ML20217Q352

Comment on Federal Register Notice Concerning Approval of License Termination Plan,Dtd 970515 & Revised on 971218

ML20217Q352
Person / Time
Site:	Yankee Rowe
Issue date:	02/27/1998
From:	Blanch P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FRN-63FR4308 63FR4308-00005, 63FR4308-5, NUDOCS 9803120223
Download: ML20217Q352 (4)

Text

L' -

an afx yos K Wehr h 29, //f8 K U""" PaulM. Blanch neceiveo y Energy Consultant l998 HAR -6 An 8: 59 RULES & DR. EECH February 27,1998 US NRC

% J Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administration Services Office of Administration US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Comments on Federal Register: January 28,1998 (Volume 63, Number ,

18) Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Docket No.50-029, Yarkee ,

Nuclear Power Station, Franklin County, Massachusu+ts

Dear Chief:

. Please consider the following comments in response to the above Federal Register Notice. Many of these comments and questions were discussed a the i

NRC public meeting held in Rowe MA on January 13,1998.

The proposed license amendment requests the approval of the License Termination Plan dated May 15,1997 and as revised December 18,1997.

Specific comments are as follows.

The Federal Register makes the following statement:

The proposed change willnot:

Create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated. Accident analyses are includedin the approved Decommissioning Plan and are incorporatedinto the FSAR. All )

y decommissioning and fuel storage activities described in the License Termination Plan are consistent with those in the approved Decommissioning Plan. The proposed change does not affect p%nt systems, structures, or components in any way not previously evaluated l in the approved Decommissioning Plan, and no new or different failure modes will be created. Therefore, the proposed change is administrative in nature and does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of yy accident from any pmviously evaluated.

b ]!!!

l!!,5{!$f!i!!$k!

9803120223 980227 t 1 PDR ADOCK 05000029 '

l W PDR L

r 4 .  ;

I I

lt is unclear how the NRC Staff has arrived at this conclusion. Contained within I the proposed License Termination Plan is the request for approval for dry cask  !

spent fuel storage. I am not aware of any site specific analysis' that considers -

such accMents as flooding, chemical explosions, sabctage. plane crashes, emergency planning for cask malfunctions and the potential removal of spent fuel from the dry cask in the event of cask or fuel prcblems. The use of dry cask j storage clearly creates "different kinds of accidents from any accident previously evaluated."

( 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) requires that the spent fuel in the ISFS3 be protected L against the design basis threat for radiological sabotage. I am not aware of any ,

discussion.related to this requirement either in the License Termination or the

]

Decommissioning Plan. This comment applies to both wet and proposed dry fuel storage.

I

! My specific comments relaimi to the License Termination Plan are as foi!cws:

. Section 4.1 clearly sta'.es the site will be released for unrestricted use and l that the exposure " average member" of the of the critical population will be l

maintained at less than 15 mr/yr. Unrestricted usa allows one to inhabit the site for 365 days or 8740 hours0.101 days <br />2.428 hours <br />0.0145 weeks <br />0.00333 months <br /> per year. It is not clear what is rneant by the

" average member" of the of the critical population.

. Page A-7 clearly states that the maximum dose rate will be 10 micro R per hour. This would equate to an exposure of about 87 mr/yr. Please explain this apparent inconsistency in how a maximum exposure of 15 mr/yr wi'l be assured at a site with unrestricted use.

. The Haddam Neck plant has considered the total loss of water inventory from the spent fuel pool and provided the analysis to demonstrate compliance with the off-site radiological requirements of 10 CF. , Part 100. I am not aware of a similar analysis being conducted for the Yankee Rowe high level waste facility. This analysis appears to be missing from the License Termination l- Plan.

l With this proposed license amendment, the licensee is proposing to establish a high level waste repository under a license for an operating nuclear power reactor. Power operation of the Yankee Rowe facility ceased in 1992 and with

, the removal of all structures except those to support spent fuel storage, the ,

i licensee is establishing a high level waste repository under power reactor l license in my opinion, this proposed license amendent is totally inconsistent with the intent of either 10 CFR 50 or 10 CFR 72. 4

' 10 CFR 72 Subpart E-Siting Evaluation Factors 2

l L

The intent of 10 CFR 72 is to establish the regulatory requirements for the independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSI). With the removal of all structures related to power reactor operation, the facility is, by default, an ISFSI.

j lt is unclear as to why the licensee and the NRC are clearly avoiding the t

requirements and the safeguards provided by Part 72, except for the financial incentive associated with retaining the Part 50 license.

l The NRC has recently acknowledged that the annual license fee for a Part 72 license is $283,000 whereas the annual fee for a non operating power reactor (Yankee Rowe) is zero. This appears to be a significant financial incentive for the

! licensee to avoid applying for the appropriate license, increasing the risk to the general public and saving the . licensee more than a quarter million dollars per year.

1 l While there is no absolutely safe means of providing for the long term storage of

!~

high level radioactive waste,10 CFR 72 attempts to address the requirements that will minimize the risk to the general public. To ignore these requirements, not consider the impact on the environment and the safety of the public, is not consistent with the intended role of the Nuclear Regub'.ory Commission.

In Part 72 Statements of Considerations, page 72-SC-5 the NRC clearly states:

1

" Storage of spent fuel on a reactor site outside of an existing reactor basin is already regulated under the criteria of Part 72 and these criteria have been used in reviewing applications for additional fuel storage at reactor sites."

This statement infers that if spent fuel is stored outside the existing spent fuel l pool, then the criteria of part 72 would apply and also infers that the licensee

! would be required to apply for a Part 72 license. Please explain why a Part 72 L license is not required for the long term storage of spent fuel outside the existing reactor basin [ spent fuel pool] given the previous statement from the NRC.

When part 50 was promulgated it was implicitly assumed that the reactor site would have all attendant features (security, emergency planning, and the unique environmental requirements for a long term high level waste repository). The absence of these " guarantees" at a true ISFSI is the teason for the "added" l provisions in Part 72. If Yankee Rowe proceeds down its current path, it becomes, a de facto ISFSI.

But, its abbreviated Part 50 license does not have all of its original assurances nor does it contain the gap-bridging features of Part 72. Also, Part 72's regulations were designed with consideration for the site being " stand-alone" or independent. Since permanently closed plants (PCPs) get a free ride with little or 3

l-

! no NRC inspector presence, use of Part 50 seems further eroded. Again, Part 50 was implemented with consideration that NRC inspection / enforcement would l ensure compliance. Part 72 was implemented with realization that reduced /non-l existent NRC inspection / enforcement would be needed to ensure compliance.

l The licensee proposes to continue its license under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 titled " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.

) Reviewing the definitions of 10 CFR 50.2 it is unclear how a high level nuclear waste facility could be classified as either a " Production2" or a " Utilization "

l facility.

Please explain the intent of 10 CFR Part 72 if the NRC is not going to apply this regulation to the more than 70 nuclear plant sites about to be converted to long term high level waste facilities.

I appreciate this opportunity to comment on this Federal Register Notice and look i forward to your response.

l l l l

l Sincerely, foul #1/O Paul M. Blanch  !

135 Hyde Rd.

West Hartford CT. 06117 l

l 1 i

• Production facility means:

(1) Any nuclear reactor designed or used primarily for the formation of plutonium or uranium-233; or (2) Any facility designed or used for the separation of the isotopes of plutonium, except laboratory scale facilities designed or used for experimental or analytical purposes only; or (3) Any facility designed or used for the processing of irradiated materials containing special nuclear material. . .

• Utilization facility means any nuclear reactor other than one designed or used primarily for the formation of plutonium or U-233 4