[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 57 (Friday, March 22, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11898-11903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6936]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-029; License No. DPR-3]


Yankee Atomic Electric Company; Issuance of Supplemental 
Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

    Notice is hereby given that by a Director's Decision (DD 96-02), 
dated March 18, 1996, the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation, denied a supplemental Petition submitted by Citizens 
Awareness Network and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution 
(Petitioners) and dated February 9, 1996. Petitioners requested that 
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to 
operation by Yankee Atomic Energy Company (YAEC or Licensee) of its 
Nuclear Power Station at Rowe, Massachusetts (Yankee Rowe).
    Petitioners request that the NRC comply with Citizens Awareness 
Network Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Yankee 
Atomic Electric Company, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995) (CAN v. NRC). 
Specifically, Petitioners request that the Commission prohibit the 
licensee from conducting six activities prior to approval of a 
decommissioning plan. These activities are: (1) Consolidation of 
sediment in the reactor vessel; (2) removal of miscellaneous Safety 
Injection Building equipment; (3) installation of a temporary 
electrical system; (4) removal of pipe on the exterior of the Vapor 
Container; (5) removal of Main Coolant System insulation; and (6) 
installation of a temporary waste processing system. Petitioners state 
that none of these activities constitute minor alterations to the 
facility, and thus are not permitted.
    The NRC staff also evaluated five other ongoing or planned 
activities at Yankee Rowe that were identified in the licensee's 
letters of January 29, 1996, February 16, 1996, and February 28, 1996. 
These activities are: (1) Preparation for decontamination of the Main 
Coolant System--removal of spool pieces; (2) removal of miscellaneous 
equipment outside the Vapor Container bioshield wall; (3) removal of 
Primary Auxiliary Building tanks; (4) removal of Turbine Building 
insulation; and (5) removal of spent fuel pool upender.

[[Page 11899]]

    The staff concluded that the eleven activities are permissible, 
prior to approval of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 
interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulation, as 
explained in the ``Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD 
96-02), the complete text of which follows this notice and is available 
for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the 
Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC and at the local 
public document room located at the Greenfield Community College 
Library, 1 College Drive, Greenfield, Massachusetts, 01301.
    A copy of the decision will be filed with the Secretary of the 
Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR 
2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. As provided by this 
regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the 
Commission 25 days after the date of issuance unless the Commission, on 
its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision in that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William T. Russell, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Attachment to Issuance of Supplemental Director's Decision Under 10 
C.F.R. Sec. 2.206

