ML20203H885
| ML20203H885 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Indian Point  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/1986 |
| From: | Otoole J CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. |
| To: | Berkow H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8608050121 | |
| Download: ML20203H885 (6) | |
Text
....
John D. O' Tool 2 V<e Pres. den:
ConsoPaated Edsson Company of New York, Inc.
4 Irving P! ace, New York, NY 10003 Teleonone (212) 460-2533 July 31, 1986 Re:
Indian Point Unit No. 1 Docket No. 50-3 Mr. Herbert N. Berkow, Director Standardization and Special Projects Directorate Division of PWR Licensing-B U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Berkow:
By letter dated May 7,1986, you requested that Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.
(" Con Edison") provide the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the "NRC" or the " Commission") with the information set forth in 10 CFR Part 51.45(b) relating to Con Edison's Indian Point Unit No. 1
("IP-1").
You indicated that you need this information to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51.20 for license amendments involving reactor decommissioning.
As you know, Con Edison submitted an application to the NRC on October 17, 1980 to place the IP-1 Containment Building in a " mothball' condition and maintaining the remaining portions of IP-1 in their present status until Indian Point Unit No. 2 is retired from service, at which time we presently intend to decommission both units simultaneously. Accordingly, Con Edison believes that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement relating to IP-1 decommissioning would be premature at this time, of little practical benefit to the Commission, and contrary to the Commission's regulations and previous guidance.
Indian Point Unit No. 1 Licensing Status Cr '. Edison received Provisional Operating License No. DPR-5, issued on March 26, 1962, authorizing operation of IP-1 located in Westchester County, New York.
License No.
DPR-5 was issued as a provisional operating licenae and continued in effect since 1969 under a timely application for a full-term operating license.
IP-1 was shut down on October 31, 1974, when a variance granted to Con Edison from the Commission's interim acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems expired.
IP-1 did not meet current operational requirements with respect to other safety systems, and no plans existed for bringing the facility into compliance with current requirements.
In view of these l
matters, on February 11, 1980, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation issued an Order to Show Cause (1) why the operating authority provided in Provisional Operating License No. DPR-5 should not be revoked; and (2) why the licensee should not submit pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82 a plan to decommission IP-1.
8608050121 860731 a
PDR ADOCK 05000003 A088 D
PDR R
Ikl
3 j
On March 12, 1980, Con Edison submitted an answer to the Order to 1
j Show Cause which stated that Con Edison had decided to retire IP-1 from service as-a generating facility, effectively ending its useful life as an -operating nuclear power plant.
Con Edison's answer additionally
- consented to the entry of an order carrying out the intent of the NRC's Order to Show Cause, provided that such order would continue Con Edison's authority to possess IP-1 and its contents and maintain its retired status in the status quo.
On June '19, 1980, the Commission issued an IP-1 Order Revoking Authority to Operate Facility.
The Order revoked the authority provided under License No. DPR-5 to operate IP-1 as a nuclear reactor, as defined in 10 CFR 50.2(k), and ordered Con Edison to submit pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82 a decommissioning plan for IP-1 within 120 days.
1 On October 17, 1980, in accordance with the Order Revoking Authority to Operate
- Facility, Con Edison submitted a
report entitled
" Decommissioning Plan for Indian Point Unit 1".
By letter dated October l
13, 1981, Con Edison submitted additional information to the Commission in order to clarify several statements contained in the report.
The report describes Con Edison's intentions to
" mothball" the IP-1 containment building until after the retirement of Indian Point Unit No.
2.
At that time, the IP-1 containment building and other facilities and systems of IP-1 which are presently being used to support Indian Point Units 2 and 3 would be dismantled and the radioactive material removed as necessary to meet the required radiation levels.
Pending retirement of Unit 2,
con Edison plans-to continue to use IP-1 (including the j.
mothbe.11ed containment building) to-support research and development programs and as a location for interim on-site storage of icw level waste.
"Mothballing" Alternative As described in Con Edison's October 1980 decommissioning plan l
report, con Edison fully intends to decommission IP-1 as an operating nuclear facility.
However, Unit 1 contains extensive common facilities that are required for the continued operation of Indian Point Units 2 and i
l 3.
