Similar Documents at Maine Yankee |
---|
Category:CORRESPONDENCE-LETTERS
MONTHYEARML20217J0241999-10-13013 October 1999 Documents 991005 Telcon Between NRC & Util to Address All of Areas Identified in Reg Guide 1.179 & NUREG-1700 Re Final Survey Plan Except for One Area ML20217N8371999-10-13013 October 1999 Forwards Summary of Changes Made to Maine Yankee Defueled Security Plan,Iaw 10CFR50.54(p)(2).Without Encl ML20212F4321999-09-24024 September 1999 Responds to 990921 e-mail to E Poteat,Requesting Waiver of Late Charges of Listed Amount for Annual Fee Invoice AR0431-99.Request Denied Because 10CFR15.37 Does Not Provide for Waiver Based on Info Provided in e-mail ML20212M2431999-09-22022 September 1999 Expresses Concern Re NRC Consideration of Adoption of Policy Based on Requests from Licensees,To Allow as Part of Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants & Demolition of Onsite Structures at Reactor Plant Sites ML20212E4611999-09-20020 September 1999 Responds to Concerning Possible Involvement in Weekly Telephone Calls NRC Staff Has with Maine Yankee Staff ML20212F1361999-09-20020 September 1999 Confirms That NMSS Has Received 990916 Submittal & Will Be Included as Attachment to Commission Paper Along with State of Maine Submittal ML20212F2521999-09-20020 September 1999 Confirms That NMSS Has Received 990916 Submittal & Will Be Included as Attachment to Commission Paper Along with State of Maine Submittal ML20212B7011999-09-14014 September 1999 Submits Comments & Raises Questions Re Generation of White Paper for Commission to Decide Merits of Rubberization ML20212A5911999-09-0808 September 1999 Responds to 990816 e-mail & 990901 Telcon with Respect to Comments Re Decommissioning of Maine Yankee Site.Concerns Raised with Respect to Status of Fuel at Maine Yankee Have Been Raised in Previous Ltrs to Us NRC ML20211M9371999-08-30030 August 1999 Addresses Two Issues Raised in s to Senator Collins & Governor a King That Relate to Construction of ISFSI at Maine Yankee ML20212B2181999-08-30030 August 1999 Responds to Re 990707 Message from N Allen Re Transportation Incident Involving Shipment from Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant ML20212E4841999-08-27027 August 1999 Informs That at 990429 Meeting of Myap Community Advisory Panel,R Shadis,Asked If Given Lack of Resident Inspectors & Limited NRC-license Review Correspondence,If Shadis Could Take Part in Weekly NRC Conference Calls with Licensee ML20216F1891999-08-26026 August 1999 Forwards Copies of Maine Yankee & Yankee Rowe Refs Listed, Supporting Industry Position That Branch Technical Position Asb 9-2 Methodology over-estimates Spent Fuel Decay Heat ML20211C0591999-08-19019 August 1999 Forwards Addl Justification for Proprietary Request Re 990809 Submittal Info on Maine Yankee License Termination Plan ML20212A5981999-08-16016 August 1999 Expresses Appreciation for with Respect to e-mail Message Re Site Release Criteria Standards Can Never Be Verified Using Existing Database ML20210Q7201999-08-0909 August 1999 Forwards non-proprietary & Proprietary Draft Documents Re Info on Myap License Termination Plan & Diskette.Proprietary Info & Diskette Withheld ML20217M6501999-08-0909 August 1999 Responds to 990719 E-mail Re Cleanup Stds at MYAPC Station & Verification of Meeting Cleanup Stds.Informs That NRC Criteria for Licensing NPPs Contained in 10CFR50 & That 10CFR50.82 Addresses Requirements for License Termination ML20211D7041999-08-0909 August 1999 Forwards Rev 17 of Maine Yankee Defueled Safety Analysis Rept (Dsar), Per 10CFR50.71 & 10CFR50.4 ML20212B2271999-08-0606 August 1999 Discusses Concerns Re Recent Incindent Involving Transport of Nuclear Matl from Maine Yankee ML20210M8171999-08-0505 August 1999 Forwards Draft License Termination Plan/Amend Plan for Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co, to Enhance Dialogue Between Various Stakeholders & Provide Springboard for Clarifying Mutual Expectations.With Three Oversize Drawings ML20210L2211999-08-0202 August 1999 Forwards Two Copies of Objectives & Sequence of Events for Maine Yankee Emergency Preparedness Exercise for 990922. Without Encl ML20210G3751999-07-28028 July 1999 Ack Receipt of June 30th Ltr That Responded to EDO Backfit Appeal Determination Re Bdba in Sfps.Staff Completed All Actions Associated with Backfit Appeal & Awaiting for New Info for Consideration Prior to Taking Addl Action ML20216D4311999-07-19019 July 1999 Informs That Util Intends to Construct ISFSI Located on Owner Controlled Property Currently Part of Maine Yankee Reactor Site ML20217M6571999-07-19019 July 1999 Expresses Concern Re Verification of Cleanup Stds at Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co