I. Introduction

    On January 17, 1996, Citizens Awareness Network and New England 
Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (Petitioners) submitted an ``EMERGENCY 
MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CIRCUIT COURT OPINION'' (Petition). 
Petitioners requested that the United States Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC or Commission) take action with respect to activities 
conducted by Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC or Licensee) at the 
Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts (Yankee Rowe or the 
facility). In particular, Petitioners requested that the NRC comply 
with Citizens Awareness Network Inc. v. United States Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission and Yankee Atomic Electric Company, 59 F. 3d 284 
(1st Cir. 1995) (CAN v. NRC), and that the Commission immediately order 
YAEC not to undertake and the staff not to approve, and YAEC to cease, 
further major dismantling activities or other decommissioning 
activities, unless such activities are necessary to assure the 
protection of occupational and public health and safety. Petitioners 
requested that the Commission prohibit five of nine activities which 
the Licensee proposed to conduct prior to approval of a decommissioning 
plan, which activities were evaluated by the staff in a letter dated 
November 2, 1995.
    By letter dated February 2, 1996, the NRC staff declined to take 
emergency action to prohibit the Licensee's shipment of low-level 
radioactive waste, and found that Petitioners' request to prohibit four 
other activities was moot.
    By a Supplemental Petition, Petitioners requested the Commission to 
reverse the NRC staff's February 2, 1996 decision on the emergency 
aspects of the Petition, and contended that the staff had implicitly 
approved six additional activities, which the Licensee identified for 
the first time as under consideration in its January 29, 1996 response 
to the Petition, although the activities are not minor alterations to 
the facility. (A seventh activity was mentioned, but not contested). 
See Citizens Awareness Network's and New England Coalition on Nuclear 
Pollution's Motion for Exercise of Plenary Commission Authority to 
Reverse NRC Staff 2.206 Opinion (February 9, 1996).
    By Order dated February 15, 1996, the Commission directed the 
Licensee to provide the NRC with at least two weeks advance notice 
before engaging in any of the seven new activities identified at page 
13 of the Supplemental Petition, and directed the staff to address the 
arguments advanced by Petitioners at page 13 of the Supplemental 
Petition in a supplementary 10 CFR 2.206 decision.
    By letter dated February 16, 1996, the Licensee notified the NRC 
staff and Petitioners that YAEC intended to commence five activities 
between March 1, 1996 and March 25, 1996.
    On February 22, 1996, the staff issued a Director's Decision (DD 
96-01) on the Petition as a whole. The staff denied Petitioners' 
request to prohibit the Licensee's shipments of low-level radioactive 
waste, and found four other activities contested by Petitioners to be 
moot.
    By letter dated February 27, 1996, the NRC staff requested the 
Licensee to supply information regarding the seven activities 
identified by the Supplemental Petition, plus information regarding 
four other activities identified as ongoing in the Licensee's January 
29, 1996 response to the Petition. The Licensee responded by letter 
dated February 28, 1996, providing information regarding the eleven 
activities plus an additional activity, removal of the Spent Fuel Pool 
Upender. Three activities were ongoing, and the remaining nine were 
scheduled to commence between March 1, 1996 and April 22, 1996.
    By letter dated March 1, 1996, the staff notified the Licensee that 
three activities scheduled to commence March 1, 1996, are permissible, 
before approval of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 
interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations, and 
thus, that there was no reason to take emergency action to prevent YAEC 
from starting or to order discontinuance of the ongoing activities. 
Additionally, the staff found no health or safety reason for immediate 
NRC action.
    The staff has evaluated the six ongoing and planned activities 
contested by the Supplemental Petition and the five additional 
activities identified in the Licensee's letters of January 29, 1996, 
February 16, 1996, and February 28, 1996. Two activities, removal of 
miscellaneous equipment outside the Vapor Container bioshield wall and 
preparation for decontamination 1 of the Main Coolant System 
(removal of spool pieces) were completed in February 1996. For the 
reasons discussed below, the staff has concluded that the activities 
are permissible, prior to approval of a decommissioning plan, under the 
pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning 
regulations. Accordingly, Petitioners' request that the NRC prohibit 
YAEC from undertaking or continuing the six contested activities 
identified at page 13 of the Supplemental Motion is denied.

    \1\  Decontamination at a nuclear plant is the flushing of 
pipes, pumps, pressure vessels etc., with fluids to remove materials 
that are contaminated with radiation from the inner surfaces of 
these components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    As explained in detail in DD 96-01, Petitioners sought judicial 
review of certain NRC actions, related to the Licensee's Component 
Removal Project (CRP). Petitioners challenged the CRP as an 
impermissible activity, before the approval of a decommissioning plan, 
under the pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning 
regulations.
    On July 20, 1995, the United States Court of Appeals held, in part, 
that the Commission had: (1) Failed to provide an opportunity for 
hearing to CAN, as required by Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, in 
connection with the Commission's decision to permit the CRP 
decommissioning activities; and (2) changed its pre-1993 interpretation 
of its decommissioning regulations without notice to the public and in 
violation of the Administrative

[[Page 11900]]
Procedure Act. Citizens Awareness Network versus NRC and Yankee Atomic 
Electric Company, 59 F. 3d 284, 291-2, and 292-3 (lst Cir. 1995). The 
court remanded the matter to the Commission for proceedings consistent 
with the court's opinion.
    The Commission implemented CAN versus NRC, in part, by issuing 
Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-95-
14, 42 NRC 130 (1995). In CLI-95-14, the Commission reinstated its pre-
1993 interpretation of its decommissioning policy, required the 
issuance of a notice of opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing on the 
Yankee Rowe decommissioning plan,2 held that YAEC may not conduct 
further ``major'' decommissioning activities at Yankee Rowe until 
approval of a decommissioning plan after completion of any required 
hearing, and directed YAEC to inform the Commission within 14 days of 
the steps it is taking to come into compliance with the reinstated 
interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations. Yankee 
Atomic Electric Company, CLI-95-14, 42 NRC 130 (1995).

