ML20043E547
| ML20043E547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000113 |
| Issue date: | 06/06/1990 |
| From: | Wood R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Pasqualetti M ARIZONA STATE UNIV., TEMPE, AZ |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9006130120 | |
| Download: ML20043E547 (21) | |
Text
.
i
^ *.,
June 6, 1990 j
Dr. Martin J. Pasqualetti Associate Professor Department of Geography Arizona State University Tempe, AZ 85287 0104 i
Dear Dr. Pasqualetti:
Enclosed is a new version of rqy chapter with revisions to the format
' of footnotes and references requested in your letter of March 19, 1990.
Also enclosed is a 100. word abstract of the chapter.
If satisfactory, I will forward a version on floppy disk.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGRD M Robert S. Wood Senior Financial Policy Analyst Policy Development and Financial Evaluation Section Policy Development and Teci.nical. Support Branch Program Management, Policy Development and Analysis Staff Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION:
[LTR.TOMARTINJ.PASQUALETTI)
LCutral OTeig PTSB:R/F
'NRCPDR LPDR DNash RWood 70 :P 5: RR iPU f h...:..
_...,(..(
LME :
- DNash
>...:............:....y/90 STE ts /[/90-
- j/)
h h00
$0cck $$000I13 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY A
PDC s\\\\
Enclosure NRC's Decommissioning Regulations Chapter Abstract The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Lommission (NRC) issued its final regulations on decommissioning nuclear facilities in June 1988. The final rule addressed decommissioning alternatives and timing, planning, environmental review requirements, and financial assurance issues. This chapter focuses on the primary issues considered by the NRC in establishing the requirement that its licensees provide reasonable assurance that they will have sufficient funds to fen m ission their facilities safely and expeditiously. The study concludes
!but the NRC has attempted to strike a reasonable balance between adequate
!t uls of assurance, on the one hand, and the cost of such assurance on the ciner, given the financial characteristics of the licensees under NRC jurisdiction. Although licensees are not permitted to use internal funding mechanisms, the NRC bas given power reactor licensees and their rate regulators broad discretion concerning the timing of funds collection, the amounts to be collected above specified minimums and the structure of mechanisms to hold and disburse decommissioning funds.
I l
.;{
<4
,c 4
NRC's Decommissioning Regulations Introduction and Summary On June 27, 1988, the V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NIC) i m e its final:
regulations on' decommissioning nuclear facilities (53 FR 24018).
Tiiese regula-tions 'were the culmination of a. process that' started in the. late 1970s when the NRC: began reevaluating its decommissioning policies and determined that more specific-requirements might be necessary to assure the protection of public health and safety.
To provide a technical basis for its rulemaking, the NRC sponsored staff and contractor studies, held two series of workshops, and prepared draft and final Generic Environmental Impact Statements (NUREG-0586).
The NRC published the proposed rulemaking in early 1985 (50 FR 5600) and received'over 140 public comments in response. These comments were addressed and incorporated, where appropriate, in the final rule.
Both the proposed and final rules addressed alternatives and timing, planning, environmental review requirements, and financial assurance, the primary subject of this chapter.
General Financial Assurance Issues The NRC concluded that funding assurance' helps to reduce the likelihood of a situation where lack.of funds could threaten public health and safety and is.necessary for a variety of reasons unique to the decommissioning process.
.First, decommissioning will not take place for 30 to 40 years after start-up.
If'an extended storage period is used, decommissioning may not be completed for 100 years after initial licensing, which greatly increases uncertainty.
Second, a plant undergoing decommissioning is no longer producing revenue for its owners. Thus there is less economic incentive to decommission than to operate a plant safely (although this consideration is somewhat mitigated by 1
j'i
'j-
. t, 7
., =
1 the fact that a decontaminated site would retain substantial value.).
