ML25199A086
| ML25199A086 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vallecitos File:GEH Hitachi icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/19/2025 |
| From: | Reactor Decommissioning Branch |
| To: | NorthStar Vallecitos |
| Shared Package | |
| ML25199A084 | List: |
| References | |
| EPID L-2024-LLA-0071 | |
| Download: ML25199A086 (1) | |
Text
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY AND SAFEGUARDS RELATED TO THE LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR FACILITY LICENSE NO. DR-10 DOCKET NO. 50-183
1.0 INTRODUCTION
By letter dated April 11, 2025 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML25102A001), NorthStar Vallecitos, LLC (NSV or the licensee), submitted a license amendment request (LAR) to amend the Empire State Atomic Development Agency (ESADA) Vallecitos Experimental Superheat Reactor (EVESR) license (License No. DR-10) to accept the in-situ radioactive material from the Vallecitos Boiling Water Reactor license (License No. DPR-1). Attachment 1 to the letter described the proposed license change that would allow acceptance of the VBWR in-situ radioactive material into the EVESR license. Attachment 1 also described other proposed changes to the EVESR license and Technical Specifications which were characterized as either editorial or administrative.
2.0 REGULATORY EVALUATION
2.1 Background
The Vallecitos Nuclear Center (VNC) is in Sunol, California, near the center of the Pleasanton quadrangle of Alameda County. VNC is east of San Francisco Bay, approximately 35 miles east-southeast of San Francisco and 20 miles north of San Jose. The EVESR achieved full power operations in 1964 but was permanently shut down in 1967. NSV stated that the amendment would permit the accelerated decommissioning and remediation of the VNC.
2.2 Regulations and Guidance This safety evaluation assesses the acceptability of the proposed NSV LAR to revise License No. DR-10 for the EVESR. The regulatory requirements and associated guidance by which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) evaluated this LAR are detailed below.
10 CFR 50.90, Issuance of Amendment Under 10 CFR 50.92(a), determinations on whether to approve a LAR are to be guided by the considerations that govern the issuance of initial licenses to the extent applicable and appropriate. Both the common standards for licenses in 10 CFR 50.40(a) (regarding, among other things, consideration of the operating procedures, the facility and equipment, the use of the facility, and other TS, or the proposals) and those specifically for issuance of operating licenses in 10 CFR 50.57(a)(3), provide that there must be reasonable assurance that the activities at issue will not endanger the health and safety of the public, and that the applicant will comply with the Commissions regulations.
2
3.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
The proposed amendment would revise and update the EVESR license and Technical Specifications to allow the transfer of in-situ radioactive material associated with the VBWR license to the EVESR license. The proposed changes would also eliminate a prohibition to remove the EVESR reactor pressure vessel. In addition, the proposed changes would remove unnecessary reporting requirements, make editorial changes as well as update the titles of both regulatory agencies and VNC organizations. The staffs evaluation is outlined below.
3.1 License Condition Evaluations License Condition 3.B The applicant proposed to delete as revised through Amendment No. 4 stating that it would streamline the license to succinctly reflect that the technical specifications are incorporated in the License. The staff reviewed this change and determined that not specifying the amendment number provides greater clarity as it simply associates the Technical Specifications with the License instead of a specific set of license amendments. The staff finds this change to be editorial in nature and, therefore, acceptable.
License Condition 3.D The applicant proposed to replace AEC with NRC as well as replace 20.401 with 20.2106.
The staff reviewed these changes and determined that the changes updated the licensing agencys name, and the regulations associated with monitoring an individuals dose. The staff finds this change to be editorial in nature, and, therefore, acceptable.
License Condition 3.E The applicant proposed to replace AEC with NRC. The staff reviewed this change and determined that it resulted in updating the licensing agencys name. The staff finds this change to be editorial in nature, and, therefore, acceptable.