    \2\ Pursuant to CLI-95-14, a proceeding was commenced to offer 
an opportunity for hearing on the Licensee's decommissioning plan 
for Yankee Rowe. Petitioners sought intervention and a hearing. By 
an Order dated March 1, 1996, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
denied the request for intervention and dismissed the proceeding. 
Yankee Atomic Electric Company, LBP-96-2. By Order dated February 
27, 1996, the Commission stayed any order of the Board insofar as it 
may have the affect of authorizing decommissioning activities which 
were prohibited prior to approval of a decommissioning plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    A. The licensee's planned and ongoing activities are permissible, 
prior to approval of a decommissioning plan, under the Commission's 
pre-1993 interpretation of its decommissioning regulations, and thus 
are permissible under CAN v. NRC and CLI 95-14.
    Petitioners contest six of the seven activities they mention in the 
Supplemental Petition on the ground that they do not constitute minor 
alterations to the facility, and thus are not permissible before 
approval of a decommissioning plan under the pre-1993 interpretation of 
the Commission's decommissioning regulations. Specifically, Petitioners 
object to: (1) Consolidation of sediment in the reactor vessel; (2) 
removal of miscellaneous Safety Injection Building equipment; (3) 
installation of a temporary electrical system; (4) removal of pipe on 
the exterior of the Vapor Container; (5) removal of Main Coolant System 
insulation; and (6) installation of a temporary waste processing 
system. Petitioners do not object to decontamination of the Main 
Coolant System. The staff has also evaluated the following five 
activities identified by the Licensee in its letters of January 29, 
1996, February 16, 1996, and February 28, 1996: (1) Preparation for 
decontamination of the Main Coolant System--removal of spool pieces; 
(2) removal of miscellaneous equipment outside the Vapor Container 
bioshield wall; (3) removal of Primary Auxiliary Building tanks; (4) 
removal of Turbine Building insulation; and (5) removal of spent fuel 
pool upender.
    Under the Commission's pre-1993 interpretation of its 
decommissioning regulations, a licensee ``may proceed with some 
activities such as decontamination, minor component disassembly, and 
shipment and storage of spent fuel if the activities are permitted by 
the operating license and/or Sec. 50.59'' prior to final approval of a 
licensee's decommissioning plan,3 as long as the activity does not 
involve major structural or other changes and does not materially and 
demonstrably affect the methods or options available for 
decommissioning or substantially increase the costs of decommissioning. 
Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), 
CLI-90-8, 32 NRC 201, 207 n.3 (1990); Long Island Lighting Company 
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-2, 33 NRC 61, 73 n.5 
(1991); and Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear 
Generating Station), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 61 n. 7 (1992).

    \3\ Statement of Consideration, ``General Requirements for 
Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities'', 53 FR 24018, 24025-26 (June 
27, 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Activities such as normal maintenance and repairs, removal of small 
radioactive components for storage or shipment, and removal of 
components similar to that for maintenance and repair also were 
permitted prior to approval of a decommissioning plan under the 
Commission's pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's 
decommissioning regulations. See NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 2561, 
Section 06.06. (Issue Date: 03/20/92).4

    \4\ ``Examples of modifications and activities, that are allowed 
during the post-operational phase [the interval between permanent 
shutdown and the NRC's approval of the licensee's decommissioning 
plan] are (1) those that could be performed under normal maintenance 
and repair activities, (2) removal of certain, relatively small 
radioactive components, such as control rod drive mechanism, control 
rods, and core internals for disassembly, and storage or shipment, 
(3) removal of non-radioactive components and structures not 
required for safety in the post-operational phase, (5) shipment of 
reactor fuel offsite, and (6) activities related to site and 
equipment radiation and contamination characterization.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's 
decommissioning regulations, examples of activities which were 
conducted at various facilities under a possession-only license, and 
which the staff considered permissible before approval of a 
decommissioning plan included:

Shoreham 5

    a. Core borings in biological shield wall.