Except for the fuel handling building that houses spent fuel, all other major buildings, including the' Unit 1 containment building, contain facilities which are needed to support Indian Point Units 2 and 3 i
operations.
Additionally, the use of heavy construction equipment for purposes of dismantlement within the limited IP-1 site confines could raise safety concerns coincident with Unit 2 operation.
Accordingly, l
these IP-1 facilities can feasibly be dismantled only af ter Unit 2 has ceased operation and if Unit 3 no longer requires service.
Since Indian Point Unit No. 2 will not be retired until the next century, the final and environmentally significant phase of the IP-1 decommissioning plan will not commence for at least 20 years.
l e t
IP-1 is a unit with shared supportive systems and together with IP-2 share common programs for radiation protection, fire protection, emergency planning and security.
Therefore, Con Edison believes that it would be entirely inappropriate to apply the provision of 10 CFR 51.20 relating to environmental impact statements in such a manner that the issuance of a
license amendment authorizing implementation of a
"mothballing" plan such as that submitted for IP-1 would be covered.
Under such a plan, it is obvious that any potentially adverse environmental effects attributable to the current IP-1 status have been reduced, since operation of the unit has been curtailed.
Contrariwise,
any significant possibility of environmental effects are associated with the actual dismantlement of the reactor.
Thus, an Environmental Impact Statement relating to decommissioning should appropriately address the impacts resulting from the simultaneous dismantling of IP-1 and IP-2, as discussed in Con Edison's decommissioning plan for Unit 1.
Since it is likely that significant improvements in decommissioning technology and concomitant experience will be gained in the decommissioning of other reactors prior to dismantling Units 1 and 2, Con Edison believes it would be premature and of little practical benefit for the NRC to commence preparation at this time of an Environmental Impact Statement on decommissioning, the primary data for which will not be available for many years.
In analogous circumstances, the NRC has questioned the utility of premature planning.
For example, in the context of recent amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 51 relating to the Commission's Waste Confidence decision, the Commission declined to require the submission of spent fuel management plans earlier than five years before expiration of a reactor operating license.
Its rationale, as reported in 49 Fed. Reg. 24690 (August 31, 1984), is relevant here:
"[T]he Commission believes that a requirement for a licensee to j
develop spent fuel management plans a decade or two before license expiration would be unnecessarily restrictive and could even be counterproductive.
Such premature plans would be likely to undergo several revisions to accommodate to changing circumstances and their usefulness would be questionable."
l l
l
\\ L
1 Continued Spent Fuel Storage Poses No Significsnt Environmental Impacts With respect to spent fuel storage at IP-1 during the post-operating license period, spent fuel storage will continue unaffected in the same manner as when IP-1 was operating.
Therefore, the environmental effects of this. activity are already fully described in the existing Environmental Reports (and Environmental Impact Statements) for Unit 1 and Unit 2.*
Safety issues relating to continued spent fuel storage have 1
been fully explored in' those documents and in subsequent related j
correspondence.between the Commission and Con Edison.**
Accordingly, Con Edison submits that there continues to _ be no significant environmental impact, and therefore no need to discuss spent fuel storage during the IP-1 post-operating license period in any new environmental report, statement assessment or other analysis prepared in connection with any license amendment covering such period.
Indeed, at 10 CFR 51.23(a), the Commission itself has made the generic determination "that for at least 30 years beyond the expiration of reactor operating licenses no significant environmental impacts will result from the storage of spent fuel in reactor facility storage pools...."
Pursuant to Commission -regulations in 10 CFR 51.20(a),
an environmental impact statement is required for licensing and regulatory actions presenting a significant environmental impact only if the proposed action "is a major Federal action significantly affecting the 4
j quality of the human environment" or involves a matter which the Commission "has determined should be covered by an environmental impact statement."
