ML20203J975

Comment on NRC Notice Re Objection to Use of NSHC to Approve Util License Termination Plan for Plant

ML20203J975
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	02/27/1998
From:	Laipson A MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FRN-63FR04308 63FR04308-00003, 63FR4308-3, NUDOCS 9803040387
Download: ML20203J975 (12)

Text

,,,.~e m m o s , ,4 m ._ s ,, , , ,, , ,, , ,,,m uom ,,;,

Ina m a m m sin FRANKLIN R5GIONAL c"a*=a==r"rvUot<hia Director of Finance

• Carolvn 0 hen l COUNCIL OF _

Di,um, a n ooio, ,no n,,, ion orn, . i.,ccy u,on I

.\tainTel 413 774 3167 F. nance Tel 413 714.J804 GOVERNMisN'I3S n;nro4a.m. m nanningen4n.m.m3 l

$$@dWy] Community Heshh and Education

• Data Management

• Erigine:nng 425 Main St. Crcenfield, MA 01301 Municipal Assistance

• Plannira and Deselopmer t

• Purchaing I

0$0? Q)=/{' {l.J08

[ //VMU ](/n .2 0* '/SPS

[ l+edl FRANKLIN REGIONAL COUNCIL Of /)/

GOVERNMENTS PLANNING DEPARTMENT Planning Department Far Nuraber 413 7741195 Fax Transmittal Date: 0lS To: #M M 60[ Fromi h4'1 Mk, '

&RH M sqe &# cV 6ed d b y t g' a ,v n / % p ~ ~

@ *tEla$ % fo Q f lk W W

V%A 4tWrnt' fomesJ jfG//20 - -

wynva m,oc n w .ocot Fax #: 30l.~~ Y 8IW - - - - Telephone #: W3 ~77Y-MN ,

i i i i

I

' Number of pages (including this page): _ IL  ;

Comments:

B i

9003040387 903227 PDR ADOCK 05000029 P PDR '

am u n:saonsu c; ,, , o

)

FED-2TlCi FBI n 1, 3 5_. P M~ FRCOG PLAMHjQrg gg a m wlsen?

Exuuthe Mrntu hy DWunhai FRANKLIN REGIONAL _

Director of Finance

• Cornlyn Olen C00NCIL OF n,,,c,-, a cionn,n .nd o ,,iogn,,,1, e g,y sio n Main Tel 413.',74d167 Finance Tel 413 774 48t> t GOVERNMENTS g.in e.,40 27.i.3io9 eionn,ng as 4i3.,<4.iin Corr.rnunity Hedth and Eductti.m + Data Mantgement . Engineering N [M ,[ . ' .

Mun:cipal A>:is:ance

• Barning and Development

• curchasmg 42$ Main St. Oter,.r.clit. M A 01301 February 27,1998 Mr. David Meyer, Chief Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administration Suvices Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 0001 Delivered via FAX to: Room 6D22 Two White FlintNorth 11545 RockvillePike Rockville, MD 20A52 (301 415 5144)

RE. Comments relative to NRC Notice,63 Fed. Reg. 4308 4330 (Jar.uary 28,1998)

Objection to Use of No Significant Hazards Consideration to Approve Yankee Atomic Electric Company's License Termination Plan (LTP) for the Yankee hhic~leUPnwer.

Station, Rowe, Massachusetts (Docket No. 50-29) and Request for a 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart U tiearing on the LTP.

i

Dear Mr. Meyer:

This letter .. .o serve as our communication to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relative to our continuing concerns as to several aspects of the License Tennination Pian (LTP) filed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) and as a request that the NRC conduct a 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G he.aring on the LTP.

I wxaawz a ,

vm -2v-,e enr cirss en_rncoc esacoca scoe aos 770 oc9s e.oa The Franklin Regional Planning Board (FRFB) is a broad based coalition comprised of a representative from the Selectboard and Planning Bond of esch of the twenty six (26) towns of Franklin County, eighteen (18) r.t large members living within the County, and the memN af the F1anklin Regional Council of Goverr.ments Executive Committee.

