ML20217Q448

Requests,On Behalf of Franklin Regional Planning Board (Frpb) of Franklin County,Ma,That NRC Conduct 10CFR2,Subpart G Hearing on License Termination Plan Filed by Licensee. W/Certificate of Svc

ML20217Q448
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	03/04/1998
From:	Olver J HOUSE OF REP.
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20217Q426	List: ML20217Q425 ML20217Q448
References
LA, NUDOCS 9803120251
Download: ML20217Q448 (15)

Text

'

.4

,, ,,, m y c, , , , g .

JOHff W.OLVER ,

Anwwtw DC 2054 2ict 1st Devante. Massacwoe ns ' '202' 22H336

.s """"

" #^I'*$ Congregg of the lHniteb fptateg house of Representatibes /.,]0{,{ljg ,

d'c3[66 aiminneton, w 20sts-2 tot ,,;;g.,ggogo ,, f

-, o um

'"O,':ra.r Pirrstno. MA 0t 20t J (4131 M2-0948 14131 M3-2792 Fam 3 483 Mam S mest tot 2 72

- u u , ,a.

March 4, 1998 L,p e P

Shirley Ann Jacka.on Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

Dear Chairman Jackson,

I as writing on behalf of the Franklin Regional Planning Boar h t3the

-(FRPB) of Franklin County, Massachusetts and its request t aSubpar NRC conduct a 10 CFR Part 2, filed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company Termination Plan (LTP)

(YAEC). l Please find enclosed a copy of the FRPB's formal request for aT public hearing.

Franch on February, 27, 1998. The letter raises several issues 1 of concern regarding the LTP, and makes a strong case for a /

public meeting to begin to address these problems.

j YAEC's plan is the first LTP application This isforaaprecedent commercial setting nuclear i power plant in the United States.

application possible. which demands the most public review processThe continue to be, completely safe from radiation associa the site.

This can be achieved only through a full public hearing and an independent review of the LTP and subsequentTo th decommissioning procedures. in NRC funds to help them  !

a public hearing as well as $100,000 conduct such a review.

The FRPB is a regional coalition with representatives from each l of the 26 communities in Franklin County (a relatively smallThe FRPB does nol county of approximately 70,000 residents). l have'the expertise nor the resources available to cond why they are seeking the assistance of the NRC.

~

9803120251 980311 troca,aecmeoam a ADOCK 05 9 gDR

3 l

i 1

I share the FRPB's belief that the public will not be satisfied I unless a third party is given the opportunity to both review the LTP and verify radiation level testing conducted by the NRC and YAEC. Therefore, I ask that you please give the FRPB requests your full and fair consideration.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, j j

J hn W. Olver f l

Member of Congress I

JWO:jdn i

i l

f i

-,, , .e o e m- .~ ,.c

.,m

,. . _ o. . 1u .

l

\

re puswsnw.m E'ec i c o rector > v o>i><<n <

\

FRANKLIN REGIONAL Directe* of Finance + Carohn 3 hen o, ,,er>r nanc. ins a omeiogn,,ni. a s s n COUNCIL OF MaiQ IerlsI)=IId*3I67 fin &DCt Til2.ii.a di M 74.MI d j

. r., m .:24 3io, ri.nni,; ro,4i,.1: -_

1 GOVERNMENT 3S Community Health end Edraticn

• Dcta Mar.a;crac x

• Eng:::ecrir ;

i f

13 ,, Municipal Asmtance a P!anning cnd Deselopment

• Pun.hedag l 1

4M Nf am St G eenfictd. MA c:Tri \

February 27,1998 Mr. DavidMeyer, Chief Rules and Directive 5 Branch Division of Administration Services Office of Administration U.S. Nucicar Regulatory Comnussion Washington. D.C. 20535-0001 Delivered via FAX to. Room 6D22 Two White FlintNorth 11545 RockviUe Pike Rockvtlls, MD 20452 l

(301-415-5144)

RE: Comrnents relative to NRC Notice,63 Fed. Reg. 4308-4330 (January 28,19 Objection to Use of No Significant Hazards Consideration to Approw Ya Electric Cornpany's License Termination Plan (LTP) for the Yankee Nuclear P Station, Rowe, Massachusetts (Docket No. 50-29) and Request for a 10 CFR q Subpart GHearing mthe LTP.