License Condition 3.E.1 The applicant proposed to delete this license condition. The license condition required reporting a possible unsafe condition relating to the facility or to the public. The staff reviewed this change and determined that the requirement is redundant because, as an NRC licensee, NorthStar Vallecitos must comply with the reporting requirements in 10 CFR 20.2202; consequently, deleting this duplicative reporting requirement will not adversely impact public safety. Because this condition is a duplicative reporting requirement, the staff finds this change acceptable.
License Condition 3.E.2 The applicant proposed to delete this license condition. The license condition required the submittal of an annual facility status report. The staff reviewed this change and determined that deleting this reporting requirement will not adversely impact public safety for the following reasons. First, decommissioning activities will both reduce the radioactive material present and result in the demolition of the EVESR facility; consequently, a report demonstrating that the structural integrity of the EVESR protects public health and safety by isolating radioactive material is unnecessary. Second, the NRC will oversee the EVESR decommissioning activities to ensure they are performed in accordance with the regulations. Therefore, the staff finds this change acceptable.
3 License Condition 3.H The applicant proposed to replace Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental Management Programs with Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. The staff reviewed this change and determined that it resulted in updating the name of the NRC office responsible for safety and security issues as well as regulatory compliance. The staff finds this change to be editorial in nature, and, therefore, acceptable.
License Condition 3.I The applicant proposed to delete this license condition. The license condition required the licensee to report schedule 13D or 13G submissions to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The applicant stated that, because NorthStar Vallecitos, LLC is a privately held company, it did not need to provide the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission either a schedule 13D or 13G. The staff confirmed that NorthStar Vallecitos, LLC is not required to submit either a schedule 13D or 13G to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Therefore, the staff finds that deleting this reporting requirement is acceptable.
License Condition 3.J The applicant proposed to remove the requirement to provide documentary evidence of decommissioning funding assurance for the EVESR using a method that is authorized by, and meets the requirements of, 10 CFR 50.75. The applicant stated that, with the transfer of the EVESR license from General Electric-Hitachi to NorthStar Vallecitos, LLC complete, this license condition no longer served a purpose. The staff determined that this change was acceptable both because the transfer of the EVESR license from General Electric-Hitachi to NorthStar Vallecitos, LLC was complete and because the NRC was notified by letter dated March 12, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25071A080) that the decommissioning trust fund established by the transfer had been funded to a proprietary value which the NRC had determined was sufficient to completely decommission the VNC. Because this condition has been satisfied and the condition no longer serves a purpose, the staff finds that deleting the condition is acceptable.
3.2 Technical Specification Evaluations Technical Specification A.1 The applicant proposed to change the Technical Specification title from Plant Area to Facility.
The applicant stated that this change is consistent with existing language in License Condition 2.B. After reviewing this change, the staff determined that it aligns the Technical Specification A.1 language with the existing language in License Condition 2.B. Therefore, the staff finds this clarification is editorial in nature, and therefore, acceptable.
The applicant also replaced *The plant area shall consist of a controlled access area defined by the reactor containment building and its ventilation system. Personnel access shall be controlled by knowledgeable plant personnel as established by written procedure.* with The facility shall consist of a controlled area defined by the EVESR reactor building, the VBWR reactor building, and all other buildings and structures in the 300 area of the VNC site except for those under the authority of the sites SNM-960 or California 0017-01 byproduct material licenses. The applicant stated that the asterisks at the beginning and the end of Technical Specification A.1 were being removed because they served no purpose. After reviewing the text, the staff did not identify a need for the asterisks; therefore, the staff finds this change to be editorial and acceptable.
4 The change also replaced the previous references to a single reactor building and the reactor building ventilation system with text that includes multiple buildings and their respective ventilation systems. The staff concluded that the new text reflects the updated license boundaries and provides a more accurate description of the facility. The staff determined that this change was also editorial, and therefore, was acceptable.