Power Station ML20210C6271999-07-15015 July 1999 Forwards Draft Site Characterization Summary in Support of 10CFR50 License Termination & Copy of Latest Decommissioning Schedule with Milestones Identified.Info Submitted Per License Termination Plan ML20196K4751999-07-0606 July 1999 Informs That Confirmatory Orders ,830314,840614 & 960103 Have Been Rescinded.Staff Determined That Due to Permanently Shutdown & Defueled Status of Facility,Orders No Longer Necessary for Safe Operation & Maint.Se Encl ML20209C7731999-06-30030 June 1999 Responds to EDO Backfit Appeal Determination Re Emergency Plan Exemptions for Decommissioning Plants ML20210G3981999-06-30030 June 1999 Discusses Review of Ltr Re Maine Yankee Backfit Appeal with Respect to Emergency Plan Exemptions for Decommissioning Plants ML20209B4611999-06-29029 June 1999 Submits Response to GL 98-01, Y2K Readiness of Computer Sys at Nuclear Power Plants. Plant Is Y2K Ready.Contingency Plans Developed to Mitigate Potential Impact of non-plant Y2K-induced Events ML20196D9191999-06-22022 June 1999 Informs That NRC Has Completed Review of Issues Raised in of Appeal to NRC Edo.Submits List Summarizing Actions Taken Since ML20195H1741999-06-15015 June 1999 Forwards Original & Copy of Request for Approval of Certain Indirect & Direct Transfer of License & Ownership Interests of Montaup Electric Co (Montaup) with Respect to Nuclear Facilities Described as Listed ML20207H3371999-06-11011 June 1999 Expresses Appreciation for Participation at 990413 Reactor Decommissioning Public Meeting & Responds to Concern Re Absense of Timeliness on Part of NRC Replying to Letters ML20195G9411999-06-10010 June 1999 Informs That Maine Yankee Considers Backfit Claim & Appeal Request of 980716 & 990316,to Be Acceptably Resolved Based on Staff 990518 Response ML20195F6721999-06-0707 June 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-309/99-01 on 990214-0513.No Violations Noted.Operations & Radiological Protection Programs, Including Radioactive Liquid & Gaseous Effluent Control Programs,Were Inspected During Insp ML20195F7531999-06-0707 June 1999 Forwards Copy of Insurance Endorsement Dtd 990429,reflecting Change in Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance,Iaw Requirements of 10CFR140.15(e) ML20206U9711999-05-18018 May 1999 Responds to & Addl Info Re Appeal of NRC Determination Re Claim of Backfit Concerning Permanently Shutdown Reactor Security Plan ML20207A2851999-05-14014 May 1999 Informs That NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Reorganized Effective 990328.As Part of Reorganization, Division of Licensing Project Mgt Created.Organization Chart Encl ML20206H1391999-05-0505 May 1999 Forwards Amend 164 to License DPR-36 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Consists of Changes to License in Response to 970930 Application ML20206H2311999-05-0404 May 1999 Responds to to Chairman Jackson.Forwards Copy of Recent Staff Response to Petition Submitted on Behalf of Ucs Re Fuel Cladding at Operational Reactors ML20206G5561999-05-0303 May 1999 Forwards Amend 163 to License DPR-36 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises Liquid & Gaseous Release Rate Limits to Reflect Revs to 10CFR20, Stds for Protection Against Radiation ML20206J2801999-04-30030 April 1999 Forwards 1998 Annual Financial Repts for CT Light & Power Co,Western Ma Electric Co,Public Svc Co of Nh,North Atlantic Energy Corp,Northeast Nuclear Energy Co & North Atlantic Energy Svc Corp,License Holders ML20206D7191999-04-29029 April 1999 Forwards Listed Radiological Repts for 1998 Submitted IAW Relevant Portions of License DPR-36 & ODCM ML20206E3101999-04-28028 April 1999 Forwards Data Diskette Containing 1998 Individual Monitoring NRC Form 5 Rept,Per 10CFR20.2206(b).Without Diskette ML20206E2911999-04-28028 April 1999 Requests NRC Review of ISFSI Licensing Submittals,As Scheduled & ISFSI Approval for Operation by Dec 2000.Util Will Support Any NRC RAI on Expedited Basis.Licensing Milestone Schedule,Encl ML20206A5521999-04-23023 April 1999 Forwards Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Util Application Dtd 980714,for Amend to License DPR-36 to Revise App a TSs to Change Liquid & Gaseous Release Rate Limits to Reflect Revs Made to 10CFR20 ML20206A6871999-04-22022 April 1999 Informs of Completion of Review of Re Nepco in Capacity as Minority Shareholder in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,Yaec,Myap & Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co ML20205K6541999-04-0707 April 1999 Submits Nuclear Property Insurance Coverage Presently in Force to Protect Maine Yankee at Wiscasset,Me ML20205N6211999-04-0707 April 1999 Ack Receipt of Which Appealed NRC Staff Determination That Util Had Not Raised Valid Backfit Claim in to Nrc.Staff Began Process of Convening Backfit Review Panel to Evaluate Appeal ML20206H2401999-03-30030 March 1999 Informs That Myap Recently Revealed That Approx 20% of Fuel Assemblies Now in SFP Are non-std & Require Special Handling & Dry Cask Packaging.Info Confirms Growing Evidence of Periodic Loss of Radiological Control ML20206A6951999-03-29029 March 1999 Request Confirmation That No NRC Action or Approval,Required Relative to Proposed Change in Upstream Economic Ownership of New England Power Co,Minority Shareholder in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,Yaec,Myap & Connecticut Yankee 1999-09-08
