ML20128K332

Citizens Awareness Network & New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution Request for Immediate Injunction Against Unlawful Decommissioning Activities.* W/Certificate of Svc

ML20128K332
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	10/04/1996
From:	Block J, Curran D CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, HARMON, CURRAN, SPIELBERG & EISENBERG, LLP., NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#496-17961 DCOM, NUDOCS 9610110035
Download: ML20128K332 (26)

Text

. 'S 6

/7%/ *

+ >

\

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 pe* o' before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y 0g ,it og N g 1

) 66 sC4f#U Yankee Atomic Electric Company )

1. d'

) Docket No. 50 Tl '>$

(Yankee Rowe Nuclear Power Station) ) Decommissioning

) October 4, 1996 CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK'S AND NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S REQUEST FOR INNEDIATE INJUNCTION AGAINST UNLAWFUL DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES I. INTRODUCTION Intervenors, Citizens Awareness Network and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, hereby request the Commission to call an immediate halt to proposed r wful decommissioning activities which Yankee Atomic Electric Company ("YAEC") is about to begin at the Yankee Rowe nuclear power plant, prior to approval of its decommissioning plan.1 Yankee Atomic Electric Comoany (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-96-6, 43 NRC 123, 132 (1996). These proposed activities must be stopped because they threaten the continued viability of the SAFSTOR option, before YAEC's choice of a decommissioning alternative has been formally approved in a license amendment. xatuis proposed activities must also be stopped because they jeopardize intervenors' hearing rights concerning the election between the DECON and SAFSTOR options.2 1

The proposed activities are described in a September 30, 1996 letter from Russell A." Mellor, YAEC, to Morton B. Fairtile, NRC (hereinafter "Mellor Letter"). A copy is attached to this pleading as Attachment 1.

2 On September 27, 1996, in LBP-96-18, the Licensing Board

! granted YAEC's summary disposition motion regarding the dose i difference between the DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives. In an Order issued October 2, the Commission temporarily stayed the effect of LBP-96-18 while it considers intervenors' stay 9610110035 961004

]

=

DR ADOCK 05000029 PDR

l II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND j A. Reinstatement of Pre-1993 Decommissioning Policy In CLI-95-14, 42 NRC 130 (1995), in response to the U.S.

1 Court of Appeals' decision in Citizens Awareness Network v.

Nuclear Reculatory Commission and Yankee Atomic Electric Comoany, l 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995), the Commission reinstated its pre-  ;

1993 decommissioning policy prohibiting " major dismantling or l

decommissioning activities" prior to approval of the oecommis-sioning plan, and offered the public an opportunity for a hearing on YAEC's decommissioning plan. 42 NRC at 132, citino Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),

CLI-90-08, 32 NRC 201, 207 n. 3 (1990) (hereinafter "Shoreham").

As defined in Shoreham, such " major" decommissioning and disman-tling activities are those which:

materially and demonstrably affect the methods or options available for decommissioning or that would substantially increase the costs of decommissioning, prior to the submission and approval of a decommission-ing plan.

32 NRC at 207 note 3.

Intervenors requested a hearing on November 30, 1995, and filed, inter alia, two contentions challenging YAEC's choice of the DECON alternative under the ALARA standard and the National Environmental Policy Act. Although the Licensing Board initially rejected intervenors' contentions (LBP-96-2, 43 NRC 61 (1996)],

(continued) motion and their forthcoming petition for review of LBP 18.

1

on appeal the Commission remanded a part of the Licensing Board's decision for reconsideration of intervenors' contentions chal-lenging YAEC's choice of the DECON decommissioning alternative.

CLI-96-7, 43 NRC 235 (1996). 1 The Licensing Board subsequently re-worded and admitted a contention regarding the choice of decommissioning alternatives. l l

LBP-96-15, 44 NRC 8, 22 (1996). In summary judgment proceedings, YAEC asserted that the estimated total decommissioning' dose for its preferred DECON alternative is 580 person-rems, including a remaining or "to go" dose of 140 person-rems. Affidavit of Rus-sell A. Mellor, submitted in support of YAEC's Motion for Summary Disposition (September 3, 1996). Intervenors demonstrated that a more reasonable estimate of the decommissioning dose is 1,184  :

person-rems, including a "to go" dose of 400 person-rems.

Affidavit of Marvin Resnikoff, Ph.D (September 6, 1996), sub-mitted in support of Citizens Awareness Network's and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Opposition to YAEC's Motion for Summary Disposition (September 10, 1996).

