ML20203J762
| ML20203J762 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1998 |
| From: | Block J, Katz D CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| 63FR4308-00002, 63FR4308-2, NUDOCS 9803040280 | |
| Download: ML20203J762 (7) | |
Text
_-_--
bro 9
- 7. //m+'
63' AX V]' 08 k
n, /?/8 Md3 RECEIVED 1
Jonathan M. Blait fEB 27 PM 3: I I 1
ArrORNEY-
. AT LAW num o va. uw.v.,o US NRC Main Street P.O. Box 566 Putney, Vennont 05346-0566 (802) 387-2646(vox)
(802) 387-2667 (fax)
February 26,1998 Chainnan Shirley A. Jackson, Commissioners, Secretary of the Commission, EDO,
= Chief Rules and Directives Branch United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission L
Washington, D.C. 20555 l
RE:
Notice of Proposed No significant Hazards Consider: don,63 Federal Register 4308-4330 (Janua:y 28, 1998), Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Tennination Plan (50-29), Comments in Opposition to No Significant Hazards Consideration Approval of License Termination Plan 1and Request for-10 l-C.F.R.- Part 2, Subpart G Hearing on the Plan..
Dear Chairman Jackson,
Commissioners l Mr. -Secretary, Mr.- Meyer, and other Required Recipients of this Letter:
In addition to attempting to follow the fonnal requirement for objecting to the proposed No Significant Hazards; Consideration approval referenced above and.
requesting a hearing on the proposed license tet;nination plan (which requirements, we contend, are not plainly stated for the general public in the referenced Federal Register notice), we are writing to you to be sure you are aware of the conduct of your staffin =
the above referenced matter.
For the following reasons, we believe that No Significant Hazards Consideration epproval of the ' Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Termination Plan is:
inappropriate, and ask'that you offer a public hearing on approval of the plan:
L Lack of Minimum Due Process To Public In This Matter.
-Your agency has failed to provide the minimum due process to the public in terms of adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity.to be heard in this matter.
9803040280 980226' PDR ADOCK 05000029 h
~
Citizens Awareness Network's Comments to the U.S. NRC Page 2 Opposing No Significan. Hazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP i
I First, the notice of public meeting to discuss the plan appeared less than 30 days prior to the scheduled meeting. Specifically, the Federal Register Notice of the meeting was published on January 5th announcing the January 13th meeting. 63 Fed. Reg. 275 (January 5,1998). This is in no way adequate fonnal notice of a public meeting.
People who may be interested in the subject of the meeting require 30 days nodce, reasonably calculated to infonn them of the time, place, manner, and content of the meeting.
Second, at the meeting, hionon Fainile, NRC project manager for Yankee, statcd that the NRC's questions to Yankee Atomic Electric Company [YAEC] conceming the plan, YAEC's responses to those questions, and YAEC's p an had not yet been made i
available to the public, Transcript of Public hieeting at Shelbourne [ sic), hf A (Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Tennination Plan) at 58 59 (January 13,1998)
[ Transcript]. Thus. the nublic had been invited on extn;melv shon notice to narticipate in a discussion of a nian that had not been made oublic at the time of the meetina.
l' This, too (in case there is any doubt), in no way comports with the minimum l
requirements of due process which your agency owes to the people of the United States under the United States Constitution (and mest generally accepted standards of meeting protocol in civilized countries).
Third, during the meeting the moderator stated that the building had to be vacated by 11:00 p.m. for cleaning. Transcript at 3. The moderator stated that he would try to keep the meeting to 10 :00 p.m. despite better part of an hour available. Given this limited time, hir Fairtile began the NRC's ponion of the meeting with the introduction of every NRC staff person present, devite the fact that only a few participated in the meeting. See Trane ript at 29-35. Puusal of the Transcript of this meeting will show that questioning wa., arbitrarily cut off for the sake oflimiting the
~
meeting time until 10 p.m. This meant tnat questions had to be posed as unanswered comments. Among such comments, hir. Paul Blanch, an energy consultant working for Nonheast Utilities, raised some serious questions about the apparent illegalities and inadequacies of the plan, including apparent violations of Il C.F.R. Parts 20,50 and
- 72. Transcript at 72-76. Your staff did nothing when questions were cut off and has, to our knowledge, made no attempt to answer these questions.
Founh, despite statements that questions and comments would be answered subsequently (in what one mig!. hope would be a timely fashion), to our knowledge there have been no answers provided to any of the oral or written questions and comments docketed at the meeting after questioning was cut off.
e Citizens Awareness Network's Comments to the U.S. NRC Page 3 Opposing No Significant Hazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP Because of these flagrant violations of the minimum standards of due process owed to members of the public under the United States Constitution, No Significant Hazards Consideration is not appropriate for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Tennination Plan.
II.