[Table view] Category:OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE
MONTHYEARML20212F4321999-09-24024 September 1999 Responds to 990921 e-mail to E Poteat,Requesting Waiver of Late Charges of Listed Amount for Annual Fee Invoice AR0431-99.Request Denied Because 10CFR15.37 Does Not Provide for Waiver Based on Info Provided in e-mail ML20212F2521999-09-20020 September 1999 Confirms That NMSS Has Received 990916 Submittal & Will Be Included as Attachment to Commission Paper Along with State of Maine Submittal ML20212E4611999-09-20020 September 1999 Responds to Concerning Possible Involvement in Weekly Telephone Calls NRC Staff Has with Maine Yankee Staff ML20212F1361999-09-20020 September 1999 Confirms That NMSS Has Received 990916 Submittal & Will Be Included as Attachment to Commission Paper Along with State of Maine Submittal ML20212A5911999-09-0808 September 1999 Responds to 990816 e-mail & 990901 Telcon with Respect to Comments Re Decommissioning of Maine Yankee Site.Concerns Raised with Respect to Status of Fuel at Maine Yankee Have Been Raised in Previous Ltrs to Us NRC ML20212B2181999-08-30030 August 1999 Responds to Re 990707 Message from N Allen Re Transportation Incident Involving Shipment from Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant ML20211M9371999-08-30030 August 1999 Addresses Two Issues Raised in s to Senator Collins & Governor a King That Relate to Construction of ISFSI at Maine Yankee ML20217M6501999-08-0909 August 1999 Responds to 990719 E-mail Re Cleanup Stds at MYAPC Station & Verification of Meeting Cleanup Stds.Informs That NRC Criteria for Licensing NPPs Contained in 10CFR50 & That 10CFR50.82 Addresses Requirements for License Termination ML20210G3751999-07-28028 July 1999 Ack Receipt of June 30th Ltr That Responded to EDO Backfit Appeal Determination Re Bdba in Sfps.Staff Completed All Actions Associated with Backfit Appeal & Awaiting for New Info for Consideration Prior to Taking Addl Action ML20196K4751999-07-0606 July 1999 Informs That Confirmatory Orders ,830314,840614 & 960103 Have Been Rescinded.Staff Determined That Due to Permanently Shutdown & Defueled Status of Facility,Orders No Longer Necessary for Safe Operation & Maint.Se Encl ML20196D9191999-06-22022 June 1999 Informs That NRC Has Completed Review of Issues Raised in of Appeal to NRC Edo.Submits List Summarizing Actions Taken Since ML20207H3371999-06-11011 June 1999 Expresses Appreciation for Participation at 990413 Reactor Decommissioning Public Meeting & Responds to Concern Re Absense of Timeliness on Part of NRC Replying to Letters ML20195F6721999-06-0707 June 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-309/99-01 on 990214-0513.No Violations Noted.Operations & Radiological Protection Programs, Including Radioactive Liquid & Gaseous Effluent Control Programs,Were Inspected During Insp ML20206U9711999-05-18018 May 1999 Responds to & Addl Info Re Appeal of NRC Determination Re Claim of Backfit Concerning Permanently Shutdown Reactor Security Plan ML20207A2851999-05-14014 May 1999 Informs That NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Reorganized Effective 990328.As Part of Reorganization, Division of Licensing Project Mgt Created.Organization Chart Encl ML20206H1391999-05-0505 May 1999 Forwards Amend 164 to License DPR-36 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Consists of Changes to License in Response to 970930 Application ML20206H2311999-05-0404 May 1999 Responds to to Chairman Jackson.Forwards Copy of Recent Staff Response to Petition Submitted on Behalf of Ucs Re Fuel Cladding at Operational Reactors ML20206G5561999-05-0303 May 1999 Forwards Amend 163 to License DPR-36 & Safety Evaluation. Amend Revises Liquid & Gaseous Release Rate Limits to Reflect Revs to 10CFR20, Stds for Protection Against Radiation ML20206A5521999-04-23023 April 1999 Forwards Environ Assessment & Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Util Application Dtd 980714,for Amend to License DPR-36 to Revise App a TSs