ML20207H898
| ML20207H898 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Yankee Rowe |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1999 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Katz D, Perkins J CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| References | |
| CLI-98-21, NUDOCS 9903160133 | |
| Download: ML20207H898 (4) | |
Text
. . . _ . _ _ _ . _
bh " -
p+M*%q UNITED STATES
[ k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "
s S WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 4001 y
s*****j March 3, 1999 CHAIRMAN i
l Deborah B. Katz, President Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. !
P. O. Box 3023 :
Charlemont, Massachusetts 01339 '
James L. Perkins, President t New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution P. O. Box 545 Brattleboro, Vermont 05302
Dear Ms. Katz and Mr. Perkins:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to concerns raised in petitions to intervene filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) on February 24,1998 and the Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) on February 26, 1998. The petitioners requested a hearing on the NRC staff's consideration of the License Termination Plan (LTP) of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station. An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established on March 9,1998 to consider the petitions. The proceeding is currently in progress. In a decision (CLl-98-21) issued on October 23,1998, the Commission advised the parties that the complaints concerning the staff's public meeting held on January 13,1998, were outside the scope of the present adjudication and would be addressed by the Commission after receiving a response by the NRC staff. See CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998).
Your concerns about the January 13,1998 meeting can be summarized as follows: (1) the notice period for the meeting was too shoft; (2) the licensee's response to staff questions /
concerning the LTP was not available to the public before the meeting; (3) the NRC staff failed ;
to schedule enough time for the meeting and failed to answer questions raised at the meeting; and (4) subsequent to the meeting, no answers were provided to any oral or written questions j or comments. Additional concerns raised by NECNP with respect to the staff's proposed no 4 significant hazards consideration finding will be addressed in the safety evaluation prepared by the staff in its review of the proposed amendment.
The NRO staff informed the Commission that the staff took the following actions to inform the public of the time, place and subject matter of the meeting. On December 11,1997. NRC issued a meeting notice for the January 13* meeting. The meeting notice was given a broad distribution, which included distribution to the local public document room (LPDR) in Greenfield, Massachusetts, the Franklin Regional Council of Governments and the NRC meeting web site.
The staff orepared the Federal Register notice on December 16,1997, intending publication beforv.s + mas. However, most probably due to the holiday season, the notice was not l published in the Federal Register until January 5,1998. In addition to the dissemination of the meeting notice, the Public Affairs Office (PAO) in NRC Region 1 issued a press release 116001 9903160133 990303 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
l 2
announcing the meeting to local newspapers on December 29,1997. The PAO also placed i paid advertising in local papers on December 31,1997. The Region 1 PAO contacted CAN, by '
telephone, before December 23,1997, to discuss selection of local newspapers for advertising the meeting. A news story about the meeting appeared on December 23,1997,in the Springfield Union News, one of CAN's recommended local papers. Despite these efforts, it appears from your concerns that some members of the community did not receive notice about the meeting. The NRC is currently examining its processes for notice of public meetings l generically and considering modifications to better ensure timely notice of all public meetings.
l The second concern, item (2) above, was that the licensee's letter of December 16,1997, I which responded to staff questions on the LTP was not available to the public before the January 13,1998 meeting. The Commission regrets the limited availability of the licennee's j response prior to the January 13" meeting. In early January 1998, there was no NRC distribution list that would have automatically supplied you with documents related to the LTP; and, there is a normal delay between the time NRC receives a document and when it is available in the LPOR. However, NECNP and CAN have now been placed on the licensee's standard distribution for documents and will be placed on a distribution list for NRC documents should the contentions of your organizations be admitted for hearing by the ASLB.
Your organizations were also concerned that the staff failed to answer questions and comments at the January 13* meeting and that the meeting was too brief (items (3) and (4) above). In response to these concerns, the staff carefully reviewed the transcript of the meeting Pages 43 through 68 of the transcript show that every question posed at the meeting was answered.
The transcript includes both the oral and written comments presented to the staff at the meeting. In introductory remarks (see transcript page 3, lines 6-12), the staff offered to stay after the meeting to further discuss issues and answer questions. Normally, the staff responds in writing only to questions it has been unable to answer at a meeting. The commitment to respond to a member of the public is made during the meeting. Inasmuch as there was no request for additional information made by a member of the public, no such commitment was made at the January 13" meeting.
