Yankee Atomic Electric Company (License No. DPR-3); Issuance of Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-029]

Yankee Atomic Electric Company (License No. DPR-3); Issuance of

Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206

Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation, has taken action with respect to a Petition, dated January

17, 1996, by Citizens Awareness Network and New England Coalition on

Nuclear Pollution (Petitioners). The Petitioners requested that the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to

operation by Yankee Atomic Energy Company (YAEC or Licensee) of its

Nuclear Power Station at Rowe, Massachusetts (Yankee Rowe).

Petitioners requested that the NRC comply with Citizens Awareness

Network Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Yankee

Atomic Electric Company, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995) (CAN v. NRC).

Specifically, Petitioners requested that the Commission immediately

order:

(1) YAEC not to undertake, and the NRC staff not to approve,

further major

[[Page 7826]]

dismantling activities or other decommissioning activities, unless such

activities are necessary to assure the protection of occupational and

public health and safety; (2) YAEC to cease any such activities; and

(3) NRC Region I to reinspect Yankee Rowe to determine whether there

has been compliance with the Commission's Order of October 12, 1995

(CLI-95-14), and to issue a report within ten days of the requested

order to Region I.

The Petitioners' request for emergency action to cease

decommissioning activities was mooted in part by the Licensee's

completion of activities evaluated by the NRC staff in a letter of

November 2, 1995 to the licensee. Even if these activities have not

been completed, they would have been permissible under the Commission's

pre-1993 interpretation of its decommissioning regulations. By letter

dated February 2, 1996, Petitioners' request that shipments of low-

level radioactive be prohibited was denied, and Petitioners' request

for reinspection of the Yankee Rowe facility to determine compliance

with CLI-94-14 and to issue an inspection report was granted. The

Director has determined to be moot the request that four other

activities be prohibited. Additionally, he has granted the request for

inspection of Yankee Rowe to determine compliance with CLI-95-14 and to

issue an inspection report. The reasons for these decisions are

explained in the ``Director's Decision Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206'' (DD-

96-01), the complete text of which follows this notice and is available

for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the

Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local

public document room located at the Greenfield Community College

Library, 1 College Drive, Greenfield, Massachusetts, 01301.

A copy of the Decision will be filed with the Secretary of the

Commission for the Commission's review in accordance with 10 CFR

2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. As provided by this

regulation, the Decision will constitute the final action of the

Commission 25 days after the date of issuance unless the Commission, on

its own motion, institutes a review of the Decision in that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of February 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Appendix A to This Document: Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206;

Yankee Atomic Electric Company

I. Introduction

An ``EMERGENCY MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CIRCUIT COURT

OPINION'' (Petition), dated January 17, 1996, was submitted by

Citizens Awareness Network and New England Coalition on Nuclear

Pollution (Petitioners). Petitioners requested that the United

States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) take action

with respect to activities conducted by Yankee Atomic Electric

Company (YAEC or Licensee) at the Yankee Nuclear Power Station in

Rowe, Massachusetts (Yankee Rowe or the facility).

By an Order of the Commission dated January 23, 1996, the

Emergency Motion was referred to the NRC staff for treatment as a

petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.

The Commission ordered the staff to respond to the emergency aspects

of the Petition in 10 days and to issue a decision on the Petition

as a whole within 30 days.

Petitioners request that the NRC comply with Citizens Awareness

Network Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

Yankee Atomic Electric Company, 59 F.3d 284 (1st Cir. 1995) (CAN v.

NRC). Specifically, Petitioners request that the Commission

immediately order:

(A) YAEC not to undertake, and the NRC staff not to approve,

further major dismantling activities or other decommissioning

activities, unless such activities are necessary to assure the

protection of occupational and public health and safety;

(B) YAEC to cease any such activities; and

(C) NRC Region I to reinspect the Yankee Nuclear Power Station

in Rowe, Massachusetts (Yankee Rowe) to determine whether there has

been compliance with the Commission's Order of October 12, 1995

(CLI-95-14), and to issue a report within ten days of the requested

order to Region I.

As the bases for their requests, Petitioners state that:

(1) CAN v. NRC requires the cessation, and prohibits

commencement, of decommissioning activities at Yankee Rowe, pending

final approval of the licensee's decommissioning plan after

opportunity for a hearing. CLI-95-14 forbids YAEC from conducting

any further major dismantling or decommissioning activities until

final approval of its decommissioning plan after completion of the

hearing process;

(2) CAN v. NRC obliges the Commission and the staff to provide

an opportunity to interested persons for a hearing to approve a

decommissioning plan;

(3) CAN v. NRC requires the Commission to reinstate its pre-1993

interpretation of its decommissioning regulations, General

Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, 53 FR 24,018,

24,025-26 (June 27, 1988), limiting the scope of permissible

activities prior to approval of a decommissioning plan to

decontamination, minor component disassembly, and shipment and

storage of spent fuel, if permitted by the operating license and/or

10 CFR Sec. 50.59. Under Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear

Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-90-08, 32 NRC 201, 207, n.3 (1990), this

means that the licensee may not take any action that would

materially affect the methods or options available for

decommissioning, or that would substantially increase the costs of

decommissioning, prior to approval of a decommissioning plan. Under

CLI-91-2, 33 NRC at 73, n.5, and CLI-92-2, 35 NRC at 61, n.7, other

decommissioning activities, in addition to major ones, are

prohibited, including offsite shipments of low-level radioactive

waste produced by decommissioning activities, until after approval

of a decommissioning plan;

(4) Decommissioning activities permitted by NRC Inspection

Manual, Chapter 2561, Sec. 06.06, ``Modifications or Changes to the

Facility'', before approval of a decommissioning plan are limited to

maintenance, removal of relatively small radioactive components or

non-radioactive components, and characterization of the plant or

site;

(5) YAEC is conducting decommissioning activities, with the

approval of the NRC technical staff, in flagrant violation of CAN v.

NRC and of CLI-95-14, thus threatening to render the decommissioning

process nugatory and to deprive Petitioners of their hearing rights

under Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act;

(6) By letter dated October 19, 1995, YAEC described nine

decommissioning activities in progress, and by letter dated October

24, 1995, interpreted permissible ``major'' dismantling as removal

of non-radioactive material required to support safe storage of

spent fuel and of those portions of the facilities which remain, or

to support future dismantlement;

(7) By letter dated November 2, 1995, the NRC staff approved the

activities described by the Licensee in its letter of October 19,

1995;

(8) Five of the nine activities approved by the NRC staff's

letter of November 2, 1995, are major dismantling or other

decommissioning activities, in the nature of Component Removal

Project activities, prohibited, until after approval of a

decommissioning plan, by CAN v. NRC and CLI-95-14. Petitioners

object to: (a) Completing removal of the remainder of the Upper

Neutron Shield Tank; (b) removal of Component Cooling Water System

pipes and components and Spent Fuel Cooling System pipes and

components; (c) Fuel Chute isolation; (d) Spent Fuel Pool electrical

conduit installation; and (e) radioactive waste shipments.