to Change Liquid & Gaseous Release Rate Limits to Reflect Revs Made to 10CFR20 ML20206A6871999-04-22022 April 1999 Informs of Completion of Review of Re Nepco in Capacity as Minority Shareholder in Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp,Yaec,Myap & Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Co ML20205N6211999-04-0707 April 1999 Ack Receipt of Which Appealed NRC Staff Determination That Util Had Not Raised Valid Backfit Claim in to Nrc.Staff Began Process of Convening Backfit Review Panel to Evaluate Appeal ML20205D5141999-03-26026 March 1999 Forwards Ser,Accepting Util 980819 Request for Approval of Rev 1 to Util CFH Training & Retraining Program.Rev 1 Adds Two Provisions to CFH Training Program & Changes One Title ML20196K9111999-03-26026 March 1999 Forwards Insp Rept 50-309/98-05 on 981101-0213.Determined That Two Violations Occurred Based on Insp Results & Review of 1997 LER Prior to Permanent Shutdown Determined That Addl Violation Occurred.Violations Treated as NCVs ML20205G7431999-03-26026 March 1999 Documents 990224 Telcon During Which Issues Raised in to NRC Were Discussed.Issues Discussed Re Appeal of Directors Decision on Claim of Backfit Re Beyond DBA in SFPs ML20205D4011999-03-26026 March 1999 Responds to Sent to Lj Callan Re Emergency Preparedness & Financial Protection Exemption Requests Made by Util & Requests Meeting Scheduled at NRC Headquarters Be Rescheduled & Held in Vicinity of Myaps ML20204C4501999-03-16016 March 1999 Forwards Amend 162 to License DPR-36.Amend Revises App a TSs of Subj License to Change Limiting Condition for Operation for Fuel Storage Pool Water Level from 23 Feet to 21 Feet ML20204F2481999-03-15015 March 1999 Responds to Expressing Concern Re 10CFR61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radwaste & Perceptions of Insufficient Radiological Monitoring of NRC Regulated Facilities.Addresses Issues Raised ML20205G9801999-03-15015 March 1999 Responds to to Chairman Jackson of Nrc,Expressing Concerns Related to 10CFR61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste ML18107A6911999-02-25025 February 1999 Responds to 990218 e-mail Re Listed Questions Concerning SFP Partial Draindown Analysis Info ML20203H1901999-02-19019 February 1999 First Final Response to FOIA Request for Documents.Documents Listed in App a Being Released in Entirety ML20203B9001999-02-0808 February 1999 First Partial Response to FOIA Request for Documents. Forwards Documents Listed in App a Already Available in PDR, Documents in App B Released in Entirety & Documents in App C Being Withheld in Part (Ref Exemption 6) ML20203D6751999-02-0303 February 1999 Responds to Requesting NRC Evaluate Two Issues Pertaining to Maintaining Isolation Zones & Vehicle Barrier Sys as Backfits Under 10CFR50.109 ML20199C9031999-01-0707 January 1999 Forwards Exemption from Certain Requirements of 10CFR50.54(w) & 10CFR140.11 for Util.Exemption Issued in Response to Licensee Application Dtd 980120,requesting Reduction in Amount of Insurance Required by Facility ML20198J9181998-12-23023 December 1998 Refers to 981109 Response to Notice of Violation Re Violations Stemming from Independent Safety Assessment Team Insp ML20198J3831998-12-21021 December 1998 Reesponds to Which Continued to Raise Several Concerns Re Belief That NRC Regulatory Action Resulted in Loss of Nuclear Generation & Put Industry Future at Risk. Assures That NRC Addressing Impact of Policies on Licensees ML20206N7481998-12-15015 December 1998 Responds to Re NRC Regulatory Oversight of Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station.Although Staff Does Not Agree with Charges That Staff Acted Inappropriately & Ineffectively,Ltr Referred to NRC OIG for Action ML20196G0291998-12-0202 December 1998 Forwards EA & Fonsi Re Util Request for Exemption from Financial Protection Requirement Limits of 10CFR50.54(w) & 10CFR140.11 for Plant,Submitted in Ltr of 980120 ML20196G2751998-11-27027 November 1998 Forwards Insp Rept 50-309/98-04 on 980803-1031.No Violations Noted.During three-month Period Covered by Insp Period, Conduct of Activities During Continued Decommissioning at Maine Yankee Facilities Was Safety Focused ML20195C3771998-11-0606 November 1998 Discusses Directors Decision Re Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co Claim of Backfit Re beyond-design-basis Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools.Copy of Author Memo to NRR Staff Directing Them to Address Issues Encl IR 05000306/19960091998-10-0808 October 1998 Discusses Results of Several NRC Insp Repts 50-306/96-09, 50-309/96-10,50-309/96-11,50-309/96-16 & 50-309/97-01, Conducted Between 960715 & 970315,three Investigations Repts 1-95-050,1-96-025 & 