    \5\ See letter dated December 11, 1991, from John D. Leonard, 
Jr., Long Island Lighting Company, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Docket No. 50-322.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Core borings of the reactor pressure vessel.
    c. Regenerative heat exchanger removal and disassembly.
    d. Various sections of reactor water clean-up system piping cut out 
and removed to determine effectiveness of chemical decontamination 
processes being used.
    e. Removal of approximately half of reactor pressure vessel 
insulation and preparation for disposal.
    f. Removal of fuel support castings and peripheral pieces removed 
and shipment offsite for disposal at Barnwell, South Carolina.
    g. Reactor water clean-up system recirculation holding pump removed 
and shipped to James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant.
    h. Control rod drive pump shipped to Brunswick Nuclear Station.
    i. One full set of control rod blade guides sold to Carolina Power 
and Light Company.
    j. Control rod drives removed, cleaned, and stored in boxes for 
salvage.
    k. Process initiated for segmenting and removing reactor pressure 
vessel cavity shield blocks.
    l. Process initiated for removal of instrument racks, tubing, 
conduits, walkways, and pipe insulation presenting interferences for 
decommissioning activities and/or removal of salvageable equipment.

Fort St. Vrain 6

    a. Control rod drive and orifice assemblies and control rods 
removed from core during defueling and shipped offsite for processing 
or disposal as low-level waste.

    \6\ See letter dated September 4, 1992, from Donald M. 
Warembourg, Public Service Company of Colorado, to the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 50-267.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. All helium circulators removed and shipped offsite for disposal.
    c. Core region constraint devices (internals) removed and 
approximately one-half shipped offsite for disposal.

[[Page 11901]]