The Commission is committed to informing and involving the public in a meaningful and timely manner. During Fiscal Year 1998, the staff held eleven public meetings on decommissioning issues in the vicinity of reactors undergoing decommissioning. The staff has published and distributed more than 500 copies of NUREG-1628," Staff Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," April 1998. The staff has also extensively discussed decommissioning issues with members of NECNP and CAN, has provided information on the Yankee Nuclear Plant, and has responded to questions raised by your organizations.
I hope this additional information is helpful to you. We would appreciate any suggestions your organintions may wish to offer on how the NRC can enhance its public meetings.
Sincerely, hMi Shirley Ann Jackson cc: Jonathan M. Block, Esq.
l 1
g-UNITED STATES p' -g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g WASHINGTON. D.C. 2055#.0001 March 3, 1999 k.....
CHAIRMAN j
I l
Deborah B. Katz, President Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. I P. O. Box 3023 '
Charlemont, Massachusetts 01339 James L. Perkins, President New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution P. O. Box 545 Brattleboro, Vermont 05302
Dear Ms. Katz and Mr. Perkins:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to concerns raised in petitions to intervene filed with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) on February 24,1998 and the Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) on February 26, 1998. The petitioners requested a hearing on the NRC staff's consideration of the License Termination Plan (LTP) of the Yankee Atomic Electric Company for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station. An Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was established on March 9,1998 to consider the petitions. The proceeding is currently in progress. In a decision (CLl-98-21) issued on October 23,1998, the Commission advised the parties that the complaints concerning the staff's public meeting held on January 13,1998, were outside the scope of the present adjudication and would be addressed by the Commission after receiving a response by the NRC staff. See CLI-98-21,48 NRC 185 (1998).
Your concerns about the January 13,1998 meeting can be summarized as follows: (1) the notice period for the meeting was too short; (2) the licensee's response to staff questions concerning the LTP was not available to the public before the meeting; (3) the NRC staff f ailed to schedule enough time for the meeting and failed to answer questions raised at the meeting; and (4) subsequent to the meeting, no answers were provided to any oral or written questions or comments. Additional concerns raised by NECNP with respect to the staff's proposed no significant hazards consideration finding will be addressed in the safety evaluation prepared by the staff in its review of the proposed amendment.
The NRC staff informed the Commission that the staff took the following actions to inform the public of the time, place and subject matter of the meeting. On December 11,1997, NRC issued a meeting notice for the January 13* meeting. The meeting notice was given a broad distribution, which included distribution to the local public document room (LPDR) in Greenfield, Massachusetts, the Franklin Regional Council of Governments and the NRC meeting web site.
The staff prepared the Federal Register notice on December 16,1997, intending publication before Christmas. However, most probably due to the holiday season, the notice was not published in the Federal Register until January 5,1998. In addition to the dissemination of the
- meeting notice, the Public Affairs Office (PAO) in NRC Region 1 issued a press release 1
. i 2
announcing the meJJng to local newspapers on December 29,1997. The PAO also placed paid advertising in local papers on December 31,1997. The Region 1 PAO contacted CAN, by I telephone, before Decerber 23,1997, to discuss selection of local newspapers for advertising !
the meeting. A news story about the meeting appeared on December 23,1997, in the Springfield Union News, one of CAN's recommended local papers. Despite these efforts,it appears from your concerns that some members of the community did not receive notice about ,
the meeting. The NRC is currently examining its processes for notice of public meetings generically and considering modifications to better ensure timely notice of all public meetings.
l The second concern, item (2) above, was that the licensee's letter of December 18,1997, !
which responded to staff questions on the LTP was not available to the public before the I January 13,1998 meeting. The Commission regrets the limited availability of the licensee's response prior to the January 13* meeting. In early January 1998, there was no NRC distribution list that would have automatically supplied you with documents related to the LTP; and, there is a normal delay between the time NRC receives a document and when it is available in the LPDR. However, NECNP and CAN have now been placed on the licensee's standard distribution for documents and will be placed on a distribution list for NRC documents should the contentions of your organizations be admitted for hearing by the ASLB.
Your organizations were also concerned that the staff failed to answer questions and comments
- at the January 13* meeting and that the meeting was too brief (items (3) and (4) above). In response to these concerns, the staff carefully reviewed the transcript of the meeting. Pages 43 through 68 of the transcript show that every question posed at the meeting was answered.
