ML20205Q066

Citizens Awareness Network,Inc Reply to Yaec Appeal of Prehearing Conference Order.* Requests That Yaec Appeal of ASLB Prehearing Conference Order Be Denied for Foregoing Reasons of Law,Regulations & Fact.With Certificate of Svc

ML20205Q066
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	04/16/1999
From:	Katz D CITIZENS AWARENESS NETWORK
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20205Q070	List: ML20205Q066 ML20205Q692
References
CON-#299-20268 98-736-01-LA, 98-736-1-LA, LA, LBP-99-14, NUDOCS 9904210084
Download: ML20205Q066 (35)

Text

.

g08 b i D0fM 1 T'l UNITED STATliS OF AMl!RICA /

t-NUCl.l!AR REGUI.ATORY COMMISSION liefore the ATOMIC SAFliTY AND 1.lCliNSING llOARD E 'W 19 P 4 02 in the Matter of I Docket No 50-029-1. A

) ASI.llP No. 98-7364)1-1.A YANKEE ATOMIC ElliCTRIC COMPANY (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

) Apol 16,1999 l.icense Termination Plan i CITl/. ENS AWARENESS NETWORK INC. REPl.Y TO YANKEE ATOMIC l El E(TRIC COMPANY'S APPE AI.OE Tile PREllE ARING CONEERENCE ORDER liRil:F OF TilF INTERVFNOR Citizens Awareness Network, Inc. (CAN), hereby rephes under 10 CFR Part 2,714 (a) to Yankee Atomic Eleetne Company's t YAFC) Objection and Motion for Reconsideration of part of the Atomic Safety and 1.icensing Board's Prehearing Conference Order in the license amendment proceeding on YAEC's proposed License Termmation Plan (1.TP) CAN joms with the New I nyland Coalition on Nuclear Pollution in their motion as a citi/en inters enor group CAN is participanny in this aJjudicatory process to represent the interests and protect the health and safety of our communit)

1. Repl> to YAEC% \ lotion.

On March 17,1999 the Atomic Safety and 1.icensing floard ( ASI.ll) issued a Prehearing Conference Order (Ruling on Contentions) doeket denominated 1.llP 99-14 in 9904210084 990416 S PDR ADOCK 05000029 G PDR f

2 which the Licensmg Board accepted four reworded and combmed contentions from the Cituens Awareness Network (CAN)and New lingland Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NCNP) On Starch 29,1999, YAEC Gled a motion liir reconsideration of" Contention 4".' A telei ?mne conference was held on htarch 31,1999 to set a schedule for Discosery (to open Apnl 9,1999 and contmue through June 11.1999) and a tentatne date for a hearmg for September 27,1999 to October 1.1999 On April 1.1999 after the teleconference, YAEC Gled an Appeal fron, the Prehearing Conference Order of the ASI.B (1.TP 14 ) In the Appeal YAliC disputes the ASI.B's ability to hold YAEC to certam "soluntary commitments" on the basis ofits status as an Site Decommissioning hianagement Plan plant (SDNiP) YAEC claimed therein that the ASt.B conserted a "soluntary undertaking into the equaalent of a regulators requirement,in contrasention of the gosermng regulations.

YAEC not only disputes whether the licensee is required to meet the 15 millirem!

l per 3r standard in its 1.icense Termmatmn Plan' t IJP), but argues that all four l 1

contentnns, as reworded by the ASI.B. lack " meaningful description of what was determmed to be the basis for each contention'" and "make a regulatory standard out of a i i

1 soluntary commitment on the part of the Applicant."' In addition, YAEC argues that the Board's Order is inconsistent since the ASt.B acknowledges that it "has no authonty to admit a contentmn that would. if prosen, require an appheant to meet a standard higher

• Yanice Atomic Electnc Co Olycetion Io and Moteon of Unkee Atormc Electnc Co for Reconsideration of a Portion of Prehearing Confercrxc Order IAwket No 50-029-1 A Yanice Atorme Electnc Co On Appselletm ths PJVhCarIng(enfvtc[gg QJdcLef the Atomic _Sefft).10d I

Usanos 1}ver d hwnt hr shlL !?" il3 P-W- 14) i ' t>5 Fed Reg 4M,4320 04ruary 28.1998)

• YanLcc Aiormc Elcetnc Co On Appedl ) orm tbs Pictw4mg Centetv!w Older ofIbc AIV01K Safety add IECDhngl}perd bwtd $14rsh jL l*39 Ll1P *d-l4)p 4

• trud p s I

3 than that required by the regulations themselses as opposed to soluntary commitments"'

while requinng YAi!C is to meet a "soluntary commitment" of 15 milbrem per yr. CAN disagrees with the been.see that the ASt.Il erred in its decision to admit four reworded

/

contentions in adJition, CAN disagrees that Yankee's 15 millirent per yr. site release entena is soluntasy or that Yankee necessanly quahfies as an SDMP plant i

ARGINENT

l. l.BP-99 Should be l!pheld Since the Board l'tilized a Correct Regulatory Standard in Formulating the Contentions Admitted.

YAlic states that the 1.icensing ik>ard "ran afoul of one of the basic precepts of nuclear j

heensing law *an applicant can be required to do unis w hat the regulations require.  ;

YAliC raises wktt it belieses to be an inconsistency m the 1.icensing floards Orders in l

terms ofits acknowledged mability to require YAliC to incorporate a zero Csl37 i calculation.' YAl!C argues that its soluntary commitment to assume background lesel of

/cro for Cal 37 for distnbuted soil areas (includmg asphalt) be actuall) incorporated in the Final Site Suney Plan was rejected because there is no such regulatory requirement.

lioweser, the ASLil is not inconsistent in its Order, it was unable to require YAliC to incorporate this commitment into the I.TP, because YAliC had newr made this

• lbad pp 5-0 referenemg Lt1P w 14. Shp Op at 34 35 (contentmn that Yankee's soluntary comrmtment to a>>ume badground lesel of tero for Cs137 for datnbuted el 4rcas (includmg asphalt) be actually mcorporated m the Fm41 Site Sursey Plan was rejected because there is no such regulatory requirement 29 9b-03, October I,199b p A2-9

' Y4 nice Atorme Electnc Co On3rped tient a fishcarmg Cenfervngs Order _ef the Atem!c NfstLand lastnnrig[hgrdhwggargh 1119w (1DP w 14) p u

'!.itP W 14, Shp Op at 34-15

i 4

I commitment to the /ero Cs serbally to our commumt), m its Decommissioning Plan or l

sts 1,TP. YAEC, rather, made this commitment in a NRC inspection Report "

l l

Additionally, YAFC has repeatedly made commitments to a 15 millirem per yr.

Jose standard for site remediation in tuth its in correspondence, ensironmental reports'", and its I.TP" (in sarious documents, hearmgs. meetmg and brochuresL YAEC has committed to sarious and sundry dose release enteria meluding 30 millirem! per 3 r.

", then 15 milbrem per y r."" In a letter from Jay K ~1 hayer, Vice President of Yankee Atomic Electric Company, to Monon Fairtile, NRC Semor Project Manager for Decommissioning YNPS, addressmg Proposed Yankee Nuclear Power Station Site Release Cntena, Thayer states that YAEC's

.onginal proposal was to utilize 30 mrem y r. as the total elTectise dose equnalent (TEDE) limit to the entical population group from the residual radioactisity abose background The purpose of this letter is to modify the YNPS site release entena pmposal.

" Yankee will modify the Yr..PS site release entena to reduce the TEDE limit from 30 mrem'yr to 15.' mrem /yr to make it consistent with the NRC proposed rule making (59FR43200) prosiding radiological enteria for decommissioning." .This change will be incorporated into the upcoming update (Reference d) to the YNPS Decommissioning Plan and YNPS Decommissioning Ernironmental Report ""

YAEC's commitment to meet the 15 millirem per yr total elTectise dose l

equisalent was not "soluntary " After questioning by the NRC StalT, YAEC committed i

' NRC Irupection Report No 50-29NM-ol, October 1, IW8 p A2-9

US NRC SafstsaluauonblbtllhKCRclated 10 the Ecque>t 19 Autheruc hah 13

[hwmmissonmg.YNES Docket No 50-029 February 14, Iws

" Yankee Aiorruc Electnc Co Licenw Ternun4: ion Plan

" 0 Ticial Traracnpi of Proceeding " Informal Itearing Y4nkee Row e Decomnuaioning Plan",

Greensleid, MA, Augud 16, IW4 Accewon Number 94090801M6 p 9

" US NRC EnurenmentaL%>camsnt Related to ibc 8cquc>t 19 Auth 9 ptgfagility [hwmminioning, YNPS YAEC Docket No 50-29 Desember 14, IW4 p21311

" US NRC NRC RcaP9nK.19fubbfdhcKiulu IIom thc Augu>l les IW4 InforIna139tyl Ileanng 8cE4rd106 thc ThPS lh%mmtmoning Pier Appenda A p 6 A19

" tetier J Thayer, YNPS to Morton Intile, Propowd Yankee Nuclear Power Stanon tYNPS) Site Reicane Cnieri4 October 24. IW4 941030208 941024

7 5

to meet the proposed rule standards YAhC should be held to the commitment it repeatedly made. NRC stated in 1995 in a Safety inaluation Report that.