The Board granted YAEC's motion for summary disposition on the issue of the size of the dose discrepancy between the DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives. LBP-96-18 (September 27, 1996).

Petitioners filed a motion for a stay and a petition for review of LBP-96-18 on September 30, 1996 and October 4, 1996, respec-tively. The Commission has ordered a stay of LBP-96-18 pending review. See note 1, suora. Thus, the proceeding is ongoing, and

l 1

a license amendment approving YAEC's Decommissioning Plan has not been issued.

B. YAEC Has Undertaken Unlawful Decommissioning Activities During the Pendency of This Proceeding.

l Despite the pendency of intervenors' formal challenge to 1

YAEC's choice of a decomnissioning alternative, during the past ten months YAEC has -- with the approval of the NRC staff --

l repeatedly jeopardized the SAFSTOR alternative by engaging in l '

pre-plan-approval DECON activities. DD-96-1, 43 NRC 29 (1996);

DD-96-2, 43 NRC 109 (1996). During these DECON activities, workers and the public irretrievably incurred radiation doses that could be avoided by election of the SAFSTOR alternative, under which radiation levels are allowed to decay substantially over a period of 30 to 50 years.3 As a result of YAEC's con-tinued illegal decommissioning, the viability of the SAFSTOR alternative has been continuously eroded.

YAEC listed and provided radiation dose estimates for 21 activities that it has undertaken, with NRC staff approval, since late 1995. Letter from Russell A. Mellor, YAEC, to Morton D.

Fairtile (May 15, 1996) (Attachment 2).4 At 107.2 person-rems, the estimated doses for these 21 pre-plan-approval activities are 3

See NUREG-0586, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, Table 4.3-2 (1988) for an illustration of the potential SAFSTOR dose savings for a reference reactor.

4 l As of mid-May, most of these activities were either completed or underway. A few had not yet begun. Id.

l -

significant. This amounts to approximately 121 of YAEC's estimate of the total dose from all remaining decommissioning activities prior to the start of the 21 activities (358 person-rems). Egg DD-96-6, 43 NRC at 130-131.

The costs of YAEC's pre-plan-apprc.ml activities are also significant, estimated at $12.5 million for the activities j evaluated in DD-96-1 and DD-96-2. Egg DD-96-2, 43 NRC at 119.

Although the staff found these costs to be small when compared to YAEC's estimated overall decommissioning costs, the staff did not attempt to compare the expenditure with the significant savinge YAEC could have achieved by postponing the decommissioning activities under the SAFSTOR alternative, thus allowing a sub-stantial decline in the volume of waste.5 yg, C. CLI-96-6 Disfavors Further Decommissioning Throughout the spring of 1996, as YAEC proposed more and more unlawful pre-plan-approval decommissioning activities, the intervenors repeatedly called upon the Commission to stop them.

See Emergency Motion for Compliance With Circuit Court Opinion (January 17, 1996); 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 Decision, and Renewed Emergency Request for Compliance With Circuit Court Opinion (February 9, 1996); Citizens Awareness Network's and New 1

5 Without support, the staff merely claims that such an exercise would be " speculative." Id.

l

. ~. .-- - . _ _ _ _

England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Third Request for i

Immediate Stay of Unlawful Decommissioning Activities and Renewed Emergency Request for Compliance With Circuit Court Opinion (March 18, 1996); letter from Jonathan M. Block to NRC Com-missioners (May 13, 1996). With the exception of intervenors' Third Request for Immediate Stay, which the Commissioners rejected in CLI-96-6 [43 NRC at 131 note 7], the Commission referred all of intervenors' petitions back to the NRC' staff, which repeatedly rationalized its own prior decisions approving the activities. Eeg DD-96-1, DD-96-2, and letter from William Russell to Jonathan M. Block (May 31, 1996).

The Commission took gua sconte review of DD-96-1 and DD-96-2 in CLI-96-6. There, the Commission found that YAEC's dose ,

estimate of 65.3 person-rems for the activities reviewed in those  ;

decisions was a " reasonably small portion" (i.e., 18%) of the total remaining decommissioning dose of approximately 358 person-rems. 43 Nr7 at 131. On this basis, the Commission concluded that YAEC's activities were " minor.n6 Id., 43 NRC at 131.