The transcript includes both the oral and written comments presented to the staff at the meeting. In introductory remarks (see transcript page 3, lines 8-12), the staff offered to stay after the meeting to further discuss issues and answer questions. Normally, the staff responds in writing only to questions it has been unable to answer at a meeting. The commitment to respond to a member of the public is made during the meeting. Inasmuch as there was no request for additionalinformation made by a member of the public, no such commitment was made at the January 13* meeting.
The Commission is committed to informing and involving the public in a meaningful and timely manner. During Fiscal Year 1998, the staff held eleven public meetings on decommissioning issues in the vicinity of reactors undergoing decommissioning. The staff has published and distributed more than 500 copies of NUREG-1628," Staff Responses to Frequently Asked Questions Concerning Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," April 1998. The staff has also extensively discussed decommissioning issues with members of NECNP and CAN, has provided information on the Yankee Nuclear Plant, and has responded to questions rait,ed by your organizations.
I hope this additional information is helpful to you. We would appreciate any suggestions your organizations may wish to offer on how the NRC can enhance its public meetings.
Sincerely, G
.._.______..-_._______._._-._.m._ _ _._. __________.m._____
l 00CKETED no .g <
I Jonathan M. Block l ATTORNEY AT FEB a P4 :02 LAW ,
l Main Street !
l ' P.O. Box 566 i
/. _ Putney, Vemiont 05346-0566 (802) 387-2646(vox)
(802) 387-2667 (fax)
February 26,1998 l
Chairman Shirley A. Jackson, Commissioners, ;
Secretary of the Conunission, EDO, l
- Chief Rules and Directives Branch United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -
i RE: Notice of Proposed No significant Hazards Consideration,63 Federal Register 4308-4330 (January 28, 1998), Yankee Nuclear Power Station License l Tennination Plan (50-29), Comments in Opposition to No Significant Hazards ;
Consideration Approval of License Tennination Plan and Request for 10 l C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart G Hearing on the Plan. !
Dear Chainnan Jackson,
Commissioners l Mr. Secretary, Mr. Meyer, and other !
Required Recipients of this Letter: l i
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 tennination 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 approval -of the Yankee Nuclear Power Station' License Termination Plan is mappropnate, and ask that you offer a public hearing on approval of the plan:-
.1. Lack of Minimum Due Process To Public In This Matter.
Your agency has failed to proside the minimum due process to the public in terms of adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard in this matter.
WO30O k^) ~7)"f . . --
r I
, Citizens Awareness Network's Comments to the U S. NRC Page 2 ,
l Opposing No Signi6 cant Hazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP 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 i 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 notice, l reasonably calculated to infonn them of the time, place, manner, and content of the meeting.
Second, at the meeting, hjorton Fairtile, NRC project manager for Yankee, stated that the NRC's questions to Yankee Atomic Electric Company [YAEC] conceming the i plan, YAEC's responses to those questions, and YAEC's plan had not yet been made ;
available to the public. Transcript of Public hieeting at Shelboume [ sic], h1A (Yankee Nuclear Power Station License Temiination Plan) at 58-59 (Januaiy 13, 1998)
[ Transcript]. Thus. the public had been invited on extremelv short notice to participate in a discussion of a plan that had not been made public at the time of the meetine.
This, too (in case there is any doubt), in no way comports with the minimum requirements of due process which your agency owes to the people of the United States under the United States Constitution (and most generally accepted standards of meeting protocolin civilized countiies).
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 I I
keep the meeting to 10 :00 p.m. despite better part of an hour available. Given this limited time, hir. Faintile began the NRC's portion of the meeting with the l introduction of eveiy NRC-staff person present, despite the fact that only a few j participated in the meeting. See Transcript at 29-35. Perusal of the Transcript of this meeting will show that questioning was arbitrarily cut oft for the sake oflimiting the meeting time until 10 p.m. This meant that questions had to be posed as unanswered comments. Among such comments, hir. Paul Blanch, an energy consultant working for Northeast Utilities, raised some serious questions about the apparent illegalities and inadequacies of the plan, including apparent violations of 10 C.F.R. Paits 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. l l
Fomth, despite statements that questions and comments would be answered i subsequently (in what one might hope would be a timely fashion), to our knowledge I there have been no answers provided to any of the oral or wiinen questions and comments docketed at the meeting after questioning was cut off. l l
l
p ]
- i. >
}
- l. Citizens Awareness Network's Comments to the U.S. NRC Page 3 l.' - Opposin;; No Significant llazards Consideration for Yankee Rue L TP l: l
! I Because of these flagrant violations of the minimmn standards of due process owed to :
members of the public under the United States Constitution, No Significant IIazards Consideration is not appropriate for the Yankee Nuclear Power Station License j Tennination Plan. '