Third,.
l P
.the-estimated costs to decommission, although not large.in relation to plant u
. construction costs, are not insignificant. This factor, when coupled with the possibility of premature decommissioning (i.e., before expected termination
'of_ operation) might excessively burden a licensee-financially.
For these a
reasons, the NRC has established funding requirements for decommissioning beyond those that are or have been imposed on licensees to operate plants.
i The NRC evaluated several decommissioning funding mechanisms using four factors.
From the NRC's perspective, the most important is the level of assurance provided.
.l The'second'is cost to the licensee, the NRC, and other parties.
The third _is equity, or the principle that those who benefit from a good or service should
. pay-the economic costs associated with it.
The fourth is adaptability to both changing circumstances and multiple ownership and regulation, i.e., how effec-tive are funding methods if cost estimates change, if facilities are owned by,
different types of licensees (e.g., investor-owned, publicly-owneo, or
~
cooperatively-owned utilities), or' if different-state Public. Utility Commissions
- (PUCs) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) regulate the same -
1 a
'acility's rates?
f Funding methods consist of two basic types -- licensee-funded and guarantee by-a' third party.
Licensee-funded methods require a licensee to deposit funds or 1
create reserves in three types of accounts -- external prepaid, external sinking fund, or internal fund or reserve.
External funds normally would be held by a trustee'or escrow agent outside the licensee's control and segregated from its other assets.
In the proposed rule, however, many utilities supported the
c.,
t'
\\
3
)
option _of holding the decommissioning funds themselves, either in an internal j
sinking fund, which is segregated from other licensee assets, or in an internal reserve.
The latter is normally an accounting entry in which the cost of decommissioning is treated as negative salvage value depreciation.
It is entered as a reserve in a utility's accounts, and remains commingled with other licensee funds.
The.second basic type of funding mechanism is a third party guarantee where, for example, a surety bonding company, insurer, or bank issuing a letter of credit promises to pay the. licensee's decommissioning obligation if the licensee defaults.
-The guarantors would, of course, assure themselves that the licensee had adequate resources to pay for decommissioning'when needed.
But the NRC found that guarantee methods-are apparently unavailable in the amounts and for the period of time required for most power teactor licensees.
If available, guarantee methods were generally found to cost from ?% to 2% annually of the amount being guaranteed..
Generally, the amount of assurance provided by a licensee-funded method is direc-tly related to its cost. Thus, the prepaid external fund provides the greatest assurance, but at the greatest cost.
Lower in cost, but.also assurance, is the external sink Eg fund.
Lowest in cost and assurance is the internal reserve.
Cost depends on a variety of factors, including assumptions regarding the dis-
^
count,-inflation, and interest rates, tax treatment, and amortization schedules.
The primary variable affecting cost is the relative after-tax rates of return that can be obtained using the various mechanisms.
As would be expected, a licensee can normally obtain a higher rate of return on money that it invests in its own assets rather than more conservative outside investments (e.g., U. S. Treasury
.l y
i
^
4 issues)'that would tend to be held in an external fund.
NRC studies found'that cost differentials among the three licensee-funded options roughly followed a "3-2-1" pattern (NUREG-0584, NUREG/CR-1481, and NUREG/CR-3899).
Thus, prepayment
'was three times.as expensive and an external sir /s.ing fund twice as expensive'as
- an internal' reserve.
This differential was reduced to some extent, however, as
- favorable tax treatment of external fund contributions became available.
'(See discussion on tax treatment below.)
i t
I Inlthe final rule, the NRC' considered the potential for utility bankruptcy, especially_in light of Publi-Service Company.of New Hampshire's filing under Chapter 11 of the U. S.; Bankruptcy Code in January 1988.
The NRC also considered the changing nature of the utility industry in which greater diversity in utility financial activities may increase financial risk.