Petitioners do not object to Waste Tank removal, Ion Exchange Pit

clean-up, removal of Emergency Diesel Generators, or the Brookhaven

National Laboratory Cable Sampling Project.

(9) Petitioners advocate the SAFSTOR decommissioning alternative

because it allows levels of radioactivity and waste volumes to

decrease, thus reducing

[[Page 7827]]

occupational and public radiation exposures, and lowering

decommissioning costs;

(10) NRC Inspection Report No. 50-29/95-05 (December 16, 1995)

concludes that the issue whether activities observed were in

compliance with CLI-95-14 is unresolved, but approves YAEC's

proposed activities, contrary to the requirements of NRC Inspection

Manual, Chapter 2561, Sec. 06.06, ``Modifications or Changes to the

Facility'' (March 20, 1992); and

(11) YAEC's criterion for permissible decommissioning

activities, that any activity involving less than 1 percent of the

on-site radioactive inventory is not ``major'' and may take place

before approval of a decommissioning plan, violates CAN v. NRC

because it would allow completion of decommissioning before any

decommissioning plan could be approved in hearing, and constitutes

unlawful segmentation under the National Environmental Policy Act.

By letter dated January 29, 1996, Yankee Atomic Electric Company

responded to the Petition. YAEC supplemented its response by letters

dated February 15, 1996, February 21, 1996, and February 22, 1996,

and by an E-mail message to the NRC staff on January 31, 1996.

By letter dated February 2, 1996, the NRC staff denied in part

and granted in part Petitioners' requests for emergency action. The

Petition was also found moot in part. Petitioners' requests that the

NRC take emergency action to order (A) YAEC not to undertake and the

NRC staff not to approve further major dismantling activities or

other decommissioning activities, unless necessary to assure the

protection of occupational and public health and safety and (B) YAEC

to cease any such activities were found moot in part and denied in

part. Petitioners' request for emergency action to require NRC

Region I to reinspect Yankee Rowe to determine whether YAEC has

complied with the Commission's Order of October 12, 1995 (CLI-95-

14), and to issue a report within ten days after the Commission

orders such an inspection, was granted.

Petitioners then requested the Commission to reverse the NRC

staff's February 2, 1996, decision on the emergency aspects of the

Petition. See ``Citizens Awareness Network's and New England

Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Motion for Exercise of Plenary

Commission Authority to Reverse NRC Staff 2.206 Decision, and

Renewed Emergency Request for Compliance with Circuit Court

Opinion.'' By Order dated February 15, 1996, the Commission declined

to grant the emergency relief requested, as there was no showing

that the Licensee would take any action before the issuance of a

Director's Decision on February 22, 1996. The Commission directed

the NRC staff to address the arguments advanced by Petitioners in

their February 9 motion in this Decision, with the exception of the

new issues raised on page 13 of the Motion, which are to be

addressed in a supplementary 10 CFR Sec. 2.206 decision.

For the reasons discussed below, Petitioners' requests that the

NRC prohibit YAEC from undertaking or continuing five of the nine

activities evaluated by the NRC staff's letter of November 2, 1995,

are moot in part and denied in part. Of the nine activities, all

with the exception of radioactive waste shipments were completed

before submission of the January 17, 1996, Petition. Accordingly,

Petitioners' request for relief with respect to: (1) Completing

removal of the remainder of the Upper Neutron Shield Tank; (2)

removal of the Component Cooling Water System pipes and components

and Spent Fuel Cooling System pipes and components; (3) Fuel Chute

isolation; and (4) Spent Fuel Pool electrical conduit installation

is moot. Petitioners' request for relief with respect to radioactive

waste shipments is denied. As explained below, all five contested

activities were permissible, before approval of a decommissioning

plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's

decommissioning regulations, and thus are in compliance with CAN v.

NRC and CLI-95-14. Petitioners' request that the NRC inspect Yankee

Rowe to determine compliance with CLI-95-14, and issue an inspection

report, was granted.

II. Background

On February 27, 1992, YAEC announced its intention to cease

operations permanently at Yankee Rowe. On August 5, 1992, the NRC

issued a license amendment to limit the license to a Possession-

Only-License. 57 FR 37558, 37579 (Aug. 19, 1992).

In late 1992, YAEC proposed to initiate a Component Removal

Project (CRP). On December 20, 1993, YAEC submitted a

decommissioning plan based on a phased approach, starting with

DECON, then SAFSTOR, and then finally dismantlement. Notice of

Receipt of Decommissioning Plan and Request for Comments was

published in the Federal Register. (59 FR 14689 on March 29, 1994).

On January 14, 1993, and on June 30, 1993, the Commission issued

two Staff Requirements Memoranda which, in pertinent part,

interpreted the Commission's regulations to permit many

decommissioning activities prior to approval of a decommissioning

plan, as long as the activities do not violate the terms of the

existing license or 10 CFR Sec. 50.59 with certain additional

restrictions. See ``Staff Requirements--Briefing by OGC on

Regulatory Issues and Options for Decommissioning Proceedings (SECY-

92-382), 10:00 A.M., Tuesday, November 24, 1992, Commissioner's

Conference Room, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland (Open to

Public Attendance)'' (January 14, 1993) and ``SECY-92-382-

Decommissioning--Lessons Learned'' (June 30, 1993).

On several occasions between late 1992 and early 1994, CAN asked

the NRC to offer an opportunity for an administrative hearing

regarding decommissioning activities conducted by YAEC at Yankee

Rowe. The Commission denied each such request. CAN sought judicial

review and challenged the denials and the January 14, 1993,

interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations.

On July 20, 1995, the United States Court of Appeals held that

the Commission had: (1) Failed to provide an opportunity for hearing

to CAN, as required by Section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, in

connection with the Commission's decision to permit the CRP

decommissioning activities; (2) changed its pre-1993 interpretation

of its decommissioning regulations without notice to the public and

in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3)

impermissibly allowed the licensee to conduct CRP decommissioning

activities prior to compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act requirement to conduct an environmental analysis or

environmental impact statement. Citizens Awareness Network v. NRC

and Yankee Atomic Electric Company, 59 F. 3d 284, 291-2, 292-3, and

294-5 (1st Cir. 1995). The court remanded the matter to the

Commission for proceedings consistent with the court's opinion.