No Significant Hazards Comideratien Is Not Appropriate For The Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Termination Plan Due to Violations of NRC Regulations, Federal Law, And Previously Unanalyzed Safety Questions Approval of the plan should not be granted under No Significant Hazards Consideration and without a public hearing because there are potentially significant hazards involved in YAEC's proposal for activities to be conducted under the Lietuse Tennination Plan aad the radiolob cal condition in which YAEC intends to leave the i
site.
In pertinent part, the License Tennination Plan (including incorporated documentation) does not take into account the following:
1.
Accident evaluation involving fuel storage in the fuel pool. Evaluations in the License Termination Plan (and FSAR) do not consider any credible accidents other than cask drop into the fuel pool. Although this may be the most likely catastrophic ' accident, there are plenty of other more likr'y but less serious (although potentially lethal) accidents not considered in the plan. For example, the plan (and incorporated documents) does not take into account the following potential accidents:
(a) Loss of water in the fuel pool resulting in shielding less This accident condition, if there is a draw-down to within 6"of the fuel, would be lethal in seconds to any person at the fuel pool railing and could also be significantly damaging to persons at the site boundary; (b) Loss of cooling of the fuel could also result in unplanned exposures and releases with potential consequences at the site boundary; (c) Loss of control of water chemistiy in the pool could cause degradation of the fuel cladding and result in unpkuned exposurec with serious consequences; (d) Sabotage; (e) Accidents related to lower levels of surveillance of the site, including the fuel pool.
e Citizens Awcreness Network's Comments to the U.S. ;MC Page 4 Opposing No Significant Hazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP 2.
Accident evaluations related to storage of the fuelin casks Again, there is n.
evaluation in the Plan or incorporated documents to account for potential and likely accidents related to cask storage including: (1) leaking, (2) explosions (such as that invohing a 300 pound cask lid during welding at Point Beach, see PNO-III-96-033 A), (3) sabotage, (4) low Ievels of sm veillance.
3.
Proposed casks are still in the expenmental stage. None have been approved.
- In fact, they are still in the design stage.
4.
The License Tennination Plan does not describe how YAEC intends to deal with leaking casks.
5.
The License Tennination Plan does not describe how YAEC intends to deal with unloading and loading casks that have deteriorated.
6.
The License Tennination Plan does not describe how YAEC intends to deal with deteriorated fuel.
7, The License Termination Plan does not describe how YAEC intends to deal with the movement of fuel over the pool. It does not adequa;dy describe the load capacity of the cranes, safety features and measures, or a cask drop accident and mitigation of same under the current conditions at the facility (i.e.
lower safety stafE lessened sun eillance, lower levels of security, etc.).
8.
The License Termination Plan fails to account for (discuss or conduct any Emironmental Report on) the emironmental consequences of the constmetion of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI) which includes building a road and dealing with an extreme grade. Potential consequential emironmental degradation includes erosion, leachates, leaking fuel. These would have an impact upon the Deerfield River ecosystem.
Such emironmental assessment is require 1 under 10 C.F.R. Pans 50 and 51.
9 There is limited staff to monitor the ISFSis. No fuel pool has ever been removed before under such circumstances and with such a result. All forms of Monitored Rettievable Storage (MRS) are at operating reactors where there arc trained staff with great cumulative experience in dealing with fuel related problems and many staff trained in emergency cleanup and safety.
10.
There is no Emironmental Impact Study on the potential effects of canisters leaking radioactive contaminants into the Deerfield River and the River Valley.
i l.
.. Citizens Awareness Network's Comments to the U.S. NRC Page 5 L
Opposing No Signincant Hazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP It will take time to get the proposed (but only vaguely described) 'bver-pack" i
into place cround a leaking canister, How long will leaks go on before the
'bver-pack"? There is no assessment of the potential hazards.
I 1.
-No Significant Hazards Consideration-is not appropriate under the NRC regulations or the. Atomic Energy Act, U.S.C. 2239, for work that is in the design stage.- This is the stage YAEC's proposals are at this point.
12 In te: ns of removal of the spent fuel pool' there are no specifics in the License
~
Tennination Plan conceming clean up of the pool area, ion exchange pit, and contamination in and around the ion exchange pit. No effons have been made to detennine if there is a plume of contaminated liquid waste under the fuel '
pool and ion exchange pit, nor has there been any attempt to account for earlier
~
data YAEC acquired which showed higher levels of radioactivity in deeper test borings around the site. This would seem to be indicative.of the presence of some kind of plume under the site, and YAEC should be investigating this likely (and dangerous) potentiality.
13, There is no discussion of how over-packed canisters may be transponed to a pennanent spent fuel repository. Such over-packed canisters will be extremely.
4'
-large and heavy, and YAEC needs to account for the safe eventual relocation of.
~
such canisters.
1 14..
There is no cenified 'bver-pack"under Pan 72,1 YAEC should not be allowed to say they intend to utilize a method still in design stage.
15.
The fonn of cask storage YAEC intends to use has not been cenifie.d under Pan 72, and it is still in the design stage. YAEC should not be allowed to say they intend to use a fuel storage container that has not been ceniSed under Pan 72.