"The 1.icensee has committed to using the guidehnes prosided in NUREG! CR 5849 [Ref.18] for ceducting radiological sunep in support oflicense termination. The acceptable re.udual emuammatum standarJ for unrestricted use of the YNPS site will be 1.5x10-4 [(15 mrem per year) based on suitable exposure scenanos] with an Al. ARA analysis tojustify an exposure lesel at that salue or lower. /he ,l/ -IR.-l mu3t be approved by NRt ' Ihe Staffjinds thu umunament to be acceptab/c.""'(emphasis added)

The Commission has presiously allirmed that Yankee will hase to meet a 15 mrent yr. standard " The Commission disallowed a CAN contention regardmg site release entena, not methodology. for the s ery reason that YAEC had committed to a 15 mrein yr. cntenon Regarding CAN's contentions on entena, the Commission stated-

"CAN. . insists that the Commission reqmre Yankee Atomic to adhere to a 15-millirem crtienon to which Yankee Atomic has agreed, rather than the 25 millirem enteron subsequently adopted by the Commission in it.= 1997 license tennination rule. This is a non-issue.

Yankee has already agreed in its I.TP to meet the 15 millirem cntenon."'"

The ASLirs Pre-heanng Conference Order that the 15 mrein'yr. criterion is ruling,is in agreement with the Commission's finding in this matter. In addition the Commission allirms that "Section 201402 (the Commission's recent rule ci site release

" ts NRC Sdru b4anerbe nJelarde ik Mewoth %then/dudin.Drwmminimung YNPS Docket No 50 029 f educ, i.l. tW p :5 '

" Cl.1 +21 in the Matter of Yankee Aiomic I lectne Comparty t Yankee Nuclear Power Station). Dockei No $0-024LA j

, "lbd p 25

1 b

critena) prescribes the pertinent standards for termmation of the Yankee Rowe reactor  ;

license, and is not subject to chal!enge or htigation m an adjudication "

Now YAEC claims that

• the Yankee I.TP is poserned by the regulatory l

standards set out in the Site Decommissioning Matt.gment Plan (SDMP) published by "2"

NRC. YAliC claims that its "soluntary undertaking" derises from its status as an SDMP plant, and YAliC in its motion '2 describes itself as meeting the qualifications for SDMP 22 CAN submits that the SDMP Action Plan is me e guidance. It ts not regulation,it has not gone through a rulemakmg process nor has it been released for pubhc comment 2' CAN arge.s that YAliC does not qualify as an SDMP plant and

~

cannot be released from meetmg the 15 millirem per 3r star .trds under this 10 CFR 20 Subpart (c) excludes sites which '

(l) Hase been decommissioned pri to the etTectise date of the rule in accordance with critena identified in the Site Decommissionmg Management Plan (SDMP)

Action Plan of April 16, IW2 (57 FR 13389),

(2) Hase prniously submitted and receased Corniss;on approsal on a license termination plan (1.1 :') or decornmissioning plan that is compatible with the SDMP Action Plan criteria, or (3) Submit a sullicient 1.TP or decommissionmg plan before August 20, IW8 and such 1.TP or decommissionmg plan is approsed by the Commission before August 20,1999 and in accordance with the critena identified in the SDMP Action Plan, except that "lbid p 25 footnote 14

'" Yankee Atomic Electnc Co ORAppsalitum a hebcenng Conferc0Gs.DIdstofthcAtom!s_Safttrand 1.iccnang ikwd hwsd March 17. lWMLUP:W-14) p 2

" Yankee A:omic Electnc Co Obseti2n19 tridllettuD 'Jenk_rsA19millilsvitre Co_fpr EcG01uldfrat12ns[ A fprtlea9flhs PithsatirtCenfcIrniC 0rder So-M9-LiNtarch 31 IW9 f NL' REG-1444 Site Decommissioning Nianagernent P!ari. October. lW3

The enhanced rulemaking process retened to by Nts Hogdgon in the prehcanng transcript addressed the Subpan (c) rulemaking. which though related in a manner to the sintP. was not in fact a rulemaking on the SDNtP or the SDN!P Action Phn -Ollicial Tranxtsp on Paweedings. l.ruted State > of Amenca Nuclear Regulatory Comm $$ ion. Yankee Atomic Liectne Con pans tYankee Nuclear Power Stanon) C ,se No 50-(Cw LA. R. ASB-300-o44. Green 6cid. N1 A Januars 20. twe pp 2*30

7 if an EIS ts required m the submittal, there will be a prosision for day for-day extension 24 YAEC gamed Decommissionmg Plan Approsal on February 14,1995 Gisen 2

the Appellate Court deession in CAN s NRC ', YAEC was forced to retract its plan and it then gained a second decommissioning plan approsal after the adjudicatory process was complete. To CAN's knowledge, YAEC's LTP, and the decommissioning plan and ensironmental assessment

• do not commit to all the requireuents required to be SDMP enteria compliant in addition to the bases in CAN NiiNCP's contentions, the I.TP fails, as pomted out by Dr. Elleman in thz t e-hearing, to adequately address the issues of alpha contammation " Transuranic elements must be addressed under the critena laid out m the SDMP Action Plan "

• t S Nucicar Regulatory Comm won Order Approung the Decommissiomng Plan and Authoruing Decommauonmg of the Facihty Docket No 60-029

" CAN > NRC 59 F 3d 284(l' Car tw$)

" YNPS Suppicment to ADplMaufnumfuntnldEsp9n.P9)I VPerdttng 115&DK3fREL lhWmanuoning EnstronmentalBrperi December, 1993 9312220136 ASt.B Pre-heanny Transcnpt ASLBP No 9Y-7.lb-01 LA R p 104 DR Ell.EhtAN htr Gad, de the plan, $nyw here aJdra ss Ihe detection of alpha-emitting isotopes in the remediation site' AtR GAD % e are gomg to get buk to this -- % hat degree of detail end what degree of specincity do you require

• As I said before, tha plan aspires, sets for itself the goal of calculatmg the l TEDEs per $b49 That is not an imphcation. it w)s so And at Ic4st in theory, any isotope might contnbute to that TEDE And if you 6nd circumstances that say, oka), I have a situation here where I hase a reasonable basis for beheving that there a wmethmg out there, and it would contnbute, then you hase to j 6nd it, and you have to esaluate it, that is to say. quantify it and then plug it mio the equation That is not the same thmg, and I don't want to be -- I don't w ant to mislead anybody, or be misunderstood That a not the wmc thmg of saying I hase to es alu4te escry atom that is all the way down to Chm 4. on th: site and all the wa) dow n to China, becaux* we happen to know w hat the predominant iwtopes are, and we happen to know whas the predominant contributions to TEDE is And so at some

, pomt you reach whet might be calkd consergence, all nyht I h..e now figured out what the 99 percent salue is I could Leep on doing tha until long atter Ntr INgnan retires but I am not going to get a higher number, w I quit DK ELLE\ TAN Well, wr, escr> thing you wy a true liut the detection of alpha-emittirig swtopes as a rather arcane science m itwif, it a not cas) to do AnJ the alpha-emitting isotopes could mdeed potentiall) contnbute to intemal dose, and to not have the sunject ot' alpha-emitting isotopes addressed m any wa) that I c4n Jetret m the plari would appear t., me to be an omission of something that is potentially important AtR G AD All nght The bc>t I can oller Your lloru at tha point is, and, of course, you have a datmet adsantage user me, because you can eetually re4J thew thmp all right, but if you read the sections on ahat the plan calls "hard to detect" -

m l

What YAliC does commit to under 313 Soil and Sediment is. I "The Final Radiological sun ey, conducted by the license, and the confinnatory radiological sune), conducted by NRC, are done to ensure that all soil and sediment area meet the unrestricted release standard, pursuant to the AL. ARA pnnciple, before the licensee is termmated The unrestncted release standard for this site will be 015 mSwyr ( 15 mrent 3r ) total etrectise dose I equisalent to the critical population group, as stated in a letter from YAliC to the l NRC [Ref 7j? Additionally, YAl!C has committed to funher reduce residual lesels of radioactisity on the site by use of an optimintion process that is based ,

on ALARA pnnciples and commensurate with the minimintion of total risk."'"  !

