ML20046A809
| ML20046A809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/21/1993 |
| From: | De Planque E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307300084 | |
| Download: ML20046A809 (3) | |
Text
}^
S
. ^
, f... '....... :. '........
.. g
(:gq,.
- ;-RELEASED TOLTHE PDR I:
0N y n;3 :g.
'_g Jeae
- Ja s B
RESPONSE SHEET'
- " " * " " * " * " p" " " J -
r q
= T0: -
SAMUEL J. ' CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE ' COMISSION j
FROM:
C0lWISSIONER DE'PLANQUE-u a
?.
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-382 - DEC0lHISSIONING - LESSONS LEARNED d
. APPROVED xx(in part) DISAPPROVED XX(in part) ABSTAIN NOT PARTICIPATING REQUEST DISCUSSION-
'.i C0lEENTS:-
3
]
See attached comments.
.-i j
i
.. l l
[,
4 i
i 1
,i
$>$41 d @f, v SIGNATURE L
RELEASE' VOTE'
/ xx /
.May 21, 1993 DATE LWITHHOLD VOTE'
/
/
ENTERED.ON "AS"
.YES'. xx NO i
f:.k
- - 9307300084 930521"
d n
- CDRRESPONDENCE.PDRL.
di PDR COMMS NRCC-1
~
~
? V, z.:: iY' d
' Commissioner de Planque's Comments on.SECY-92-382:"
g
_ j 1
I agree _with the Chairman that th'e' challenge present'ed to the:.
Commission in:considering recommendations for possible changes-to.
-the decommissioning process for nuclear reactors'liesLin striking 7,
the right balance between the need of licensees 1to:promptly undertake decommissioning activities!and the.needfoflthe~public.
to.have'a meaningful opportunity tofexpress: concerns regarding.
l This balance ~is particularlyJcritical:for-L those activities..
premature: shutdown reactors.
These goals need not1be seen as.
being at loggerheads with each other., Rather, as explained.
D below, I believe'that a high degree of compatibility between-these goals'can be achieved in a reasonable decommissioning
+
?~
proCOSs.
I believe that OGC has identified the appropriate. criteria toJ _
l govern determinations as to what activities are permissible prior l
to approval of a decommissioning plan: the activities.must not
_,j (1) foreclose the release of the: site for unrestricted use, 1
(2) significantly increase decommissioning costs, or - (3) D cause any significant environmental impact not.previously. reviewed.
a The licensee, in'the interest of achieving prompt-
)
decommissioning, should be permitted to conduct whatever 1
activities-'(including activities.which will bring about" major 3
structural changes to a f acility)-- are not barred by L these a
criteria or by'the terms'of the licensee's existing license.
l (e.g.,
OL,- POL, OL withiconfirmatory shutdown: order,~ etc.);or 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to the existing license.
-I alsoiapprove' 4
OGC's recommendations (1) that 10 CFR 50.59Lbe amended to make11t j
expressly applicable to holders ~of.licensesinot authorizing operation; (2) that the-staff provide guidance'for applyingL101,
~
CFR-50.59 after. permanent shutdown, to=the effect that one need:
g not presume' operation so long as there 'is: a' POL ' or confirmatory j
order; (3) that the. staff provide ~ guidance'on the activities.
permissible prior to approval of-a decommissioning plan consistent with the above criteria; and-(4) that. licensees #of.
shutdown plants be required, at'an early stage, to inform'NRC of their plans for post-shutdown activities.
j
-It seems to me that there are two-points in-the above-described l
process where the general public will wantJan opportunity.to ask' questions and to provide-input:.first, following;thefpermanentL j
cessation of operations but prior to implementation 1of!any 1
decommissioning activities; second,1following submittal of a-decommissioning 1 plan but prior to Commission approval of;such:
9 plan.
'I believe that public: participation should'be soughtJat' both points.
j i
With respect to the first point, I approve OGC's alternativeu j
recommendation-that an' informal process for)early publicLinput'be j
provided, such as soliciting-public comment or holding public1 p
meetings (see p. 58 of. Enclosure 1 of SECY-92-382).
'Such early l
- l 1
is 2
public input should focus on the licensee's information regarding planned post-shutdown activities.
With respect to the second point for public participation - the period during which the Commission is considering the licensee's decommissioning plan - I agree, in general, with the comments of Commissioner Curtiss.
In particular, I agree that approval of a-decommissioning plan should not be construed as an action governed by Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act; that the question of whether to offer a hearing and, if so, what type of hearing, is wholly a matter of Commission discretion; and that, if a hearing is offered, to be meaningful it must be a pre-effectiveness hearing.
I do not, however, approve OGC's recommendation'that NRC's regulations should be revised to provide for an informal hearing as in materials licensing cases.
If particular hearing procedures for consideration of decommissioning plans are put in place, an expectation could well be created that at least an informal hearing will always be afforded.
There may be circumstances, as Commissioner Curtiss suggests at footnote 3 of his vote, where a pre-effectiveness hearing on the decommissioning plan will lack meaning because decommissioning options have already been foreclosed.- To take account of circumstances such as this, I would prefer that the Commission retain a variety of options as to how to afford public participation in the consideration of a decommissioning plan.
These options should include an opportunity for notice and comment or public meetings as well as the opportunity for an informal hearing. I do not believe that we yet have sufficient experience with respect to the activities which must be approved as part of a decommissioning plan to determine that one form of public participation - an informal hearing - is the most appropriate form for every case.
Finally, I approve the regulatory changes which OGC recommends at Item 4 of the SECY.
NRC's regulations should be amended to define and provide for (1) issuing a confirmatory order after a permanent cessation of operations, (2) defining a POL, and (3) clarifying which regulations in Part 50 apply to POLS.
I also note that the SECY does not contain a recommendation with respect to defining the term " permanent cessation of operation" although the paper does suggest the problems attendant upon the lack of a definition of this term (see p.17 and notes 30-and 32 of Enclosure 1 of the SECY).
I suggest that the staff propose a definition for this term and include it in any proposed rule developed to attain the above regulatory changes.