In response, the Commission issued a Federal Register notice

advising: (1) That the Commission did not intend to seek further

review of CAN v. NRC; (2) that the Commission understood that

decision to require a return to the interpretation of NRC

decommissioning regulations that was in effect prior to January 14,

1993; and (3) that the Commission was requesting public comments on

whether the Commission should order YAEC to cease ongoing

decommissioning activities pending any required hearings and any

other matters connected with that issue. See 60 FR 46,317 (September

6, 1995).

After consideration of comments filed in response to that

notice, the Commission implemented CAN v. NRC by issuing Yankee

Atomic Electric Company (Yankee Nuclear Power Station), CLI-95-14,

42 NRC 130 (1995). In CLI-95-14, the Commission reinstated its pre-

1993 interpretation of its decommissioning policy, required the

issuance of a notice of opportunity for an adjudicatory hearing on

the Yankee Rowe decommissioning plan, held that YAEC may not conduct

further ``major'' decommissioning activities at Yankee Rowe until

approval of a decommissioning plan after completion of any required

hearing, and directed YAEC to inform the Commission within 14 days

of the steps it is taking to come into compliance with the

reinstated interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning

regulations. Yankee Atomic Electric Company, CLI-95-14, 42 NRC 130

(1995).

Pursuant to CLI-95-14, a proceeding is now underway to offer an

opportunity for hearing on the Licensee's decommissioning plan for

Yankee Rowe. Petitioners have sought intervention and a hearing.

As of July 20, 1995, when the court issued CAN v. NRC, YAEC had

completed its Component Removal Project. In response to CLI-95-14,

by letters dated October 19 and 24, 1995, YAEC identified nine

ongoing activities which YAEC believed were permissible under CAN v.

NRC and CLI-95-14.

In its letter of November 2, 1995, the NRC staff evaluated those

nine activities and found them permissible under the Commission's

pre-1993 interpretation of its decommissioning regulations, and thus

under CAN v. NRC and CLI-95-14. The staff

[[Page 7828]]

also identified certain activities, although not proposed by the

Licensee, which may not be conducted before reapproval of a

decommissioning plan. Those activities include dismantlement of

systems such as the main reactor coolant system, the lower neutron

shield tank, vessels that have significant radiological

contamination, pipes, pumps and other such components and the vapor

container (containment). The staff also identified segmentation or

removal of the reactor vessel from its support structure as a major

dismantlement not to be conducted until after the decommissioning

plan is reapproved.

III. Discussion

A. The nine activities were permissible, prior to approval of a

decommissioning plan, under the Commission's pre-1993 interpretation

of its decommissioning regulations, and thus are permissible under

CAN v. NRC and CLI-95-14.

Petitioners contend that five of the nine activities evaluated

by the NRC staff's letter of November 2, 1995, are major dismantling

or other decommissioning activities prohibited until after approval

of a decommissioning plan, by CAN v. NRC and CLI-95-14.

Specifically, Petitioners object to: (1) Completing removal of the

remainder of the Upper Neutron Shield Tank; (2) removal of Component

Cooling Water System pipes and components and Spent Fuel Cooling

System pipes and components; (3) Fuel Chute isolation; (4) Spent

Fuel Pool electrical conduit installation; and (5) radioactive waste

shipments. Petitioners do not object to Waste Tank removal, Ion

Exchange Pit clean-up, removal of Emergency Diesel Generators, or

the Brookhaven National Laboratory Cable Sampling Project.

Petitioners acknowledge that completion of Waste Tank removal and

Ion Exchange Pit clean-up are required for safety reasons.

Petitioners also acknowledge that the removal of the Emergency

Diesel Generators is permissible because they are not radioactive,

and that the Brookhaven National Laboratory Cable Sampling Project

is a research project unrelated to decommissioning. Of the nine

activities, all with the exception of radioactive waste shipments

were completed before submission of the January 17, 1996, Petition.

Under the Commission's pre-1993 interpretation of its

decommissioning regulations, a licensee ``may proceed with some

activities such as decontamination, minor component disassembly, and

shipment and storage of spent fuel if the activities are permitted

by the operating license and/or Sec. 50.59'', prior to final

approval of a licensee's decommissioning plan, \1\, as long as the

activity does not involve major structural or other major changes

and does not materially and demonstrably affect the methods or

options available for decommissioning or substantially increase the

costs of decommissioning. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham

Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-90-8, 32 NRC 201, 207, n.3

(1990); Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power

Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-2, 33 NRC 61, 73. n.5 (1991); and

Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear

Generating Station), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 61. n. 7 (1992).

\1\ Statement of Consideration, ``General Requirements for

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities'', 53 FR 24018, 24025-26 (June

27, 1988).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's

decommissioning regulations, examples of activities which were

considered permissible and which were conducted at various

facilities under a Possession-Only license before approval of a

decommissioning plan included:

Shoreham \2\

Core borings in biological shield wall

\2\ See letter dated December 11, 1991 from John D. Leonard,

Jr., Long Island Lighting Company, to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, Docket No. 50-322.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Core borings of the reactor pressure vessel

Regenerative heat exchanger removal and disassembly

Various sections of reactor water clean-up system piping

cut out and removed to determine effectiveness of chemical

decontamination processes being used

Removal of approximately half of reactor pressure vessel

insulation and preparation for disposal

Removal of fuel support castings and peripheral pieces

removed and shipment offsite for disposal at Barnwell, South

Carolina

Reactor water clean-up system recirculation holding pump

removed and shipped to James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant

Control rod drive pump shipped to Brunswick Nuclear Station

One full set of control rod blade guides sold to Carolina

Power and Light Company

Control rod drives removed, cleaned, and stored in boxes

for salvage

Process initiated for segmenting and removing reactor

pressure vessel cavity shield blocks

Process initiated for removal of instrument racks, tubing,

conduits, walkways, and pipe insulation presenting interferences for

decommissioning activities and/or removal of salvageable equipment

Fort St. Vrain \3\

Control rod drive and orifice assemblies and control rods

removed from core during defueling and shipped offsite for

processing or disposal as low-level waste

\3\ See letter dated September 4, 1992 from Donald M.