Unhke NRC regulations", the SDMP Action Plan is mere guidance and as such it does not constitute bindmg legal requirements The SDMP Action Plan in fact states"It should be noted that the Action Plan itself does not contam enforceable standards and is not intended to create new rights or obhgations on third parties or to preclude litigation of properly framed issues in any pending proceedmg"" 'I his is one of the reasons that YAliC's commitments in its I.TP are not atTeeted by its claimed SDMr* status in fact, YAI!C's site remediation plan should be exammed in light of NRC's new DR ELtl. MAN You are right, there is a much a section arid it does runt mention alpha panicles in any way MR GAD 1 behese - ! may be going out on a hmb, but I behese that %rd to detect

• includes, is not hmited to, but includes some of the tran>uraruc alpha emitte:S 1 DR Elt.ENt AN Well if; au read it,it speaks to mcLel-eti. it speaks to other ditlicult to detes mme isotopes MR G AD i thmL .he apphcation is genene. Your llorx>r Apart from that, once again, don't a L me because I am ret an espert and you can read it better than I can DR El.LBtAN All right, Sir The transcript of this interchange goes on to discuss how the issue of alpha emitters arose floweser,the relevant pomt, that the methodology for surseying for alpha ermtters are not addressed in the t.TP is not derned The aspirations of the LTP canrut be considered suitable methodolo4y

" $7Fcd Reg 13359 t.ctter from J Thayer to Morton 11 birtile Proposed Yankee Nuclear Power Station (YNPS) Site Release Criteria October 24,1994 9410310208 941924

• US Nuclear Regulatory Comtrussion linwonmental Amarnent 153 thsMC_Tu the ikuunt Lo AWth0Illt f8Giht)1hWmmin!pning. Yankee Nucles. Power $tation. Yankee Atomic I lectnc Co Docket No 50 2912/14N4 p 21 section 311

" Catuens for Safe Power. Inc > Nuclear Regulator) Commission. 624 F 2d 1291.1299-1300 (D C Ctr 1975). citmg Power Reactor Doelopment Co s industnal t ' mon. It>7 U S "% (1%I)

l 9

l 1

decommissioning rule in accordance the Commission's decision and the requirements the  ;

rule estabbshes for site release entena for power reactors, in addition to the commitments it ma le both in the I.TP and preuously to the submission of the LTP ,

l

\

YAi!C, recogniang the shifting regulatory framework which later led it to file its LTP in both a manner that would allow it to suggest that it should be considered under the SMDP Action Plan, as well as m a manner that might make it acceptable under the new rule", foresaw the likehhood of the necessity of settmg more consenatise a pass dose than the 30 mrern/> r. that it oneinally choose in its Decommissioning Plan Ensironmental report, and stated .

l "It is unlikely that YNPS decommissionmg and final suncy actisities will be  !

complet;d prior to the completion of the scheduled rulemakmg Yankee will continue to monitor and particir>.de n: the rulemaking actisities Changes will be made to the final I release en:eria, if appropn.ite, after the final rule is issued floweser, until such time, the I final release entena abuse will be used as the fusis tiir detailed decommissioning  ;

planmng.""  !

Indeed, a explamed earher, YAEC did indeed later reuse the 30 mrency r, standard to a 15 mrent yr standard it wcold seem irrational li>r YAEC's Decommissioning Plan and LTP now to be in conflict

( N submits that YAEC currently does not quahfy as an SDMP plant as set out in 10 Cl . part 201401 or under the SDN1P Action Plan" esen ifit was able to recense NRC LTP approsal before August 20,1999 In the SDMP Action Plan summary NRC desenbes the enteria f or SDMP plants, which includes ' the NRC's general expectation

" $7 l R 13h9 April 10,1992 Aetnn Plari to 1.nware Iinicly Cleanup of'Stic ikcornminioning Management Plan Sites. p 2

" 0 T.cta' Traracript of Proceedings L ruted States ol' Amenca Nucicar Regulatory Comminion, Yankee Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nucicar Power Stationi Caw No 60-029- LA R. ASil-MM44, Greenileid, \1 A January 20,1+N p 10 line 21

" YSPS Ikcomminioning 1.nstronmental Repon Dnember tw 4 p 1-4

10 that SDMP site cleanup will be completed within a 4 y ear timeframe after operations cease or 3 years after the issuance of an initial cleanup order. "" YAl!C has been decommissioning the Yankee Rowe site smce 1992 and site remediation is far from accomplished. Clearly this isjust one of the wa>s in which YAliC's decommissioning plan fails to meet SDMP enteria lhen if YAliC and NRC Staff were to be permitted to stretch NRC guidelines to allow YAliC to qualify as an exceptional member of this group, YAliC still would not j l'

meet the essential requirements of timelinen and eflicctaeness in addition, the SDMP Action Plan states that "lT]he SDMP prosides a comprehensne strategy fbr NRC and ,

1 licensee actn ities dealmg with the cleanup and closure of contaminated nuclear material facilities oser which the NRC hasjun> diction (The SDMP does not melude more routine decommissioning cases such as nuclear power reactors)."" The power reactors presiously allowed decommissioning under SDMP were Shoreham and Fort St Vrain" Ik>th stations had much shorter operational Ines and therefore site remediation was not as complex as it is at Yankee Rowe, which operated for thirlpone years.

Regardless ofits position in reference to the SDMP Action Plan or Subpart (e)

YAliC cannot be rehesed ofits commitments in the I.TP and its Decommissioning Plan-YAl!C in its I.TP committed to a 15 millirem per year dose to the elTected population.

Now that the methodology Ibr YAlic's calculations are questioned, YAl?C maintains that it doesn't ha e to meet commitments it made repeatedly m its I.TP, as well as in many

" NLCLEAR RE0l;LATORY COMMisslON AGLNC Nude Regulatory Commayon Aglign Plan tolnauts Timeh Qcanun of SittDssommarienm4&ndesnicniflen hiin 57 i R 13389 Anil in. tw:

" lbid p I

" Ibid $7 FR 133b9 April 16. lW2 Astienfl40 to LDwrc hmel) CkurfitvAwmmuwnmg MawsmsatNn Sun

II pubhc meetings, forums, and pubhc relations campaigns since it claims that it is an SDMP plant and its commitments were soluntary " Rather than de.nonstrate a commitment and assurance that its I.TP plan can be effectne, YAliC threatens to withdraw its commitments when its methodology is questioned '" This threat is itself dubious, as the 15 mrent y r standard is still m the plans for decommissior.ing and has been allirmed by the Commission The beensee can not hase it both wa>s it must make

" good" on its comimtments if the 1,TP is to gain approsal then YA!!C must honor the commitments it made, 1

and the questions pertaining to methodology emplo)ed in the LTP are both sahd and reasonable. It is irrational that the licensee declares that since its commitment is "soluntary", it is not accountable fulfill it Once YAi!C committed in its LTP to a standard it must be obligated to meet that standard YAl!C should not be permitted to pick and choose between guidelmes, regulations, and dose calculations to asoid its commitments if the licensee can do this,it renders NRC regulations and Commission rulings arbitrary and irrational and raises doubts about other commitments made by the licensee The argument that YAliC now presents, that intenenors cannot hase contentions surrounding this issue admitted by the ASLil,is based on faulty logic. This contention need not esen hinge on whether or not Yankee is required to meet 10 CFR 201402 requirements The contention stems from YAliC's decision and comrmtments in its LTP

" Telephone conscr$ation on 4/l3M with Dick Seston who was the Irchr. cal Sersices Manager for Decomtr.issioning of the Iort 5: Vrain Nuclear Plant in Colorado lic said fort St Vrain met the 15 millirem site release entena without a IEDE Ihey used the 4 microterrs hr as the dose limit