1-96-043 & Forwards Notice of Violation ML20154J3421998-10-0808 October 1998 Responds to Forwarding Response of 2 Individuals to NRC DFI Issued 971219 to Yaec & Duke Engineering & Services Inc.Dfi Did Not Require Response from Individuals Identified in DFI as LOCA Group Mgr & Lead Engineer ML20154J8451998-10-0808 October 1998 Responds to Which Forwarded Response to NRC Demand for Info Issued on 971219 Re OI Rept 1-95-050. Related Ltr Also Issued to Maine Yankee Identifying Apparent Violations ML20154J4511998-10-0808 October 1998 Responds to Which Replied to NRC DFI Issued 971219 to Yaec & Duke Engineering & Services,Inc.Nrc Staff Completed Review of Responses of Yaec & Duke Engineering & Services Inc & 2 Individuals ML20154J4361998-10-0808 October 1998 Responds to Forwarding Response of Duke Engineering & Services,Inc to NRC DFI Issued 971219 to Duke Engineering & Services,Inc & Yaec ML20154D7271998-10-0202 October 1998 Forwards RAI Re Spent Fuel Pool & Fuel Assemblies.Response Requested within 30 Days of Date of Ltr ML20154A9041998-09-28028 September 1998 Forwards Insp Rept 50-309/98-03 on 980503-0801.No Violations Noted.Insp Exam of Licensed Activities as They Relate to Radiation Safety & to Compliance with Commission Regulations ML18066A2981998-09-23023 September 1998 Forwards RAI Re GL 97-01 Degradation of Cibtrol Rod Drive Mechanism Nozzle & Other Vessel Closure Head Penetrations Responses for Plant & Relationship of Responses to Topical Report CE NPSD1085 ML20153G0941998-09-18018 September 1998 Refers to CAL 1-96-15 Issued on 961218 & Suppl Issued 970130,confirming That Facility Will Not Restart Until Addl Actions Were Completed.Issues That Were Subj of CAL & Suppl Were Re Operation of Facility & Not Permanent Shutdown ML20153C0851998-09-16016 September 1998 Responds to 980723 e-mail to Senator SM Collins of Maine Re Several Concerns Raised About Disposal of Reactor Vessel from Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station.Nrc Made No Generic Decision,Acceptable for All Rv with Internal Components ML20197J5931998-09-16016 September 1998 Informs That on 980903 NRC Granted Exemption to Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co from Certain Sections of 10CFR50 Re Emergency Response Planning,Allowing Licensee to Discontinue Offsite Emergency Planning Activities 1999-09-08
[Table view] |
Text
-
Spapp pocrog ju UNITED STATES U
E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
k....[E WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 March 26, 1999
\\
Mr. Raymond Shadas j
F,iends of the Coast P.O. Box 98 Edgecomb, ME 04556
Dear Mr. Shadis:
I am responding to your letter of June 5,1998, that you sent to Leonard J. Callan of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding emergency preparedness ana financial protection exemotion requests made by Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPC) for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (MYAPS), in your letter, you requested that (1) a meeting scheduled at NRC Headquarters be rescheduled and held in the vicinity of MYAPS, (2) NRC clarify its safety concerns regarding the MYAPS spent fuel pool, and (3) NRC not act on MYAPC's exemption applications until certain design features and accident scenarios were analyzed with respect to current and proposed spent fuel pool operating conditions. The NRC has already discussed these issues at meetings and phone conversations between you and Mike Webb, the MYAPS Project Manager.
)
This letter serves to document the results of all the NRC interactions with you on these I
issues.
The NRC determined that the meeting between members of NRC and the MYAPC staff should be held on June 9,1998,~at NRC Headquarters as scheduled. Although the NRC is sympathetic to your concern that interested citizens cannot always arrange their work schedules and obtain reasonably priced airfares on short notice to observe such meetings at NRC Headquarters, we believe that appropriate notice had been provided to the public in accordance with the NRC Final Policy Statement on Staff Meetings Open to the Public, in addition, we noted that it would be prohibitively difficult (and expensive) to rearrange the schedules and Wrango for travel for the 'large number of NRC staff (14) who attended the meeting, in the future, the NRC will try to hold meetings, when possible, in the vicinity of the plant. The NRC staff did, in fact, meet on November 9,1998, at the site f
with MYAPC and its decommissioning operations contractor, Stone & Webster Engineering O
Corporation, in a meeting open to the public and observed by several members of the local community, to discuss future site activities and the schedule for decommissioning.
