ML20057A199
| ML20057A199 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/23/1993 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| SECY-93-234, NUDOCS 9309130187 | |
| Download: ML20057A199 (6) | |
Text
4
- -,/.G 29// c e_.
l
,9r ua%
=.3y y
g usea,neeseseeseu sc<saa.
E
\\,,,,./
l POLICY ISSUE August 23, 1993 OnfOrmatIOn)
SECY-93-234 FOR:
The Commissioners FROM:
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
QUARTERLY REPORT ON THE STATUS OF PREMATURELY SHUT DOWN PLANTS i
PURPOSE:
To inform the Commission of the status of open issues and the progress of specified facilities toward decommissioning.
BACKGROUND:
In COMJC-92-002 of March 3, 1992, the Commission directed the staff to submit quarterly reports on the status of pending licensing and regulatory actions for prematurely shut down plants, DISCUSSION:
I.
Price-Anderson Exemptions Since November 1990, the NRC has received Price-Anderson exemption requests from the licensees of Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Yankee Rowe, Fort St. Vrain, 2nd San Onofre 1.
Compliance with the Price-Anderson indemnity agreement provisions of 10 CFR Part 140 is of potential significance to all of the prematurely shut down plants. The NRR staff and the Office of the General Counsel reviewed this issue and these requests on a generic basis and made NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE IN 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE CONTACTS:
DATE OF THIS PAPER
- 5. Weiss, ONDD/NRR 504-2170 M. Webb, ONDD/NRr, 504-1347 0
9309130187 930823 PDR SECY 93-234 PDR I \\
f 4
The Commissioners recommendations for resolution in SECY-93-127, " Financial Protection Required of Licensees of Large Nuclear Power Plants During Decommissioning," May 10, 1993. On July 13, 1993, the Commission approved the staff recommendations for issuance of Price-Anderson exemptions and for initiation of rulemaking to codify offsite indemnity requirements. Staff actions for these requests are ongoing in accordance with the plans and schedules provided to the Commission by my memorandum of August 4, 1993.
II. Trainino Rule Exemptions The Training Rule (10 CFR 50.120) was issued in final form in the Federal Reoister on April 26, 1993. The implementation date of the rule is November 22, 1993. When issuing the rule, the supplemental information in the Federal Reaister notice indicated that if changes in the condition of a plant.
as a result of decomissioning made some or all of the existing training programs unnecessary, licensees could use the exemption process to obtain relief from the training rule requirements. Consequently, the staff may need to issue exemptions for up to 14 affected plants before the implementation date of the rule. Plants will have exemption needs which vary depending upon their current status in the decommissioning process. On June 25, 1993, the staff issued a letter to the 14 plants, explaining the likely need for exemptions and offering to process exemptions on the staff's own motion upon receipt of specific information from each licensee that demonstrated how compliance with certain portions of the rule was unnecessary.
Licensee responses are being processed by the staff as they are received.
III. Current Plant Status A.
Rancho Seco 1.
Decommissionino Plan Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) submitted the Rancho Seco decommissioning plan in May 1991.
The Environmental Conservation and Resources Organization (ECO) actively intervened in the decommissioning process.
In its Order CLI-93-03 of March 3, 1993, the Commission remanded three issues raised by ECO (i.e., loss of offsite power, decommissioning funding plan, and decommissioning environmental assessment) to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) for further consideration.
On June 16, 1993, the staff issued its decommissioning environmental assessment and associated safety evaluation. On July 12, 1993, EC0 submitted its contentions as allowed by CLI-93-03. On August 2, 1993, the NRC staff responded to the ECO contentions.
This matter is now before the Licensing Board.
f t
i i
l 4
The Comissioners i 2.
Decomissionina Fundina Plan l
l On June 16, 1993, the staff issued its evaluation of the Rancho Seco funding l
l plan. This matter is included among the issues being litigated before the
}
l Licensing Board.
l 3.
Possession-only License litiaation Status l
The licensee applied to amend its license to a possession-only license (POL)
{
on April 26, 1990. On November 8, 1990, ECO filed a petition to intervene and j
a request for a hearing concerning the SMUD application for a POL.
In a Memorandum and Order dated July 1,1991, the ASLB denied the ECO petition. On i
July 16, 1991, ECO filed an appeal before the Comission.
In a Memorandum and j
Order dated February 6,1992, CLI-92-02, the Comission upheld the Licensing i
Board ruling. On March 17, 1992, the staff issued the amendment which modified the Rancho Seco license to a POL.
Following final agency action on j
this matter, ECO filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals.
On June 3,1993, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit l
ruled in favor of the NRC by denying the ECO petition.
In its ruling, the l
Court noted that the NRC did not err in declining to hold a hearing on the j
SMUD application for a POL.
i 4.
Actions in Proaress The staff is processing two requests for licensing actions:
(a) a license i
amendment request to modify the plant organization to reflect proposed changes to the decomissioning organization and (b) an exemption to the indemnity l
requirements of 10 CFR Part 140.
l B.
Yankee Rowe 1.
Decommissionino Plan Under 10 CFR Part 50.82(a), the decomissioning plan is due by. February 1994.
The licensee has scheduled submittal of the plan for the fall of 1993. The staff estimates that it will take approximately one year to review the decomissioning plan from the time it is submitted by the licensee, including the time required to complete the Safety Evaluation Report and an Environmental Assessment.
I 2.
Completed Actions On June 11, 1993, the staff approved the license amendment request implementing the Yankee Defueled Technical Specifications.
l l
4 The Commissioners 3.
Removal of Larae Components Under 10 CFR 50.59 By letter dated November 25, 1992, the licensee described its proposed program to remove the four steam generators, the pressurizer, and certain reactor vessel internals from the site for shipment to Barnwell before NRC approval of the decommissioning plan for Yankee.