6 The Commission also noted that its decision did not cover a recent filing by intervenors challenging more activities by YAEC. 43 NRC at 131. Intevenors' pleading, entitled Third Request for Immediate Stay of Unlawful Decommissioning Activities and Renewed Emergency Request for Compliance with Circuit Court Opinion (March 18, 1996), challenged a number of new activities, plus the decontamination of the Main Coolant System, which intervenors had previously viewed as a permissible activity. The total dose from these activities, plus the other activities considered in CLI-96-6, was 100.8 person-rems. Id. In light of the history of YAEC's decom-missioning activities, which have involved the steady erosion of the viability of the SAFSTOR alternative, intervenors have now concluded that the decontamination of the Main Coolant System should not have been permitted, because it involved a significant radiation dose (estimated at 35.5 person-rems).

As discussed in Section II below, intervenors propose that

. l 1

l The Commission explicitly recognized, however, that "an  !

accumulation of ' minor' activities could so eviscerate the SAF- j 1

STOR option that a halt would be necessary." Id. The Commission concluded that SAFSTOR remained a viable option, based on repre-sentations by the NRC staff that YAEC planned no further decom-missioning activities which would result in " radioactive dose consequences." Id. at 132. Thus, the Commission warned:

Should this understanding prove false, and YAEC proposes additional activities, " minor" or not, that individually or cumulatively would threaten the con-tinued viability of SAFSTOR, the Commission stands ready to call a halt to such activities.

Id. at 132 (footnote omitted]. The Commission also ordered YAEC l 1

to provide the staff with at least two weeks' advance notice I before undertaking any additional decommissioning activities l

prior to decommissioning plan approval. Id., note 8. '

D. YAEC Gives Notice of New Proposed Activities On September 30, 1996, in the Mellnr Letter, YAEC notified the NRC staff of its intention to undertake four additional decommissioning activities prior to receiving approval of the decommissioning plan. These activities consist of removal of the motor control center (MCC) 4, removal of asbestos insulation in the Reactor Coolant Assembly, removal of miscellaneous Primary Auxiliary Building components, removal of miscellaneous waste

(continued) the Commission establish clear guidance to prevent segmenta-tion of the decisionmaking process, by barring pre-plan-approval decommissioning activities unless they are necessary to maintain the safety of the plant.

disposal building components, removal of waste hold-up and test tanks, and decontamination of the safety injection building con-i crete surfaces. Id., Attachment A. The total estimated dose for 4

the activities is 9.4 person-rems, and the estimated cost is

! $1,252,000. Id. at A-5.

i

! YAEC claims that all of the activities are " minor." Id. at i

1. With respect to the first five activities, YAEC argues that each is " minor" because it " involves only a small port' ion of the I

dose required to complete decommissioning." Id., Appenclx A.

With respect to the sixth, decontamination of the safety injec-tion building concrete surfaces, YAEC asserts that

"[d]econtamination does not materially and demonstrably affect the methods or options available for decommissioning because decontamination does not preclude safe storage or dismantlement."

Id. at A-3. YAEC also attempts to justify all of the activities 1

! on the ground that each does not " increase the costs of decommis- l I

sioning as its cost is already accounted for in the decommision-ing cost estimate" for Yankee Rowe. Id., Appendix A. I l

i i l

I l

1 I

4 l

- - . - . . - - -- - - - - ~ . .

III. ARGUMENT A. The Commission Must call a Halt to Further Decommissionng Activities by YAEC Pending Approval of YAEC's Decommis-sioning Plan As the Commission recognized in CLI-96-6, an accumulation of so-called " minor" decommissioning activities may eviscerate the SAFSTOR option, calling for a " halt" of any further activities.

Id., 43 NRC at 131. However, the time is long overdue to call a halt to YAEC's continuing attempts to decommission the' Yankee Rowe facility in a piecemeal fashion, rationalizing each activity on the ground that by itself it is " minor." Taken together, the radiation doses from YAEC's previously-approved and now-proposed activiti3s comprise 116.6 person-rems, which constitutes approxi-mately one-third of the remaining radiation dose estimated by the NRC staff when it issued DD-96-1 and DD-96-2. Calling this a

" minor" proportion of the "to go" radiation dose would be ludicrous. As these doses are irretrievably incurred by human beings, they fatally undermine the viability of SAFSTOR as an alternative and cost-effective means of saving lives, health and resources. Thus, these actions violate the NRC's pre-1993 policy of forbidding decommissioning activities that would " materially

, and demonstrably affect the methods or options available for decommissioning."7 Shoreham, 32 NRC at 207 n. 3.