This combination of factors, when considered with the other risk factors unique to decommissioning, i
lnd the-NRC to conclude that internal financing methods do not provide'reasona,ble assurance:that funds will be available when needed to pay the costs of decommis-'
l sioning. 'Hence, the NRC found-that the internal reserve and internal sinking fund.do not provide reasonable assurance that_ decommissioning will be carried out in a manner which protects public health and safety.
The external and third party guarantee financial assurance mechanisms continue to be acceptable for use by power reactor licensees.
- , u
The NRC recognized that, by allowing power reactor licensees the option of
- accumulating funds in external sinking' funds over expected reactor life, there is the potential problem of having adequate funds in the event of premature decommissioning.
(Non-electric utility licensees may use an external sinking fund only in combination with a guarantee method, so that the full estimated
. ~.
=-
5 decommissioning cost would be available at all times.) In establishing this requirement, the NRC attempted to strike a balance between the virtually absolute assurance (assuming accurate cost estimates) provided by a prepaid fund and the-substantially greater cost of requiring such funding.
The NRC believed that the unique nature of electric utilities as heavily capitalized, generally closely regulated enterprises allowed them to be given somewhat more funding discretion than the NRC's other licensees.
Furthermore, under 10 CFR 50.54(w).of its regulations, the NRC requires power reactor licensees to carry over $1 billion in insurance to. cover the cost of accident decontamination and cleanup.
Although not applicable to decommissioning costs per se, this requirement eliminates a major. threat to a power reactor licensee's financial solvency
.after an accident, when a licensee might need to shut down its reactor prema-turely. Thus, although the NRC believed that external funding was warranted, it concluded that an external sinking fund provided reasonable assurance for power reactor licensees and that prepaid external funds, although certainly acceptable, provided unnecessarily high levels of assurance at greater expense.
Specific Financial Assurance Requirements and Guidance Applicable to Power Reactor Licensees l
1.
Use of Certificalion Amounts Durina Reactor Operation
(
l The decommissioning rule requires that licensed power plant operators provide reasonable assurance by July 27, 1990 that funds will be available to cover the cost of decommissioning their facilities.
At that time, licensees are required
L:
i.
L
_6 to certify that $105 million for a full-size pressurized water reactor (PWR) or-
'$135 million for a full-size boiling water reactor (BWR) will be available at the time of projected facility shutdown.1 These certification amounts are in I
- 1986 dollars.
In' addition to the certification, a licensee is required to submit'a copy of the financial instrument being used.
-i
'To account for inflation, the rule also provides a formula weighted to account for post-1986 changes in labor, energy, and low-level waste burial costs.2_
Licensees are required to update the certification amount' annually using this formula,:although these updates do not have to be submitted to the NRC.
i Corresponding adjustments in collection rates and amortization schedules (or in insured or guaranteed amounts) for decommissioning expenses should be made.
l Alternatively, a licensee may prepare and use a site-specific cost study as long as'the estimated decommissioning cost exceeds both the certification l
amount and any inflation formula adjustments.
The certification amounts and adjustment formulas used in the decommissioning I
regulations were obtained from two studies done for the NRC by Battelle-Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL).
(R.I. Smith, et al. and H.D. Oak, et al.) As discussed in the final rule,10 these reports are detailed conceptual engineering studies of the decommissioning of two representative large light water reactors, i
- They consider: (1) the detailed design and layout of the reference plants; m
(2) estimated conditions in the plant at the time of shutdown, including f
estimates of radionuclide inventory and radiation dose rates; (3) techniques for decontamination and dismantlement that are current and proven; and (4) radiation
p
-y,;
d-c.;
7 protection requirements for workers and the public.
Both reports present detailed-work plans and schedules including those for planning, preparation, decontamination, and, component disassembly and transport, When the NRC published its proposed decommissioning rule in 1985, it received many comments stating that its (and PNL's) decommissioning' cost estimates were too low and a few comments -saying the cost estimates were too high.
