ML20046A815
| ML20046A815 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/26/1993 |
| From: | Selin I, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9307300092 | |
| Download: ML20046A815 (3) | |
Text
.
r,-
.a
..................... c an Y 0 TJA T I O N-V 0'T E
[RELEASEDTOTHE PDR {
L jfff)'q 3.?
gi
- j a
RESPONSE SHEET 4
l Inith.... 1.:
' dad
...J
- T0:-
- SAMUEL-J..CHILK, SECRETARY OF THE COMISSION?
.f FROM:-
'THE CHAIRMAN
~
o f
SUBJECT:
>.SECY-92-382 - DECOM4ISSIONING - LESSONS:
a
-^
LEARNED r
i APPROVED X.in part DISAPPROVED X in part ABSTAIN l
NOT PARTICIPATING'
. REQUEST DISCUSSION E COM4ENTS:.
See attached comments.
a
~j j
l 1
o 1q i
i a
SIGNATURE-
,-i RELEASE VOTE
/ X- /
April 26,'1993 lj DATE d
WITHHOLD VOTE
/
/
a ENTERED ON:"AS" YES:
NO I
6 c
9307300092 930426N fJ/h
= Ii
.PDR COMMS NRCC> T!
.,,1 CORRESPONDENCE PDR)
?j g.
m o--
o s
l Chairman selin's Comments on SECY-92-382:
The fundamental difficulty presented by the Commission's current approach for decommissioning reactor facilities, particularly those which have chosen to shut down prior to the expiration of i
their license, is the tension between the licensee's interest in being able to proceed with decommissioning activities as rapidly as possible to limit their overall costs of decommissioning and the interests of the public in the vicinity of the facility in having a meaningful opportunity to express any concerns they may_
have about the decommissioning process.
My position on the issues and icommendations set forth in the paper reflect my attempt to.-alance these competing interests appropriately.
I am not necessarily convinced that this set of recommendations is the optimal one and I would encourage the staff to be willing to propose additional options, if they appear to be appropriate, as they develop the implementation of the Commission's direction in response to this paper.
1.
The staff should proceed to develop guidance on decommissioning activities allowable under 10 CFR 50.59 prior to formal approval of the decommissioning plan.
The guidance should
'l be consistent with the criteria that the activities must not (1) foreclose release of the site for unrestricted use, (2) significantly increase future decommissioning costs, or (3) cause any significant environmental impact beyond that encompassed in i
the GEIS on decommissioning.
However, even if there might I
arguably be a basis under such a revised 50.59 to permit major
{
structural changes to a facility without prior Commission approval, I believe that the Commission should not pcrmit major structural changes te the facilicy or major structural changes to e.a.
disassembly of major radioactive components of the facility, the pressure vessel or the steam generators, until the decommissioning plan has been approved.
2.
I concur in staff's recommendation to amend 10 CFR sec. 50.59 to make it expressly applicable to holders of licenses not authorizing operation.
The staff should also consider amending sec. 50.59 for permanently shut down plants to explicitly require compliance with the criteria set forth in item 1 above.
l 3.
The staff has recommended that licensees of shutdown plants be required to inform the NRC, at an early stage, of their plans for post-shutdown activities at the facility.
I concur that licensees should keep the NRC informed of their plans, however, i
the staff needs to define more precisely how such information l
will be utilized in the overall decommissioning process.
4.
I agree with staff's recommendation 4 as proposed.
Part 50 I
should be revised as necessary to clarify which provisions do and do not apply to permanently shut down facilities.
5.
I concur with Commissioner Curtiss' three comments on the l
issue of hearings on decommissioning plans.
Particularly, I 1
l E
.s
'believe that'we must offer the opportunity for public participation.before the decommissioning plan'is. approved.
As Commissioner Curtiss' noted in his vote, under the approach to decommissioning recommended in'SECY-92-382, aflicensee may undertake decommissioning actions thatlcould tend to foreclose one or more options before the NRC approved the final decommissioning plan.- That is why, notwithstanding my general-agreement with.the 50.59 approach outlined in the paper, I have concluded that, as.noted above, certain major-changes to the facility or major components should not be: permitted prior to approval of the-decommissioning plan and prior.to an opportunity
~
for public participation.
Other Comments Consistent with the thrust of the staff's recommendations in this paper, the focus of staff review of tendered decommissioning plans should be on the assurance provided that a return to an unrestricted use condition will be' achieved; this would include decomanissioning funding amount and method, final cleanup criteria, and final survey plan.
Conversely, it should not be necessary to review the finer-
' details of other aspects of decommissioning plans except as they.
provide assurance of eventual return to unrestricted use-and except to the extent necessary to make the finding required by:10 l
CFR 50.82(e) that "... the decommissioning plan demonstrates that the decommissioning will be performed in accordance with the regulations in this chapter and will not be' inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public..."
It should not otherwise be necessary.for the staff to review in rigorous detail, in the context of a decommissioning plan review, those decommissioning activities which could be conducted under 10 CFR 50.59 prior to approval of a decommissioning plan.
Another issue arising in this paper is the use by licensees of funds previously set aside for decommissioning prior to decommissioning plan approval.
Pending my review and action on the staff analysis of this issue to be submitted-jn response to
~
the Commission's direction in the January 14, 1993 Staff Requirements Memorandum on the briefing on this paper,_I have no objection to allowing this on a case-by-case"where.the staff first determines that there will continue to be reasonable assurance of adequate funding for decommissioning.
i 1
i i