In addition, the staff determined that the reference to knowledgeable plant personnel controlling access by written procedure duplicates the regulations in 10 CFR 20.1101. The regulations in 10 CFR 20.1101 require the use of procedures to keep occupational dose As Low As Reasonably Achievable which is the intent of the Technical Specification. Because this change removed duplicative requirements, the staff determined that this change was editorial in nature, and, therefore, acceptable.
Technical Specification A.2 The applicant proposed to replace The principal activities carried on within the plant area shall be the possession of the reactor facility, the dismantling of components other than the reactor pressure vessel and activities authorized by licenses issued by appropriate regulatory authorities. with The principal activities shall be the possession of the facility, the dismantling of components and activities authorized by licenses issued by appropriate regulatory authorities. The applicant explained that this succinct wording change would allow for the continued possession of the facility as well as allow for the required decontamination and demolition of the facility by removing two phrases.
The staff reviewed removal of the text carried on within the plant area. The staff determined that it simplifies the description of the site activities. Therefore, the staff finds this change to be editorial in nature and acceptable.
In addition, the staff reviewed removal of the text other than the pressure vessel. The staff determined that it would allow dismantlement of the EVESR in a manner like the dismantlement of other power reactors under the regulations in 10 CFR 50.59. Because this change is consistent with current regulatory requirements, it is editorial in nature and, therefore, acceptable.
Technical Specification B.1 The applicant proposed to replace Plant Area with the facility to be consistent with the change to Technical Specification A.1. The staff finds this change acceptable because it is consistent with the change to Technical Specification A.1.
The applicant also proposed to delete The facility manager shalleffective safety program.
The applicant stated that extensive reactor knowledge was not necessary to provide an effective safety program because the EVESR had been dismantled to the point that extensive reactor knowledge is not needed. In evaluating this request, NRC staff reviewed Annual Report No. 27 which was submitted in 1995 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20087G430). Annual Report No. 27 identified that pipes and other penetrations to the reactor building had been rendered useless by capping, blank flanging or welding shut to prevent water entering the reactor building. On June 23, 2008, General Electric Hitachi requested authorization to remove piping, pumps, valves, control systems, and some non-structural shielding from the EVESR facility (ADAMS Accession No. ML081780099). NRC staff approved the amendment request on December 1, 2008 (ADAMS Accession No. ML083020128). The staff reviewed a 2009 Inspection Report (ADAMS Accession No. ML092990603) which stated the EVESR was being decommissioned in phases. The inspection report identified that removal of auxiliary systems,
5 i.e., secondary heat exchanger pumps, valves, etc., not connected to the pressure vessel had commenced in May 2009. An Inspection Report, dated September 1, 2010 (ADAMS Accession No. ML102440293), identified that auxiliary system removal work was nearly complete. The facility changes described above indicate that the complexity of the EVESR reactor is significantly reduced. As a result, the staff finds not requiring the facility manager to have extensive reactor knowledge acceptable. In addition, because the Technical Specification language has been rendered outdated by the current decommissioning status of the plant, the staff determined that these changes are editorial in nature, and therefore, acceptable.
Technical Specification B.2.(a)
The applicant proposed to replace of access to the plant area, use of the plant area facilities and equipment and for periodic inspection with and use. The applicant proposed to make this change to streamline the Technical Specification by removing language which utilizes the term plant area. The staff finds this change is editorial in nature, consistent with the change to Technical Specification A.1 and simplifies the requirement language. Therefore, the staff finds this acceptable.
Technical Specification B.2.(b)
The applicant proposed to replace (the Nuclear Safety group) with (e.g., Regulatory Compliance). The applicant proposed to make this change to align the technical specification with current organizational structure. The staff finds this change to be an editorial change because it reflects the new licensees organizational structure, and therefore, finds it acceptable.
Technical Specification B.2.(c)
The applicant proposed to replace (the Nuclear Safety group) with (e.g., Regulatory Compliance). The applicant proposed to make this change to align the technical specification with current organizational structure. The staff finds this change to be editorial in nature because it aligns the technical specification with current organizational structure, and, therefore, acceptable.
