ML20058E356
| ML20058E356 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 11/12/1993 |
| From: | Dudley R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058E348 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9312060274 | |
| Download: ML20058E356 (7) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ 1 t i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-029 ) YANVsEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ) ) i (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) ) EXEMPTION 4 I. The Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC or the licensee), is the holder of Possession Only License No. DPR-3 which authorizes po3 session and maintenance of the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS or plant). The license provides, among other things, that the plant is subject to all rules, l regulations, and Orders of the Commission now or hereafter in effect. The facility is a permanently shutdown pressurized water reactor, currently in the process of being prepared for decommissioning, and is located at the licensee site in Franklin County, Massachusetts. II. l The licensee, by letter dated February 27, 1992, informed the NRC that j YAEC had permanentiy ceased power operations, removed the fuel from the reactor to the fuel pool and begun to develop detailed plans to decommission the facility. The reactor was actually shut down in early October 1991; thus, the fuel has undergone over two years of decay. The NRC in a license ] amendment dated August 5, 1992, modified License No. DPR-3 to a Possession Only License (POL). The license is conditioned so that YAEC is not authorized to operate the reactor and fuel may not be placed in the reactor vessel, thus formalizing the YAEC commitment to permanently cease power operations. l 9312060274 931119 DR ADOCK 05000029 PDR
l i . 'j 'l I t By letter dated September 24, 1993, the licensee requested an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(y) which states that, as a minimum, a licensed senior ) operator may approve any emergency action that departs from either_a license condition or technical specification when permitted by 10 CFR 50.54(x). The -{ licensee requests that the certified fuel handlers (CFH), a position analogous to that of the 10 CFR Part 55 senior licensed operators, be granted the authority provided in 10 CFR 50.54(y). The September 24, 1903, request is the action being considered herein. f i III. l t The YAEC bases for the exemption raquest are that the reactor has been defueled, the fuel placed in the spent fuel storage pool and that the reactor cannot be returned to operation. The NRC staff in a letter dated June 16, 1992, approved the CFH programs at Yankee and stated, "We find that these i programs provide the required level of training and certification that is consistent with the permanently shutdown and defueled condition of the plant." In a license amendment dated July 22, 1992, the NRC eliminated the licensed operator programs at the plant and replaced them with the CFH programs. The Commission will not consider granting an er.emption unless special -i t circumstances are present. In the licensee letter of September 24, 1993, these special circumstances were addressed as follows: i 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) " Application of the regulation in the j t particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule.." Licensee response: "Although it is highly unlikely that emergency actions as describeo by 10 CFR 50.54(x) will ever be needed given the permanently defueled condition of YNPS, it is important that the appropriate licensee parsonnel have the authority to take I t [ ~
%c emergency actions if needed. Because the certified fuel handler position for a permanently defueled facility is analogous to a licensed senior operator for an operating facility, the underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.54(y) would not be served uniess certified fuel handlers are authorized to fulfill the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(x)." IV. The staff, based on our letter of June 16, 1992, the license amendment of July 22, 1992, and review of the licensee letter of September 24, 1993, concludes that sufficient bases exist for our approval of the exemption request. In addition, the staff finds that there are special circumstances presented that satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). V. Based on Sections II! and IV, above, the Commission has determined that pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1), this exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety and is consistent with the common defense and security. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have any effect on the quality of the human environment (58 FR 61107, dated November 19, 1993). Accordingly, the Commission hereby grants the requested exemption to 10 CFR 50.54(y). The exemption is effective immediately. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGUl ATORY COMMISSION [BrianK. Grimes, Director ~ w~% Division of Operating Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day of November 1993
i i 7590-01 l UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER STATION i DOCKET NO. 50-029 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENIJND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.54(y) for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS or the plant). This exemption would be granted to the Yankee Atomic Electric f i Company (Yankee or the licensee) for YNPS which is located in Franklin County, Massachusetts. { ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Jdentification of Proposed Action. t The proposed action would grant an exemption from the requirements of j 10 CFR 50.54(y) to Yankee in response to the licensee request of September 24, i 1993. This regulation states that, as a minimum, a licensed senior operator may approve any emergency action that departs from either a license condition or technical specification when permitted by 10 CFR 50.54(x). The Need for the Prooosed Action: The YAEC letter of September 24, 1993, stated that the plant has perma-nently ceased power operation and that all nuclear fucl has been removed from the containment to the spent fuel pool and that the licensed operator positions have been eliminated at Yrikee through an NRC license amendment dated July 22, 1992. The licensee requested the 10 CFR 50.54(y) exemption so that the certified fuel handler (CFH) position could replace the licensed senior operator in regard to the authority to take the requisite emergency i e i b i
.-- = ~ i : ) - l l ) actions under 10 CFR 50.54(x). The NRC approved the CFH position in a letter dated June 16, 1992. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: l The proposed action does not have any effect on accident risk and the possibility of environmental impact is extremely remote. i In a request for an exer.t 7n from an emergency plan exercise dated May 22, 1992, the licensee subtair ao a safety analysis which analyzed the most credible accident concerning the fuel in the spent fuel pool. This event was j the drop of a fuel bundle and subsequent release of all gaseous radioactive gap activity which is the only remaining design basis accident at the plant. The staff reviewed the YAEC analysis and found the consequences acceptable; our review was conducted as part of our exemption of July 24, 1992; however, the review is also pertinent to this proposed action. In addition, the fuel has now decayed for an additional period of time which further lessens the accident consequences considered in our July 24 exemption. Based on our review of the September 24, 1993 submittal and our July 24, l 1992 exemption, we have concluded that the environmental and safety consequences of accidents which may potentially result in a radiological l release are greatly decreased given the plants permanently shutdown and defueled status and over two years of decay in the fuel. Therefore, the proposed action does not increase the probability or consequences of any accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in the allowable individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure j / onsite.
a 1 L Accordingly, the Commission concludes that this proposed action would j result in no significant radiological environmental impact. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmen-tal impact. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant i non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Alternativa to the Proposed Action: Since the Commission concluded that there are no significant environmen-tal effects that would result from the proposed action, any alternatives with t equal or greater environmental impacts need not be evaluated. The principal alternative would be to deny the action. This would not reduce environmental impacts of plant operation and would not enhance the l t protection of the environment nor public health and safety. Alternative Use of Resources: This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously l f I considered in previous reviews for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station. Aaencies and Persons Consulted: The staff consulted with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts regarding the environmental impact of the proposed exemption. The state representative i contacted had no comment on the proposed exemption. r FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The-Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. Based upon the foregoing environmental assessment, we conclude that the proposed action will not have a significant t effect an the quality of the human environment.
E ^ t for further details with respect to this action, see the application for exemption dated September 24, 1993, which is available for public inspection at the Commission Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555, and at the local public document room at the Greenfield Community j College,1 College Drive, Greenfield, Massachusetts 01301. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of Novenber 1993. FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i I k Richard F. Dudley, Jr.,jf., Acting Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning i Project Directorate l Division of Operating Reactor Support Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation r I a W P 4 p 4}}