1 l

Dear Mr. Meyer-This letter is to serve as our communication to the Nuclear Regulatory Cornmiss (NRC) relative to our continuing concerns as to several aspects of the License 1 Termination Plan (LTP) filed by Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) and as a l request that the NRC conduct a 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart G hearing o i the LT I

1:16.:

i d of a The Frankhn Regional Planning Board (FRPB) is a broad-based c f h twenty-six(26) representative from the Selectboardithmthe and County, Planning and Board of each o li i towns of Franklin Ccunty, eighteen (18) at large members v ng w Executive Commit:ee. I the members of the Franklin Regional Council of Governments i

t FRPS members and sta:f of our Planning Depanment have b d t a series cf own capabilities and limitations, the LTP since May of 1997. Our Boa il questions to YAEC in December of 1997, In response, YAEC informationin early January of 1998, but rnost issues remain opec.

I We are a relatively small county of approximately 70,000 residem l

resources to conduct a proper review of the LTP. The LTP is a comp l

l incorporating much specialized technology. We do not have al

\

disposal, nor can we afford the legal services cf attorneys who h h the LTP reviewed and studied through this process, Our goalis simple. We wis to ave i i by independent experts. W e wculd have YAEC address anl fashion that would leave us satisfied that the Yankee Nuc! ear Pl Massachusetts will be closed, dismamfed, and all its compo re a proper manner that assures the County's populace, whose lives l ff direc:!y at risk frorn decisions made in this process, will be completel b li ve this radiation and hazardous materials used in the operation of the facility 2

naa-os-,o rue e,2:+ -n ne oc eu-m z ~u l i America (nad therefore a is the first LTP application foc a comm:rcial nuc!:ar p ant n precedent-setting application), a full and complete public review instituted. Therefore, FRPB respectfully requests that the NRC conduc hearing.

A number ofissues have been raised by FRP3 which were outlined \

public meeting beJ 4 at Mohawk Regional High School in Buckland, M January 13,1990. Concems have materialued since that meetingl i will follow from a careM, independent examination of the data, protcco of YAEC in their proposed LTP. These issues are of grave concem a:xiin study and analysis than the NRC and YAEC have conducted. We  ;

serious hazards exist which involve a signifcant reduction in the margin l

present and future populace ofFranldin County and environs. T l 1

are notlimited to.

l Decommissioning activJtfes employ methodologies and techniques that are experimental, untested, and/or unproven. For example, the, seynent l

techniques that were used for cutting the high activity components wer untemed and proved to be somewhat unsatisfactory, resulting in recomm for modifkstion of the technique. Similarly, decommissioning of the sp I

3

f I

. i

. d echniques that hsve not ar.d ion exchange pit will require the use of methods an t previcusly been emp10)'d-d d The plan rests upon significant safetyd hazards d that are not ad; Specifically, the questions of how and where the spent fuel i d and  !

questions of how the se!ccted storage method wdl be imp l d liminationof eventually deccmmissioned must be uswered. YAEC has propose e tem, using technology that has the spent flid poolin favor of a drv cask storage sys f TWntrmissionina and riimir,ation of the nnt per euen hann doratored nr resdewed r Str.1 utill he.  !

spent fuel pool, and the assochred mbdry.many including.

years, bow the..pn .

d moved into the dry cask systern, then to be managed and monitor d lanned, and surely raises many important safety issues that deserve to be d i i anted a final  !

scrutinized before the decommissiorJng andlicense termination s gr ofthe  ;

stamp of approval. Yet, this entire question has been set outsi mine the procedure before us. There is no assurance l d of any future issue. A fbil discussion about the considerations, methods i hin the scope of this on-site spent fuel .torage and removal must be addressed w t be process. The on-site storage of hi h level and Oteater Th S

subject to public review ar.d comment.

• I, + . -

8< h f1 1 N G 1 f184 2 -0 3 - 93 7U2 09 27 6e r1 FPCOG P1 l

Methods that have been used to survey and rnonitor the site for contamin do not incorporate appropriate random sampling and data collection met Instead, they rely on computer modeling and anecdotal svidence. This h J

in a decision not to sample or mordfor a large area that is owned and control YAEC but lies outside a small" impact area." Failure to randomly sample create l

risit that contaminnaion may exist in areas which have not been predicted by computer, perhaps due to vagaries in weather pattems, local hydrolog transport, or even illegal activity. Contamiastion Rom unpredictable so be d:scovered using the current sampling strategy. Random sampling must used on the entire property to determir.e what, if any, mmgauon is required, b any portion of the siteis released, e Cantamination of groundwater and methodelegies for sampling renale sa issue. The selecdon of monitoring weD locadoes appests to be based oa ths locations of known or suspected contamination sites and does not appear the possibility thr* local geology may include gmundwater divides, imperviou layers, or bedrock close to the surface. YAEC and the NILC ceed to cond thoroughinvestigations into possible gro'.mdwater contananation. They cannot assume a uniform substrate through which water moves predictably Their an must also include discussion and investigation of the possiblein8uences of su geology and bedrock features. In particular, the migration of radionuchdes 2