" Yanice Atomic Electne Compan) ObcVt!90.19 And MotiVn eiYMrs AtV9)V llWtrN CVrmnj kg Krsem!ddatieDfffert100 9ffith5Arwg CepfriensC VIdcr thLct No Ao-024-1.A p i

• Yankee Atomic Electne Co Otyection To and Ntotion of the Yankee Atorme i leetne Co I or Reconsideration of A Pomon of Preheanng Conference Order Ntarch 2h. le po flootnote 4

l l

12 and addresses the methodology for fullfillment 'I he lloard, m its decision, properly accepts YAl:C's commitment to the 15 mrent year TliDii dose critena as ruimg." If YAliC'3 commitments in its own I.TP cannot be considered as ruling wher they meet, and esen if they exceed, regulatory standards, of what use is the LTl" YAl?C presents the argument that being required to meet its own standards is penalizing it

" Yankee's soluntary undertaking in this situation...should be encouraged, not penali/cd To declare. that if one commits to do more than the minimum )ou may be held down the road to do more than you hase committed to do is to erect a powerful dismcentn e to malmg such otherwise laudable and desirable but entirely gratuitous undertakings""

Requinng that YAi!C use a methodology that will m fact allow it to properly meet the standards that it has chosen, and thereby Ine up to the I.TP should not been seen as a penalty. YAlic is not being asked, as it would suggest, to do more than it has committed to do. Rather, Yankee is being asked to do exactly what it has committed to do,in a manner that will allow it to fully meet its standards if the beensee is not going to meet to its "soluntary' 15 mrem yr Tl?Dl?

commitment, the licensee should be required to retract and resise its I.TP and decommissiomng plan since present s ersions repeatedly commit to a 15 millirent' per y r.

standard it shdd submit rnised plans which accurately describes what YA!!C's j commitments are, what methodology it will employ to meet those commitments, and what figuies, and dose calculations the community as well, as the regulators, can be assured that YAliC will meet if YAlic does not intend to meet the 15 i,vilirem per year I

dose cornmitment, that too should be e.sphcitly stated in the I.TP. CAN beheses that it is  ;

t.11P.w.14 pp 17 t h

13 reasonable and complamt with NRC regulations and Commission orders that YAl?C be held to its 15 mrent > r.

YAEC attempts to classify its 15 mrem > r standard as a "soluntary" measure it assumed on its own This representation is maecurate " YAliC did not solunteer the 15 mrent yr. The deselopment of this commitment can be seen in letter from YAEC respondmg to NRC " Based on NRC questionmg YAFC has committed in a letter dated October 24,1994 to a 15 millirem per year dose Imut This is in keepmg with NRC's proposed decommi>>ioning standard for all sites, pubhshed in the Federal Revister on August 22,1994."" This entena has been committed to repeatedly in YAEC's own documents," NRC Safety Esaluation Report'" and NRC lieanngs, and the decommissioning plan as approsed on February 14,1995 by the NRC '" It has additionally been amnned by ine Commission Y AEC had committed to the 15 mrent yr. before the submission of its LTP, and the two plans would be entirely meonsistent if YAFC were to receise approsal for an l.TP contaming lower standards than were committed to in its decommissioning plan.

The 15 mrem yr commitment is not a "soluntary" addition to the LTP. The commitment is required for the LTP to be in comphance with the presiously submitted and approsed

' Yankee Aiomic Electnc Company ObitillefLl0_KhihjVilVD_VfYanktTA19ElGJdEVtDG_f9EPAHLf0f Rcconadstatteneffomon of P t rbs4nntfenfctsnst Order thLo No 50-029-LA p 5

" Letter Jay Thayer to Morton Fairtile (Jupggd.YarArc hucle.tr Pewci htat19n.tYbfSJ Sits Rcicax Cntsna October 24 1999 9410310:08

" US hRC NRC Rt>pumsl919bhc3Ac>tt9m imm thc Augv>L l AM4_Infent14ti904lliverms Il tgMdtD&1bC_YhP1DsGemmuh!00mtf!Af1 Appenda A p ti A19

Letter Jay Thay er to Morton Fatmle PrepVxd Yankte.Suder PewFLbt Atipa1YhPb) Sits Relenc Culina October 24 IW9 9410310:08

• US NRC Sat'rtylatlut19Ehttbs,LEARC Kclatso to ibe heguc>t IuAv.1hents.1asiho DCiommungmag_YhfS Yankee Aiomic Electric Co icbn ar) 14. Iw5 p 30

US NRC hECitWRK1cfdhdArktiemIrpm ths.Augu>t APf4Inf0Imml}kAungRegatdmg1hr YEiss.hElsM f 93 ctitalteaDssommnugnmA Appenda A p t> A19

" Corte>ponderwe NRC to Jame> Kn Order approung the Decommisuomng Plan and Authonzing Decomminuomag of tac Yankee Rowee Power Station i ebruars 14 IW5

~

14 decommissioning plan Further references to the 15 milbrem standard occurred at a hearing on decommissiomng when Kenneth lleider, Rowe site manager stated that,

. the total dose for that must be less than 15 millirem per year""

and "I'd I Le now to talk a little bit about the 15 millirem per year, because that's really the salue that expresses most clearly the total impact of the site on any indnidual that may come in contact with the site or may be near the site" "

in the back of that transcript is a letter from Yankee (ikn 1)aus, CI!O) responding to questions Mr. Adam Laipson, Chair Franklin Regional Planning Board The letter is dated January 5,1998:

"The NRC requires that the dose from residual plant-related radioactisity be less than 25 mRemyr for unrestricted release of the site in the License Termination Plan, Yankee has committed to limit the dose from residual plant related radioactiuty to less than 15 mrem'yr. This dose adds to the dose receised from background radiation, and includes all exposure pathways. For example, if a person were to build a house on the Yankee site, farm the land, and draw drinking water from his or her own well, that person's dose could not h ny more that 15 ,

milRenryear abose what he or she already recenes from backp : 1""

It is worth repeating that inten enors do not es en contend whether YAliC in its LTP proposes to allow lesels atxne or below either the 15 or 30 mrem per year exposure sate pass salues, or whether it is statutonly required The contention stands regardless of the issues surrounding Subpart (e) of 10C FR 20 The contention in question, Contention 4, reads' Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR s 50 82, the methodology YAl!C employ 3 in its LTP Final Site Sun e) Plan for the selection of applicable scenarios

" Otlicial Transcript of Proceedmg> l.:ruted Staics o( America Nuclear Regubiory Comminion "Pubhc Meetmg (Yaniec Nuclear Power h'a m 1.scenw I~ctmination Plan. Shelburns;, Ma. hnuary I 3, ;998 p'14

' lbid p 15

" Ibid p 12

is I

for the calculation ofits linal release doses is not adequate to demonstrate that the l LTP will assure the protection of the public health and safety "

The contentions do not hinge on what the s anous entena YAl!C has chosen to follow are, but rather that the methodology that YAl C has said that it will employ to 1

fulfili cach of the tasks laid out in the I.TP- -determming background radiation, j subsurface contamination, alpha emittmg radioactisity. and selecting applicable scenarios  :

I I

for the calculation ofits final release dose- are not sullicient to do the job. Intersenors contentions do not need to address, and base been barred from addressing, whether the  !

I NRC's radiation release criteria are indeed sullicient to protect our commur ity from the radiation that YAEC will lease behind The most we can do, and what we are attempting to do to protect the health and safety of our commumt), is to ensure that at a minimum, ,

1 YAEC will indeed be able to fulfill its commitments Our contentions aim to ensure that l l

YAEC will comply with its own LTP, by ensuring that they will use methodology that will enable them to meet their stated goals if CAN allow > YAEC's 15 millirem per yr commitment to be soluntary (and CAN would disagree) and CAN follows YAl C s argument concermng "soluntary" commitment, YAEC would derise benelit without obhgation ifit gains approval for a plan m which it makes et amitments to protect the health and safety of our commumty, but in fact these commitments would be mutable, and the public could lose from the lack of careful scrutmy of what YAEC is obhgated to do Such a result would be counter to pubhc health and safety and would encourage a dishonest practice by heensees to lessen pubbe scrutm) and prejudice the regulatory usersight by the NRC by throwing m unenforceable soluntary undertakings I

" t. lip.w.14 p41

B 16

'I hus, as CAN understands, NRC must hold that the entire I.TP is enforceable, including what YAEC claims are the"soluntary undertakmgs" As such, the methodology used to fullill these commitments should be subject to contentions by inten enors 11 The f.icensing Board Properly Drafted and Admitted the Contentions YAEC claims that 1.llP 99-14 should tv res ersed because it claims that "In Drafting and Admitting the Contentions, the 1.icensing iloard ignored the Prosisions of 10 CFR s 2 714(bx2)"" It would .,eem that YAEC would like intenenors' contentions to be thrown out because of the actions of a third pany, the ASt.Il Regardless of the linal wordmg of the contentions, it would be mherently unjust for our efforts to protect our community ta be derailed by the actions of a party oser which it has no control.