    d. About 50 core metal-clad reflector blocks (top layer of core) 
removed and stored in fuel storage wells.
    e. Removal of remaining hexagonal graphite reflector elements, 
defueling elements, and metal-clad reflector blocks begun.
    f. Pre-stressed concrete reactor vessel (PCRV) top cross-head 
tendons and some circumferential tendons detensioned.
    g. Some detensioned tendons removed from PCRV.
    h. Work initiated to cut and remove PCRV liner cooling system 
piping presenting interferences to detensioning of PCRV tendons, and
    i. Asbestos insulation completely removed from piping under PCRV.
    In its letter of November 2, 1995, the NRC staff identified certain 
activities, although not proposed by the Licensee, which may not be 
conducted before reapproval of a decommissioning plan. Those activities 
include dismantlement of systems such as the main reactor coolant 
system, the lower neutron shield tank, vessels that have significant 
radiological contamination, pipes, pumps and other such components and 
the vapor container (containment). The staff also identified 
segmentation or removal of the reactor vessel from its support 
structure as a major dismantlement not to be conducted until after the 
decommissioning plan is reapproved.
    Upon review of the Supplemental Petition and the Licensee's letters 
of January 29, 1996, February 16, 1996, and February 28, 1996, the 
staff concludes that the eleven planned and ongoing activities are 
permissible, prior to approval of a decommissioning plan, under the 
pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning 
regulations.
    (1) Consolidation of sediment in the reactor vessel.
    This item is a decontamination activity. It involves flushing loose 
radioactive material from the bottom of the reactor vessel (RV) and 
binding it in a solid mass inside the RV, in a centralized volume and, 
thus, displacing the contamination from the lower head of the vessel. 
This activity results in a large reduction of external dose during 
later removal and shipping of the vessel, and in a reduction of 
external dose to personnel who must perform day-to-day maintenance and 
monitoring activities.
    In view of the above, this activity is permissible, before approval 
of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    (2) Removal of miscellaneous Safety Injection Building equipment.
    This activity entails the removal of mechanical and electrical 
equipment and some seismic reinforcement that is no longer required in 
the Safety Injection Building. The components involved in this activity 
are small, and constitute a minor decommissioning activity. Similar 
activities were conducted at the Shoreham plant prior to 
decommissioning plan approval. See items c, d, and g, above. 
Accordingly, this activity is permissible prior to approval of a 
decommissioning plan under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    (3) Installation of a new electrical system.
    This activity is not decommissioning. This activity is part of the 
Licensee's overall project to enhance the safety of the Spent Fuel Pool 
by establishing independent systems dedicated to Spent Fuel Pool 
reliability, and is consistent with NRC Bulletin 94-01, ``Potential 
Fuel Pool Draindown Caused by Inadequate Maintenance Practice at 
Dresden Unit 1'' (April 14, 1994). Installation of the new electrical 
system involves installation of power supply and switching capability 
to the previously installed electrical conduit, which conduit 
installation the staff found to be permissible prior to approval of a 
decommissioning plan. See DD 96-01, Section III. A(7).
    Accordingly, this activity is permissible before approval of a 
decommissioning plan under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    (4) Removal of pipe on the exterior of the Vapor Container.
    These pipe lines are located outdoors beneath the Vapor Container 
and are in secondary-side systems, such as piping carrying steam from 
the secondary side of the steam generator to the turbine. Because this 
involves the removal of piping from the secondary side, it is not a 
major decommissioning activity. Similar activities were conducted at 
the Shoreham plant, see items d and g, above, and at the Fort St. Vrain 
plant, see item b, above, prior to approval of the decommissioning 
plans.
    In view of the above, this activity is permissible, before approval 
of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    (5) Removal of Main Coolant System insulation.
    This insulation will not be removed until after the decontamination 
of the Main Coolant System. This insulation is not a major component 
and its removal is, therefore, not a major decommissioning activity. 
Similar activities were conducted at the Shoreham plant, see item e, 
above, and at the Fort St. Vrain plant, see item i, above, prior to 
approval of the decommissioning plans.
    In view of the above, this activity is permissible, before approval 
of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    (6) Installation of a temporary waste processing system.
    This activity is not decommissioning. It is permitted by the 
Defueled Technical Specifications, an appendix to the POL. The activity 
involves installation of a liquid waste processing system designed to 
process spent fuel pool water by removing contaminants. The activity 
will increase assurance of satisfactory long-term operation of the 
spent fuel pool and is, therefore, a safety enhancement.
    In view of the above, this activity is permissible, before approval 
of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    (7) Preparation for decontamination of the Main Coolant System-
removal of spool pieces.
    This is a decontamination activity which involved the removal of 
eight spool pieces, and was completed in February 1996. It was part of 
an ongoing project, preparation of pipe flanges for the chemical 
decontamination of the Main Coolant System.
    Because this action is in preparation for decontamination and 
without which decontamination could not proceed, this activity is 
permissible. Decontamination is permissible, before approval of a 
decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations. In any event, the Petition, 
insofar as it can be inferred to request action in this matter, is 
moot.
    (8) Removal of miscellaneous equipment outside the Vapor Container 
bioshield wall.
    This activity involved the removal of heating and ventilating 
equipment from the Vapor Container, and was completed in mid-February 
1996. The components removed are minor and do not constitute a major 
decommissioning activity. Similar activities were conducted at the 
Shoreham plant prior to approval of the decommissioning plan. See items 
c and d, above.
    Accordingly, this activity is permissible, before approval of a 
decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations. In any

