[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