Warembourg, Public Service Company of Colorado, to the U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Docket No. 50-267.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

All helium circulators removed and shipped offsite for

disposal

Core region constraint devices (internals) removed and

approximately one-half shipped offsite for disposal

About 50 core metal-clad reflector blocks (top layer of

core) removed and stored in fuel storage wells

Removal of remaining hexagonal graphite reflector elements,

defueling elements, and metal-clad reflector blocks begun

Pre-stressed concrete reactor vessel (PCRV) top cross-head

tendons and some circumferential tendons detensioned

Some detensioned tendons removed from PCRV

Work initiated to cut and remove PCRV liner cooling system

piping presenting interferences to detensioning of PCRV tendons, and

Asbestos insulation completely removed from piping under

PCRV

Activities such as normal maintenance and repairs, removal of

small radioactive components for storage or shipment, and removal of

components similar to that for maintenance and repair also were

permitted prior to approval of a decommissioning plan under the

Commission's pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's

decommissioning regulations. See NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter

2561, Section 06.06. (Issue Date: 03/20/92).4

\4\ ``Examples of modifications and activities, that are allowed

during the post-operational phase [the interval between permanent

shutdown and the NRC's approval of the licensee's decommissioning

plan] are (1) those that could be performed under normal maintenance

and repair activities, (2) removal of certain, relatively small

radioactive components, such as control rod drive mechanism, control

rods, and core internals for disassembly, and storage or shipment,

(3) removal of non-radioactive components and structures not

required for safety in the post-operational phase, (5) shipment of

reactor fuel offsite, and (6) activities related to site and

equipment radiation and contamination characterization.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, licensees are also permitted to complete or to

conduct activities required for compliance with safety requirements

before approval of a decommissioning plan. In addition, special

consideration must be given to activities required to comply with

other federal and state safety requirements. See Memorandum of

Understanding Between the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration, ``Worker Protection

at NRC-licensed Facilities'' (October 21, 1988), 53 FR 43950

(October 31, 1988). See also NRC Inspection Manual, Chapter 1007,

``Interfacing Activities Between Regional Offices of NRC and OSHA''.

Petitioners concede that completion of activities already underway

is permissible if completion is required for immediate safety

purposes.

The staff's November 2, 1995 letter evaluated the nine

activities identified in YAEC's letter of October 19, 1995, based on

the Commission's pre-1993 interpretation of its decommissioning

regulations,5 and determined that the nine activities were

permissible before approval of a decommissioning plan.

\5\ Petitioners claim that YAEC's ``1 percent'' criterion for

determining what constitutes major structural or other major change

(and thus what activities are permissible before approval of a

decommissioning plan) would allow completion of decommissioning

before any decommissioning plan could be approved in hearing. The

staff does not accept or approve, and has not used this criterion to

determine whether any YAEC activities, including the nine

activities, are permissible before approval of a decommissioning

plan.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon review of the Petition and its supplement of February 9,

1996, the staff took a fresh look at the nine activities and again

found them to be permissible before approval of a decommissioning

plan, under the pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's

decommissioning regulations, and thus under CAN v. NRC and CLI-95-

14:

[[Page 7829]]

(1) Completion of Removal of the Remaining Portions of the Upper

Neutron Shield Tank

As stated in the NRC staff's letter of November 2, 1995,

completion of this activity was necessary to avoid a significant

lead hazard to plant personnel due to lead dust or powder deposits

on surfaces of the structure (particularly if the plant were to go

into an extended SAFSTOR configuration, as desired by Petitioners).

That contamination, if disturbed during licensee maintenance

activities or NRC inspections would pose a significant health hazard

to Licensee and NRC personnel.

Petitioners object that this safety rationale is unsupported by

factual information regarding actual lead levels in the tank and

whether the lead levels violated OSHA standards.

Dismantlement of the Upper Neutron Shield Tank required cutting

sections of the tank that had lead shielding. Cutting was completed

before November 2, 1995 and lead cleanup was completed by November

8, 1995. Lead dust was created by dismantlement of the tank, already

underway and completed before issuance of the November 2, 1995 staff

letter. Surface lead residue measurements in those areas ranged

between 13,000 micrograms/ft 2 and 390,000 micrograms/ft

2.

The Licensee's operating procedures require the Licensee to

implement industrial hygiene control methods as specified by the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration in areas where there

is potential for employee exposure to lead. Procedure No. AP-0713,

``Lead Control Program'', Revision 1 Major, Section C

(``Discussion''), p. 3. The target for removable lead contamination

is 200 micrograms/ft 2. Id., ``Discussion'', Section C.,

``Decontamination'', p. 4.

Lead dust resulting from dismantlement of the Upper Neutron

Shield Tank was at a concentration such that surface lead

contamination exceeded the target for removable lead

contamination.6 Licensee personnel were and are required to

enter the area in order to conduct surveillances to monitor

radioactive contamination and for compliance with fire protection

requirements.

\6\ The use of respiratory protection by workers would not have

satisfied the Licensee's operating procedures. Until a determination

is made that any employee working with lead will not be exposed to

lead at the action level, respiratory protection is required.

Procedure No. AP-0713, ``Procedure'', Section C (``Lead Work

Practices''), p. 11. The action level is employee exposure, without

regard to use of respirators, to an airborne concentration of lead

of 30 micrograms per cubic meter of air calculated as an 8-hour

time-weighted average, and the permissible exposure limit is 50

micrograms per cubic meter of air over an 8-hour time weighted

average, and 30 micrograms per cubic meter of air over a 10-hour

time weighted average. Id., ``Definitions'', p. 1. Between October

5, 1995 and October 11, 1995, airborne lead concentrations in the

areas affected ranged between 3 micrograms/m3 and 2500

micrograms/m3. Between October 12, 1995 and October 26, 1995,

airborne lead concentrations ranged between 1 microgram/m3 and

250 micrograms/m3.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In view of the above, this activity was permissible for safety

reasons, and, therefore, would have been allowed in a comparable

situation before approval of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-

1993 interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations.

(2) Waste Tank Removal (Activity Decay and Dilution Tank)

Petitioners concede that completion of this activity was

required for safety reasons.

(3) Removal of Component Cooling Water System Pipes and Components

and Spent Fuel Cooling System Pipes and Components

Contrary to Petitioners' assertions, the staff's February 2,

1996, letter did not ``abandon'' the November 2, 1995, rationale for

finding this activity permissible. The staff's February 2 letter

repeated the November 2 rationale and provided a more detailed

explanation for the staff's conclusion that this activity is

permissible under the pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's

decommissioning regulations.

The Licensee had installed a self-contained spent fuel pool

cooling system, isolated from the fluid components and installed

conduit to allow future electrical isolation from other systems, in

order to enhance safety and integrity of the spent fuel pool for

prolonged storage of fuel. As a result, the Component Cooling Water

System pipes and components and Spent Fuel Cooling System pipes and

components were rendered redundant and were no longer useful.