[[Page 11902]]
event, the Petition, insofar as it can be inferred to request action in 
this matter, is moot.
    (9) Removal of Primary Auxiliary Building tanks.
    This activity involves the removal of four low pressure or drain 
tanks from the Primary Auxiliary Building, because they are not needed 
to support operation of the spent fuel pool. Two of the tanks were 
removed during February 1996. Similar activities were conducted at the 
Shoreham plant prior to approval of the decommissioning plan. See items 
c, d, and g, above. This is not a major decommissioning activity 
because the removed equipment involves minor components.
    In view of the above, this activity is permissible, before approval 
of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    (10) Removal of Turbine Building insulation.
    This is an ongoing activity involving the removal of non-
radioactive material from a non-contaminated area of the plant. This is 
not a decommissioning activity.
    Accordingly, this activity is permissible, before approval of a 
decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    (11) Removal of spent fuel pool upender.
    This device was used during reactor operations to transfer fuel, 
during reload outages, into the Vapor Container. The upender is not 
needed to support storage of fuel in the spent fuel pool. The upender 
is not a major component or structure and, therefore, this is not a 
major decommissioning activity. Similar activities were conducted at 
the Shoreham plant, see items d and f, above and at Fort St. Vrain, see 
item a above, prior to approval of the decommissioning plan.
    In view of the above, this activity is permissible, before approval 
of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the 
Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    B. The eleven ongoing and planned activities will neither 
individually nor collectively substantially increase the costs of 
decommissioning.
    YAEC estimates the cost of the six activities contested by 
Petitioners and the five additional planned and ongoing activities to 
be approximately $6.0 million.7 YAEC estimates the cost of the 
previously contested five activities to be $6.5 million. See DD 96-01, 
Section III.B. The total cost of all activities which have been 
evaluated by the staff is approximately $12.5 million or 3.4% of the 
estimated $368.8 million total decommissioning cost. It would be 
speculative to conclude that the decommissioning method proposed by 
Petitioners, SAFSTOR, would be less expensive. Moreover, there is no 
evidence that the combined activities will give rise to consequences 
that will increase the total cost of decommissioning. Thus, the staff 
concludes that there is no evidence the combined activities will 
substantially increase the costs of decommissioning.

    \7\ See NRC letter from Russell A. Mellor, YAEC, to Morton B. 
Fairtile, NRC, dated February 28, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    C. The activities contested by Petitioners will neither 
individually nor collectively demonstrably affect the methods or 
options available for decommissioning.
    As the staff explained in Yankee Atomic Electric Company, DD 96-01 
(1996), the criteria for determining whether the Licensee's planned and 
ongoing activities will demonstrably affect the methods or options 
available for decommissioning have not been well-defined. During review 
of the Petition and the Supplemental Petition, the NRC staff has 
continued to examine the question of whether the Licensee's activities 
will demonstrably affect the methods or options available for 
decommissioning. In this case, the staff has now also compared the 
radiation dose involved in the contested activities with the radiation 
doses estimated for decommissioning of the Licensee's facility. This is 
because, under Petitioners' theory regarding the choice of the 
decommissioning option, as we understand it, it seems that adoption of 
a different decommissioning option would most likely be required to 
reduce dose.
    The Licensee estimates that the radiation dose involved in the six 
activities contested by the Supplemental Petition is 23.6 person-
rem.8 The Licensee estimates that the radiation dose involved in 
shipment of low-level radioactive waste, contested in the Petition, is 
17 person-rem.9 The Licensee estimates that the radiation dose 
involved in the other four activities contested by the Petition is 24.7 
person-rem.10 Accordingly, the radiation dose involved in all 
activities contested by Petitioners is approximately 65.3 person-rem. 
Thus, the estimated dose from the contested activities is less than 10% 
of the total 755 person-rem estimate for total radiation exposure from 
decommissioning Yankee Rowe.11 The staff estimates that the 
remaining estimated dose from decommissioning activities at Yankee Rowe 
is, at the most, approximately 358 person-rem.12 Thus the 
estimated dose from the activities contested by Petitioners is 
approximately 18.3% of the remaining dose from decommissioning the 
facility.13 Accordingly, the staff concludes that the contested 
activities will not demonstrably affect the methods and options 
available for decommissioning.