7 For this reason, YAEC is totally incorrect in stating that decontamination does not preclude SAFSTOR. Mellor Letter at A-3. Decontamination precludes SAFSTOR by causing workers and the public to incur irreversible radiation doses that are otherwise avoidable by implementing the SAFSTOR alternative.

YAEC's unlawful decommissioning activities have also sub-stantially increased the cost of decommissioning in violation of the Commission's pre-1993 policy. Een Shoreham, Id. The pro-posed activities would add over $1.25 million to a cost that is over $12.5 million already. By spending significant funds that could be conserved if the SAFSTOR alternative were elected, YALC substantially and irretrievably increases decommissioning costs and thus diminishes the viability of SAFSTOR alternative.8 The Commission should also call a halt to YAEC's continuing piecemeal decommissioning activities because they violate the prohibition against segmentation of the decisionmaking process under the National Environmental Policy Act. City of Rochester

v. United States Postal Service, 541 F.2d 967, 972 (2nd Cir.

1967). By irretrievably incurring worker and public radiation doses, YAEC's piecemeal activities steadily erode the viability of the SAFSTOR alternative. As a result, they tilt the deci-sionmaking process in favor of DECON, fatally undermining the meaningful consideration of alternatives in the NEPA deci-8 YAEC's argument that its proposed measures do not increase decommissioning costs because those costs are already included in its cost estimates is inapposite. The issue is not whether decommissioning costs are already covered by an estimate, but rather whether decommissioning measures involve significant expenditures that could otherwise be avoided by election of the SAFSTOR alternative. See the 1988 GEIS, Table 4.4-1, for a depiction of the significant waste volume reduction achieved through election of the SAFSTOR alterna-tive. Intervenors contend, and seek an opportunity to submit evidence in this proceeding, that substantially reduced waste volumes would be reasonably likely to yield major cost savings.

sionmaking process. Egg Kleece v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390, 414

n. 26. Accordingly, allowing YAEC's pre-plan-approval decommis-sioning activities to continue would render the NEPA decisionmak-ing process a sham.

Moreover, the Atomic Energy Act requires the Commission to provide an opportunity for a public hearing on the reasonableness

of YAEC's election of the DECON alternative under the ALARA stan-dard and NEPA. Intervenors requested and were granted'such a hearing opportunity, and are now in the process of litigating their contention that SAFSTOR is a viable and preferable alterna-tive to DECON.9 Thus, the Commission must stop YAEC's continuing atte.mpts to undermine the meaningful consideration of the SAFSTOR alternative in the hearing process.10 Finally, the Commission should take immediate measures to protect the integrity of the ALARA and NEPA decisionmaking pro-cess against erosion by piecemeal pre-plan-approval decommission-9 Although the Licensing Board rejected intervenors' conten-tion, intervenors are in the process of exercising their right to seek Commission review of that ruling. Until such point as this litigation is concluded, the commission must take all necessary steps to protect the integrity of this hearing process.

10 The Commission should reject out of hand YAEC's claim that its proposed activities are necessary to avoid further reduc-tions in staff while YAEC waits for decommissioning plan approval. Letter from Russell A. Mellor to Morton B.

Fairtile at 1 (September 30, 1996). YAEC's economic consid-erations cannot be used to excuse the NRC's legal obligations under NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act. Notably, the delay in decommissioning plan approval was caused by YAEC's and the NRC's resistance to granting intervenors their lawful hearing rights.

y e, - -- --- ,

! ing activities in future cases. The Yankee Rowe case illustrates l the folly of piecemeal consideration of pre-plan-approval activities, based on their individual radiation doses or costs.

Under this approach, dec3amissioning activities are broken down

into an infinite array of small tasks which, by themselves, may involve relatively small doses and costs. Only in hindsight, after the gradual accretion of such activities has made sig-nificant inroads on the viability of the SAFSTOR alternative, are their cumulative impacts recognized. This violates the con-ceptual and practical basis for the ALARA standard. It also vio-lates NEPA, and denies citizens the rights of public participa-tion in the decionmaking process which the Atomic Energy Act

grants them. Intervenors submit that the only reasonable course, under these circumstances, is to forbid pre-plan-approval decom-missioning activities and expenditures unless the activities are necessary to maintain the plant in a safe condition.