1 II. No Significant flazards Consideration 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 !
I Approval of the plan should not be granted tmder No Significant 11azards ;
l Consideration and without a public hearing because there are potentially significant hazards involved in YAEC's proposal for actisities to be conducted under the License 4 Tennination Plan and the radiological condition in which YAEC intends to leave the site. -In peninent pan, the License Tennination Plan (including incorporated _ ]
documentation) does not take into account the following: i
- 1. Accident evaluation invohing fuel storage in the fuel pool. Evaluations in the ,
License Tennination Plan (and FSAR) do not consider any credible accidents l other than cask drop into the fuel pool. Although this may be the most likely l catastrophic ' accident, there are plenty of other more likely 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 loss: 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 chemistry in the pool could cause degradation of the fuel cladding and result in unplanned exposures with serious consequences; (d) Sabotage; l
l'
' '( e) Accidents related to lower levels of surveillance of the site, including the fuel pool. )
l
Citizens Awareness Network's Conmients to the U.S. NRC Page 4 Opposing No Significant flazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP
- 2. Accident evaluations related to storage of the fuel in casks. Again, there is no evaluation in the Plan or incorporated doctunents 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-Ill45-033A), (3) sabotage, (4) low levels of surveillance.
- 3. Proposed casks are still in the experimental 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 Tennination Plan does not describe how YAEC intends to deal with the movement of fuel over the pool. It does not adequately describe the load capacity of the cranes, safety features and measures, or a cask drop accident and mitigation of same under the cunent conditions at the facility (i.e. j lower safety staff, lessened surveillance, lower levels of security, etc.).
- 8. The License Tennination Plan fails to account for (discuss or conduct any Environmental Report on) the environmental consequences of the constmetion of the hidependent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI) which includes building a road and dealing with an extreme grade. Potential consequential environmental degradation includes erosion, leachates, leaking fuel. Rese would have an impact upon the Deerfield River ecosystem. Such environmental assessment is required under 10 C.F.R. Parts 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 fomis of l Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) are at operating reactors where there are l trained stafT with great cumulative experience in dealing with fuel-related problems and many staff trained in emergency cleanup and safety.
- 10. There is no Environmental enpact Study on the potential effects of canisters leaking radioactive contaminants into ti e Deedield River and the River Valley.
I
l Citizens Awareness Network's Comments to the U S. NRC Page 5 f Opposing No Significant Hazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP
! l It will take time to get the proposed (but only vaguely described)'bver-pack" ;
into place around a leaking canister. How long will leaks go on before the )
'bver-pack"? There is no assessment of the potential hazards. l
- 11. 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 tenns 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 erhange pit. No effoits have been made to detennine if there is a plume of contaminated liquid waste under the fuel l 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 transported to a pennanent spent fuel repository. Such over-packed canisters will be extremely large and heavy, and YAEC needs to account for the safe eventual relocation of j such canisters.
- 14. There is no cenified 'bver-pack"under Part 72. YAEC should not be allowed to say they intend to utilize a method still in oesign stage.
l
- 15. The fonn of cask storage YAEC intends to use has not been certified under Part 72, and it is still in the design stare. YAEC should not be allowed to say they intend to use a fuel storage container that has not been cenified under Part 72.
- 16. YAEC has not taken account of the actual radiation level above background that will remain at the site upon license tennination. In panicular, according to the numbers presented in the Plan, YAEC will be leaving the site with a l i
radiation level above background of 10 micro-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 j I
exposure standards of the NRC (25 millirem /yr), EPA (15 milliremlyr),
i Massachusetts Depanment of Public Health (10 millirem /yr).
I l
l l
Citizens Awareness Network's Conunents to the U.S. NRC Page 6 Opposing No Significant Hazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP lt is inappropriate under NRC, EPA, and Massachusetts Department 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 purpose 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 compromised. 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 than placing approval on the fast track railroad of No Significant Hazards Consideration. Part 50 was implemented under the notion that NRC inspection and enforcement would ensure compliance with the tenns of the license. Pait 72 was implemented with the 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.