Removal of the no-longer useful pipes and components was not

decommissioning, but maintenance that would have been allowed,

before approval of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993

interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning

regulations.7 Petitioners erroneously contend that removal of

this equipment is not maintenance. Removal of replaced equipment (as

opposed to removal of dismantled equipment not intended to be

replaced) is a normal maintenance activity.

\7\ Petitioners assert that the staff provided no factual

support for its conclusion that leaving the Component Cooling Water

System and Spent Fuel Cooling System pipes and components in place

would pose a safety hazard. Upon further review, the staff has

determined that removal was not necessary to prevent a safety

hazard.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In view of the above, this activity was permissible, before

approval of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993

interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations.

(4) Ion Exchange Pit Clean-up

Petitioners concede that completion of this activity was

required for safety reasons.

(5) Fuel Chute Isolation

The Licensee made a commitment to NRC to complete a Fuel Chute

isolation project, needed to enhance spent fuel pool integrity and

long-term reliability, in response to NRC Bulletin 94-01,

``Potential Fuel Pool Draindown Caused by Inadequate Maintenance

Practices at Dresden Unit 1'' (April 14, 1994). NRC Bulletin 94-01

explicitly identified potential siphon or drainage paths and

freezing failures as hazards that could lead to drainage of the

spent fuel pool.8 NRC Bulletin 94-01 required licensees to

identify which of the suggested actions that the licensees would

take to prevent such hazards, or to identify an alternative course

of action, if the licensees needed to take such measures to bring

themselves into compliance as described in NRC Bulletin 94-01.

\8\ Requested action number 2 was: ``Ensure that systems for

essential area heating and ventilation are adequate and appropriate

maintenance so that potential freezing failures that could cause

loss of SFP water inventory are precluded.'' Requested action number

3 was: ``Ensure that piping or hoses in or attached to the SFP

cannot serve as siphon or drainage paths in the event of piping or

hose degradation or failure or the mispositioning of system

valves.''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

YAEC's Fuel Chute isolation project eliminated a potential

freezing threat and siphon path that could lead to drainage of the

spent fuel pool. The NRC staff determined actions taken to prevent

potential siphon paths and freezing hazards connected with the Fuel

Chute to be adequate. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-029/94-80

(December 9, 1994).

Petitioners erroneously maintain that isolation of the upper

Fuel Chute is not necessary to prevent a risk of siphoning or

freezing, because the upper Fuel Chute lies above the fuel pool and

cannot serve as a siphon for liquid in the pool. The fuel chute pipe

originally ran from the lower lock valve at the outside wall at the

bottom of the spent fuel pit (SFP) on a diagonal path to the outer

shell of the vapor container (VC), through the shell and into the

VC. During former plant operations a blank flange was inserted in

the pipe, outside the VC shell, in order to maintain VC leak tight

integrity.

As part of the NRC Bulletin 94-01 project, one 8-foot length of

this 12 inch diameter fuel chute pipe was removed from the top of

the lower lock valve and a blank flange placed over the lower lock

valve so that the valve could be encased in concrete. This, in

effect, made the valve part of the SFP wall. The removal of this

section of pipe also eliminated a potential leak path through the

pipe out of the SFP wall.

Isolation of the Fuel Chute, accomplished by removing the lowest

flanged pipe section and sealing the lower portion of the Fuel Chute

with concrete, eliminated a freezing and siphon hazard. Sealing the

Fuel Chute with concrete prevents accumulation of water in the Fuel

Chute. Accumulated water could freeze during severe winter weather

and possibly damage the lower lock valve outside the spent fuel pool

wall, thus opening a leak path near the bottom of the spent fuel

pool.

Petitioners incorrectly maintain that the Licensee did not need

to remove the upper Fuel Chute in order to comply with NRC Bulletin

94-01. The licensee did not remove the upper fuel chute. The

licensee has fastened a blank flange at the wall of the VC by

wedging open a flanged joint. This was a maintenance activity. This

blank flange is normally in place and was removed, in the past, when

fuel transfer operations took place. These transfers are now

prohibited by the POL. The Fuel Chute isolation project was

necessary to prevent potential siphon

[[Page 7830]]

and freezing risks, was one of the actions determined to be an adequate

response to NRC Bulletin 94-01, and brought the Licensee into

compliance with NRC requirements.

In any event, this activity is not decommissioning, but

maintenance and a safety upgrade that would have been allowed under

the pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning

regulations.

In view of the above, this activity was permissible, before

approval of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993

interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations.

(6) Removal of Emergency Diesel Generators

Petitioners acknowledge that removal of the emergency diesel

generators is a permissible activity prior to final approval of a

decommissioning plan.

(7) Spent Fuel Pool Electrical Conduit Installation

This activity involved underground installation of a power cable

and its protective covering and did not involve the removal of

radioactive material. The modification also enhanced the integrity

and long-term safe storage of spent fuel in the Spent Fuel Pool, by

isolating Spent Fuel Pool power supplies from potential problems

that could be caused by power circuits in other systems or heavy

load impacts at the plant. The activity was part of the Licensee's

overall project to enhance the safety of the Spent Fuel Pool by

establishing independent systems dedicated to Spent Fuel Pool

reliability.

The conduit installation was also consistent with NRC Bulletin

94-01, specifically the first requested action, which involves

ensuring the integrity of structures and systems, necessarily

including electrical systems, required for containing, cooling,

cleaning, level monitoring and makeup of water in the Spent Fuel

Pool. The conduit installation project enhanced integrity of the

spent fuel pool by ensuring operability and adequacy of structures

and systems required for spent fuel pool integrity, specifically the

electrical system.

Petitioners object that the November 2, 1995 letter implies that

this activity is a decommissioning activity because it will provide

a separate power supply for future decommissioning activities.

Petitioners contend that there is no present threat to the integrity

of the spent fuel pool, and that as long as the Licensee performs no

major dismantlement activities, there is no immediate need for

conduit installation.

While it is true that conduit installation will isolate the

spent fuel power supply from potential problems associated with

future decommissioning of other systems, conduit installation also

serves the larger purpose of isolating spent fuel pool power

supplies from potential problems that could be caused by power

circuits in other systems at the plant, wholly apart from the

conduct of any decommissioning activities. This activity represents

a safety enhancement.

In view of the above, this activity was permissible, before

approval of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993

interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations.

(8) Brookhaven National Laboratory Cable Sampling Project

Petitioners acknowledge that this activity is a research project

unrelated to decommissioning.