IV. CONCLUSION YAEC's latest proposal calls for significant unauthorized decommissioning expenditures, and threatens to continue the j steady erosion of the viability of the SAFSTOR alternative Ly causing workers and the public to incur irretrievable radiation doses otherwise avoidable by election of the SAFSTOR alternative.

7 The proposal violates the Commission's pre-1993 decommissioning policy. It deprives intervenors of any meaningful opportunity to advocate the SAFSTOR alternative in a hearing before the NRC. By

~ -

continuing to propose and execute fragmented decommissioning activities, YAEC also undermines NEPA, which forbids the seg-1 mentation of federal activities where such action would defeat  !

consideration of the impacts and alternatives to a project as a whole, l Accordingly, as contemplated in CLI-96-6, the Commission must call an immediate halt to all such activities, unless and I until YAEC receives formal approval of its Decommissioning Plan and the decommissioning alternative elected therein.

Respectfully submitted, Diane Curran I Harmon, Curran, and Spielberg 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 )

(202) 328-3500 ,

1 MA7M8vrd Jpnathan M. Block g P.O. Box 566 Putney, VT 05346-0566 (802) 387-2646 Counsel to CAN and NECNP October 4, 1996

Attachment 1 YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY

• kg;5:i;o.7yp n.

bA4. .; h '

55C Main Street. Ecitcn. Massacnusetts Ot7 to t395 8 M .5 / September 30,1996 BYR 96 - 048 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Morton B. Fairtile Senior Project Manager Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Operating Reactors

References:

(a) License No. DPR-3 (Docket No. 50-29)

(b) USNRC Letter to YAEC, dated May 31,1996 (c) Director's Decisions DD-96-01 and DD-96-02 (d) CLI-96-06, dated April 1,1996 (e) USNRC Letter to J. Block, dated February 22,1996 (f) Letters, K. Jaffe, Swindler & Berlin to L. Cashell, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Docket No. ER95-835-000, dated December 29,1995

Subject:

Pre-Notification ofNew Planned Activities

Dear Mr. Fairtile,

In accordance with Reference (d), this letter provides fourteen day notification prior to implementing additional minor decommissioning activities at YNPS. The scope of these activities, described in Enclosure A. was developed to maintain the trained and experienced staff

+= Sed H denmmissioning activities at Yankee without performing any maior decommissioning activities. Yankee's staff has developed significant experuse in decornmissioning, achieving an impressive radiological and occupational safety record including greater than 750,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> without a lost time accident. Regrettably, Yankee has already experienced a reduction of trained and experienced staff as a result of the completion of many of the previously noticed minor decommissioning activities. Regardless of further legal proceedings in this matter, proceeding with these minor activities is necessary to avoid a further reduction in staff and the attendant consequences.

Yankee has determined that the activities described in Enclosure A are " minor" decommissioning activities, consistent with established criteria, and do not foreclose the ability to place the remaining plant into a safe storage (i.e., SAFSTOR) condition. Furthermore, these activities are bounded by the types of activities previously considered permissible by NRC under a Possession-Only License (POL) prior to decommissioning plan approval [see Reference (e) caweauss2.cra j

. + -

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page2 describing activities conducted at Fort St. Vrain and Shoreham]. These activities do net constitute major decommissioning activities since removal and/or implementation collectively represent a very small fraction of the remaining estimated occupational exposure. Enclosure A contains information previously requested by the NRC staff regarding the estimated curies to be  :

! removed, estimated occupational exposure, and cost. I None of the equipment or material being removed is required to support safe storage of spent fuel, future dismantlement, or safe storage of those portions of the facility which remain. These activities also do not ine: ease the costs of decommissioning as these costs are already accounted l for in the decommissioning cost estimate as Sled and senled by FERC and collectedin accordance with the FERC settlement [ Reference (f)).

l Should you have any questions regarding this information, please contact us.

Sincerely, l

l YANKEE ATOMI ELECTRIC COMPANY g k.

1 Russe . Mellor Decommissioning Manager and .

Manager of Operations l cc: USSRC Document Control Desk Mort Fainile NRR J. White, NRC Region !

l l .

l CAMAlt.P.USs2.1,TR l

l

Attachment A - Description of Planned Activities The following provides descriptions of activities expected to commence between October 15, 1996 and November 15,1996:

1. Removal of Motor Control Center (MCC) 4 His activity is bounded by the types of activities previously stated as permissible by NRC under a POL prior to decommissioning plan approval (see Reference (e) describing activities conducted at Fort St. Vrain and Shoreham). This activitv does not constitute a maior decommissioning activity since the removal involves only a small portion of the dose required to complete decommissioning. The total estimated dose associated with this activity is approximately 0.1 person-rem The quantity of radioactivity has been estimated at less than 0.000002 Ci.