Although many of the site-specific cost estimates done by private contractors use dif-ferent local labor. rates and depend on specific design and construction factors unique to the reactor being studied, the NRC continues to believe, for the
-reasons discussed below, that the PNL estimates reasonably approximate the range of decommissioning cost.
Further.~the NRC defines decommissioning: "to remove a nuclear facility safely from service and'to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits
' release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license."
(53'FR 24018, at p. 24027) The NRC does not consider the-removal-or disposal of nonradioactive materials and structures as part of the NRC-regulated decommis-sioning process. Thus, the costs of these activities are not considered in NRC certification amounts or the PNL reports, but are often included in site-specific estimates made by others.
In addition, some studies use different year dollars than the 1986 dollars used in NRC's cost estimates.
The NRC recognizes that there are differing assumptions with respect to the scope of various activities comprising the decommissioning process.
For
- ... (
j
'I e
8 i
~ example, PNL and other cost estimators disagree on such matters as the amount-and duration of labor needed to complete some tasks'.
As more information is obtained from on going studies and "real world" experience, differences in f
' assumptions and estimates should be reduced.
If such experience suggests that
.the NRC certification amounts are too low (or too high) new rulemaking can be conducted to rectify the amounts.
2.
Requirement For A Site-Specific Study 1
Although a power reactor licensee can conduct a site-specific decomissioning cost estimate at any point in a reactor's operating _ life, it must do so 5 years prior to expected termination of operations.
This cost estimate will form the basis for collecting any shortfall of funds (or disposing of any excess funds).
Any shortfalls are to be collected over the remaining 5 years of facility life.
By the time the plant is shut down, all'decomisioning funds are required to be
~ collected, regardless of the decomissioning mode (i.e., storage period) y intended to be used, i
It should be emphasized that, although the NRC has allowed its power reactor licensees to certify to a formula amount for all but the final 5 years of reactor operation, the NRC deems its licensees to be fully responsible for all costs associated with NRC-required decomissioning.
As stated in the preamble to the decommissioning rule, "the licensee has the legal responsibility to plan for and accomplish decommissioning of the facility by preparing the property for release for unrestricted use and... this respons Dility cannot be evaded."
.f n.
IY 9
s (53 FR 24018, at p. 24038) -Thus, the required use of a site-specific funding estimate 5 years before shutdown and the collection of any shortfall of funds during the 5 year period provides additional funding assurance.
It is the com-bination of these three steps -- certifying to a general level of financial assurance early.in reactor life, then adjusting the level of assurance over the life of the reactor to account for inflation, and finally conducting a site-specific decommissioning study five years' before shutdown - - that provides
. reasonable assurance that sufficient funds will be available to decommission the
~ facility in a manner that protects public health and safety. The NRC is confi-dent that.the certification amounts specified in $50.75(c) are technically justified and will' provide for the bulk of funds needed for decommissioning.
.In addition, the NRC's policy of allowing utilities 5 years to make up any differences, when considered in the context of electric utilities' status as large, heavily capitalized enterprises, provides reasonable assurance thet decommissioning funds will be available wnen needed.
No later than 1 year prior to the-expiration of the license or 2 years after actual shutdown, the licensee is required to 9repare a proposed decommissioning plan that will form the~ detailed basis for performing decommissioning tasks.
- As' a part of this plan, licensees who intend to use a storage period are required to indicate the means by which they will adjust cost estimates and associated funding levels over the storage or surveillance period.
Except for the proposed decommissioning plan submitted when operations are ter-minated, power reactor licensees are not required to obtain specific NRC approval.
Although licensees must submit certifications based on the amounts specified in 1
+..
10 l
1 1550.75(c)(1) and.a copy of the financial instrument being used i
, NRC does not 1
. intend that it will formally approve them.
Likewise, licensees' updates of cer-tification amounts pursuant to $50.75(c)(2) need not-be formally submitted or approved.
Rather, licwees are required to keep records of these and other decommissioning activities avai:able for NRC inspection as required under
$50.75(g)(3).