16.
YAEC has not taken account of the actual radiation level above background that will remain at the site upon license termination. In panicular, according to the numbers presented in the Plan, YAEC will be leaving the site with a radiation level above background of 10 miere-Rads / hour. ' This means over 87 millirem / year above background to any person living on the site. YAEC has not accounted for the discrepancy between this figure and the maximum exposure standards of the NRC (25 millir:m/yr), EPA (15 millirem /yr),
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (10 millirem /yr).
Citizens Awareness Network's Conunents to the U.S. NRC Page 6 Opposing No Significant Hazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP It is inappropriate under NRC, EPA, and Massachusetts Depamnent of Public Health regulations on radiation exposure to the public for the NRC to approve the YAEC License Tennination Plan.
All the more reason why No Significant Hazards Consideration approval is not appropriate. Moreover, the Plan plainly violates the letter and spirit of Part 72 by allowing the licensee to build and operate an ISFSI under a Part 50 license. The ptupose of the Part 72 license was to assure public health and safety by requiring licensees to provide the level of security, emergency planning, and other features ordinarily part of an operating Part 50 licensed facility.
The absence of such features at an ISFSI site as is proposed for Yankee Rowe means that public health and safety are being coinpromised. Why should this take place?
Allowing a spent fuel storage site under a Part 50 license provides a S283,000 per year incentive to YAEC (and any other licensee) who does not elect to use the legally required Part 72 license process (and pay the annual license fee). Your agency needs a public hearing process to review such contradictions rather tluut placing approval on the fast track railroad of No Significant Hazards Consideration.
Part 50 was implemented tmder the notion that NRC inspection and enforcement would ensure compliance with the tenns of the license.
Part 72 was implemented with the i
realization that reduced or non-existent NRC inspection and enforcement had to be accounted for in making independent fuel storage safe--hence, the system of regulations mandated by Congress to govem " stand alone" or independent facilities.
I Pennanently closed nuclear power stations do not receive the level of NRC oversight necessary to assure public safety for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation unless the NRC enforces the need for licensees to go to Part 72 licenses.
{
Because the Yankee License Temiination Plan includes going outside cturent NRC L
regulations without required environmental impact studies, it is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as 10 C.F.R. Pait 51. Because the plan includes going outside cmrent regulations without making specific applications for license amendments pursuant.to NRC regulations, its is in violation of those regulations and the Atomic Energy Act,42 U.S.C. 2239. Finally, should the NRC choose to approve the plan under No Sign.ificant Hazards Consideration in the circumstances described above, you will be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, by retroactively expanding the 1. asis of your licensee'-
license without rulemaking or heating as required under the Atomic Energy Act, and by pennitting a major federal action that will affect the quality of the emironment to go forward without the requisite emironmental consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act, you will be acting arbitrarily, capriciously, and not otherwise in accordance with law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
.,e Citizens Aw:reness Network's Conunents to the U.S. NRC Page 7 Opposing No Significant liar.ards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP Ill.
Requested Helief.
On behalf of Citizens Awar: ness Network, Inc., of Rowe, Massachusetts, many of whose members live and own property (which may be damaged by any accident at the Yankee Nuclear Power Station) well within the 10 mile evacuation zone surrounding Yankee, and downstrean on the Deerfield River from the Yankee site (and any fuel storage facility on that site), we request that the NRC:
1.
Reject approval of the Yankee License Tennination Plan under No Significant Hazards Consideration;
?.
Proside another public meeting in the sicinity of the Yankee Rowe facility. Be are to provide 30 days notice of the meeting after you have placed in the public doewnem room the wiitten answers to all of the conunents and questions raised at the last meeting. Be sure to ascertain that the public meeting will take place after the p';blic has had a full 30 days to re' 4ew the emTent plan and related docmnents.
3.
Offer a 10 C.F.R. Pait 2, Subpart O hearing in the vicinity of the Yankee Rowe facilit/ on approval of the License Tennination Plan prior to approval of the plan.
buite Citizens Awareness Network, Inc., arid other similarly situated persons to participate in the public hearing process upon adequate (i.e., 30 days nothe) in the Federal Register, plainly stating your rejection of No Significant Hazards Consideration, and plainly stating the tenns and conditions upon which the hearing will be held. Be sure to hold the hearing in a place reasonably calculated to pennit maximum citizen participation.
Sincerely, beredo2.kdzfi.,,m..&,9
% "1' M Deborah B. Katz, President Jonathan M. Block, Attomey Citizens Awareness Net,vork,Inc.
/ Citizens Awareness Network,Inc.
I, Jonathan M. Block, Attomey for Citizens Awareness Network, certify under penalty of p;rjury by signing above that on this 26th day of February,1998, I caused to be placed into the mail, pre-paid postage, copies of the above document to the following:
Oflice of the Secretary, U.S. NRC; Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U S. Nar Oflice of Gene,al Counsel, U.S. NRC Attomey for the Licensee
--