This activity removes a de-energized motor control center, MCC 4, located in the Primary Auxiliary Building (PAB), and includes the necessary electrical determinations and removal of associated electrical cable and conduit. MCC-4 was de-energized during the installation of the construction grade power system and is not required to support spent fuel pool cooling operation.

This activity does not increase the costs of decommissioning as its cost is already accounted for in the decommissioning cost estimate as filed and settled by FERC and collected in accordance with the FERC settlement (Reference (f)).

Anticipated start date: October 15,1996.

2. Remnval af A she stas insulation in the RC4 This activity is bounded by the types of activities previously stated as permissible by NRC under a POL prior to decommissioning plan approval (see Reference (e) describing activities conducted at Fort St. Vrain and Shoreham). This activity involves removal of asbestos insulation from the waste evaporator, certain building heating lines, and other miscellaneous equipment.

This activity does not constitute a major decommissioning activity since the removal involves only a small portion of the dose required to complete decommissioning. The total estimated dose associated with this activity is approximately 3 person-rem. The amount of radioactivity has been estimated at less than 0.02 Ci.

cwAnauss2.1/rn A-1 r ---- - q, -n- - , -

ma m:e r-e - vm e i l

Attachment A - Description of Planned Activities (continued)

This activity does not increase the costs of decommissioning as its cost is already accounted for in the decommissioning cost estimate as filed and settled by FERC and collected in accordance with the FERC settlement (Reference (f)).

Anticipated start date: October 15,1996.

3. Rnnoval of Miscellaneous PA B Components This activity is bounded by the types of activities previously stated as permissib'le by NRC under a POL prior to decommissioning plan approval (see Reference (e) describing activities conducted at Fort St. Vrain and Shoreham). This activity involves removal of miscellaneous small bore piping, electrical equipment, cable and conduit, miscellaneous steel, instrumentation, concrete block and concrete decontamination. This activity does not constitute a major decommissioning activity since the removal involves only a small portion of the dose required to complete decommissioning. The total estimated dose associated with this activity is approximately 2 person-rem. The amount of radioactivity has been estimated at approximately 1.3 curies.

This activity does not increase the costs of decommissioning as its cost is already accounted for in the decommissioning cost estimate as filed and settled by FERC and collected in accordance with the FERC settlement (Reference (f)).

Anticipated start date: October 15,1996.

4 Removal nO(iscellaneous Waste Disposal Building Components This activity is bounded by the types of acuvities previously stated as permissible by NRC under a POL prior to decommissioning plan approval (see Reference (e) describing activities conducted at Fort St. Vrain and Shoreham). This activity does not constitute a major decommissioning activity since the removal involves only a small portion of the dose required to complete decommissioning. The total estimated dose associated with this activity is approximately 3 person-rem. The amount of radioactivity has been estimated at less than 0.3 Ci.

This activity involves removal of the obsolete evaporator and associated equipment, small bore piping, electrical equipment, cable and conduit, miscellaneous steel, instrumentation and concrete decontamination. This evaporator is redundant to the installed new temporary waste evaporator and is not required to support operation of the spent fuel pool cooling system.

This activity does not increase the costs of decommissioning as its cost is already accounted j 1

c.swt.saussn.ra A-2

- a: mm emwne p, s l

Attachment A - Description of Planned Activities (continued) for in the decommi>.sioning cost estimate as filed and settled by FERC and collected in accordance with the FERC settlement (Reference (f)).

Anticipated start date: November 4,1996.

1 i

5. Removalof the Waste Hold-up and Test Tanks This activity is bounded by the types of activities previously stated as permissible by NRC under a POL prior to decommissioning plan approval (see Reference (ei describing acdvities conducted at Fort St. Vrain and Shoreham). This actwity does not constitute a major decommissioning acdvity since the removal involves only a small portion of the dose required to complete decommissioning. The total estimated dose associated with this activity is approximately one person-rem. The .unount of radioactivity has been estimated at less than one curie.

This activity involves removal of the obsolete waste hold-up tank and test tanks and concrete decontamination. These tanks are redtmdant to the installed new temporary waste evaporator system and waste water storage tanks and are not required to support operation of the spent fuel pool cooling system.