In response to staff recommendations in SECY-92-382, "Decomissioning - Lessons Learned," the Commission issued a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated January 14, 1993, which stated that early component removal is acceptable under certain conditions and that the staff can permit licensees to pay for such activities with decommissioning trust funds.
Following review of Yankee submittals showing how the proposed component removal activities would be undertaken in accordance with the criteria specified in the SRM of January 14, 1993, the NRC issued a letter dated July 15, 1993, stating that the staff has no objection to the proposed component removal program. An earlier NRC letter to the licensee dated April 16, 1993, stated that the staff has no objection to withdrawals from the decomissioning trust fund for these activities. Component removal activities are now in progress.
4.
Public Interest In late 1992, the NRC received two letters from the Citizen's Awareness Network (CAN), a public interest group based in the Rowe comunity, expressing concern that local residents did not have a voice in the decision-making process for issuing the license amendments and exemptions. The NRC responded to both letters.
In addition, two public meetings were held near the site on i
June 9, 1993:
(a) an afternoon session was held with the licensee to discuss how the proposed activities would comply with the criteria established by the Comission in the SRM of January 14, 1993, and (b) an evening meeting was held to inform the public regarding the Yankee Rowe decomissioning process and to provide the public an opportunity to air any concerns about the plant or programs. At the evening meeting many members of the public objected to the component removal activities planned at Yankee. However, no information was provided at the meeting (a) that indicated the activities would not be accomplished in accordance with the criteria established by the Comission or (b) that indicated any new or imediate safety concerns regarding these activities. The technical staff and OGC held a conference call with CAN members on August 4,1993, to discuss issues raised after the public meeting regarding a perceived link between radioactive effluents from Yankee and a number of medical conditions occurring in the area. During the conference call, a CAN spokesperson requested that the NRC order Yankee to stop early component removal activities until a public hearing is held to resolve the concerns raised by CAN. The NRC staff informed CAN that the concerns raised 1
and information provided to date did not warrant the issuance of an NRC order.
However, the staff comitted to review and formally respond to CAN on each of the issues raised.
1
i l
i i
l The Commissioners C.
San Onofre. Unit 1 1.
Decomissionino Plan Under 10 CFR Part 50.82(a), the San Onofre decommissioning plan is due by November 1994. The licensee has informed the staff that its proposed decomissioning plan will be submitted in November 1994.
2.
Actions in Proaress The staff is processing three requests for licensing actions:
(a) an exemption request from the annual fee requirements of 10 CFR Part 171 for FY93, (b) an exemption from the indemnity requirements of 10 CFR Part 140, and (c) a license amendment request to replace the current technical specifications with permanently defueled technical specifications.
3.
Comoleted Actions l
The staff approved the San Onofre I certified fuel handler training program and approved a license amendment to delete technical specification requirements for licensed operator staffing and training. These actions permitted replacement of the 10 CFR Part 55 licensed operator program with an approved fuel handler program at San Onofre 1 and established the non-licensed certified fuel handler position as the highest level of defueled plant operator, analogous to a licensed senior operator at an operational facility.
The staff also issued an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(y) requirements that a licensed senior reactor operator must approve any emergency action that departs from a license condition or echnical specification.
Certified fuel handlers at San Onofre 1 are now authorized to grant such approvals.
D.
Troian 1.
Decommissionino Plan Under 10 CFR Part 50.82(a), the Trojan decommissioning plan is due by January 1995. The licensee has scheduled submittal of the plan for May 1994.
The licensee is evaluating SAFSTOR and DECON decommissioning alternatives, l
including possible early removal of steam generators and other large components.
2.
Completed Actions The staff issued an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(y) requirements that a licensed senior reactor operator must approve any emergency action that departs from a license condition or technical specification. The staff had previously issued an amendment which permitted replacement of the 10 CFR Part 55 licensed operator program with an approved fuel handler program at Trojan. The amendment established the non-licensed certified fuel handler position as the highest level of defueled plant operator, analogous to a licensed senior operator at an operational facility.
Certified fuel handlers t
at Trojan are now authorized to grant such approvals.
l
4 J
The Commissioners 3.
Actions in Proaress The staff is still reviewing the proposed defueled emergency plan.
The principal issue involved in this review is how long after shutdown is offsite emergency planning needed to protect the public.
The review has required extensive coordination between the licensee, the State of Oregon, and the NRC staff.
In addition, the staff is processing technical specification change requests regarding the fire protection program, radiological effluents, the security program, a defueled quality assurance plan, and the permanently defueled technical specifications.
E.
Dresden 1 Staff review of the Dresden 1 decommissioning plan will be completed in August 1993 and the associated decommissioning order will be forwarded to the Commission for its review before issuance.
F.
Indian Point 1 2
Staff review of the Indian Point I decommissioning plan is in abeyance awaiting licensee response to a request for additional information on its plan to provide training for certified fuel handlers.
Consolidated Edisen has stated that a response will be provided by September 20, 1993.
IV.
Freouency of Report Although routine staff review activities associated with prematurely shut down plants remain at a significant level, because of decreasing policy concerns regarding the decommissioning process, the staff intends to reduce the frequency of this report to the Commission to a semiannual basis unless otherwise directed by the Commission.
SM J mes E. Taylor d
ecutive Directer for Operations DISTRIBUTION:
Cormnissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA OPP IUEGIONAL OFFICES EDO ACRS SECY
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - -