RS-24-016, Request for Alternative Schedule to Complete Decommissioning Beyond 60 Years of Permanent Cessation of Operations
| ML24074A437 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Dresden  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/2024 |
| From: | Humphrey M Constellation Energy Generation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Document Control Desk |
| Shared Package | |
| ML24074A436 | List: |
| References | |
| RS-24-016 | |
| Download: ML24074A437 (9) | |
Text
Security-Related Information Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 includes Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) documentation - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390; upon separation, this document is decontrolled.
4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555 630 657 2000 Office Security-Related Information Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390 includes Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) documentation - Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390; upon separation, this document is decontrolled.
RS-24-016 March 14, 2024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 Facility Operating License No. DPR-2 NRC Docket No. 50-10
Subject:
Request for Alternative Schedule to Complete Decommissioning Beyond 60 Years of Permanent Cessation of Operations Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (CEG) requests an alternative from the decommissioning schedule requirements in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) to allow the completion of decommissioning for Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, (Dresden, Unit 1) beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations. This request is to allow CEG to complete the decommissioning of Dresden, Unit 1, in conjunction with the decommissioning of Dresden, Units 2 and 3. The request is consistent with the NRCs requirements for seeking such an alternative when operating units are co-located with a shutdown unit and will continue to assure the public health and safety for all three units.
Paragraph (a)(3) of 10 CFR 50.82, "Termination of license," states the following:
Decommissioning will be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations. Completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years will be approved by the Commission only when necessary to protect public health and safety. Factors that will be considered by the Commission in evaluating an alternative that provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site-specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning, including presence of other nuclear facilities at the site.
This request to decommission Dresden, Unit 1, beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operation as an alternative meets the evaluation factors in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) due to the potential impact on public health and safety with other nuclear facilities present at the site. As the Commission itself has stated, the 60-year period was never intended to be an absolute limit, and the rule language has never stated it as an absolute limit. There are site-specific factors, supporting the operation of Dresden, Units 2 and 3, that necessitate decommissioning of Dresden, Unit 1, beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations to best protect public health and safety.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Alternative Decommissioning Schedule Request Docket No. 50-10 March 14, 2024 Page 2 The purpose of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) is to ensure the timely decommissioning of a power reactor site. The provision of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) that allows for decommissioning beyond 60 years dates back to the original 1988 regulation. Based on the regulatory history, it is clear that an alternative to the 60-year timeframe for decommissioning was established to anticipate fact-specific circumstances where a multi-unit site with a shutdown reactor that approached the 60-year mark may require relief from the standard decommissioning schedule given the safety and other considerations associated with the units that continued to operate. Supplemental information on the regulatory basis which supports granting this request is contained in.
Dresden Unit 1 permanently ceased operations on October 31, 1978, and is presently in SAFSTOR. Decommissioning activities which resulted in the present facility status were completed in 2007. A chemical decontamination of the primary system was completed in 1984.
Spent fuel from Dresden, Unit 1, that was previously stored in the Dresden, Unit 1, spent fuel pool and the Dresden, Unit 1, fuel transfer pool was transferred to the on-site Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) pads. The Dresden, Unit 1, spent fuel pool and the Dresden, Unit 1, fuel transfer pool were subsequently drained and coated. Since transfer of the fuel to the ISFSI pads in 2007, Dresden, Unit 1, has been monitored in SAFSTOR while performing various projects to remove radiological components, reducing aging management and SAFSTOR costs.
Dresden, Unit 1, decommissioning activities are currently required to be completed by October 31, 2038. However, Dresden, Units 2 and 3, are located on the same site as Dresden, Unit 1, and are currently licensed to operate until 2029 and 2031, respectively. Should Dresden, Units 2 and 3, be shut down by 2031, site decommissioning of all three units could commence after 2031 in the absence of an any operating nuclear unit on the same site. In 2022, CEG commenced preparation of a subsequent license renewal application (SLRA) that would extend the license expiration dates of Dresden, Units 2 and 3, to 2049 and 2051, respectively. CEG currently plans to submit the SLRA to the NRC for review in the second quarter of 2024. Approval of this SLRA will extend the license expiration dates for Dresden, Units 2 and 3, past the Dresden, Unit 1, decommissioning period currently required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3).
CEG has evaluated strategies and the activities for radiological decommissioning of Dresden, Unit 1, to support license termination in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82. The impacts associated with final decommissioning activities for Dresden, Unit 1, while Dresden, Units 2 and 3, are operating are described in Attachment 1 and will result in an increased risk to public health and safety, as compared to the alternate schedule. Therefore, an alternative schedule to complete decommissioning of Dresden, Unit 1, is necessary to best protect public health and safety. contains Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards Information (SUNSI) documentation, and accordingly, CEG requests that this attachment be withheld pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390(d)(1).