FRPB members and staff of our Planning Department have been reviewing, with]n their own capabihties and limitations, the LTP since May of1997. Our Beard sent a series of questions to YAEC in December of 1997. In response, YAEC provided some partial information in early January of 1998, but me st issues remain open.

i We ue a relatively small county of approximately 70,000 residents with limited resources to conduct .* proper review of the LTP. The LTP is a complex plan incorporatir.g much s;>eciatind technology. We do not have a battery of experts at our disposal, nor can we aftbrd the legal smices of attorneys who can best represent us through this process. Our goalis simple. We wish to have the LTP reviewed and studied by independent experts. We would have YAEC address any concerns identified, in a fashion that would leave us satis 6ed that the Yankee Nuclear Wever Station in Rowe, Massachusetts will be closed, dismantled, and all its components disposed of or stored in a proper manner that assures the County's populace, whose lives and property are directly at risk from decisions made in this process, will be o nnpletely safe from radiation and hazardous materials used in the operation of tlie facility. As we believe this 2

o-av-,e wa o o na prymeoc~pc mgarcs v.uo s outr w a oavu is the first LTP application for a commercial nuclear plant in America (and timefore a precedent. setting application), a full and complete public review process should be Instituted. Therefore, FRPB respectLily requests that the NRC conduct a public hearing.

' A number ofissues have been raised by FRPB which were outlined and submitted at the public meeting held at Mohawk Regional High Schoolin Buckland, h ;sachusetts on January 13,199R Concerns have materialized since that meeting, and, we believe, others L

l will follow bota a causM,independe.nt examination of the data, protocols and practices -

of YAEC in their proposed LTP. These inues are of grsve concern and merit closer study and ar.alysis than the FRC and YAEC have conducted. We believe potentially serious hazards exist which involve a signi6 cant reduction in the margin of safety to the prcacnt and future populace of Franklin County and emirons. These lames inchide hut v

are notlimited to:

s Decommissioning activities employ methodologies and techniques that are experimental, untested, and/or unpraven. For example, the segmentation techniques that were used fbr cutting the hlyh stivity components were apparently untested and proved to be somewhat unsatisfactory, resulting in recommendations for modiacation of the technique. Similarly, decommissioning of the spent fuel pon!

l

_. = _ _ =_=

3

rts..-n u s. : 03:37 en ++ c o u rwnoine c3 77o 3,c3 ,,gg l and ion exchange pit will require the use of methods and techniques that have not previously been employed e The plan nests upon signincant safety hazards that are not addressed.

Specifically, the questions of how and where the spent fbel will be stored, and quotions of how the selected storage method will be implemented, monitored, and eventually decommissioned must be answered. YAEC has proposed elimination of the spent fuel pool in favor of a dry cask storage system, using technology that has not yet even been developed or reviewed. Decuuuidssioning and climination of the spent fuel pool, and the associated activity including how the spect fuel will be moved into the dry cask system, then to be managed and mocitored over mr.ny years, surely rainen many impodant safety issues that deserve to be discussed, planned, and scruthdted before the decommissioning and licenso termination is granted a final stamp of approval. Yet, this entire question has been set outside the scope of the procedure before us. There is no assurance of any future opportunity to exarrine the issue. A full discussion about the considerations, methods and procedures related to on site spent fuel storage and removal must be addressed within tha tenpa of this process. Aho on site storage of high lesci and Greater Than Class C waste must be subject to public re' dew and comment.

4

DUU-UV-UU vut-e1:se PM P'acoc PLsiHNIHc ; GUvy3/tjw m e Methods that have been used to survey and monitor the site for contamination do not lucorporate appropriate random sampling and data collection methods.