The applicant also proposed to replace activities conducted in the plant area with facility activities. The applicant proposed to make this change to be consistent with the change to Technical Specification A.1. The staff finds this change to be editorial in nature because it maintains consistency with the revised site description in Technical Specification A.1. The staff determined that these changes are, therefore, acceptable.
Technical Specification C.1 The applicant proposed to delete the requirement to conduct an annual general radiation survey. The applicant stated that performing an annual general radiation survey is no longer necessary since NorthStar Vallecitos, LLC became the licensee for the purpose of decontaminating and demolishing the facility, and decommissioning activities will result in a potentially rapid decrease in radiation levels; therefore, an annual radiation survey would not provide very useful information. The staff agrees that, at this phase of decommissioning, an annual radiation survey is no longer useful and, therefore, finds this change acceptable.
Technical Specification C.2 The applicant proposed to replace *A ventilation particulate monitor shall be operable whenever the containment building is ventilated.* with Particulate air monitoring shall be performed in the ventilation pathway whenever the facility containment building is ventilated.
The applicant provided several reasons for revising the Technical Specification in this manner.
First, the applicant stated that the asterisks served no purpose. Second, the applicant asserted
6 that inserting facility was both consistent with the change in Technical Specification A.1 and provided clarity that monitoring was necessary if a ventilation pathway between either the VBWR or EVESR containment building and the environment existed. Finally, the applicant rephrased ventilation particulate monitor as particulate air monitoring to clarify that any air monitoring equipment is acceptable if it can detect particulate airborne contamination.
After reviewing the text, the staff did not identify a need for the asterisks; therefore, the staff finds this change editorial and acceptable. The staff also concluded that using facility is editorial in nature because it maintains consistency between the language in Technical Specification A.1 and Technical Specification C.2, and therefore, acceptable. The staff determined that replacing ventilation particulate monitor with particulate air monitoring is also editorial because it simplifies the language and focuses the Technical Specification language on air monitoring versus a particular type of air monitor, and therefore, finds the change acceptable.
In addition, because the applicant proposed to revise Technical Specification A.1 language to include both the VBWR containment building and the EVESR containment building in defining the facility, the staff contacted the applicant by e-mail and asked if it would be acceptable to slightly modify the Technical Specification C.2 language. The staff proposed to replace the with a causing Technical Specification C.2 to read as follows: Particulate air monitoring shall be performed in the ventilation pathway whenever a facility containment building is ventilated.
The applicant agreed to this clarifying change by e-mail on June 9, 2025 (ADAMS Accession Number ML25162A106).
Technical Specification C.3 The applicant proposed to delete Technical Specification C.3 in its entirety. The applicant stated that, because this requirement is codified in 10 CFR 20.1601, having it in the Technical Specifications is redundant. The applicant also stated that removing the Technical Specification would result in no change to the controls placed upon the facility. The staff reviewed this change and determined that the Technical Specification is unnecessary because, as an NRC licensee, NorthStar Vallecitos must comply with the requirements in 10 CFR 20.1601. The staff determined that, because this is a redundant requirement, this change is editorial in nature, and, therefore, acceptable.
Technical Specification C.4 The applicant proposed to delete Technical Specification C.4 in its entirety. The applicant stated that, because this requirement is codified in 10 CFR 20, having it in the Technical Specifications is redundant. The applicant also stated that removing the Technical Specification would result in no change to the controls placed upon the facility. The staff reviewed this change and determined that the Technical Specification is unnecessary because, as an NRC licensee, NorthStar Vallecitos must comply with the requirements in 10 CFR 20. The staff determined that because this requirement is redundant, the change is editorial in nature, and therefore, acceptable.