This activity does not increase the costs of decommissioning as its cost is already accounted for in the decommissioning cost estimate as filed and settled by FERC and collected in accordance with the FERC settlement (Reference (f)).

Anticipated start date: October 15,1996.

6 D rontaminatinn nr v1w Cafm Iniocrinn Ruilding roneraro Vurfaen This activity is a decontamination activity. Decontamination is a speci5cally allowed activity by the 1988 decommissioning rule (Statements of Consideration) and NRC lener transmitting the YNPS POL The interior building surfaces and structural steel will be decontaminated. Concrete encased drain lines which cannot be decontaminated and verified clean will be removed. Decontamination does not materially and demonstrably affect the methods or options available for decommissioning because decontamination does not preclude safe storage or dismantlement.

This activity involves removal of a very small quantity of radioactivity, estimated at less than 0.001 curies. The total estimated dose associated with these activities is approximately 0.3 person-rem.

cwArt.utuss2nn A-3

+>m .

< -. - . . - g. ,

l.

l 1

Attachment A - Description of Planned Activities (continued)

This activity does not increase the costs of decommissioning as its cost is a! ready accounted for in the decommissioning cost estimate as filed and settled by FERC and collected in accordance with the FERC settlement (Reference (f)).

Anticipated start date: November 4,1996 Summary These activities are " minor" decommissioning ac:!vi ties. consistent with established critena.

and collectively represent a small fraction of the remaining estimated exposure for ifIe decommissioning of the plant. The conduct of these ac::vit:es has no impact on the ability of the l remaining plant to achieve a SAFSTOR conRguration should such an option be desired or required in the future for the remaining portion of the facility.

l l

I I l i

l l

l l

l cawt.mussu.Tn A-4 l

- m _ m o m .ac 1 - emma r.m P. s o

Planned Activities l

Activity Description Radioactivity Dose Cost (Ci) (person-rem) (S)

MCC 4 Removal MCC determinations, <0.000002 0.1 93,000 MCC removal, cable' conduit removal Primary Side Waste evaporator, <0.02 3 340,000 ACM Removal heating lines, & mise components PAB Clean out Remove misc small 1.3 2 301,000 bore piping, electrical conduit & cable, miscellaneous steel, concrete block, and instrumentation Waste Disposal Remove obsolete 0.3 3 205,000 Building Clean evaporator, small out bore piping, electrical cable and conduit, miscellaneous steel, concrete block, and insm.entatice .

Waste Hold-up Remove the obsolete <1 1 $186,000 Tank and Test waste hold-up tank Tank Removal and test tanks (2) and decontaminate the retaining moat walls Safety Injection Decontaminate the <0.001 0.3 S125,000 Building interior building, Decontamination structural steel, and roofsurfaces Total < 2.6 9.4 S1,252,000 cmuunuss2.t;rn A-5

' YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY "'[ . _ _^." " *" ' *

. RECEIVED MAY : o E6 I

a 580 Main Street, Sciton, Massachusetts 017101398

,YAN

~

KIE-May 15,1996 BYR 96-033 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dm nmaat Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Mr. Morton B. Fairtile ~

Senior Project Manager

[. Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management i OfHee ofNuclear ReactorRegulation

References:

(a) License No. DPR-3 (Docket No. 50-29)

(b) USNRC Letter to YAEC, dated May 14,1996, Pre-Noti 6 cation of Planned Activities l (c) YAEC Letter to USNRC, dated May 10,1996 BYR96-029

!- (d) NRC Inspection Report No. 50-29/96-01, dated March 20,1996 l

Subject:

Response to NRC Request for Information l Dear Mr. Fairtile- l l '

By letter dated May 14,1996 [ Reference (b)], you requested YAEC provide mtormation regarding the estimated and actual doses for activities assessed by the NRC in Directer'c. l Decisions 96-01 and 96-02, dated February 22 and March 1S,1996. As requestec, Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee) herewith provides the requested information in the Table attached to this letter.

l- i Please be advised that for all activities that are not yet completed, the attached Table indicates that the data represents the actual doses to date. We would also po'mt out, as documented in the Reference (d) NRC Inspection Report, that all personnel working at the Yankee site received a total radiation exposure of 78 person-Rem during 1995. Of this exposure,70 person-Rem was attributed to workers assigned to decontamination and decommissioning work. Yankee's estimate of the dose for all 1995 activities was 90 person-Rem.