Instead, they rely on computer modeling and anecdotal evidence. This has resulted la a declelon not to sample or monitor a large area that lt owned and controlled by YAEC but lies outside a small" impact area." FaGure to randundy sample creates a risk that contamination may exist in areas which have not been predicted by computer, perhaps due to vagaries in weather pattems, local hydrology, animal transport, or even illegal activity. Contamination from unpredictable sources will not be discovered using the curTent sampling strategy. Random samp:Ing must also be used on the entire property to determine what, if any, mitigation is required, before i any portion of the siteis released.

1

• Contamination of groundwater and methodologies for sampling remain an issue The selection of monitoring well locations appears to be based on the locations of known or suspected contamination sites and does not appear to factor in the possibility that locd geology may include groundwater divides, impersions layers, or bedrock close to the surface. YAEC and ti.e NRC need to conduct thorough investigations into possible groundwater contamination. They cannot u

assume a un:ferm substrate through which wr,ter moves predictably. Their analysis must also include discussion and investigation of the possible influences of surficial genlogy and bedrock features. In particultr, tne migration of radionuclides from c

5

, DOD-09-Se 001 etsie PM FRcoG Pl.N N t/7Uv acknowledged sub Door contanunaticn has not been sumcisntly studied and considered in the context ofloct.1 hydrology and sufficial geology.

. Despite several rounds of quwtlons and requests for speelfic data. neither YAEC nor the NHC has addressed the impacts uf radlunuclide releases on fleh due to emuent and accidental releases to the Deerfield River. No data has been provided to address the species, age, general health, or whether the fish was native or stocked - all factors that must be corTelated together in orde't to determine true ,

radionuclide levels in the adhnent and food chain. There is insufEcient information about the specific testing techniques which YAEC used. This is a criticalissue.

Contaminated fish may be consumed by humans. They may introduce significant contamination into the entire food chain when other animals feed on contaminated Ash. l'urther, the bioaccumulation of radionuclides in Esh is indicative of the presence of these materials throughout the river system, at a level which may be more significant than sevealed by the tests. Based onYAEC's and the NRC's insufficient investigation of the matter, it is premature to conclude that there is no safety huard resulting from Ash contamination.

• We question the adequacy of YAEC's sampling and testing of sediment in the i

Deerfield River,in the Sherman Pond Reservoir, and near the outfall pipes.

The sediment behind Number Five Dam in Monroe Bridge was recently removed.

6 l

6 m m

.----~ ---- vuu-uv- en vu r e o me pre m e ner pregpm:r- - vsw Were these sediments adequately tuted bdbre tlwy were removed, and how and where were they disposed of? The next impoundment downstream, the Fife Brook -

Dam, is a bottom relean operation. How far downstream were sediment tests conducted? The nature of the Fife Hrc,ok operation will allow the discharge of radionudidos. by could collect as far downstrous as the Number Fair Dam in Buckland. YAEC has not provided specific information about the depth or fkequency of the umpling, sampling methodology, the random sampling methods used, and laboratory testing and handling of matedals, e Final site clean up quotions remain. Issues regarding YAEC's formulations of effective yearly exposure dese equivalents need to be resolved. Speci8cally, YAEC's use of plot averages knd usumptions about lifestyle and fbture land use introduce confusion about the actual levels of radiation proposed to Ismain on the site, which apparently may meet the required levels as au mu wide averase, but may in fhet L remain quite highin certain spots. Methodology for cal:ulating and proving the Anal exposure rate of 15 mr/ year is very conbing. The assumptions related to unit conversions of picoeuries to millirems, the daily time of exposure (is it 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or only 87), and similu issues must be se.timetonly explalned. W Snal site survey criteria and plan, including the methodology and calculations, must be reviewed and amtmed by a competent, truly independent third party.' Finally, in addition to 7

I L 5 - 4 a v v is Fki d4s39 FM fPtou PL H f 4t41 f%,, y15 770 1195 W. W laboratory testing work provided by the licensee and the NRC, the final site surycy testing work must also be independently verified by a third party.