The NRC assessed the environmental impacts from decommissioning in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, Supplement 1 (NRC 2002). The GEIS concludes that environmental impacts are SMALL or require site specific analysis. Section 6.1, of the GEIS also concludes that for plants
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Alternative Decommissioning Schedule Request Docket No. 50-10 March 14, 2024 Page 3 listed in Table F-1 no issue or activity must be re-evaluated for Dresden, Unit 1, provided that the licensee does not change the decommissioning option previously chosen. This request does not change the decommissioning option, as the intent is for Dresden, Unit 1, to remain in SAFSTOR until final decommissioning is conducted in conjunction with Dresden, Units 2 and 3.
Also relevant is NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, that includes an analysis of a no action alternative to decommissioning in which the NRC discusses a scenario where the licensee does not complete decommissioning. Because, as the NRC discussed, [t]he licensee will be required to comply with the necessary requirements for the operating license the environmental impacts for maintaining the nuclear reactor facility will be considered to be in the bounds of the appropriate, previously issued Environmental Impact Statements.
To ensure that the alternate decommissioning schedule remains bounded by the evaluations performed for NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, the activities and issues considered for the Storage (SAFSTOR) phase in Appendix E were reviewed. This phase includes the following activities:
monitoring systems and radiation levels, performing preventive and corrective maintenance, maintaining the security system, and maintaining effluent and environmental monitoring programs. The existing controls for Dresden, Unit 1, (e.g., Facility Operating License
[Possession-Only], Technical Specifications, Defueled Safety Analysis Report, Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report, etc.) will remain in effect during the extended SAFSTOR period to maintain compliance with the applicable regulations and address the activities from NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, Appendix E. Dresden, Unit 1, will continue to be subject to periodic inspections (including annual NRC inspections) and monitoring during the extended SAFSTOR period. Dresden, Unit 1, would then be decommissioned in conjunction with the demolition and dismantling of Dresden, Units 2 and 3. The continuation of the activities described above ensure that the conclusions presented in NUREG-0586, Supplement 1, are unaffected by an extended SAFSTOR period. Additional site-specific environmental impact analysis will be performed for Dresden, Unit 1, upon commencement of decommissioning activities, as required.
The NRC prepared a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) in 2004 as part of its environmental review of the Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) initial license renewal application, to renew the operating licenses for Dresden, Units 2 and 3 for an additional 20 years (NUREG-1437 Supplement 17, NRC 2004). This final SEIS includes the NRC staffs evaluation of the environmental impacts of the initial license renewal as well as alternatives to initial license renewal. This evaluation considered the presence of Dresden, Unit 1, for topics such as External Appearance, Visual Resources, and Historic and Cultural Resources.
CEG currently plans to submit the SLRA to the NRC for review in the second quarter of 2024.
This application will include a site-specific Environmental Report the NRC will use to develop a new SEIS. Additionally, the NRC is preparing a revised GEIS for Subsequent License Renewal.
The final version of the revised GEIS is expected in 2024. Therefore, the SEIS the NRC will prepare from the Dresden SLRA will be written to meet the requirements of the revised GEIS.
The lack of environmental or resource changes at the site or Dresden, Unit 1, conditions since the 2004 SEIS support the conclusion that the existing SEIS and the SEIS which will be prepared from the SLRA will remain bounding for the Dresden, Unit 1, alternate decommissioning schedule.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Alternative Decommissioning Schedule Request Docket No. 50-10 March 14, 2024 Page 4 Decommissioning Funding Assurance for Dresden, Unit 1, is provided by the prepayment method, coupled with an external trust fund, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(i). Should the alternate decommissioning schedule request be approved, an updated site-specific cost estimate with the updated timeframe would be provided with the next annual decommissioning funding report for Dresden, Unit 1, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(f). The alternate schedule would provide additional time for the trust fund to grow before major decommissioning activities commenced, resulting in improved funding status, which is in the best interest of public health and safety.
As explained in CEGs Annual Report on Status of Decommissioning Funding for Reactors and Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (March 23, 2023), the funding mechanism currently being used is the prepayment method, coupled with an external trust fund, and adequate funds are available to meet minimum funding assurance requirements.
Additionally, funding plans associated with spent fuel management and storage per 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(vii) and 10 CFR 72.30(b) are also included in the March 23, 2023 annual report, which concluded that funding assurance requirements have been met.
Activities associated with concurrent decommissioning of Dresden, Units 1, 2, and 3 have been evaluated and considered to have no adverse impact on available waste disposal capacity due to the additional radiological decay and associated classifications of waste generated during decommissioning activities after extended SAFSTOR for Dresden, Unit 1.
