ML090070531

Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2001-07, Revision 1

ML090070531
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	12/12/2008
From:	Andersen R Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	Robert Carlson NRC/NRR/ADRO
References
RIS-01-007, Rev 1
Download: ML090070531 (3)

Text

Ralph L. Andersen, CHP DIRECTOR HEALTH PHYSICS & LLW NUCLEAR GENERATION DIVISION December 12, 2008 Mr. Robert D. Carlson Chief Financial, Policy and Rulemaking Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2001-07, Rev. 1.

Project Number: 689

Dear Mr. Carlson:

On November 20, 2008, the NRC released a draft copy of RIS 2001-07, Revision 1, "Reporting and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning Planning." On Monday December 1, 2008, the NRC staff held a public meeting to discuss the draft RIS.1 In follow up to the public meeting, , NEI offers the enclosed comments for consideration by the NRC staff in finalizing the RIS.

We understand that the fundamental goal of the RIS is to remind licensees that they should only include information regarding funds accumulated for radiological decommissioning in their biennial reports on decommissioning fund status.

However, the RIS goes on to "request" that licensees also provide additional categories of information with their biennial reports. At the public meeting, the NRC did assure licensees that this request is purely voluntary, that it does not establish an expectation on the part of the NRC, nor is there any consequence if a licensee decides not to provide such information.

1 The NRCs notice of the public meeting was issued 10 days prior to the meeting. However, there were only 4 business days in that time frame, and 3 of those days were during Thanksgiving week. Further, the meeting was scheduled for 8:00am eastern time, creating a situation where licensees in other parts of the country could only join an early morning call on the Monday after Thanksgiving. At the meeting, the NRC assured the participants that comments would be considered any time prior to issuance of the RIS, anticipated to be prior to the end of the year.

1776 I Street, NW l Suite 400 l Washington, DC l 20006-3708 l P: 202.739.8111 l F: 202.533.0101 l rla@nei.org l www.nei.org

Mr. Robert D. Carlson December 12, 2008 Page 2 Nonetheless, the NRC has not provided a rationale for why the agency is requesting the information.

The NRC stated that there were no major problems with licensees biennial reports. And the only mention of a lack of clarity in licensees reports apparently involved a few licensees who had included spent fuel management funds in the decommissioning fund total (a situation that has since been identified and corrected).

The NRC asserted in the RIS, and at the meeting, that such material would provide information regarding decommissioning funding that is "more complete and transparent for stakeholders." Also mentioned was that the information could give the NRC more confidence in the funding amounts reported. At bottom, there was no basis or reason for requesting even voluntary submissions to assure compliance with NRC decommissioning funding regulations.

The specific requests for information in the draft RIS (see p.3) are for licensees to report:

1) funds "accumulated to pay for State costs,"

2) funds "accumulated to pay for spent fuel management costs,"

3) whether such funds "are comingled with funds accumulated to pay for radiological decommissioning", and

4) the amount of funds accumulated to pay for State costs or spent fuel management costs

[that] are available for radiological decommissioning without prior approval by a State regulatory authority and not subject to disapproval for radiological decommissioning use by a State regulatory authority."

In addition to not having articulated a regulatory need for licensees to provide such information, the use of a RIS to request the information (whether or voluntary or not) is inconsistent with the purposes of a RIS as defined by the NRC. (Regulatory Information Summary 99-01 Revisions To The Generic Communication Program issued 10-4-1999)

With respect to each of the specific requests, item (1) is a matter outside of the NRCs jurisdiction, item (2) is information that licensees are required to provide to the NRC 5 years prior to expected plant shut-down, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(bb), not during plant life, item (3) is a permitted practice which is fully in compliance with NRC regulations, and (4) is a matter that, absent an existing definitive State law, in all likelihood would call for speculation and legal conclusions regarding the environmental cleanup priorities on a state-by-state basis.

Finally, the accumulation and verification of such information before submittal to the NRC, and concurrent reporting to state agencies or other entities, is burdensome. The cost of conducting such activities has not been justified by any demonstration of a countervailing benefit for assuring licensee compliance with NRC regulations.

Mr. Robert D. Carlson December 12, 2008 Page 3 We recommend the NRC either not issue the RIS (because there is no safety issue to address) or issue the RIS without reference to requests for information that are unjustified and unnecessary for the NRC to carry out its regulatory mission.

If you have comments or questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at rla@nei.org; 202.739.8111 or George Oliver at gxo@nei.org; 202-739-8016.

Sincerely, Ralph L. Andersen c: Mr. Aaron L. Szabo, NRR/DPR, NRC