I' WTUj With respect to your questions regarding NRC's safety concerns about the spent fuel pool, the NRC staff has determined that a scenario that should be addressed for a permanently shutdown reactor involves the loss of all or nearly all of the water from the spent fuel pool and subsequent heatup of the fuel. If the decay heat is high enough, oxidation of the zirconium fuel clad could become self-sustaining, resulting in a 'irconium clad fire.
Although the zirconium clad fire may not be included in the design basis of the facility (as MYAPC has noted), the NRC staff considers it among those events that are " reasonably conceivable" and that should be considered in determining that there is no undue risk to the public from a permanently shutdown reactor facility. While the consequences of this scenario are not considered by the NRC to be worse than previously estimated, the staff U
> v h.. h' ' *et PM 9904020195 990326 l
g G' ) - bT
H PDR b
Lw-
4 e
L Mr. Raymond Shadis evaluates this scenario more closely because it is no longer bounded by events that could
-occur at an operating plant. The evaluation is based on the length of time after shutdown, which is unique for each plant, when the decay heat is insufficient to cause a fire and the scenario is no longer possible. In the interest of the most effective use of the NRC and MYAPC resources, the staff postulated a bounding theoretical case (an adiabatic heatup of the fuel in which all heat generated in the fuel is retained in the system with no
' heat loss to the surroundings). For this bounding scenario, the time available to reach the self-sustaining oxidation temperature (approximately 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> on August 1,1998),'
provided sufficient time for onsite actions, and, if necessary, offsite protective measures to be initiated before a postulated release of radioactivity resulting from spent fuel overheating. Based on plant information and analysis, the NRC determined for MYAPS that in the event of the unlikely case of a loss of all spent fuel pool water, sufficient time had elapsed since final shutdown to warrant granting the emergency preparedness exemption in early September 1998.
You also requested that the NRC not take action on the MYAPS emergency plan and l
financial protection exemption requests until certain design features and accident scenarios are analyzed. To evaluate the level of offsite en.vgency preparedness needed at a permanently shutdown facility, the NRC staff evaluates tnose accidents or scenarios that would result in offsite consequences. For permanently shutdown plants, the staff has determined that the worst radiological consequences would result from a loss of all or nearly all of the water from the spent fuel pool. The staff believes that although it is unlikely to occur, for some period after permanently ceasing operations, the loss of water from the spent fuel pool is the worst credible scenario for the decommissioned piant. In l
your letter, you asked several questions regarding the plant design and different scenarios that we have determined are included in or bounded by the identified worst case scenario.
Since your issues fell within the these bounds, and therefore would have lesser consequences than the worst case scenario, we have not addressed each of your
]
questions individually. Although we have not addressed each question indlvidually, we have tried to address your concerns collectively.
You expressed concern about the construction of the spont fuel pool and the pool cooling 1-system. The staff reviewed th'e design information of the MYAPS spent fuel pool, and specifically your concern that the upper portion of one spent fuel pool wall is next to the i
primary auxiliary building. In its review, the staff noted that all the walls (including the wall shared with the primary auxiliary building) of the spent fuel pool are 6 feet thick and constructed of reinforced concrete. The poolis seismically qualified; that is, it will remain functional after the hypothetical earthquake determined for that plant area. The hypothetical earthquake is larger than any earthquake actually experienced in that area.
I The MYAPS spent fuel poolis also founded on bedrock. In fact,it is also embedded j
12.5 feet in the ground. The normal spent fuel pool cooling system is not required to be seismically qualified; therefore, NRC does not require the backup generators for the spent j
fuel pool cooling system to be seismically qualified either. Additionally, the structure over the spent fuel pool is designed to withstand a hypothetical earthquake and tornado winds.
f.
L
( - _
Mr. Raymond Shadis You also raised concerns about the south wall of the spent fuel pool building. Through exaaustive review of MYAPS'. Individual Plant Examination, we could not identify where I
they were asked to analyze the effects of the collapse of the south wall. However, as j
part of an open issue identified by the NRC staff concerning NRC Inspection and
{
Enforcement Bulletin 80-11, " Masonry Wall Design," MYAPC provided a consequence analysis for failure of the spent fuel pool masonry wall. By letter dated December 10, 1987, the NRC staff informed MYAPC that it had determined that, in the event of a masonry wall failure, adequate spent fuel pool cooling capability is available and the structuralintegrity of the racks is adequate. The determination was based on an NRC staff Supplemental Safety Evaluation and a Technical Evaluation Report prepared by the Franklin Research Center under contract to the NRC. The staff does not intend to reanalyze this event.
l You also were concerned about the freezing event that occurred in 1994 at the Dresden l
Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (Dresden 1), in that incident, several thousand gallons of service water (not spent fuel pool water as you stated) were deposited in the empty containment sphere when a valve in the service water system froze and ruptured.
i Althcugh no spent fuel pool water was lost, because the spent fuel pool at Dresden 1 is l
connected to the containment through the fuel transfer tube, the NRC was concerned that the fuel transfer tube was also vulnerable to freezing and possible failure. To isolate the enclosure from the spent fuel pool water, a blind flange was weldec to the fuel transfer tube. At Maine Yankee, draindown of the pool to the containment through the fuel transfer tube is prevented by two independent mechanical devices, an isolation valve located in the spent fuel pool and a blind flange seal at the refueling canal in the containment. The staff believes that these means of isolation coupled with the licensee's cold weather operations procedures provide adequate assurance that protracted 'ow l
temperatures will not result in freeze damage that would have significant radiological I
consequence.