5

l I

9 l nation has not been sufficiently studied and acknowledged v b-f.ccr con ,

considered in the context oflocal bydrology and surficial geology.

ither Despite several rounds of questions and requests fi h for specific da YAEC nor the NRC has addressed the impacts of radionuclide r b

due to efiluent and accidental releases ti or to the Dee provided to address the species, age, general health, or w i t e stocked .. all factors that must be correlated together in order to de There le inenmeimat intnrmstion radionuelide ter<els in the cedirnent sad f6od lichsin about the specific testing techniques which YAEC usci--This is a Contaminated fish may be consumed by humans. They may i fd contaminated contunination into :he emire food chain when other animals fish. Further, the bicaccumulation of radionuclides in fishis indac b

presence of these materials throughout the river sysecm, at more significant than revealed by the tests. Based on YAEC' insufficient investigation of the matter, it is premature to conc safety hazard res@ ng from fish contamination.

h ,

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

Deerfield Rjur,in the Sherman Pond Reservoir, and near the outfa d

The sediment belund Nurnber five Dam in Monroe Bndg: was rece l h l

n e -os.,e rue e9: 23 n ewcoc eu .ntr.c Were these sediments adequately teved before they were removed, and how anI Fife Brook where were they disposed of? The nes. impour.dment downstream, the Dam,is a bottom release operation. How far downstream wese sediment tests ennduned7 h natme. nf the Fife Rtook operation will allow the discharge of l I

radiommlides They raild rniter.r as far downstream as the Number Four Dam in Duwkled. YACC != A y.v.'J.J .,,WC L.fo.,u.,Gvu aLv.t tlc Jcpth w frequency of the sampling, samp!!ng methodology, the randorn sampling methI used, and laboratory testing and handling of matedals.

l l

l

• Final site flesa-up questions remain. ~ssues regarding YAEC's formulations of 1 3 ,

obtstive yuany exposuro doac equivalenu r.ced to bc ruoivod. spcci4cany,' nu:.v a -- - -

ur.c of plot averages an(I assumptions ahnut lirestyle AN10mira IAnn IISA mrroduce I

sunkton about stm actual levels urtzalanon prupaced to ramsin on the cata, wrenn 1 apperently may mces the required levels as an arca-wide sverage, but may in fact l It7nain miite.hiah in rr.rrain sonts MethMninty for chilatir.y and prnving the final esponne rate of if. mr/ year is very confusing. The assumptions related to unit corwersicus of picocuries to ird!!igems, the daily timt of exposure (4it 24 honrn nr undy 87), end stadlar inues mu>t be udsbetority explamed. The final site survey criteria and plan. tr.cluding the methodology and cejcu!atsas, must be reviewed a affirmed by a competent, truly independent tturd party. Tinally, in addition to 7

d 1:'eNRC tre f'n31 die <.nrvey tabmenry terms v.nn pny,idad by the 1;cnsec en if d by a third party .

testing wor.

< must a!>o be ir.deper.dently ver ie f i s conclusions ar.d There is a fundamental problem with a nurnber of YAEC's assert  ; o h of the muertalis a product ur variter tening the data used to suestantiate theEC L w. Muc did not specifically produce it f and dom. ente: ion for previous frungs. Therefore. YA ii i i nearly ten years fut dewnuidniu Jug. Fustliconvic, the GEIS on d :enuu n on ng s NRC em! Y AF(' di ntil irly . . .

old. Many facets er the Gels rze now iruve n ect. T1 by c  :

i l filed i fresh data for the entire LTP process.l sions Independent of analysis j o d

YAEC should bc :onducted. YAEC's in hcuse hird party produced data, f a d .