The NRC's Role Vis-a-Vis Rate Regulatory Agencies i,
1 In response to the 1985 proposed rule,'the NRC received several comme 1
gesting that-its proposed funding requirements would, if promulgated, impin on PUC or FERC rate regulatory authority.
The NRC disagrees with these comments.
it is true that the Commission's statutory mandate-is to protect the radiolo
]
health =and safety of the public and doas not extend to the economic regulatio i
per se, of its licensees.
However, as part of this mandate the NRC is authorized ~
>J to.take whatever regulatory actions are necessary to protect the public health
.i safety, whether such actions have a secondary impact on utility economics or ~
'In considering the final rule, the Commission recognized that state PUCs
)
n have an important role to play in setting the. rates by which funds necessa 1
decommissioning will be obtained.
Thus, although the NRC has primary, jurisdiction j
' in determining, from a health and safety perspective, allowable funding mech
- the NRC's decommissioning regulations permit a State or Federal rate regu agency to choose the most appropriate allowable funding mechanism.The NRC believes that State or Federal rate regulatory agencies should be able to set the rate of funds accumulation, taking into account such factors as the cost and
'l
.,{
' 3. -
t 11 equitability among earlier-versus later ratepayers or stockholders.
1 For this reason, the NRC has not specified amortization schedules, other accounting policies, orfinvestment criteria that its licensees should use.
Thus, although the NRC believes that as a matter of definition, a sinking fund implies roughly equal annual contributions-(in constant dollars) throughout facility life, it recognizes that the PUCs and FERC should have discretion in establishing require-ments or approving schedules for the accumulation of decommissioning funds for utilities they regulate.
The NRC intenas Lv rely. extensively on PUC or FERC
-approval of licensee's decommissioning funding methods as part of their normal
-rate proceedings, l
Some utilities or their PUCs have chosen to restrict their decommissioning trust funds.to the more limited investments allowed under Section 468A of Revenue Code of 1986 so that they may deduct contributions to such funds in the year they are made.
The NRC takes no position on whether investments should be.
' " qualified" under Section 468A.
Likewise, the NRC takes no position on recent proposals that investment restrictions under IRS qualified funds should be broadened-or that the tax rate on-the earnings of such funds should be reduced.
Guidance on Fundino Assurance Issued by the NRC
'Although the NRC's requirements for decommissioning reactors are contained in some detail in $$50.33, 50.75 and 50.82, the NRC has also prepared guidance to explain these requirements in greater detail.
In June 1989, the NRC published for comment a draft Regulatory Guide on funding assurance.
(Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1003)
This guide provides additional detail on the decommissioning ia s'
n
..w i
g.
12
, rule and suggests approaches acceptable to the NRC staff that licensees may follow to comply with the Commission's regulations.
'A licensee may use other alternatives not described in _the regulatory' guide that', it believes, would meet the intent of the NRC decommissioning rule.
However, by using approaches outlined in the guide, a licensee would be' assured of obtaining NRC staff approval or being in compliance with-the rule. The guide provides relatively detailed dis-cussions of how licensees can implement provisions of the rule.
For example, sample calculations of the escalation formula contained in $50.75(c)(2) illustrate how labor and energy information from Bureau of Labor Statistics publications and low level waste charges from NRC publications may be used.
Other examples; clarify general provisions contained in the decommissioning rule.
In addition, the guide recommends formats and wording for the financial assurance instruments-allowed by the decommissioning rule (i.e., an escrow erment,
. certificate _of deposit, trust fund and standby trust agreeme.'ts, surety bond,
(
11etter of credit, and parent company guarantee.8) 4 Because most power reactor licensees will use a trust fund to reteive, hold,
, and disburse periodic contributions for decommissioning, it may be helpful to
-summarize the provisions of trust funds that the NRC believes are important to previding adequate assurance that decommissioning funds will be available.
