ML20205P885

Erratum (Reconsideration of Portion of Prehearing Conference Order).* Licensee Learned That Yae Incorrect in Stating That Decommissioning Plan Had Been Approved on Basis of TEDE Analysis.With Certificate of Svc

ML20205P885
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	04/14/1999
From:	Gad R ROPES & GRAY, YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO.
To:
References
CON-#299-20276 CLI-98-21, LA, NUDOCS 9904210019
Download: ML20205P885 (3)

Text

_ _ __ __

2.o t 7(o ,

[T i.

IT t

United States of America Nuclear Regulatory Commission before the 9 EP 20 P / : lei e Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of p YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

ERRAT UM (RECONSIDERAllON Or A PORTION Or PREHEAP. LNG CONFERENCE ORDER)

In its Motion for Leat>e to Reply (Reconsideration of a Ponion ofPrchcaring Confer-ence Order) filed under date of March 28,1999, Yankee stated in footnote 3 thereof:

" Attached hereto is a copy of $ 4.1.1 of the YNPS Decommissioning Plan, which contains the Site Release Criteria. Note that, to the extent the Decommissioning Plan included a TEDE analysis: (i) the set pass value was 30 mrem /yr., and (ii) the analysis is to be based on the methods described in NUREG/CR-5512. This Decommissioning Plan was approved (for the second time) on October 28,1996 (see Yanhec Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185,196 (1998), following the completion of an adjudicatory proceeding to which NECNP and CAN were parties and in which nenhcr of them even sought admission of a site release criterion conten-tion. (CAN seems to think that the approval of the Decommissioning Plan was only partial or tentative, CAN Response at 5, but the approval was, of course, final and applicable to the entire plan.)"

We have just learned the we were incorrect in stating that the Decommissioning Plan had been approved on the basis of a TEDE analysis which had a set pass value of 30 mrem /yr. In fact we have learned that, after the original submission of the Decommissioning Plan, at the suggestion of the Staff and in conformity with what was then a proposed Subpart E standard, a voluntary commitment was made to the 15 mrem '

value. Thereafter, the Decommissioning Plan was approved and inserted in the FSAR containing the 15 mrem value, which was then carried forward into the LTP 'g Obviously to the extent that the Motion for Leave to Reply argued that the voluntary 9904210019 990414 PDR ADOCK 05000029 _,

o PDR y

-M commitment of Yankee was to be compared to a 30 mrem standard in the Decommis-sioning Plan, such an argument is withdrawn.

In anticipation of a possible argument that the forgoing may elicit from an intervenor to the effect that the 15 mrem /yr. TEDE provision of the LTP is not a

" voluntary commitment," Yankee replies as follows: Any such interpretation would make no sense, since any undenaking by Yankee more rigorous than the 25 mrem /yr.

contained in Subpart E is necessarily voluntary,' and a voluntary undertaking may not be made the subject of a contention. Since there is no basis for any contention that applying a 25 mrem /yr. pass value to a TEDE based on a " gardeners" scenario would be more restrictive than (i.e., would require the removal of more residual contamination than) the LTP's criterion of 15 mrem /yr. applied to the NUREG/CR-5512 " residential" scenario, Contention 4 is inadmissible.

We apologize to the Board for not having caught this error sooner.

Respectfully submitted,

[

,y Thomas G. I} gnan, Jr.

R. K. Gad III Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (617) 951-7000 Dated. April 14,1999. .

I 1

I l

'Any such undertaking is voluntary simply ! ecause Yankee could have waited until September,1999, '

to submit its LTP, and because it could withdraw the present LTP and submit a different one, with higher release criteria, later. j 2-

n kmak w 6- ,

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UWRC {

1, Robert K. Gad m, one of the attorneys for Yankee Atomic Electri Company, do hereby certify that on April 14, 1999, I served the within pleading in this matter by.ypniptstps M.dl (add also where indicated by an asterisk, by facsimile transmission) as follows:

_..m.,

Commission: ()g l AD Licensing Boarch

+* The Ilon. Thomas D. Murphy **

The lion. Charles Bechhoefer Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S.N.R.C. U.S N.R.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20535 FAX: 301-415 5599 FAX: 301-415-5599 The Hon. Dr. Thomas S. Elleman **

Administrative Judge 704 Davidson Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27609 FAX: 919-782-7975 Parties: l

~* Ms. Deborah B. Katz **

Jonathan M. Block, Esquire Post Office Box 566 Citizens Awareness Network, Inc.

Putney, VT 05346 Post Office Box 3023 l Fax: 802-387-2667 Charlemont, MA 01339 Attonnyfor NECNP Fax: 4 0-339 8768 On Behalfof CAN

~* Mr. Samuel i1. lovejoy **

Ann P. Ilodgdon, Esquire Marian 1. Zobler, Esquire c/o Franklin Regional Council of Governments Office of the General Counsel 425 Main Street U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Greenfield, MA 01301 Washington, D.C. 20555 Fax: 4 D-774-3169 FAX: 301-415-3725 On Behalf ofIRCOG Attomeysfor the NRC Staff Od>en:

Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication Office of the Secretary ~*

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 FAX: 301:415q72 ,

~__

m..

I tl. l B 'A %;

\

R. K. Gad tu

[