YAEC's perception of the writmg skills of the lloard should not be allowed to interfere with intenenors etl' orts to protect ourselses and our community, and to hold YAEC to its word The floard explains its reasoning at length in 1.llP 99-14, and clearly states which contentions and bases of the mienenors that it relies upon m its restatement of the contentions One would expect that YAEC would appreciate the ASI.ll's efforts to asoid duplication by joming CAN's and NECNP's contentions together, to simphfy and clarify the multitude of objections that hase been raised 10 CFR Subpan tg) at section 2 714 states that

" Yankee Atorme Licetnc Co On Appcat i rom A Prehearing Confererxe Order Ot'the Atomic Safety and Licenung floard Imxd March 17. IvN (l.IlP-W-14) p 7

. e 17 (f) An order permitting intersention and or directing a hearing may be conditioned on such terms as the Commission, presiding oflicer or the designated atomic safety and beensing board may direct in the interests of:

(1) Restricting irreles ant, duplicatis e, or repetitise esidence and argument, (2) Has mg common interests represented by a spokesman, and (3) Retaining authonty to determine pnonties and control the compass of i the heanng The ASI.ll acted properly in restating petitioners contentions. As the ASl.ll did not accept all of the contentions or pans of contentions presented by all parties, it is in order for them to restate the combmed contentions that it will consider. Though CAN did not hase a hand in authonng the contentions as put forth in the Pre-hearing Order, it is worth pointing out that "a pro se petitioner is not to be held to the to the standards of clanty and precision to which a lawyer might be reasonably e> pected to adhere."" In the contentions that CAN/ NiiCNP presented to the ASI.ll, it reasonably met all of requirements of 10 CFR s 2 714 This material is in the record YAlic cites 10 CFR Section 2 714(dx2) erroneously. The contentions at hand,if prosen and rectilied, will indeed entitle petitioners, and our community to relief Though YAliC repeatedly insists that it cannot be held to its own criteria, ensuring that the company use a methodology that will allow it to fully realize its goals will alTord our community the maximum amount of protection to our health and safety that it can be alTorded under the current regulatory scheme YA!!C additionally claims that for the contentions to be drafted properly, they would need to reference SDMP cntena " CAN rejects this argument on seseral points.

First, as explained in this document and in our response to YAliC's earlier motion to

in the Maner of flouston I t ng and Power Cornpan) i Allens Creek Nuclear Gener4ung Stanon.1;nn

1) 11 NRC 540.1980 NRC tnis 194, Apnl 22, luso, smularly 4thrmed in Cl.198 21 u

1 1 11 e:ect Contention 4, CAN rejects the notion that the Rowe site should be ruled by SDMP cntena Second, the ASLB has determined, as has been discussed elsewhere, that the critena set out in the LTP are ruimg, which eliminates the hypothetical need for references to SDMP entena Third, all of the contentions address the methodology desenbed in the I.TP, not the enteria that YAEC committed to in its LTP and other presiously mentioned forums The entena themsches, SDMP related or otherwise, are not necessar. ) addressed by the contentions at hand The methodologies which will I

either allow the standards put fonh in the LTP to be fulfilled or are not at issue.

til CAN'S CONTENTIONS ARE AD311SSIBl.E:

A. Contention I is a salid contention and should be admitted The first contention, dralled and admitted by the lloard that YAEC objects to is

" Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50 82, the methodology YAEC employs in its LTP Final Safety Suney Plan to determine background radiation is not adequate to demonstrate that the LTP will assure the protection of the public health and safety."*

l

• YAEC states that the ASLAB " misreads" the relesant documents." This in itself, the proper readmg and application of NUREG CR-5849, and w hether YAEC in its LTP desenbes properly the methodology it intends to use to adequately implement its plan, would seem a question to be resobed through a hearing Petitioners are not required to prose their contentio,s at this poin: in the proceedmg3 Rather they must meet the requirements of 10 Cl R Sei tion 2.714 This

' Yankoe Aionue Electnc Co On Appeal In.m A Prchwng Conf erence 0 er ( Atomic Safety and lxenung floard luocd Ntarch 17,1977 it. lip.vi-l 4) p 4

' t_ LIP- W 14 p 40

" Yankee Aiomic Electnc Co On Appeal From A Prcheanng Conference Order Of the Atomic Safety and lxensmg lioard lisued Ntarch 17,14N (1.!!P W 14)p ii

19 contention is not a statement of doubt that YAEC will, m the implemet.tation ofits LTP, endeasor to make some sort of readmg of background radiation. The contention addresses YAi!C's plans for how it will address this endeasor YAEC argues that how it goes about determining background radiation, deciding where to take reading, deciding how to der:rmine which areas are unalTected etc, are actually matters related to the implementation of the LTP. These decisions must be made somehow, and the method for makmg these decisions is not laid out clearly in the I.TP As YAEC does not posses readings of the background radiation at the Rowe site pres nous to the operation of the reactor," and therefore cannot say with certainty which radiation is its own, and as YAEC has not sune)ed otT-site areas that may hase been impacted by the plant with suflicient precision, the methodology that YAEC currently proposes in the LTP will not allow for a realistic detennination of how much radiation

?

existed presious to the operanon of the reactor and how much YAEC is responsible for contributing. This bascime measurement is crucial to measuring how much additional contammation our commumt) will be left with To ensure that our community is harmed as mimmally as possible, YAEC s LTP must detail its methodology for determi.,,ng background measurements. Ilow will they determine whether on-site background measurements are alTeeted by licensed operations?

What are the entena that would dictate the need for olTsite background measurements?

Ilow will they determine which otT site locations are unalTeeted by plant releases? It is entical to understand that our commumt) has been alTe:ted by not only releases from l

Yankee Rowe, but also by releases from Vennont Yankee, a boiling water reactor that is )

" In19tmauwanngfradmgaldanksch!wAwsr Wtwn thwnwmanwg L'149.. Augusi )o.1W.

s p 15

20 only 17 miles away. The issues of how background is determmed will in turn impact the reading that YAliC will use to determine the a...ount of radioactise contammation that it will lease behmd YA!!C at the Prehearing Conference described background "as yet to be done" YAliC has already asserted that background from direct esposure in the Rowe area is 66 mrem yr. to the Franklin Regional Planning floard "' YAliC claims that background measwements range on aserage from around 60 65 mrent year."' YAF.C also claims in a public relations flyer, that measurements done in January of 1998 indicate background radiation sanes from 59 to 99 mrem > ear in this flyer they include background 1

measurements from a residential basement and inside buildings as if these locations are relesant to background radiation in our community Furthennore, YAi!C's background measurements are eser changing: near Rowe School background is 40 mrem year" and in the Rowe School parkmg lot background is 64 mrentyr '" What are we to behese? It seems that the "as yet"is a mosing target - a target that has been changing and confounding since 1991 The 15 mrem site release limit YAi!C will have to meet is rendered meaningless without methodology in the LTP that can determine accurately how much radiation existed presious to the operation of the reactor.

As the ASI.ll quotes in its Prehearing Order "NURiiG CR-5M9 does say,in a phrase lef t out by the stafTin its response, that:

Letter t' rom Don Dasa to Adarn Laipwn. J4riuary .6, tws, p i1

• Pubhc Heanng. Yankee Nuclear Power Station 1.iceng lermination Pl4ri, Shelburrie, \1 A. Jartuary 13, twb. p la I

Yanice Atomic Electnc Co il)er. bdc livm btert te } uu>b Javiuary. lWb

' Public Hearing Yankee Nucicar Power 5taiton 1.iceriw 1ctritiri.ition Pl4ri, Shciburrie N1 A. January 13, IW8, p 17 i

Yankee Aiormc Electnc Co H)er, $dc trem hier119 f!nnh Jariuary, IW8 l l

21 13ackground is determined by measurements and'or sampling at locations on site or in the immediate vicinity of the site (out to seseral Lilometers from the site boundan ) which are unaffected by site operations. Compare NUREG CR- 1 5849,2.31, at p. 2.6, with StalT Response at 7 NUREGCR -5849 goes on to state, also in 2.3.1, at p 2.6 that-

!!ackground samples and measurements for land areas should be collected by "

locanons which are unatYected by etlluent releases (upwind and upstream).