A secure trust fund is important to protect decommissioning funds, particularly in a situation in which a licensee files for bankruptcy either under Chapter 7 l(complete liquidation) or Chapter 11 (restructuring) of the U. S. Bankruptcy Code.
It is doubtful that even well-structured trust funds provide absolute protection from all creditors in such a situation.
However, the NRC believes that recent decisions in bankruptcy and other courts 4 suggest that
,.-.+
3 N
E I
k-13-
-i
~ decommissioning funds needed,to protect public health and safety may be j
sheltered from the. claims of many of a bankrupt's creditors.-
To enhance this protection, the NRC believes it is important that a trust agree-ment be structured so that licensees do not exercise day-to-day control of the investments of the fund.
Although a licensee may set overall investment guide-i
-lines and strategy, and should retain the right to change trustees for cause, it should refrain from active management of the fund's investments.
Either the.
trustee alone or the trustee with the assistance of an investment advisor should make day-to-day investment decisions to preserve the integrity of the
-fund and reduce the possibility of the fund being considered as part of the
' licensee's estate.
The NRC believes that several other provisions of a trust are
,ortant to-en-
._ hance its standing in a bankruptcy and otherwise to preserve the funds for thejr intended purpose.
If other instruments are' used, they should have comparable-provisions, as appropriate.
First, although a licensee may name itself as the j
beneficiary of the trust, the NRC prefers that a governmental agency be the named
. beneficiary in the event of licensee default.
Second, procedures should be established in the trust for making withdrawals, either to pay for decommission--
ing or to change trustees. The NRC or an appropriate state agency should be informed of all significant withdrawals from the trust fund unless made according to an approved decommissioning plan. The NRC does not contemplate approving spe-cific expenditures or transfers as long as they are consistent with such a plan.
o
,f u 9 7,.
14
' Third the NRC has not specified permitted investments other than that investments -
'should be equivalent to " investment grade" as determined by national bond rating' agencies.
Equitiesareallowed,butlicenseesshouldavoidsilf-dealing, overly speculative. issues, and either bonds or stocks.of other nuclear utilities..
Finally, the trust agreement'should provide that the trust is irrevocable unless appropriate written notice is given to the parties to the trust or the
~
~
purpose of the trust has been fulfilled (i.e., decommissioning has been completed and the NRC-license has been terminated).
Summary and Conclusions The NRC's mission is to protect public health and safety and the environment from the hazards of the non-military possession and use of nuclear materials.
As such, it has issued regulations comprehensively covering technical and financial aspects of decommissioning and termination of the licenses of facilities.
Although the NRC does not have economic regulatory authority, its authority under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, as well as under other legislation, enables the NRC to require reasonable assurance of the funds needed to. carry out decommissioning thoroughly and safely.
The NRC has attempted
' to strike a reasonable balance between adequate levels of assurance, on the one hand, and the cost of such assurance on the other, given the financial charac-
-teristics of the licensees and the various facilities under NRC jurisdiction.
Although licensees are not permitted to use internal funding mechanisms, the NRC has given licensees and their rate regulators broad discretion concerning 1
>l; e, -:
s..
x 15 a
the timing;of funds collection, the' amounts to be colltrcted above the certi-
- fication amounts, and the mechanisms used to hold and (lisburse decommissioning I
- funds.
The NRC remains confident of the' sound technicitl, legal, and financial bases for.its decommissioning regulations.
As further information-and opera-
- r.
tional experience becomes available, however, the NRC intends-to update its requirements where-warranted.
-i l-8 l
s I
L L
4 lL
_Y'
---,--....t.,
e
}*'
..=4
- c Footnotes 1.
As providediin 10 CFR 50.75(c)(1), the certification amount for a PWR is
~
calculated-usingftheformula: $75 million + 0.0088 P, where P is the power i
' rating of;the reactor in thermal megawatts (Mut).