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 Tennination Plan includes going outside cunent NRC regulations without required environmental impact studies, it is in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as 10 C.F.R. Part 51. Because the plan includes going outside current regulations witimut making speciik 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 Significant . Hazards Consideration in the circumstances described above, you will be in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. In particular, by retioactively expanding the basis of your licensee's license without rulemaking or hearing as required under the Atomic Energy Act, and by pennitting a major federal action that will affect the quality of the environment to go fonvard witimut the requisite environmental consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act, you will be acting arbitrarily, capriciously, and not othenvise in accordance with law in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
l t
i L
l
Citizens Awareness Network's Comments to the U.S. NRC Page1 l Opposing No Signi6 cant Hazards Consideration for Yankee Rowe LTP Ill Requested Relief.
1 On behalf of Citizens Awareness Network, Inc., of Rowe, hiassachusetts, 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 downstream 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;
- 2. Provide another public meeting in the vicinity of the Yankee Rowe facility. Be sure to provide 30 days notice of the meeting after you have placed in the public doctanent room the written answers to all of the comments and questions raised at the last meeting. Be sure to aseenain that the public meeting will take place after the public has had a full 30 days to resiew the current plan and related doctunents.
- 3. Offer a 10 C.F.R. Pan 2, Subpan G hearing in the vicinity of the Yankee Rowe facility on approval of the License Tennination Plan prior to approval of the plan.
Invite Citizens Awareness Network, Inc., and other similarly situated persons to panicipate in the public hearing process upon adequate (i.e.,30 days notice) 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 permit maximum citizen participation.
Sincerely, -
7s /
OXbc>sio R ,h;/zn .x, u. .' v W- '-~ "'
Deborah B. Katz, President ,J6nathan M. Block, Attorney Ci itens Awareness Network, Inc. / Citizens Awareness Network Inc.
I, Jonathan M. Block, Attomey for Citizens Awareness Network, cenify nnder penalty of perjury 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 abos e document to the following:
Office of the Secretary, U.S. NRC; Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, U S. NRC; Office of General Counsel, U.S. NRC; Attomey for the Licensee l
1 l
. New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution PO Box 545 Brattleboro, Vermont 05302 (802) 257-0336 nectilf@s6pEhet i Q.., 1 February 24,1998 Secretary of the Commission Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff 78 IM -3 M M l U.S. NRC Washington DC 20555-0001 0
Re: NRC Notice,63 Fed. Reg. 4308-4330 (January 28,1998) Objection to usqp'f No Significant Hazards Consideration to approve Yankee Atomic Electric Company's LicEnk Termination Plan fo,r the Yankee Nuclear Power Station, Rowe, Massachusetts, hrid request for a 10 C.F.R. 2, subpart G te.-aring on the plan.
Hello:
We write to object to the process and substance of your planned approval of Yankee Atomic Electnc Company's License Termination Plan and to request that you reconsider the process you have formulated and substitute a hearing under 10 C.F.R. 2, subpart G.
In preview let me note that even though the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution was not in existence at the time of the licensing of Yankee Rowe, we have participated in licensing hearings, both CP and OL, of several plants. In addition, several of our Trus'ees have assisted in or been full parties to these licensing hearings for nuclear plants in other parts of the country. In all tnose proceedings, any consideration of financial, environmental, and health and safety issues of the decommissioning process was routinely denied as outside the scope of the proceeding. They were never ruled " insignificant." The overarching actions of the NRC and its Staffin their general approach to decommissioning and in this particular matter fly directly in the face of good faith regulation.
A) The following are particular concems NECNP has with the process of NRC's treatment of the matter of Yankee Atomic's license termination plan.
- i. Notice was given in the Federal Register on January 5th for a meeting January 13th. This is not adequate notice.
ii. By NRC's own announcement at the beginning of the public meeting, the final plan, including NRC's c uestions to the licensee and the answers by the licensee, was not made available to the public prior to tle meetmg.
iii. Despite a request from the public that the NRC hold another meeting to discuss the slan after the relevant !
material was made available to the public and after 30 day notice had been providec , NRC noticed its !