4.0 NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION On May 14, 2025, the NRC published a Federal Register notice (90 FR 20513, 20518, 5/14/2025). The publication described the LAR as well as the NRC staffs proposed determination that the LAR involved no significant hazards consideration. The publication also gave the public the opportunity to submit comments by June 13, 2025. There were no comments received in response to the Federal Register notice.
7
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATION
The applicant asserted that the proposed changes met the categorical exclusion criteria contained in either § 51.22(c)(9) or § 51.22(c)(10)(ii). After reviewing the application, the staff determined that the proposed changes meet the categorical exclusion criteria in either
§§ 51.22(c)(9), 51.22(c)(10)(ii), or 51.22(c)(10)(v). A summary of the staffs categorical exclusion review is below.
5.1 Component Use Categorical Exclusion Per 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9), a categorical exclusion exists for issuance of an amendment to a permit or license for a reactor under part 50 or part 52 of this chapter that changes a requirement or issuance of an exemption from a requirement, with respect to installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in part 20 of this chapter; or the issuance of an amendment to a permit or license for a reactor under part 50 or part 52 of this chapter that changes an inspection or a surveillance requirement; provided that:
(i) the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration, (ii) there is no significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; and (iii) there is no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure.
After reviewing the proposed changes to Technical Specification A.2, the staff determined that the technical specification language other than the pressure vessel is associated with a facility component located within the protected area. The staff concluded that the proposed amendment satisfies the requirement of § 51.22(c)(9)(i) because it introduced no significant hazards as discussed in SER section 4. The staff also determined that the proposed amendment satisfies the requirement of § 51.22(c)(9)(ii) because it neither introduces new radioactive material, increases the amount of radioactive material at the site, creates new equipment or personnel failure modes nor changes setpoints of components that initiate protective or mitigative actions. Finally, the staff determined that the proposed amendment satisfies § 51.22(c)(9)(iii) because it neither effects site programs or procedures which prevent a significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure, effects structures, systems, and components which limit occupational radiation exposure nor effects the ability of any facility structures, systems, and components to limit occupational radiation exposure. Consequently, the staff finds that removing the text other than the pressure vessel satisfies the categorical exclusion criteria of § 51.22(c)(9).
5.2 Reporting Requirements Categorical Exclusion Per 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10)(ii), a categorical exclusion exists for issuance of an amendment to a permit or license issued under this chapter which changes recordkeeping, reporting, or administrative procedures or requirements. As discussed in SER sections 3.1 and 3.2, the staff determined that the amendment changed reporting requirements in License Conditions 3.E.1, 3.E.2, 3.I and 3.J. The staff also determined that the amendment changed an administrative requirement in Technical Specification C.1. Consequently, the staff finds that these changes satisfy the categorical exclusion criteria of § 51.22(c)(10)(ii).
8 5.3 Editorial Categorical Exclusion Per 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10)(v), a categorical exclusion exists for issuance of an amendment to a permit or license issued under this chapter which changes the format of the license or permit or otherwise makes editorial, corrective or other minor revisions, including the updating of NRC approved references. As discussed in SER sections 3.1, the staff determined that the amendment resulted in editorial changes to License Conditions 3.B, 3.D, 3.E and 3.H. As discussed in SER sections 3.2, the staff also determined that the amendment resulted in editorial changes to Technical Specifications A.1, A.2, B.1, B.2.(a), B.2.(b), B.2.(c), C.2, C.3 and C.4. Consequently, the staff finds that these changes satisfy the categorical exclusion criteria of
§ 51.22(c)(10)(v).
6.0 STATE CONSULTATION
FOR THE AMENDMENT TO THE LICENSE In accordance with the Commissions regulations, the NRC notified the State of California about issuance of the EVESR license amendment on July 21, 2025 (ADAMS Accession No. ML25230A087). The NRC requested comments by August 15, 2025. The State of California did not provide any comments.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the considerations discussed above, that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) there is reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commissions regulations, and (3) the issuance of the amendment will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public.
Date: August 19, 2025