; s 'a '

't i

^ lL-l The Safety Analysis also establishes that the consequences of  :

1 previously evaluated accidents are greatly decreased,-given i Shoreham's defueled status. The Safety-Analysis reviews the spec-  !

E, s trum of accidents evaluated in the Shoreham Updated Safety Analysis Report.(USAR).and identifies those events that apply to the storage

[ 'and handlingLof spent fuel.- Two events have been found to be rele- '

vant: :(1) Fuel Handling Accident (USAR S 15.1.36), and (2) Liquid L, .

( Radwaste Tank Rupture (USAR S 15.1.32). For the Fuel Handling Ac-cident', the Safety Analysis calculates that the integrated whole-body-and. skin doses are less than .00005% of the 10 C.F.R. Part 100  :

limits. For the Liquid Radwaste Tank Rupture, the integrated whole i

) body, ' skin,; and maximum organ (lung) doses are less than .0000004% - l

'of.the 10 C.F.R. Part 100 limits. Given these de minimis doses, it is clear that the cessation of offsite emergency preparedness will not result in any increase in the consequences of a previoud y

]

evaluated, accident.

• B .- The Proposed Amendment Will Not Create -

the Possibility of a New or Different Kind of +

Accident'from Anv Accident Previousiv Evaluated Second, the proposed amendment does not create the possibility-of-a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously "l  ; evaluated. Again, the amendment will only remove certain condi-tions related.to emergency preparedness from Shoreham's operating. ,

license. The amendment i tself does not affect the-function or op- -

. eration of'any' system or equipment. -k l fT.

if l

I

,,m ,-, -,

I 5-l-

C. The Proposed Amendment Does Not Involve a Sionificant Reduction in a Marqin of Safety Third, the proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. With Shoreham in its non-operating and defueled condition, the cessation of offsite emergen-cy preparedness activities will not increase the risk of ra-

! diological exposure to the offsite general public. As noted ebove, the Safety Analysis establishes that the two applicable events pre-viously evaluated in the Shoreham USAR have no significant ra-diological consequences. The Safety Analysis also postulates a

" worst case" radiological event, in which the entire gaseous inven-tory of the entire core is released to the reactor building. For

( )- the. event the integrated whole body and skin doses are less than

.031% of the dose limits established by 10 C.F.R. Part 100.

Long Island Lighting Company By N /

William Assistant Pf.Vice Steiger/,

Pres dent Nuclear. Operations Subscribed and sNorn to me this _ /Sh day of December 1989.

m.au Nothblic ol New York 1

' ~ '

JAMES A.UTTLE f My Commission Expires: NOTARY PUPtlC. St$ of New Ynrk -i fa 4K%2fd, $wk Gwn'y Term bones May 18,19.7/

1 I

i' 1 N _,/

1

)

D i