intention to amend the license to approve the plan without a hearing by making a finding of No l Significant Hazards Consideration. This action put the amendment on a " fast track" and may allow only for a " post amendment" hearing. This should not be done as there is no " emergency." There are environmental considerations of site cleanup involved, and such considerations deserve (under both ,
minimum due process and the National Environmental Policy Act) a "hard look" at the proposed plan. j iv. During the meeting, over public objections, the moderator (who happens to be a close associate of l Yankee Atomic's public relations person) cut off questions under the claim that there would not be l sufficient time if questioning were permitted to continue. This was done despite prior announcement l
that the building would need to be cleared by 11:00 p.m. By eliminating additional questions to NRC and YAEC and deciding not to answer those asked, the facilitator managed to conclud the meeting at 10:00 and leave many questions un answered. The NRC s:aff f ailed to object to this unnecessary change l in the format of the meeting. The NRC stJf also failed to take this into account and schedule additional l meeting with proper notice. Finally, the NRC statialso failed to answer questions posed by the audience I and filed in writing to NRC.
m- -, , n
'l5U)\W WI g !
l B) The following are serious concerns NECNP has with the substance of the decisions and actions
. proposed by the Staff of the NRC.
l
- i. YAEC has relied upon old environmental reports as the basis for cenifying that activities are bounded i
by environmental studies and within the GEIS on decommissioning. These studies were not specifically geared to evaluate the issues involved in decommissioning. Moreover, the GEIS is out of date - it is nearly a decade old - and many of its predictions are incorrect. The standard method for l calculating transponation doses has changed. The financial projections for costs of decommissioning are off by more than an order of magnitude. The NRC should be conducting appropriate review of the materials YAEC relied upon in stating that its plan falls within existing environmental limits, rather than
- allowing YAEC to do the environmental decision-making.
ii. YAEC proposes to eliminate the fuel pool and go to cask storage. The casks to be used have not yet l been certified. Eliminating the fuel pool is an unreviewed safety issue in case of cask leaking or cask l
explosion. YAEC's proposal to "over-pack" casks in case of leaking raises another unreviewed safety i question as the proposed correction has never been attempted. Moreover, all of these proposals are not
[ permitted under a part 50 license and 10 CFR 50.59. They should require that the licensee use a part 72 license process. This is particularly evident when one considers that other sites utilizing cask storage continue to have operating reacters with fuel pools available and regular staff. YAEC will be l eliminating all of the back-up safety systems which would provide the possibility of transferring the fuel into a poolif necessary. Given the unreviewed safety questions, there should be a full adjudicatory hearing on the licensee's proposals instead of the shon shrift of No Significant Hazards Consideration.
! iii. Insufficient attention has been given to final site clean-up issues. For example, no serious I consideration has been given to the levels and types of pollution which will occur when dammed
! sediments are allowed to drain into the DeerGeld River. Moreover, the current license termination plan gives grossly inconect estimates of the amount of radiation to be left at the site. Specifically, the licensee claims that there will be <l5 mr/yr. This is not based upon a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day resident at the site. Using the licensee's own estimates for level of radioactivity above background on site, such an individual would be exposed to more than 87 mr/ year. This is totally unacceptable. Massachusetts Department of Public licalth Radiation Protection Standards do not permit more than 10 mr/yr above background. EPA standards do not permit more than 15 mr/ year. Even NRC standards do not permit more than 25 mr/yr. It is unconscionable for the NRC to suggest that No Significant Hazards Consideration approval is appropriate for Yankee Rowe given the licensee's proposal to leave the site with a level of contamination resulting in exposures over three times higher than its own limit.
C) NECNP requests the following actions be taken to resolve the difficulties identified above.
- i. To remedy the lack of due process, the NRC should be sure that all material relevant to decision-l making on the License Termination Plan is available in the Local Public Document Room for 30 days prior to another pblic meeting. This meeting should follow a full 30 days notice following publication in the Federal Register.
ii. The NRC should not use a No Significant Hazards Consideration to amend YAEC's license to permit
- the License Termination Plan.
l iii. There should be a formal, adjudicatory process, such as a Title 10, Pan 2. Subpan G .2ense l amendment hearing, prior to NRC Staff approval and before activities under the plan are permitted to take place. The hearing should be held in a location convenient to interested local people, perhaps Greenfield or Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts.
iv. By this letter and on behalf of memb-rs living in the vicinity of the Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
NECNP requests that the relief requested above be granted and that a formal license amendment hearing be completed on the Yankee Nuclear Power Station license termination plan before any activities proposed under the plan are permitted to take place.
For NECNP,
'] '
( f/
l lames L. Perkins, President of the Board l
i