CAN further contend 3 that establishmg background from readings taken kilometers away from the site dimmishes confusion that would lead to miscalculations from readings taken on or near the site because of the undocumented mosement and burial of waste, the spread of hot particles, the contaminated ground water from the ion e.schange pit, and the routine releases of radioactis e waste from the standard operatic,n of the Yankee Rowe reactor.

The 1.icensee mischaracterizes the 11oard's narrowly dralled contention to be addressing only where readings are to be taken when m fact the dispute concerns whether the LTP prosides adequate assurances that public health and safety will bc protected by a clearly stated methodology. YAEC's I.TP as wntten does not accomplish this goal.

Rather we are prosided with generalities and scarce methodology that can assure the

~

1 achiesement of these goals or proside mformation to be challenged. CAN is required to spin speci6cs from systematic generalities and assunng statements of goals il Contention 2 is salid and sital to our community.

The second contention drailed and admitted by the 1.icensing floard is:

" Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50 82 the methodology YAEC employs in its 1.TP Final Site Suncy Plan to detenmne subsurface soil contamination is

" LitP w.14 pp 40 41

1 e i 22 l l

1 not adequate to demonstrate that the I.TP will assure the protection of the public  !

~

health and safety. " l Without prosiding anything new in its appeal YAliC's argument remains the same The Ikurd's nanowly drafted contention is mischaracten/ed as a quibble about the depth of the sampling What in fact is inadequate concerning subsurface soil remediation is a lack of methodological detail about the eumination ar.d remediation of a site with potential undocumented buried waste and actual ground waster contamination.

YAEC proffers its goals as methodology that it u dl meet the regulatory requirements-but how? YAEC argues that the "how"is in the implementation. CAN belieses that the j "how", the methodology, prosides assurances that YAEC will actuall) accomplish its goals The Board states, and we agree, that although YAEC provides some information on surface soil sampling, but "cntena for subsurface soil sampling do not appear to be demonstrated!"

YAEC in its argument states 'The guideline salues tbr subsurface soil are set out in 3.4 2 of the FSSP, how samples to a depth of 15 cm will be taken are detailed in 4 3.3 and in 4 4.4 it is stated. "[sjampling at greater depths will be done in areas where site characterization or other information indicates potential contamination at depths greater than l

1. l 15 centimetersJ Iloweser, a GAO Report issued May,1989 NRC's Decommissionine Procedures and l Criteria Need to Be Strennthened. the document that mitiated the 10 CFR subpart (e)  ;

rulemaking, states that there are senous problems with monitoring of and cleanup of buried waste. For almost 25 years (until January 1981) NRC allowed all(reactor) licenses to bury

LliP-W-14, Slip Op p 11

• lbid p21 O

23 radioactise waste on-site a about pnor N/u '.yy>rond" Of heensee's examined, the'GAO found that all licensees had hmited documentation of waste hurial, groundwater contammation, and generally NRC did not require bcensees to monitor either soil er l

l groundwater contammation from buned waste "' or proside burial records to the NRC.*

Requirements NRC set for waste bunals were "1.) Total quantity of each burial did not exceed 1,000 times the I amounts specified in the regulations for sanous radioactise materials 2 ) Waste was buned 4 feet or more below the surfxe.

3.) Bunals were at least 6 feet apart, and the number of burials did not exceed 12 in any year.

4 ) No burial records were required to proside to the regulator.

l l

l The G AO reuew found that licenev ' 1 was .a best mcomplete, that ground water l

contammation was undocumented and that "a ;w ,

tuately decontaminate their facihties "Also for lise licenses that buried waste NRC does not know the types and amounts of radioactise uaste that hase been buned at four of the sites Licensee records are either nonexistent or incomplete. Although NRC does not beliese the buned wa.ste had caused significant groundwate contamination higher than federal dnnking water standards allow. For at least four sites, some of the contamination appears to be caused by the buried waste and at one site, the contamination was 400 times higher that the standards ""

The methodology in the I.TP is not sullicient to lind contamination for which l

l i

YAEC may not hase documcntation in fact, a leak detected in the ion exchange pit (documented) shows the migration of tntium to Sherman Spong m 1%5 t which hes below Sherman Dam and drains into the

Yankee Atoauc Elecine Co On Appeal f rom A Prehearing Conference Order On the Aiomic Saiety and 1.scenung Board luued March I 7, IPN tLBP-99-14) p 12

• • GAO NRC's Desummlutomng Pressdwick and Crilena bevd to lie btrefigthstwd G AOJRCElm-110 f* lbid Chapter

'lbad Chapter 4 p 30

lb6d l

l 1

24 Deerfield Riser) The tntium when initially detected was at concentrations of approumately 2 5 million pCi L " This concentration is orders of magmtude abose EPA danking water standard of 20,000 pCi 1. This lesel of contammation found m a body of water that is routinely charged and recharged This leak was not an "approsed discharge" and YAEC should be required to trace the nugration of the plume on-site and otT-site and remediate the area to background it is important to understand that the Deertield Riser is used estensisely for recreatiorul purposes Our children swim in it Farmland is adjacent to it and m droughts farmers take water from the nser to irrigate their crops It is not a dead riser The ik>ard states that YAEC "has committed to modify the LTP to conduct sediment analy ses at the discharge pomt in the south end of Sherman Pond"'. and that "the LTP is only mtended to assure that 'the facility and the site are suitable and in accordance with the entena for decommissioning m in CFR Part 20 Subpart E 10 CFR 50 82 (a)(lI)(n)"" Who is then, CAN asks, accountable for the plume of tntium (and other posuble radionuchdes harder to detect, such as alpha emitters) that migrated otT site into groundwater resulting not from standard operation, which is outside of scope of remediation, but from substandard operation' YAl C, as far as we can estabbsh, neser attempted to clean up the plume and now considers it outside ofits respesibility, as does the Licensmg Board it appears that no one will take responsibility for the contamination of our groundwater. This on its face is arbitrary and irrational l

' tbid p3  !

' L 5 NRC lmirunmsntalhxnmcDI Kel4ted te 1bc Kryursi le Authentclsciliu Deceinmintilning I YSPS thlet No 50-09 December 14 tw4 p t 5

' Itud p 22 j i

l

\

l

25 C. Contention 3 is xlid.

" Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50 82, the methodology YAliC employs in its LTP Final Site Suney Plan to determine alpha emitting radioactisity is not adequate to demonstrate that the LTP w '! assure the protection of public health and safet)."'"

YAliC mischaracterues the ASI.ll's rationale for accepting N1?CNP.CAN's contention that YAEC's LTP is inadequate in detemiining alpha-emitting radioactaity. The ASLB l

did not state, as YAEC would like us to beliese that Contention 3 has regulatory basis in 10 CFR 50 82(aH 11)(ii)" Rather, the ALSB stated that CAN, NECNP" raised a i

specific and salid contention whether the LTP adequately plans for determining the extent of alpha-emitter radioactne contamination to the estent necessary to mccr the rcymrcmenn of 10 CFR 50 82(a)(l1)(ii)"(emphasis added)

• YAEC must specify in their LTP and site suney plan their methodology for determining alpha-emitter radiation so as to assure that they wdl meet the NRC's acceptance criteria for license termination.