Additionally, given the age of Dresden, Unit 1 (older than 50 years), design, development, and operation, as well as the consortium of utilities involved, it is potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (Sections 2.2.9.2, 4.8.4, and 8.1 of NUREG-1437 Supplement 17 Second Renewal). CEG will review potential impacts of decommissioning resources as part of the post-shutdown activities report preparation and submission to the NRC.
Before commencing decommissioning activities that would dismantle potentially significant historic resources at the site, such as Dresden, Unit 1, CEG will take steps in accordance with company procedures and applicable laws to ensure that it conducts consultations with the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office, that it considers historic significance, and that it addresses decommissioning effects.
For these site-specific reasons, NRC approval is requested to decommission and restore the Dresden site for all three units concurrently in the interest of protecting public health and safety.
The requested alternative schedule for Dresden, Unit 1, to that required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) would coincide with the 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) schedule for Dresden, Units 2 and 3, whichever is the first to transition to permanent cessation of operations.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Alternative Decommissioning Schedule Request Docket No. 50-10 March 14, 2024 Page 5 CEG requests approval of this request by March 14, 2025.
This letter contains no new regulatory commitments.
If you have any questions concerning this submittal, please contact Ken Nicely at Ken.Nicely@constellation.com.
Respectfully Mark D. Humphrey Senior Manager - Licensing Constellation Energy Generation, LLC : Supplemental Information for Decommissioning Impact on Public Health and Withhold Under 10 CFR 2.390) : Supplemental Information Regarding Regulatory Basis for Requesting Alternative Timeframes for Decommissioning Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 cc:
w/o Attachment 1 Regional Administrator - NRC Region III Illinois Emergency Management Agency
Supplemental Information Regarding Regulatory Basis for Requesting Alternative Timeframes for Decommissioning Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
Page 1 of 3 Supplemental Information Regarding Regulatory Basis for Requesting Alternative Timeframes for Decommissioning Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) states:
Decommissioning will be completed within 60 years of permanent cessation of operations. Completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years will be approved by the Commission only when necessary to protect public health and safety. Factors that will be considered by the Commission in evaluating an alternative that provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years of permanent cessation of operations include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site-specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning, including presence of other nuclear facilities at the site.
The provision of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) that allows for decommissioning beyond 60 years dates back to the original 1988 regulation. Based on the regulatory history, it is clear that an alternative to the 60-year timeframe for decommissioning was expressly established in anticipation of fact-specific circumstances where a multi-unit site with a shutdown reactor that approached the 60-year mark would require relief from completing decommissioning given the safety and other considerations associated with the operating units. The proposed rule, which was issued for comment in 1985, did not include a backstop of 60 years for decommissioning.1 The Commission added the 60-year backstop into the Final Rule in response to public comments, along with the factors that it would consider when determining whether exceeding the 60 years would be necessary to protect public health and safety.2 The Statements of Consideration for the Final Rule make clear that the presence of other nuclear facilities at the site specifically refers to an operating reactor. The Commission explained that
[t]he case-by-case considerations, such as presence of an adjacent reactor whose safety might be affected by dismantlement procedures, or other similar site specific considerations, mean that the appropriate delay for a specific facility must be based on factors unique to that facility and could result in extension of completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years.3 This view is further emphasized in subsequent Commission decisions on decommissioning. In a 2011 denial of a Petition for Rulemaking, the Commission stated that the 60-year period was never intended to be an absolute limit, and the rule language has never stated it as an absolute limit.4 Citing the 1988 Final Rule, the NRC highlighted the Commissions statements that [t]he case-by-case considerations, such as shortage of radioactive waste disposal space offsite or presence of an adjacent reactor whose safety might be affected by dismantlement procedures, 1 Proposed Rule, Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (1985).
2 See Final Rule, General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, 53 Fed. Reg. 24018, 24021 (Jun. 27, 1988).
3 See Final Rule at 24023 (emphasis added).
4 Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by Sherwood Martinelli, 76 Fed. Reg. 76322, 76325 (Dec. 7, 2011).
Page 2 of 3 or other similar site-specific considerations, mean that the appropriate delay for a specific facility must be based on factors unique to that facility and could result in extension of completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years.5 The Commission went on to more specifically note that:
it is possible that the completion of decommissioning a facility in SAFSTOR could be delayed past the 60-year mark if the facility is used for activities related to an operating unit on the site. The need to use equipment shared by a shutdown unit and an operating unit could prevent completing the decommissioning of the shutdown unit until the operating unit was permanently shut down. However, the discussion of SAFSTOR in the Statement of Considerations demonstrated that the NRCs regulations allow the licensee to exceed the 60-year limit in cases where a shutdown unit is located on the same site as an operating unit, subject to NRC approval. In a case where the SAFSTOR facility shares equipment with an operating unit, the NRC would consider the risk of conducting decommissioning activities near an operating unit. That type of evaluation would necessarily depend on site-specific factors that are not well suited to codification in a rule.6 In sum, while 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) only permits extensions beyond 60 years when the NRC determines that it is necessary to protect public health and safety, the Commission has specifically identified the existence of operating units on the site of the decommissioning unit in conjunction with applicable site-specific factors as a public health and safety issue warranting such an extension.