(9) Radioactive Materials Shipments

Under the pre-1993 interpretation of the Commission's

decommissioning regulations and 10 CFR Sec. 50.59, the NRC has

permitted shipment of radioactive waste and contaminated components

prior to approval of a decommissioning plan, as long as it does not

materially and demonstrably affect the methods or options available

for decommissioning or substantially increase the cost of

decommissioning, and because such shipments do not constitute a

``major'' activity.

NRC staff practice prior to 1993 permitted activities such as

shipment of waste or contaminated components at a permanently

defueled facility pursuing decommissioning. Prior to approval of a

decommissioning plan, the licensee may dismantle and dispose of

nonradioactive components and structures not required for safety in

the shutdown condition. After issuance of a possession-only license,

the licensee also may dismantle and dispose of radioactive

components not required for safety in the shutdown condition,

provided that such activity does not involve major structural or

other major changes and does not foreclose alternative

decommissioning methods or materially affect the cost of

decommissioning. Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear

Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-08, 33 NRC 461, 471 (1991), approving

staff recommendations in SECY-91-129, ``Status and Developments at

the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station'' (May 13, 1991). See also NRC

Inspection Manual, Chapter 2561, Secs. 06.06 and 06.07 (March 20,

1992); Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station Amendment No. 82 to

Facility Operating License No. DPR-34 (Possession-Only License, May

21, 1991); and Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station Amendment No.

117 to Facility Operating License No. DPR-54 (Possession-Only

License, March 17, 1992).

Petitioners contend that the February 2, 1996, letter of the NRC

staff applied the post-1993 interpretation of the Commission's

decommissioning regulations to determine that shipment of low-level

radioactive waste is permissible,\9\ based on the staff's citation

to SECY 92-382 and the associated June 30, 1993 SRM. The particular

language Petitioners point to is:

\9\ Petitioners incorrectly contend that the staff's conclusion,

that the methods or options available for decommissioning will not

be materially or demonstrably affected because the Licensee's

activities involve approximately 2.3 curies of residual activity,

constitutes application of the Licensee's one percent criterion. The

Licensee had proposed in its letter of October 24, 1995, that

decommissioning activities involving less than one percent of the

total curies of non-fuel components not including greater than Class

C components, are not ``major'' decommissioning activities and thus

are permissible under the pre-1993 interpretation of the

Commission's decommissioning regulations. As previously stated, the

NRC staff does not accept or approve, and did not use, this

criterion in its February 2, 1996 (or its November 2, 1995) letter

to determine whether activities proposed by the Licensee, including

shipping, are ``major'' activities for purposes of permissible

decommissioning before approval of a decommissioning plan. See,

e.g., note 5, supra. The staff in fact stated that since the

Licensee's activities involve only 2.3 curies out of a total 4448

curies residual activity which must be decommissioned, shipment of

low-level radioactive waste will not demonstrably affect the methods

or options available for decommissioning.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shipment of contaminated reactor internals needed for operation

could proceed after issuance of a possession-only license because

such components are not ``major'': i.e., they are not needed to

maintain safety in the defueled condition. See SECY 92-382,

``Decommissioning--Lessons Learned'' (November 10, 1992) and Staff

Requirements Memorandum, ``SECY-92-382--Decommissioning--Lessons

Learned'' (June 30, 1993).

The staff's February 2, 1996, letter derived this language from a

discussion at pages 22-24 of SECY-92-382, ``Decommissioning--Lessons

Learned''.

The Commission had in fact permitted shipment of low-level waste

prior to approval of a decommissioning plan under its pre-1993

interpretation of its decommissioning regulations, as explained

above. SECY 92-382 accurately stated that the Commission had in fact

permitted shipment of not only low-level radioactive waste and some

components, but also some reactor internals, before approval of a

decommissioning plan.\10\ The particular reference to ``major''

components in SECY 92-382 was in the context of permissible shipment

of waste; that language did not define ``major'' for the purpose of

determining what components may be dismantled or removed prior to

approval of a decommissioning plan. No component can be shipped

unless it is first removed or dismantled, and authority to ship a

component already removed or dismantled does not ipso facto

constitute authority to remove or dismantle the component in the

first place. Likewise, the citation in the NRC staff's February 2,

1996, letter to Petitioners was not intended to define ``major'' for

the purpose of determining what components could be dismantled or

removed prior to approval of a decommissioning plan, but referred to

what could be shipped. The staff's reference to SECY 92-382 was made

in the context of permissible shipments only, not permissible

component dismantling or removal. Regrettably, the staff's February

2, 1995, reference to SECY 92-382 may have been insufficiently

detailed to make the purpose of the reference clear.

\10\ See Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power

Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-8, 33 NRC 461, 471 (1991). See also SECY-

91-129, ``Status and Developments at the Shoreham Nuclear Power

Station (SNPS)'', p. 3 (May 13, 1991) (contaminated fuel support

castings and peripheral pieces).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case at hand, the Licensee's proposal was to ship low-

level radioactive waste.\11\

[[Page 7831]]

The NRC staff's conclusion that the Licensee's proposal to ship

radioactive waste\12\ is permissible under the pre-1993

interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations was

based on the understanding that the proposal was to ship low-level

radioactive waste, and was not intended to be and was not a

determination that the removal or dismantling of major components

was permissible under the pre-1993 interpretation of the

Commission's decommissioning regulations,\13\ under CAN v. NRC, or

under CLI-94-14.

\11\ Petitioners contend that there is no basis to determine the

accuracy of the Licensee's estimate that it will make 54 shipments

of low-level radioactive waste between October 1995 and July 1996.

Petitioners, however, fail to set forth any facts or rationale which

raise a question as to the reasonableness of the Licensee's estimate

of the number of shipments.

\12\ Petitioners state that neither YAEC nor the NRC staff

provided any information about the radioactivity levels in the 54

shipments that YAEC estimates it shipped and will ship between

October 1995 and July 1996, and that the Licensee's January 29,

1996, estimate of 2.3 curies involved in activities already

completed does not provide information about radioactivity levels of

the 54 shipments that YAEC estimates it will have shipped before the

end of July 1996. The Licensee has now provided that information and

estimates the total radioactivity involved in the packaging and

shipment of low-level radioactive waste between November 1, 1995 and

July 1996, to be 1817 curies. See letter dated February 21, 1996,

from K. J. Heider, YAEC, to Morton B. Fairtile, NRC. The four

contested activities, other than shipping, amounted to only

approximately 8.2001 curies of residual radioactivity.