The methodology for alpha-emitter radiation measurements can only be addressed now, before the approsal of the LTP since, as the Commission made clear that,"The NRC's approsal of the LTP would entitle Yankee Atomic to proceed with its final decommissioning actisities secure in the knowledge that, absent extraordinary circumstances, the NRC would not later (at the beense termination stage) second-guess Yankee Atomic's site suncy methodology '"

[lbid p 23

• lbid p 41 lbid p 13

' Yankee Atomic Licetnc Co , Prchcaring Cor.:crense Order (Kulmg en.Cuntenttenu. t.llP No 99-754-ol LA R, tNtarch 17 tw9)p 24

• Yankee Atomic Licetnc Company t Yankee Nuclear Power Station), Njemergndum and Order, CLl 21 (October 23, lWh) p th 1

j

i 26 NRC rules and regulations are not mutable and anomalous YAlic should not arbitranly pick and choose from these regulations at will when it is held accountable to its commitments for site remedianon The rules and regulations were established to assure public health and safety and enuronmental protection Neither the 25 mrem /yr.

dose, nor the 100 mrem y r. dose, are mentioned in YAl C's I.TP. The only dose repeatedly referred to throunhout the I.TP is the 15 mrent yr Such doses as the 25 mrem yr. or 100 mrem yr were not mentioned at the NRC meeting held on January 13, 1998 in Buckland, Massachusetts" or any presious public mecangs. See LTP sections 21,243,244,443 The Commission and the 1.icensmg floud must require Yankee Rowe's LTP to adhere to a "no more than 15 mrem 3 r " release criteria.

Alpha-emitting contammation is a senous threat to pubhc health and safety and i

the methodology for its measurement must be included YAliC's 1.TP. The NRC,in an infonnation notice stated "For reactor facilities that hase experienced fuel defects, experience has shown that long after the defectise fuel has been remosed, sigmficant alpha contamination may remain in generally inaccessible locations, such as the fuel transfer canal, equipment drains and sumps and other refueling areas. lisen mmor disturbance of the contaminated surfaces can result in the release of alpha-emitting radionuclides, whose Densed Air Concentrations are orders of magmtude more restnctise and limiting (at much lower concentrations) compared with the normal beta-emitting and gamma-emitting isotopes usually encountered in reactor plant emironments . ""'

"This is due to the fact that alpha-emitters, with their miense dose rate base the potential to cause sesere biological damage when mgested or inhaled. In fact,"an alpha particle produces about 20 times the relatne biological etreet of an x-ray.""#

• The Otkial T ranscnpt of Proceedmp l'nated states of Amenca Nuclear Regulatory Commasion "Public hicct., g (Yankee Nuclear Power Station tacense 'lermiriation Plan), Shelburne, Sta, January 13, lWb

" NRC Information Nxice 97 36 Unplanned intakes by Worker ofIransuraruc Antx>rne Radioactisc Statenals and Esternal Esposure Due to inadequate Control of Work. June 20,1997, p 4

" Federal Energ) Regulatory Commnuon (Connecticut Yankee -stomic Power Company ). Docket ER97 913-ouo," Rebuttal Te>tmxm> of James K Jt= wen". I s C hh 6cpt i5,1997)

27 l

Y AEC has had fuel defects at the Yankee Rowe reactor Yankee Rowe has also f

i had signilicant leakage from reactor sy stems, one being from the lon Exchange Pit which allowed the migration of water (and any nuclides present in the water l from the ion i

l lischange Pit into the groundwater "' l'urther, the "siolent" plasma segmentation method l

Y AEC utilued to cut-up reactor mternals liberated " hot particles" which caused i14 i I

personnel contaminations "'

1 Now is the only time CAN can hold YAEC accountable for including etrectise and necessary methodology for suney mg alpha-emitting contamination in its I.TP.

YAliC has argued that these are matters ofimplementation, yet if the methodology that is to be used for the implementation is not adequately detailed, the problem of how the LTP ,

i will be properly implemented remams in question Waiting for the " implementation" of i

an unspecified methodology to take place, as YAEC seems to beliese is reasonable,"

deties logic and more importantly, is bad timing As the Commission stated "I.TP stage, in other words, is petitioners' one and only chance to litigate whether the suney methodology is adequate to demonstrate that the site has been brought to a condition suitable for license termmation They are precluded from doing so at the license termination stage"" It is now or neser D Contention 4 is s alid l

" letter irorn Jay K 'Ihayer to Monon 11 i ainde. Augusi 'i l'N4 Acccmon No 940MPA474, Aitachnent 1. p i i

"" ALAR A Po>i job Reuew Record". AL AR A Reuew Number '6-007, Sepicmber 6,1994, p 9

Ibid , p 2

" Yarice Atomic Electnc Co On Appsell'!viu 4 PIchvaring Cwferengs Ordgr vf the A1Wsc Set'cb And 1 NCRbl.Dilleefd lDVfd bl&rgh 11 l'rN tl llP 'N 14) p I1

2e The founh contention as dralled and admitted by the 1.icensing floard is

" Contrary to the requirements of 10 CFR 50 82, the methodology YAI!C employs in its LTP for the selection of apphcable scenanos for the calculation in its final release doses is not adequate to demonstrate that the I.TP will assure the protection of the public health and safelv.""

In StafTRestionses to Freuuentis Asked Ouestions Concermne Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reacton" the NRC stalTcomments on the "aserage member of the entical group" "The entical group is an indaidual or relatn ely homogeneous group of indaiduals expected to necened the highest exposure within the assumptions of the particular scenano The as erage member of the entical group is represented by the aserage of the doses for all members of the entical group, which in turn is assumed to represent the most hkely exposure situation For example, the critical group for a scenario in which people work mside a building would be the group of regular employces working m a building i that has been decontammated if the site were consened to residential use, the entical group could be people whose occupations )

i insolse resident farming at the site, not an aserage of all the residents )

on the site."" {

l

\

Indeed, NRC StatT go funher than the " gardener" scenario, and YAi!C in its commitments to the community goes funher than the " gardener" scenano YAEC contends that Contention 4 should be rejected as "10 C F R 201402 does not require the calculation of a TliDii for the member of the entical group who is aty pically exposed""'

CAN's conter; ons do not address calculatmg aty pical exposure. The scenano addressed

Yankee Atomic Elecinc Compari) t Yankee . Nuclear Power statioris. MstTieraridurn and_ Order. CLl 98-21 (October 23, tWB) p 19

" L11Pa)-14, Slip Op p 4I

" StalT Respon>ca io I-requently Asked Quc>tions un th:cernnn>uoning of Nuclear Power Reactors Nt1 REG 1628

• lbut 8 8

" Yankcc Aionuc Electnc Co Olyection lo arw! Monon of Y4rikre Atontic Electric Co for Recormdcratn>n of a Portion of Prchcasing Conference order thkei No 50-029-l.A page 7

29 in the contention contemplates the family farm scenario set forth by the NRC and YAEC" YAEC, m its motion, auempts to disregard the hours that would be spent in the field by a farmer YAEC twists CAN's contentions m an attempt to make it appear that an atypical member of the critical population would be esposed to residual radiation from dirt for 88 hours0.00102 days <br />0.0244 hours <br />1.455026e-4 weeks <br />3.3484e-5 months <br /> per year while they were gardemng, when m fact the most typical of family farmers, the critical population themselses, would spend considerably more time in contact with the dirt. YAEC further contends that in order for Contention 4 to be admissible, CAN's contention should hase asserted that the aserage member of the

(

cntical group is a full-time gardener!" % hat is the work of a farmer, if not a full time i i

i gardener? J Mr. Austin, Chief of the 1.ow-l.csel Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch, came to our commumt) in August of 1994 and told us that

" Yankee Rowe has proposed a standard of 30 millirem per year exposure from all reasonable pathways,30 millirem is about one tenth of the natural background radiation That esposure rate would be calculated based on human intrusion on the site, ms luJmg a pmtulatedJanulyfarm bemy curutructed rm the sue growmg crops, 25 percent ofthe cropa coruumed on thefarm, postulated drinking well, in w hich we would assume that a person dnnks 2 liters a day of the groundwater. We sum up all these exposures and their proposal is that the sum be 30 nullirem or less *

(Emphasis added)

In a letter from Don Dasis, YAEC CEO, to Mr Adam Laipson, Chair of the Franklin Regional Planning Board, dated January 5,1998, Dasis asserts that "In the LTP,

" NRC Enpuax 19ht>htQuottem liem ths AuguM lh (*fs4 Inferrnal hv4DDE reprding IldaDhrs hudself9EdlaL19 alm;9mmlutun1DgPJao, Appendis A p 4, l'N4

" Yankee Atomic Electne Co Objection To and Moton of Yankee Atomie Elcetnc Co for )

i Reconsideration of a Portion of Prcheanng Conference order Ibeket No 50-029 l.A page 8 "Oilicial Tranwnpt of Proceedmgs " Informal licanng - Yankee Rowe ikcommissionmg Plan",

Greenfield, N1 A August 16, Iw4 Aacssion Nurnber 94(9elht, pne 9 i

l

30 Yankee has committed to limit the dose from residual plant-related radioactiuty to less than 15 milkrent yr."" Daus states that this dose includes all exposure pathways. Ilis example is " . if a person were to build a house on the Yankee site, fann the land First, the family lising on the " postulated family farm" is not atypically exposed and the calculation for the TEDE should be for this family who a the entical group.