    \8\ The Licensee estimates the radiation dose to be 13.8 person-
rem for consolidation of sediment in the Reactor Vessel; 0.4 person-
rem for removal of miscellaneous Safety Injection Building 
equipment; 0.5 person-rem for installation of a temporary electrical 
system; 0.4 person-rem for removal of pipe on the exterior of the 
Vapor Container; 7.7 person-rem for removal of Main Coolant system 
insulation; and 0.8 person-rem for installation of a temporary waste 
processing system. See letter dated February 28, 1996, from Russell 
A. Mellor, YAEC, to Morton B. Fairtile, NRC.
    \9\ See letter dated February 21, 1996, from K. J. Heider, YAEC, 
to Morton B. Fairtile, NRC.
    \10\ The Licensee estimates the radiation dose to be 4 person-
rem for Fuel Chute Isolation and negligible for Spent Fuel Pool 
Electrical Conduit Installation. See letter dated February 21, 1996, 
from K. J. Heider, YAEC, to Morton B. Fairtile, NRC. The staff 
estimates the radiation dose to be 19.7 person-rem from completion 
of removal of the remaining portions of the Upper Neutron Shield 
Tank, and 1.0 person-rem from removal of Component Cooling Water 
System pipes and components and Spent Fuel Cooling System pipes and 
components based on a telephone conversation with the licensee on 
March 15, 1996.
    \11\ See Order Approving the Decommissioning Plan and 
Authorizing Decommissioning of Facility (Yankee Nuclear Power 
Station), ``Environmental Assessment by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission Related to the Request to Authorize Facility 
Decommissioning'', p. 22.
    \12\ To estimate the remaining dose from decommissioning, the 
staff subtracted, from the 755 person-rem estimate for total 
allotted dose, the personnel exposures reported for calendar years 
1993, 1994 and 1995, or 163, 156 and 78 person-rem, respectively. 
See ``Personnel Exposure Report by duty Function and 10 CFR 20.407 
Personnel Monitoring Report'', dated December 31, 1993, December 31, 
1994, and December 31, 1995. The resulting estimate of approximately 
358 person-rem may be an underestimate of the remaining available 
exposure. Some of the dose from 1993 includes non-decommissioning 
activities and some of the dose from the contested activities was 
incurred during calendar year 1995, but should not be counted as 
expended for purposes of estimating remaining dose.
    \13\ DD-96-01 compared the dose from the contested shipping 
activity to the total radiation exposure from decommissioning, see 
Section III.B.(9). It is, however, preferable to use the more 
sophisticated approach of comparing dose from contested activities 
to the remaining radiation exposure from decommissioning. 
Nonetheless, under both approaches the staff concludes that the 
contested activities will not demonstrably affect the options and 
methods available for decommissioning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is not possible to determine with precision how much of the 65.3 
person-rem involved in the contested activities might be avoidable by 
using the SAFSTOR option, i.e., by delaying completion of those 
activities for several decades to allow for radioactive decay. But even 
if the entire 65.3 person-rem

[[Page 11903]]
could be counted as part of the potential SAFSTOR dose savings (an 
unlikely situation), the SAFSTOR dose savings still available is 
substantially more than the 65.3 person-rem ``lost'' by carrying out 
the contested activities now. Thus, even in an unlikely worst case, the 
SAFSTOR option would be substantially preserved. Accordingly, the staff 
concludes that the contested activities will not demonstrably affect 
the methods and options available for decommissioning.
    In sum, the NRC staff will not take action to halt relatively minor 
YAEC activities, many of which are closely similar to ones allowed at 
Shoreham and Ft. St. Vrain, where there is no evidence that these 
activities are consuming a significant portion of the remaining 
radioactive dose at Yankee Rowe. In the staff's judgment, the 
prohibition against dismantling major systems, such as the reactor 
vessel and other reactor components with substantial 
contamination,14 sufficiently preserves the possibility of 
ultimately moving to the SAFSTOR option, should that be the result of 
the still-pending challenge to YAEC's decommissioning plan.

    \14\ See letter dated November 2, 1995, from Morton B. Fairtile, 
NRC, to James A. Kay, YAEC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    For the reasons given above, Petitioner's request to prohibit six 
activities is denied. Those activities, plus an additional five 
activities identified by the Licensee as planned or ongoing, are 
permissible prior to approval of a decommissioning plan under the pre-
1993 interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations.
    As provided by 10 CFR 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision will be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the Commission's review. 
The Decision will become the final action of the Commission 25 days 
after issuance, unless the Commission on its own motion institutes 
review of the Decision within that time.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of March 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William. T. Russell,
Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-6936 Filed 3-21-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P