While the Commission recently disapproved a proposal to delay the completion of decommissioning for the GE Hitachi (GEH) Vallecitos facility, the facts and circumstances of that case and the basis for the Commissions decision are clearly distinguishable from Dresden, Unit 1.
First, the physical layout of the reactors at the GEH-Vallecitos site is very different from the Dresden site. The GEH-Vallecitos site includes four reactors: two shutdown power reactors (the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor (VBWR) and the Empire State Atomic Development Associates Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor (EVESR)), one shutdown nonpower reactor (the General Electric Test Reactor (GETR)), and one operating nonpower reactor (the Nuclear Test Reactor (NTR)). GEH requested an alternate decommissioning schedule for the three shutdown reactors to be consistent with the ultimate shutdown of the NTR facility.7 Of note, and unlike Dresden, Unit 1, none of the GEH-Vallecitos shutdown reactors are physically located near the operating NTR reactor. Additionally, the Commission and NRC staff identified site-specific safety concerns with not completing the decommissioning of the shutdown GEH-Vallecitos units that do not exist for Dresden, Unit 1.8 In its recommendation to the Commission, the staff noted that:
the NRC staff identified concerns with the structural integrity and aging management of the VBWR, EVESR, and GETR. These concerns were most evident 5 Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by Sherwood Martinelli at 76325 (emphasis added).
6 Denial of Petition for Rulemaking Submitted by Sherwood Martinelli at 76326 (emphasis added).
7 GEH Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC) Request for Alternate Decommissioning Schedules for DPR-1, DR-10 and TR-1 Licenses (July 10, 2015).
8 GEH styled its request to extend the decommissioning period for the three shutdown reactors as an exemption request under 10 CFR § 50.12 rather than a request for an alternative decommissioning schedule under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3). Therefore, the issue before the Commission was whether GEH could adequately make the showing of special circumstances required by the regulation. Unlike the GEH request, Constellation is not requesting an exemption under 10 CFR 50.12.
Page 3 of 3 for the VBWR containment building, which has noticeable cracking and spalling of the concrete structures; corrosion of the steel elements; and a history of moisture condensation, water intrusion, and water pooling in the basement. The staff safety concern is that this building is structurally compromised to the extent that an unmonitored release of residual radioactivity could occur.9 The staff went on to state that [s]uch a release would violate 10 CFR 20.1406(c), which requires licensees to conduct operations to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, in accordance with the radiological criteria for license termination in 10 CFR Part 20 for protection against radiation.10 These concerns simply do not exist for Dresden, Unit 1.
Finally, a majority of the Commission made clear in the voting record for SECY-21-0033 that the GEH-Vallecitos decision holds no precedential value. While individual Commissioner comments in the voting process do not necessarily dictate future outcomes, it is important to note that a Commission majority specifically commented on this, despite their votes to disapprove the exemption request.11 Even if the Commissions decision in SECY-21-0033 did have precedential value, an alternative decommissioning schedule for Dresden, Unit 1, does not raise the same issues as raised in GEH-Vallecitos. As explained in Attachment 1, there are compelling site-specific factors with Dresden, Unit 1, that were not present for GEH-Vallecitos, which support granting an alternative decommissioning schedule.
9 SECY-21-0033 at 5.
10 SECY-21-0033 at 5.
11 Both Chair Hanson and Commissioner Wright made clear that they did not view the Commissions decision on GEH-Vallecitos as precedent-setting. For example, Chair Hanson stated that [t]he staff notes that this decision may be viewed as a precedent for other sites that have both shutdown and operational reactors. However, site-specific factors present at the GEH VNC site were a necessary part of my determination. In my view, it is important that future applications for relief from the decommissioning schedule requirements in our regulations carefully take site specific factors into account and be evaluated by the staff on a case-by-case basis. Chair Hanson vote on SECY-21-0033 (emphasis added).
Commissioner Wright also stated that I do not agree that this decision is precedential; the Commissions decision on this licensing action does not announce a new policy or bind the staff in any pending or future licensing reviews. Granting this exemption would also not create a loophole in the regulatory requirement to decommission a power reactor within 60 years of shutdown. Instead, a decision here only applies to this specific request. Commissioner Wright vote on SEC-21-0033 (emphasis added).