\13\ Petitioners assert that the NRC staff's February 2, 1966,

letter states that the shipment of low-level radioactive waste is

permitted under the pre-1993 criteria because the radioactivity of

the shipments amounts to 2.3 curies or less out of the remaining

4448 curies of residual radioactivity to be decommissioned in the

form of Class C or less waste. What the staff said was that because

the Licensee's activities involve approximately 2.3 curies of the

remaining 4448 curies of residual radioactivity to be decommissioned

in the form of Class C or less waste, shipment of low-level

radioactive waste produced by the activities evaluated in the

staff's November 2, 1995 letter will not materially or demonstrably

affect the methods or options available for decommissioning the

Yankee Rowe site.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Commission's decisions in Long Island Lighting Company

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-92-1, 33 NRC 61, 73,

n. 5 (1991) and Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco

Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-92-2, 35 NRC 47, 61, n. 7 (1992) do

not, as Petitioners contend, prohibit shipment of low-level

radioactive waste. No issue concerning such shipments was addressed

in those decisions. The language cited by Petitioners paraphrases

the general guideline, that ``major dismantling and other activities

that constitute decommissioning under the NRC's regulations must

await NRC approval of a decommissioning plan'', and is derived from

the 1988 Statement of Consideration, ``General Requirements for

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities'', supra. As explained above, it

was agency practice before 1993 to permit shipment of low-level

radioactive waste and contaminated components before approval of a

decommissioning plan.

Rather than store low-level radioactive waste on-site for

extended periods, it has long been agency policy that such waste

should be shipped to disposal sites if the ability to dispose of

waste at a licensed disposal site exists. Shipping of waste at the

earliest practicable time minimizes the need for eventual waste

reprocessing due to possibly changing burial ground requirements and

reduces occupational and non-occupational exposures and potential

accident consequences. NRC Generic Letter 81-38, ``Storage of Low-

Level Radioactive Wastes at Power Reactor Sites'' (November 10,

1981).

Petitioners contend that YAEC may not ship low-level radioactive

waste because the Yankee Rowe Possession-Only-License does not

permit it.14 Although Petitioners are correct that no language

in the Yankee Rowe POL explicitly states that shipment of low-level

radioactive waste is authorized, the Yankee Rowe POL does authorize

that activity. Section 1.H. of the POL, issued August 5, 1992,

authorizes Yankee Rowe to receive, possess and use byproduct, source

and special nuclear materials in accordance with the Commission's

regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70. Authority to ship low-

level radioactive waste is conferred upon all byproduct material,

source material and special nuclear material licensees by NRC

regulations at 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and 70. Byproduct materials

licensees, source materials licensees, and special nuclear materials

licensees, including Yankee Rowe, are authorized to transfer such

material, as long as the recipient is authorized, see 10 CFR

Secs. 30.41, 40.51, and 70.42, and as long as preparation for

shipment and transport is in accordance with the requirements of 10

CFR Part 71. See 10 CFR Secs. 30.34(c), 40.41(c), 70.41(a). In

particular, Section 2.C. of the Yankee Rowe POL states that the POL

is deemed to contain and is subject to 10 CFR Secs. 30.34 and 40.41.

Accordingly, the POL authorizes the transport of low-level

radioactive waste from Yankee Rowe.

\14\ Petitioners claim that the Commission's decommissioning

regulations prohibit low-level radioactive waste shipments that are

not authorized by YAEC's license, citing the 1988 Statement of

Consideration. See ``General Requirements for Decommissioning

Nuclear Facilities'', 53 FR 24025-26 (June 27, 1988). The Statement

of Consideration makes no mention of shipment of low-level

radioactive waste. The language cited gives examples of activities

which licensees may conduct before approval of a decommissioning

plan, but does not state or imply that the list is inclusive:

``Although the Commission must approve the decommissioning

alternative and major structural changes to radioactive components

of the facility or other major changes, the licensee may proceed

with some activities such as decontamination, minor component

disassembly, and shipment and storage of spent fuel if these

activities are permitted by the operating license and/or

Sec. 50.59''. (Emphasis added)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petitioners state that the ``cardinal consideration'' which

determines whether a decommissioning activity is ``major'' should be

the radiation dose it yields, not the radioactivity of the component

involved 15, and thus the NRC staff's February 2, 1996, letter

erroneously relied upon the number of curies shipped rather than the

radioactive doses involved in shipping low-level waste to determine

whether the activity is permissible.16

\15\ The Commission has not articulated as a criterion, for

determining what constitutes a ``major'' decommissioning activity,

the radiation dose yielded by the activity, and Petitioners cite no

authority for this argument. Nor has the Commission articulated the

radioactivity involved as a criterion for determining what

constitutes ``major'' decommissioning activity.

\16\ The staff mistakenly understood the License's letter of

January 29, 1996 to mean that the activities evaluated by the

staff's November 2, 1995 letter involved 2.3 curies. The

radioactivity involved in the four contested activities, other than

shipping of low-level radioactive waste, amounted to approximately

8.2001 curies of residual radioactivity. (Removal of the Upper

Neutron Shield Tank involved less than 5 curies, and removal of the

Component Cooling Water System pipes and components and Spent Fuel

Cooling System pipes and components involved 1.2001 curies. See

letter dated October 19, 1995, from Russell A. Mellor, YAEC, to

Morton B. Fairtile, NRC. Fuel Chute Isolation involved 2 curies, and

spent fuel pool electrical conduit installation involved no curies.

See letter dated February 21, 1996, from K. J. Heider, YAEC, to

Morton B. Fairtile, NRC.) In addition, the Licensee estimated that

since completion of the activities described in the NRC letter,

activities have been authorized by the Licensees' Manager of

Operations which remove components containing a total of 2.3 curies

of radioactive material. See letter dated January 29, 1996, from

Andrew C. Kadak, YAEC, to William T. Russell, NRC.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The criteria for determining whether shipments of low-level

radioactive waste will demonstrably affect the methods or options

available for decommissioning have not been well-defined. During

review of the Petition and its supplement, the NRC staff has

continued to examine the question of whether the Licensee's

shipments of low-level radioactive waste will demonstrably affect

the methods or options available for decommissioning. In this case,

the staff has now also compared the radiation dose involved in the

packaging and shipping of the low-level radioactive waste with the

radiation dose estimated for decommissioning of the Licensee's

facility. This is because, under Petitioners' theory regarding the

choice of the decommissioning option, as we understand it, it seems

that adoption of a different decommissioning option would most

likely be required to reduce dose. The Licensee estimates that the

radiation dose involved in the packaging and shipment of low-level

radioactive waste between November 1, 1995 and July 1996 to be 17

person-rem.17 The estimated total radiation exposure for

decommissioning the facility is 755 person-rem.18 The estimated

dose from packaging and shipping is approximately 2% of the total

dose from decommissioning. As can be seen, most of the dose will be

incurred in activities other than shipment of low-level radioactive

waste. As the Commission has previously held in this case, even

potential dose reductions on the order of 900 person-rem, unless

there is some extraordinary aspect to the case not apparent, cannot

have ALARA significance such that one decommissioning option

[[Page 7832]]

would be preferable to another.19 Accordingly, the staff concludes

that the Licensee's shipment of low-level radioactive waste will not

demonstrably affect the methods and options available for

decommissioning.