There is a fundarnental problem with a number of YAEC's asscrtions, conclurJons and the data used to substantiate the LTP Much of the material is a product of earlier testing and documecation for previous filings. Therefore, YAEC did not specifically produce it for decommisslorJng. Furtherinore, the OEls on decommissioning is nearly ten pars old. Massy facets of the GEIS arc now incorrect. The NRC and YAEC should rely on hesh data for the entite LTP process. Independent analysis of the materials f1!cd by YAEC should be conducted. YAEC's in house produced data, and conclusions of YAEC's hired experts, are self serving, and require thorough independent third party fCdcW.

Another area of concern relative to the review of the LTP process is what may be viewed as the lack of a strong response by the NRC. Peop!c believe that the NRC is engaged in regulatory activity to assure, our safety. L: * ' and welfa:e. Additionally, a numbei of piuvedut al aspects of the LTP review have been lacking. The operations of the Public Document. Room have been insufEcient at best. For example, YAEC's revisions of the LTP, used as one basis of the public meeting of January 13 in Buckland, Massachusetts, were not fded for public review prior to the meeting. There were a 8

-rwr, rr o en rococ etmm1HG . 40 Tvo 4w p.so number of formal questions asked of' Y Al C by the NRC, but thne questions and YAEC's responses were not rnade public until a later date. The officiallegal notice of the meeting was published in the Federal Register on January 5,1998, eight days before the public meeting. None of this is nder;uate to guarantee respect for and confidence in this licensing pro:ess.

Most public meeting notices run for thirty days, where all documents are available for public review for that entire period of time. Although the NRC was asked in advance to ps uvide suffxicr* time for all public comments (the FRPB originally asked for two nights), the comrcent period itself only lasted one and one half hours. Shortly after this public meeting, the NRC posted in the Federal Register a notice to amtnd YAEC's license to approve the LTP without a bearing, based on a finding of No Significant Huards. This seems incongruous with so many nutstanding questions and a lack of complete data and impartial review. The sum total of this public revicw and input process falls far short of normal due process expectations.

Therefore, the members of the FRPB and the citizens it represents, whose lives and property are at risk by approving the LTP as preacntly filed, requests the following relief:

9 l

-000-a9-00 0o -etn41 en- rseeore anRTRic, coU Wo-UTUU v.uu

1) 't hat the NRC Initially provide the FRPD with a sum of one hundred thousand dollars

($100,000.00) forthwith in order for the FRPB to: a) hire experts to review YAEC's LTP, to make appropriato recommendations regarding Snal content and implementation;

- b) retain legal assistance to represent properly the citizenry ofFranklin County and to usuie that the Yankee Nuclear Power Station decornmissioning will be conducted in a

, manner to protect their health, safety and welfare; and c) hire expen witnesws, a needed, for the adjudicatory process; l

2) Grant a full, formal adjudicatory hearing tmdct 10 CFR Part 0, Subpart G, to be held in Franklin County. Further, the NRC should not appiuse the LTP as presently aled without such a hearing prccess. The NRC should reject YAEC's application under its No Signiacant Hazards Consideration determination. YAEC should not conduct any T.TP nethity until every aspect of the Plan is formally approved and findings are issued, subwqucm to the hearing. FRPD reecrycs the right to amend its fdings in response to the LTP and a right to address new issues uncovered in the independent review process within the adjudicatory hearing; and

3) From this point forward, to overcome even the appearanee of the lack of due procesa, all materials and documents relative to the LTP thallbe available fbr a period of tidity days before any meeting or hearing, and notice of any meeting or hearing shall be advertised for a minimum of thirty days in the Federal Register and local media.

10

~

4, 7.1 N9 0 FRI O1e4 1 pH ppcog pi,jpyJ[fy ppg 77 11 5 Pe12 IfI can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me directly. hiy hone telephone number is 978 544 2643. Thank you very much for your serious consideration ofour filing.

Very1 ily your h

Ad son, Chair FrarMin Regional Planning Tinard 11