PWRs smaller than 1200 MWt must use a minimum size of.1200 MWt, and those larger than 3400 MWt are capped-
'at_$105 million. The range of the certification amount for PWRs in 1986 dollars
- is $85.56 million =to $105 million.
For_BWRs, the formula is $104 million +
0.009 P.and has the same MWt levels.
The range of the. certification amount for BWRs.in 1986 dollars is $114.8 million to $135 million.
2.
1The decommissioning inflation adjustment formula provided in 10 CFR 50.75(c)(2) ris 0.65 L + 0.13 E + 0.22 B, where L E and B are the escalation factors for
-labor, energy and-low' level waste burial costs, respectively.
Information on.
.the_ escalated values for the labor factors can be obtained from the " Monthly-
=
Labor Review" published by the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
- Statistics.(BLS). Currently.. Table 24 entitled " Employment Cost Index, Private Nonfarm Workers" and subtitled " Compensation" should be used.
Regional data
-should be used where appropriate. Similarly, energy data can be obtained from
.the BLS publication, " Producer Price Indexes," using the table (currently Table 6) entitled " Producer Price Indexes for Commodity Groupings and Individual Items."
.The' appropriate energy mix between electric power and fuel oil should be used.
y The inflation factor for low-level waste burial should be taken from Table 2.1 of Report on Waste Burial Charges, NUREG-1307, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1988, and Revision 1,' October 1989. NUREG-1307 will be updated annually by the NRC.
I
-______.______m_._.__,,,_..__,m.m.______
,y.
- 1. o
.,; e
+.
p
.o
- 3. --
A parent company guarantee is not available to power reactor licensees but'is included because it is available to'some research and test' reactor licensees.
' L4.
See, for example, Hidlantic National Bank-V. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 506-07 (1986) and in re METCOA, Inc.,
No. -.1382-00415 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio' 1986 (unpublished) cited in METCOA, Inc.,
a.-
EA-85-122-(unpublished order of NRC,' June 12,1987)).
-: i '.
t
,7o
.i
'b.
References Oak, H.D. et al., (1980,1983,1984, and 1987). Technology, Safety and Costs of-Decommissioning a' Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station (NUREG/CR-0672.and Addenda-1, 2 and.3). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Nuclet.r
~
P,egulatory Comission.
Siegel, J.
J., (1984,-1988).
Utility Financial Stability and the Availability of-Funds for Decomissioning (NUREG/CR-3899 and Supplement 1). Washington, D.C.:. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
. Smith,R.I.etal.,4(1978,1979,1983,1984,and1987). Technology. Safety.and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station
-(NUREG/CR-0130and' Addenda 1,2,3and4). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Nuclear-g Regulatory, Comission.
h Temple,BarkerandSloan,Inc.,(1980).
Financing Strategies for Nuclear Power L
Plant Decomissioning (NUREG/CR-1481). Washington, D.C.: _ U.S. Nuclear H
Regulatory Comission.
I l-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, " Domestic Licensing of Production and
-Utilization' Facilities," Part 50, Chapter I, Title 10 " Energy." Washington, 3;
D.C.:~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ic
.)'
y; 79_
L
.t
- '+
v y
2 l
3 l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, (1988),_" General Requirements for Decomis-sioning Nuclear Facilities (10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72) -- Final
]
i
' Rule" in Federal Register, Vol. S3, No. 123, June 27, 1988, pp. 24018-24056.
Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission,'(1981,1988), Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586, Draft and Final ti reports). Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, (1989), " Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decomissioning Nuclear Reactors," (Task DG-1003). Washington, D.C.,
i i
i U. S.1 Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
~ Wood, R.S., (1983), Assuring the ' Availability of Funds for Decomissioning
.NuclearFacilities--DraftReport(NUREG-0584, Revision 3). Washington, D.C.:
U.S.- Nuclear Regulatory Comission, i
i
=-
- - - - _ - - - _ _ - - - - _ -