1 You also discussed the issue of aircraft accidents involving the SFP and asked what actions the NRC has undertaken to address concerns raised at the November 7,1997, PSDAR meeting and if the NRC will require and verify analysis of potential aircraft accidents involving the Maine Yankee SFP. While the plant was still operating, an evaluation of the aircraft hazard at Maine Yankee was performed to determine if the facility met criteria specified in the NRC's Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-0800) (SRP). As per the SRP, Maine
. Yankee was considered adequately designed against aircraft hazards. The P-3 Orion aircraft that operate from Brunswick Naval Air Station are variants of the same aircraft that were flown at the time of the plant's initial.icensing and, therefore, do not constitute a different hazard than previously assessed. Therefore, the staff does not intend to require Maine Yankee to submit an additional airuaft accident analysis regarding the SFP.
You expressed concem about a new trailer-mounted generator outside the spent fuel building being a potential tornado missile. Tornado missiles that are of concern in the decommissioned state are missiles that can damage the spent fuel pool structure such that its watertight integrity would be damaged or are missiles that would have a trajectory that will contact the fuel when fuelis in the spent fuel pool MYAPC's analysis included a
w 1
y.
Mr. Rsymond Shadis March 26, 1999 1,850-pound utility pole, which is 35 feet long and 14 inches in diameter, traveling at f
150 mph, and a 1-ton automobile traveling at 150 mph. This licensing basis is still applicable in the decommissioned state. The wood blocks under the trailer that you discussed in your letter are'similar to the telephone pole hazard and do not need further review. Regarding the generator and the trailer, the NRC staff asked the licensee for further information. On the basis of the information provided, we determined that the j
generator and the trailer weigh more than 15 times the missiles that were ' analyzed.
Although not quantified, this large weight lea'ds us to believe that there is a low likelihood l
that the trailer would be picked.up by a tornado, moved in the direction of the spent fuel l
pool, and deposited therein.' Because it is much larger than the objects that we believe should be postulated as tornado missiles and because of the low likelihood of the j
sequence of events that would have to occur in order for the generator and the trailer to j
damage the spent fuel, we do not believe that the generator and the trailer would become i
a tornado-generated missile that would damage the fuel.-
You asked many questions regarding unanalyzed conditions and draindown rates, flow rates, and volu;nes of water drained from the spent fuel pool. There is a nearly unlimited number of different conditions, including drain down and flow rates, that could be postulated. However, as previously discussed, the NRC staff does not analyze every condition or scenario for a plant; rather, we evaluate scenarios or accidents that are believed to be bounding, that is, would have the most severe offsite consequences, to be analyzed and planned for through emergency planning. Thus, we do not require licensees to analyze how much water would drain out of the pool at different break locations; instead they analyze the pool to a completely or nearly completely drained level without regard as to whether the water actually has sufficient space to drain. Although this scenario may not be credible it certainly is bounding and conservative in evaluating offsite consequences. If it can be shown that the consequences of this scenario do not require sheltering or evacuation, and therefore, no offsite emergency plan, or that time is available j
to take mitigative actions to adequately protect public health and safety, the NRC will allow the licensee to eliminate the offsite portion of its emergency plan. In Maine Yankee's case, the staff performed its analyses and was able to determine that sufficient time had elapsed since final shutdown to warrant granting the emerce y planning exemption in early September 1998.
j We appreciate you sharing your concerns on the decommissioning process at MYAPS with us, if you have any further questions, please contact Mike Webb at 301-415-1347.
I Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclesr Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-309 cc: See next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page
PDND:PM PD PDND:(A)S SPLB*
CEGB*
PERB' i
MWebb on MMasnik[M TMarsh GBagchi TE aig iss' 3/ /99 3. 99 3/p/99 2/19/99 2/23/99 3/8/99 3
99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\WEBB/SHADIS
c.
u
?
Mr. Raymond Shadis l 1,850-pound utility pole, which is 35 feet long and 14 inches in diameter, Paveling at 150 mph, and a 1-ton automobile traveling at 150 mph. This licensing basis is still I
applicable in the decommissioned state. The wood blocks under the trailer that you 1
discussed in your letter are similar to the telephone pole hazard and Jo not need further review. Regarding the generator and the trailer, the NRC staff asked the licensee for further information. On the basis of the information provided, we determined that the f
generator and the trailer weigh more than 15 times the missiles that were analyzed.