\17\ See letter dated February 21, 1996, from K. J. Heider,

YAEC, to Morton B. Fairtile, NRC.

\18\ Order Approving the Decommissioning Plan and Authorizing

Decommissioning of Facility (Yankee Nuclear Power Station),

``Environmental Assessment by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Related to the Request to Authorize Facility Decommissioning'', p.

22.

\19\ Yankee Atomic Electric Company, CLI-96-01 (January 16,

1996).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In view of the above, the shipments of low-level radioactive

waste between October 1995 and July 1996, before approval of a

decommissioning plan, is permissible under the pre-1993

interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations.

B. The five contested activities will neither individually nor

collectively substantially increase the costs of decommissioning.

YAEC estimates the cost of shipment and disposal of all low-

level radioactive waste between the October 1995 issuance of CLI-95-

14 and the scheduled date of completion of the hearing in mid-July

1996, to be $6.5 million, or approximately 1.75 percent of the

estimated $368.8 million total decommissioning cost. It would be

speculative to conclude that the decommissioning method proposed by

Petitioners, SAFSTOR, would be less expensive. There is no evidence

that the Licensee's shipments will increase decommissioning costs or

that continued storage of the waste will decrease the ultimate

costs. Thus, the staff concludes that YAEC's shipment of low-level

radioactive waste will not substantially increase the costs of

decommissioning.

Petitioners erroneously contend that the cost of shipments of

low-level radioactive waste could be reduced by postponing the

packaging and shipment of low-level waste, presumably because some

waste may decay to levels such that the volume of waste which will

require shipment would decrease. Delay will not significantly reduce

the volume of waste shipped because the waste is not segregated by

the radioactive isotope involved, and some of the radioactive

isotopes involved have very long half-lives, i.e., nickel-63 has a

half-life of 100 years. Cobalt-60, which has a half-life of 5.27

years, was the isotope selected by the Petitioners to postulate a

reduction in waste volume. Moreover, delay could possibly increase

decommissioning costs because shipping and burial costs may

increase.

The Licensee estimates costs for the five activities contested

by Petitioners to be $6.5 million for shipments of low-level waste

between October 1995 and July 1996 and $2.4 million for the four

other contested activities,20 for a total of $8.9 million, or

2.1% of the $368.8 million estimated total decommissioning costs.

There is no evidence that these activities will give rise to

consequences that will increase the total cost of decommissioning.

Accordingly, the five contested activities will not substantially

increase decommissioning costs, either individually or collectively.

\20\ The Licensee spent $610,000 on the four activities in the

fourth quarter of 1995, which is approximately 25 percent of the

estimated total cost for these four activities. See Letter dated

February 15, 1996, from Russell A. Mellor to Morton B. Fairtile.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Petitioners' Request for an Inspection and Inspection Report

Was Granted.

Petitioners' request for reinspection of Yankee Rowe to

determine compliance with CLI-95-14 and for issuance of an

inspection report was granted. NRC Region I inspected the Yankee

Rowe facility for a second time on December 5-18, 1995, to determine

compliance with CLI-95-14. NRC Inspection Report No. 50-029/95-07

was issued January 31, 1996. The Inspection Report concludes that

the Licensee's activities were conducted in accord with the

specifications of the staff's November 2, 1995 letter. The first

inspection was conducted in October 1995, before the provision of

technical guidance or criteria to assist the Region in determining

compliance with CLI-95-14. Subsequently, the NRC staff issued its

letter of November 2, 1995, evaluating the nine activities, all of

which are permitted by CAN v. NRC and CLI-95-14, as explained above.

Petitioners claim that the January 31, 1996 Inspection Report

merely repeats the staff's erroneous interpretation of the

Commission's decommissioning standards, and thus constitutes no

relief. The inspection report explicitly states that the nine

activities evaluated by the staff's November 2, 1995 letter were

inspected and that the Licensee limited the scope of its work to

those activities. Petitioners' disagreement with the staff's

conclusion that the nine activities are in compliance with CAN v.

NRC and CLI-95-14 does not constitute denial of Petitioners' request

for an inspection and an inspection report to determine compliance

with CAN v. NRC and CLI-95-14.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons given above, Petitioner's request that shipments

of low-level radioactive waste be prohibited is denied, and

Petitioners' request that four other activities be prohibited is

moot.21 Additionally, Petitioners' request for an inspection of

Yankee Rowe to determine compliance with CLI-95-14 and an inspection

report was granted.

\21\ Petitioners claim that the NRC erroneously found on

February 2, 1996, that the request for emergency relief was moot in

part. Petitioners assert that the Licensee continues to unlawfully

ship low-level radioactive waste and that on January 29, 1996, the

Licensee stated that it is considering whether to conduct seven

activities, in addition to the nine evaluated by the staff's

November 2, 1995, letter. The February 2, 1996, letter of the staff

and this Decision explicitly denied Petitioner's request to prohibit

shipment of low-level radioactive waste, and made no finding that

this request is moot. The February 2, 1996, letter and this Decision

explicitly state that Petitioners' request for emergency relief

regarding the remaining four contested activities was moot because

those activities had been completed before the submission of the

Petition. Nonetheless, both the February 2, 1996 letter and this

Decision found that those four activities were permissible, prior to

approval of a decommissioning plan, under the pre-1993

interpretation of the Commission's decommissioning regulations.

Neither the staff's February 2, 1996, letter, nor this decision

address the seven activities which the Licensee states it is now

considering. The staff will address those activities in a

supplemental Director's Decision, as required by the Commission's

order of February 15, 1996.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As provided by 10 CFR Sec. 2.206(c), a copy of this Decision

will be filed with the Secretary of the Commission for the

Commission's review. The Decision will become the final action of

the Commission 25 days after issuance, unless the Commission on its

own motion institutes review of the Decision within that time.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 22nd of February, 1996.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

William. T. Russell,

Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 96-4683 Filed 2-28-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P