Since the Commission has determined generically in 10 CFR 51.23(a) that. continued spent fuel storage poses no significant environmental impacts, requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement for IP-1 for this activity at this time would be contrary to the Commission's regulations.
k i
I
- Indian Point Unit No. 1 Environmental Report and Cost Benefit Analysis (May 1973); Indian Point Unit No. 2, Applicant's Environmental Report Operating License Stage (August 6, 1970)
- Letter to Robert W. Reid from William J. Cahill, Jr. concerning potential effects of an earthquake on irradiated fuel at IP-1 (November 12, 1975); Letters to Robert W. Reid from i
William J.Cahill, Jr., concerning air cooling of spent fuel (October 20, 1975 and November 12, 1975); Letter to Robert W. Reid from Carl L. Newman, concerning evaluating effects of safe shutdown earthquake on nuclear fuel in IP-1 (September 15, 1974); Response to Directorate of Licensing questions in letter of March 6,1974 concerning fuel shipping cask drop accident (May 15, 1974);
Response to Regulatory Staff questions at meeting of November 14, 1973 concerning tornado analysis (March 1, 1974).
Existing Environmental Information May Be Supplemented Commission regulations at _10 CFR 51.53(b) provide that an applicant for a license to store spent fuel at a nuclear reactor after expiration of the operating license must submit environmental information for the post-operating license stage.
These regulations as well as the Commission regulations at 10 CFR 51.95(b), specifically do not direct preparation of either a - completely new Environmental Report or Environmental Impact Statement.
The - applicant may satisfy the requirement for submitting environmental information by means of a
" Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report - Post Operating License Stage [which] may ' incorporate by reference any information contained in -
Construction Permit Stage, Supplement Applicant's Environmental Report to Applicant's Environmental Report - Operating License Stage, final environmental impact statement, supplement to final environmental impact statement or records of decision previously prepared in connection with the construction permit or operating license." 10 CFR 51.53(b).
I In May 1973, Con Edison submitted an environmental report and cost 1
benefit analysis in connection with proceedings to obtain a permanent operating license for IP-1.
In August 1970, Con Edison also submitted an Environmental Report relating to the operation of Indian Point Unit No.
2.
The information provided in these documents addresses all of the issues described in 10 CFR 51.45(b) and encompasses the environmental impacts associated with Con Edison's implementation of the first phase of the decommissioning plan submitted for IP-1.
Furthermore, the Commission's proposed rule relating to Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (February 11, 1985), supports the use of brief supplementation to existing environmental statements rather than the preparation of complete environmental impact statements in connection with decommissioning plans.
The preamble section of the proposed rule discussing I
environmental reviews associated with decommissioning, at 50 Fed. Reg. 5610, provides:
I
"[T]he Commission is of the opinion that there is no need, absent special circumstances, to prepare an environmental impact statement in connection with the issuance of a license amendment or order authorizing the decommissioning of a facility other than a waste disposal facility.
In most cases, preparation of an environmental assessment which supplements the previously prepared environmental impact statements should be sufficient."
There are no "special circumstances" at IP-1 justifying an exception to the NRC's position.
Accordingly, con Edison believes that any environmental information relating to the current retired status of IP-1 can be supplied by reference to the existing environmental statements and reports, which may be supplemented if necessary in relation to particular issues by means of brief submittals. -,..
Conclusion For the reasons stated above, con Edison believes that it would be entirely premature and inappropriate to prepare an IP-1 Environmental Impact Statement at this time. All environmental information relating to IP-1 decommissioning which is currently necessary or appropriate has been presented to the Commission in complete form in previously subinitted environmental reports and statements.
In the. event that the Commission desires additional environmental
.information relating to the environmental impact of IP-1 activities, previously submitted reports and statements can be supplemented in brief submittals regarding particular issues rather than by means of a complete environmental report containing all of the items described in 10 CFR 51.45(b).
Con Edison therefore, respectfully requests that you and your staff confirm our understanding of the Commission's rules and regulations pertaining to environmental impacts during the initial post-operational phase of the unit as described in our October 17, 1980 submittal related to decommissioning.
Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact us.
Very truly yours, YT L-
. John D. O'Toole Vice President l
i l
cc: Senior Resident Inspector l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'P.O. Box 38 Buchanan, New York 10511 Marylee Slosson, Project Manager PWR Project Directorate #3 Division of PWR Licensing - A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
__ _. _.,,,,. _,, _. _ _... _ _. _ _. _ _. _. _,. _.. _.. _ _ _ _. - - _ - _.