)
Although not quantified, this large weight leads us to believe that there is a low likelihood that the trailer would be picked up by a tornado, moved in the direction of the spent fuel pool, and deposited therein. Because it is much larger than the objects that we believe g
should be postulated as tornado missiles and because of the low likelihood of the 1
sequence of events that would have to occur in order for the generator and the trailer to damage the spent fuel, we do not believe that the generator and the trailer would become j
a tornado-generated missile that would damrage the fuel.
You asked many questions regarding unanal zed conditions and draindown rates, flow l
f rates, and volumes of water drained from the spent fuel pool. There is a nearly unlimited number of different conditions, including drain down and flow raros, that could be postulated. However, as previously discussed, the NRC staff does not analyze every condition or scenario for a plant; rather, we evaluate sce:iarios or accidents that are believed to be bounding, that is, would have the most severe off' site consequences, to be analyzed and planned for through emergency planning. Thus, we do not require licensees to analyze how much water would drain out of the pool at different break locations; instead they analyze the pool to a completely or nearly completely drained level without regard as to whether the water actually has sufficient space to drain. Although this scenario may not be credible it certainly is b%nding and conservative in evaluating offsite consequences. If it can be shown that ine consequences of this scenario do not require sheltering or evacuatio,, and therefore, no offsite emergency plan, or that time is available to take mitigative actions to adequately protect public health and safety, the NRC will allow the licensee to eliminate the offsite portion of its emergency plan. In Maine Yankee's case, the staff performed its analyses and was able to determine that sufficir it time had elapsed since final shutdown to warrant granting the emergency planning exemption in early September 1998.
We appreciate you sharing your concerns on the decommissioning process at MYAPS with us. If you have any further questions, please contact Mike Webb at 301-415-1347.
Sincerely, l
QAA4 Seymour H. Weiss, Director Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-309 cc: See next page
r;
-l Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Docket No. 50-309 cc:
f Mr. Charles B. Brinkman Friends of the Coast Manager - Washington Nuclear P.O. Box 98 Operations Edgecomb, ME 04556 ABB Combustion Engineering 12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 Mr. William O' Dell I
Rockville, MD 20852 Operations Director f
Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company i
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esquire 321 Old Ferry Road i
Ropes & Gray Wiscasset, ME 04578-4922 One International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 Mr. George Zinke, Director Nuclear Safety and Regulatory Affairs Mr. Uldis Vanags Maine Yankee Atornic Power Company
^ State Nuclear Safety Advisor 321 Old Ferry Road State Planning Office Wiscasset, ME 04578 4922 State House Station #38 Augusta, ME 04333 Mr. Jonathan M. Block Attorney at Law Mr. P. L. Anderson, Project Manager P.O. Box 566 Yankee Atomic Electric Company Putney, VT 05346-0566 580 Main Street Bolton, MA 01740-1398 Mr. Michael J. Meisner, President Main Yankee Atomic Power Company Regional Administrator, Region i 321 Old Fenry Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wiscasset, ME 04578-4922 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Robert Fraser, Director Engineering First Selectman of Wiscasset Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Municipal Building 321 Old Ferry Road U.S. Route 1 Wiscasset, ME 04578-4922 Wiscasset, ME 04578 Mr. Patrick J. Dostie Mr. Mark Roberts State of Maine Nuclear Safety U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Inspector 475 Allendale Road Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company King of Prussia, PA 19406 321 Old Ferry Road Wiscasset, ME 04578-4922 Mary Ann Lynch, Esquire Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company Mr. Mark Ferri, Vice President 321 Old Ferry Road Decommissioning Director Wiscasset, ME 04578-4922 Maine Yankee Atomic p ower Company o
321 Old Ferry Road Mr. Neil Sheehan Wiscasset, ME 04578-4922 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406
=
s.
March 26, 1999 i
DISTRIBUTION:
DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\SECY\\WEBB\\SHADIS 1
l HARD COPY l
J Docket File 50-309 (w/ incoming) l PUBLIC (w/ incoming) l DMatthews (012-E5) i I
FAkstulewicz (011E1) l TMarsh (012-DE1)
OGC (015-B18)
SWeiss MMasnik MWebb (w/ incoming)
PDND r/f (w/ incoming)
]
EHylton (w/ incoming)
JHickey (T7-F27)
Region l E-MAIL COPY RBurrows (RABS)
RDudley (RFD)
)
MFairtile (MBF)
TFredrichs (TLF)
PHarns (PWH1)
WHuffman (WCH)
AMarkley (AWM)
JMinns (JLM3)
SNalluswami (SMN)
Pray (PMR)
DScaletti (DCS1) j LThonus (LHT)
DWheeler (DXW)