YAEC's hired experts,are self serving, andrequire thoroughind  :

i review,  :

3 be Another area of coccem relative to the review of the LTP  ! pr b li that theNRCis  :

viewed as the lack of a strong response by the NRC. People e j eve d elfare. Additionally, a i engaged in regulatory .ctivity to assure our safety, health, an w j b lacking. The operations of number of proceduti spects of the LTP review have een .l ificient at best. For exaniple, YAEC's the Public Documents Room have been inst13 inBuckland, resisions of the LTP, used as one basis of the public meeting j o Massachusetts, were not filed for public review prior to th 8

-64 $

.A NRQ-@D-90 TUE 8 9 : 3* ? RM PRCOG PtHNNIN".

number of formal questions asked of YAEC by the NRC, but these questions YAEC's responses were not mada public until a later date. The official leg meetirts was published in the Federal Register on January 5,1998, eight da public meeting. None of this is adcquate to guarantee respect for and licensing process.

Most public meeting notica run for thirty days, where d documents are availai f

public review for snat entire period of time. AhWgh the NRC was asked in al provide suaielent time for a11 public coewnenes (the TRPD originally asked fo nights), the comment period itself only lasted one and one-half hours. Shortl pubEc meeting, the NRC posted in the Federal Register a notice to amend YA Scense to approve the LTP without a hearing, based on a findmg of No Signi6 cant Hazards. This seems incongruous with so many outstanding questions and a lack of complete data and impartial review. The sum total of this public review and input process falls far short of normal due process expectatens.

Therefbte, the members of the FRPB and the citizens it represents, whose lives and !

property are at risk by approving the L17 as presently filed, requests the followin relief: ,

9 I

I

)

l l

h d d thousand dallan

1) That the NRC initia!!y provide the FRFB wah a sum of x.e un ie  ;

FRPB to a) nire experts to seview YAEC's

. (5100,000.00) thrthwith in order for the t tion; l

LTP, to make apprcpriate recommendations regarding final conten d

b) retain legal assistance to represent properly the :itizenry o i ill be conducted in a assure that the Yankee Nuclear Power Station decommission ng w ,

s as I

manner to protect their heahh, safety and wifare; and c) hire expert witr.

needed, fw the adjudicatory process, 1

h'd

2) Grant a full, formal adjudicatcry hearing under 10 CFR Pa fN - I in Franklin Ccunty Further, the NRC should not approve the LTPl i d r its i without such a hearing process. The NRC shculd reject YAEC's appi No Significant Hazards Consideration determination. YAEC sho d i LTP activity untilevery aspect of the Planis formady approved a subsequent to the hearing. FRPB reserves the right to amend it!

d eview process the LTP and a tight to address new issues uncovered in the indepen ent r l i

within the adjudicatoryheanng;and

3) From this point forward, to overcome even the appearance o f hi all materials and documents relatin to the LTP shall be available fo .

days before any meeting or hearing, and notice of a::y meeting adve:tised for a minimum of thirty days in the Federal Register and to

n r a c. c o rm-..... ..

num.es-ce rue o,2s 1

i If1 can be of Ibnhor assistance, please feel free to contact me directly. My hom 1

i tekphone numberis 978-544-2643. Thank you vay much foryour serious  !

consideration of obr Sling.

/ ,

j 1

A t aan, Chair .

FranklinRegionalPlanningBoard I1

I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COM9ANY Docket No.(s) 50-029-LA (Yankee Nuclear Power Station)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing H0YLE LTR TO CONGRESSMAN OLVER have been served upon the following persons by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec. 2.712.

Administrative Judge Office of Commission Appellate James P. Gleason, Chairman Adjudication Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop - T-3 F23 Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge l Thomas D. Murphy Administrative Judge l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Thomas S. E11eman  !

Mail Stop - T-3 F23 704 Davidson Street  !

'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Raleigh, NC 27609 )

Washington, DC 20555 l 1

I Lawrence J. Chandler, Esq. Thomas Dignan, Esq.

Office of the General Counsel Ropes and Gray  ;

Mail Stop 15 B18 One International Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, MA 02110 1 Washington, DC 20555 Jonathan M. Block, Esq. James L. Perkins, President l Main Street New England Coalition on P.O. Box 566 Nuclear Pollution Putney, VT 05346 P.O. Box 545 Brattleboro, VT 05302 i

i l

Docket No.(s)50-029-LA H0YLE LTR TO CONGRESSMAN OLVER Paul Gunter Adam Laipson Reactor Watchdog Project Franklin Regional Council Nuclear Information and Resource ,

of Governments Service 425 Main St. 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404 )

Greenfield, MA 01301 Washington, DC 20036 4

I Dated at Rockville, Md. this 11 day of March 1998. , p el< & WA- Y Office of the Secretary (/of the ComnGIssion