I

(

i l

Mr. Morton B. Fairtile l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission ,

May 15,1996 )

Page 2 of 2 We trust this information is fully responsive to your request, however, should you have questions or require any additional information, please contact us.

Sincerely, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPAhi 4

. . \

Russe A. Mellor ,

Manager of Operations and Decommissioning Manager Attachment copy (w/ attachment)

USNRCDocument ControlDesk Monon B. Fairtile, USNRC 4 I

J. White, USNRC Region I D. Curren J. Block

1 1

ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL DOSES FOR ACTIVITIES EVALUATED IN DIRECTOR'S DECISIONS 96-01 AN'D 96-02 ITEM DESCRIPTION STATUS ESTIMATE ACTUAL NO. (NOTE 1) (PERSONREM) (PERSONREM)

THROUGH 5-11-96 1 Upper Neutron Shield Total C 18.5 18.9 2 Waste Tank Removal C 2.6 0.9 Comoonent Cooling Water I i

3 ~

C 1.3 1.1 System -

4 Ion Exchange Pit Clean-up C 5.0 4.2 l 5 Fuel Chute Isolation C 3.7 4.0 6 Emergency Diesels C N/A N/A (Note 2) 7 Spent Fuel Pool Conduit C N/A N/A (Note 2) 8 Brookhaven Laboratory C Included in item Included in item Cable Sampling 17 17 9 Radioactive Material I 17.0 17.4 Packaging 10 Consolidation of Sediment I 13.8 4.1 in RPV

! 11 Removal of Misc. SI I 0.4 0.0

Building Equipmen

, ,

12 Installation of New I 0.5 0.4 Electrical System 13 Removal of Exterior VC I 0.4 0.3 Piping 14 Removal of MCS Insulation I 7.7 4.6 15 Installation of Temporary N 0.8 0.0 Waste System 16 Preparation for MCS C 21.6 19.2 Decontamination 17 Removal ofMisc. VC C 0.5 0.5 t Equipment O/S Bioshield i

.__ .. . _ . _ _ . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . _ _ . __ _ __

ESTIMATED AND CTUAL DOSES FOR ACTIVITIES EVALUATED IN DIRECTOR'S DECISIONS 96-01 AND 96-02 ITEM DESCRIPTION STATUS ESTIMATE ACTUAL NO. (NOTE 1) (PERSONREM) (PERSONREM)

THROUGH 5-11-96 18 Removal ofMisc. PAB C 5.4 5.5 Tanks I

! 19 Removal of Turbine I N/A N/A

, Building Insulation (Note 2) 20 Removd cf Spent Fue! Pool N 0.7 0.0 l Upender 6

21 Main Coolant System C 7.3 12.7 Decontamination (Note 3) a SUM 107.2 93.8 NOTES: 1. "C" denotes field work complete "I" denotes field work in progress "N" denotes field work not started

2. Non-radiological work.

3. Decontamination of the Main Coolant System has been estimated to reduce the dose to remove asbestos insulation and the Main Coolant System piping by 52 person-Rem.

4 i

4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Diane Curran, certify that on October 4, 1996, copies of the foregoing CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK'S AND NEW ENGLAND COALI-TION ON NUCLEAR FOLLUTION'S REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE INJUNCTION AGAINST UNLAWFUL DECOMMISSIONNG ACTIVITIES were served by first class mail or as otherwise designated on the following:

6 6

• Docketing and Service U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission #

JF gyjg60 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 ") @

2 4N '._.

Office of Comm. App. Adjudication g D C>3  ;

Mail Stop 016-G-15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B0 Washington, D.C. 20555 # db El u

• Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

R.K. Gad III, Esq.

, Ropes & Gray One International Plaza

Boston, MA 02110-2624

• Eugene J. Holler, Esq.

Office of General Counsel 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Leslie B. Greer, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General I office of the Attorney General Trial Division 200 Portland Street Boston, MA 02114 Jay DiPucchio, Administrator Franklin County Commission Courthouse - 425 Main Street Greenfield, MA 01301-3330 G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board  ;

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Thomas S. Elleman .

704 Davidson Street I Raleigh, NC 27609 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Mail Stop T-3F23 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Jonathan M. Block, Esq. '

Main Street, Box 566 Putney, VT 05346-0566

• • Shirley Ann Jackson, Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Greta J. Dicus, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Nils J. Diaz, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• • Edward McGaffigan, Jr., Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

(bw Diane Curran

• Also by FAX