ML12158A375
| ML12158A375 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/27/2012 |
| From: | Sheperd J NRC/FSME/DWMEP/DURLD |
| To: | |
| Odonnell D | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML12158A184 | List: |
| References | |
| DG-4014 RG-4.022 | |
| Download: ML12158A375 (2) | |
Text
REGULATORY ANALYSIS REGULATORY GUIDE (RG) 4.22 Decommissioning Planning During Operations Statement of the Problem On June 17, 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) promulgated the Decommissioning Planning Rule (DPR)1 to improve decommissioning planning and reduce the likelihood that any currently operating facility will become a legacy site. A legacy site is a facility that cannot complete decommissioning for technical or financial reasons. The DPR became effective on December 17, 2012. Guidance for future license, standard design approval, and design certification applicants is found in Regulatory Guide 4.21, Minimization of Contamination and Radioactive Waste Generation:
Life-Cycle Planning, but that document does not address currently operating facilities. Thus, there is no existing guidance on implementing the DPR.
Objective The objective of this regulatory action is to assess the alternatives for developing guidance for implementing the DPR.
Alternative Approaches The NRC staff considered the following alternative approaches:
Do not issue a new regulatory guide.
Revise Regulatory Guide 4.21.
Issue a new regulatory guide.
Alternative 1: Do Not Issue a New Regulatory Guide Under this alternative, the NRC would not issue guidance on implementation of the DPR. If the NRC does not take action, it would have to perform case-by-case reviews and request additional information from licensees. Without the guidance, licensees would need to develop their own method for addressing the requirements of the DPR. This would result in lengthened review time by the NRC and licensees likely would be subject to more requests for additional information from the NRC than if guidance were in place.
Alternative 2: Revise Regulatory Guide 4.21 Under this alternative, the NRC would revise Regulatory Guide 4.21 taking into consideration the differences in the initial conditions of facilities addressed. Regulatory Guide 4.21 addresses facilities that have not yet been constructed and provides guidance on design features to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1406(a) and (b). Revising the guide to incorporate DPR requirements would address requirements similar to those in Regulatory Guide 4.21, but for facilities that have already begun operations.
1 Decommissioning Planning Rule, Federal Register, Volume 76, Number 117, June 17, 2011, pp. 35512-35575.
Alternative 3: Issue a New Regulatory Guide Under this alternative, the NRC would issue a new regulatory guide solely for the DPR, taking into consideration the differences between facilities in the design phase and those that have already begun operating.
Comparison of Alternatives Under Alternative 1, no action is taken and no generic guidance is developed for implementing the DPR. In this case, the NRC would incur costs by performing hundreds of case-by-case reviews and licensees would incur costs from developing their own methods for complying with the DPR and possibly responding to NRC information requests. Developing generic guidance on implementing the DPR would be cost beneficial to the NRC as it would not have to perform potentially hundreds of case-by-case reviews and it would reduce the need for requesting additional information from licensees. Similarly, licensees would benefit from (1) not having to develop a method for addressing the DPR unique to their situation, and (2) reducing the potential for having to respond to requests for more information from NRC because of the lack of guidance.
Alternative 2 involves revision of Regulatory Guide 4.21. That guide is for license, standard design approval, and design certification applicants whereas the DPR is intended for licensees of operating facilities. The value to NRC staff and its applicants would be the benefits associated with enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in using a common guidance document as the technical basis for license applications and other interactions between the NRC and its regulated entities. The impact to NRC under this alternative would be the costs in technical support and staff labor associated with preparing and issuing the revision. The impact on the public would be the voluntary costs associated with reviewing and providing comments to the NRC during the public comment period. A potential disadvantage of revising Regulatory Guide 4.21 is that it is relatively new, and the industry is just adopting its guidance. Changing it at this time could create confusion and delays in implementing Regulatory Guide 4.21, thereby reducing its effectiveness.
Under Alternative 3, the NRC would issue a new regulatory guide. One benefit of this action is that it would retain the distinction between requirements for design features of a new facility and operational consideration for existing facilities. This would reduce potential licensee confusion between the sets of instructions. The impact on the NRC is similar to Alternative 2 in that it would involve the costs associated with preparing and issuing the regulatory guide. The impact on the public would be the voluntary costs associated with reviewing and providing comments to the NRC during the public comment period. The value to NRC staff and its applicants would be the benefits associated with enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in using specific guidance as the technical basis for interactions between the NRC and its regulated entities.
Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC staff recommends Alternative 3. The staff concludes that the proposed action will enhance the ability of the licensees to comply with the requirements of the DPR while maintaining separate guidance for applicants.