According to a Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture publication, Massachusetts leads New England in direct sales of fann products. Further,80'o of Massachusetts' 5,574 farms are indisidual or family owned and oser 93 percent are small l

farms A famil) farm is a reasonable and typical scenario for the region Secondly, since the family is consuming 25"o of their crops, one must assume that the remaming 75'o of the crops grown on this family farm are sold YAEC's I.TP scenario of 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> per week gardemng (person ga demng i percent of their time during a four month growing seasoni" does not equate to a family fann CAN contends that the LTP calculations should be based on a farmer fanning the land 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> per day,5 days per week. This equates to 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> of farming per week, which is still a consenatise estimate'* Currently unprotected by esen the assumptions in the family farm scenario, 1

" Leuct Enclosure titled "Y ALC Responses to i ranklm Regional Council of Gosernments Questions on YNPS License Termination Plan" from Don Dasis. Y Al.C Cl O, in Adam Laipson. Chair Franklin Regional Planmng lloard, January 5. l'edh. p 12

• lbad

"" Farm & Niarket Report", Ntassachusetts Depantnent ofI ood and Agriculture, Vol 76 No 2 February l'rN. p 1

see also Yankee Atomic Licetnc Compans, Supplement to Apphcont') havirepmcntal Report Pog Opstauutissnis htasc.Dswmmu>Nulmuenmcat4L8crert 1+a. figure 31-3

• 8700 hrs / yr s 0 01-87 6 hrs yardening a years Assunung a 4 month growmg season (52 weeks /yearls tycar/1 rnonthe s 4 rnonth growmg season - 17 3 wecks growing season therefore, h7 b hrs'17 3 weeks m growmg season * $ 1 hr6 per weck

'* In fact the Ntassachusetts Department of f ood and Agneulture. Drusion of Dairy Sersices. New England Agncultural Staustics Seruce. I arm Credit 15ank of Springfield L;SDA l' arm Seruce Agency and L;SD A Economic Research Scruce $14mchuKit) Dair) i 4rm) Art.Small formb f artn> has a chan i I

that shows are Farmer Profile The Farmer Profile aserage operaior hours worked 90 hours0.00104 days <br />0.025 hours <br />1.488095e-4 weeks <br />3.4245e-5 months <br /> per week, aserage work day 13 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br />, and average work week consistmg of 6 5 per week

31 is the postulated 2-year old child playing in the soil as her parent farms Additionally, CAN protests the exclusion ofchildren and maintams that children should be considered the aserage member of the critical group

!!w:n if YAi!C did not use the scenano of a family fann referenced in its llrP (which CAN would protest smee a family farm is ty pical of this region and since YAEC already committed to a farm scenano), typical people spend more than 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> per week in the soil tilhng, planting, weeding, watering, and harsesting not only segetables but l l

also flowers It is more than reasonable for a person to spend at least 2 percent of their time oser a 4 month growing season This means that the I.TP 2,hould at a minimum, assume a person lising on a family farm would garden at least 30 hour3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br /> a week, and that any person gardens 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> per week or more '"'

IV

Conclusion:

CAN would like to reiterate to the Comr..ission what we related to the 1.icensing Board, that the expenence of our community in relating to this bcensee and the NRC I

StalTis that whateser commitments that these parties hase made to our community since 1991 are mutable. We expenence ourselses as repeatedly participating in a shell game, in which escry time we attempt to hold YAEC to the commitments that it makes to our commumty (whether 1o15 milbrem' per y r ,25 millirem ' per yr ,or 30 millirem per yr) the commitment changes with the support of NRC Stall' CAN would hke YAEC to do as it says it will do CAN is asking only for simple fairness and adequate assurances that our

'*' B700 hrv yr s 0 02 - 175 2 hr gardemng m a year, anuming a 4 nunth growing season 'Iherefore 175 2 hrv171 weeks in growing en - 10 I hrs pr week

12 community which is sutTering can be protected from raJioactise contamination of our children and our natural resources l'or the foregoing reasons oflaw, regulations, and fact (I) YAl:C's Appeal of the ASt.ll should be denied Respectfully Submitted.

I

?

' s

[ ~

Ikturah 13 Katz, pro 3g for L AN >

l l

i l

r.

uni'lliD STATliS OF AMliRICA 000' ~i Ef)

L NUCl.l!AR RiiGUI.A'!ORY COMMISSION liefore the AIOMIC SAfliTY ANDIICl{NSING llOARD y,a App 19 P4 :02 Administratne Judges g Charles llechhoefer Chairmen g Dr Thomas S. lilleman /C Thomas D MuThy in the Matter of  ; Docket No 50-029-l.A YANKlili ATOMIC lit.liCTRIC COMPANY ) ASI.llP No 99 754-01-1.A-R (Yankee Nuclear Power Station) )

I 1.icense Termination Plan ) Sened Apnl 9,1999 C E R TIFIC ATI: OF SI RVICl{ FOR CITl/l:NS AWARFNFSS Ni TWORK'S Rl:PI Y TO Y Al:C'S MOTION 1, Detwah 11. Kat/., on behalf of Ciutens Awareness Network, Inc , cenify under penalty of perjury that on April /la,1999, copies of the enclosed papers were sened on the panies below by mailing them postage pre paid U S Postal Senice Priority 2 Day Mail:

' Onumal and two copies to_ Onep_g u i Rulemakings and Adjudications Statf Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication (Mail Stop 0-lb-C l) (Mail Stop o-16-C l )

U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission I White Flint North I White I-tml North 11555 Rocksille Pike 11555 Rocksille Pike Rocksille, MD 20852 2738 Rocksille, MD 20852 2738 Tel 301-415-1675 Tel 301-415-2184 One corn to Jonathan M. Illock, C'unsel for I homas G Dignan, Jr ,lisq New lingland Coahtion on Nuclear Pollution Ropes A Gray P O Ilox566 One International Place Putney, VI 05346-0566 ilosion. MA 02110 2624 Tel. 802-387 2646 l'ei 617-95l-7511

f I

2

()ne cons each to ( )ne cop 3A Atomie Safety and 1.icensing floard Ihomas S lilleman, Administratise Judge, i Charles liechhoefer, Chairman, and Atom:e Safe') and 1.icensing floard l Thomas hiurphy, Administratise Judge 704 Daudson Street t Niail Stop T-312.h Raleigh. NC 27609 LJ S Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-5599 2 White 1:Imt North j

i1545 RoeLulle Pike Rockulle, N1D 20852-2738 {

Washington, D C. 20009 l 301-415 5599 Sam 1.os ejo) ()tlice of the Secretary l l

1 ranklin Regional Council of Gos ernments US NRC 425 hiain Street  % ashington, DC 20555 Greentield, NiA 01301 301-415-1672 Tel. 413-774 3167 Ann 13 liodgdon. and h1artin 1. /.obler Otlice of General Counsel t

US NRC Washmgton, DC 20555 310-413-3725

/ f Deborah 11 Kat/, Citizens Aware ss Network

'I he followine persons were prouded griesy. copies of CAN's filmg Daud Rothsican l' S 1 PA Region i Sytte Ilyo-RCA 1 Co/.gress Street 140ston. N1A 02114-2023 l'ed ik>len, I sq 1.nuronmental Protection Diusion Ollice of the Attornes General 200 Po..and Street lloston. NiA 02114 l

l j

) . ou 18,9 9 2.: . .: . t .u 4 t a .3 a ., > . > > ,

I i

CmzeNs AWARENESS NerwoRx 1 Box 83 SHELBURNE FALLS, MA 01370 i l

FAX COVER SHEET 1 ,

l arre: Lll(9 f9'l To: O[Be Geceg 05torac 4 h ro: 3of u;s - /6 7 2.

l Deb PHONE: 413-339-5781/4374 CAN FROM: l CAP FAX: 413-?39-8768 RE: C6N QGfy TD s/46C $ ppg 4 L.

kessage i

I i

1 l

i