ML20062J918
| ML20062J918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/10/1993 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9311180208 | |
| Download: ML20062J918 (54) | |
Text
MW/WWNNNWfVnW6W6WW6WM/WWA'Ati/$#4p 4WAWWggg;ggg j
[ Occument Control Cest. 016 Phillips 3
- AMSMIR Al TO:
5 i
2 j
j GVANCED CCPY TO:
The Public Occument ocem
// //f/93 h!
- ATE:
E SECY Correspondence & Records Branen j
FROM:
g 6
5 Attaened are centes of a Consission meeting transcript and relatea meeting E
3 cccument(s ).
They are being forwarced for entry on the Daily Accession List and 3
placement in the Public Document Room. No other cistribution is recuested or
&I g
recuirec.
Meeting
Title:
d O / N-1 /T/W tx b, Madur. /kom[
LA h
L nll flok 84 'e,%_Lai
<]
c!
J Vi e
g Meeting Date:
/q //o/9 3 Open Closee y
n 4 i g
6
~m 3
h
!!em Cescriptien**
Copies Advanced DCS 5
- s E
to POR Cg g
ig C'
6 f'c
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 1
k' i, ) /h ls hL,.
NAG i
u n Tel Ib w d /? w b
/
/
k 2.
Af2 b el /993 h
h 3.
a:-
w
=5_
4 A
- s::
n-
$l'
-sl
~
c.
h
~
t s
N 9311180208 931110 PT9.7 PDR PDR 10CFR
['
6
- ODR is aavanced one copy of eacn document, two of each SECY paper.
h 01R Branch files the original transcript, with attactments, withett SECY
(
9 A
j l,7, (P
- q
- seers.
16004.i
&g
.................................................................................... 3 M r"P'MMMMMa n n nn M nnnHMnnnnnnnnnnn n nnnn nn n n n M N n
i u
a UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR: REGULATORY COMMIS SION 1
.s
~
l i
j
$IO BRIEFING BY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON AGING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS:
MANAGING PLANT LIFE AND DECOMMISSIONING I
LOCatiOD:
ROCKVILLE,' MARYLAND j
~!
bOIOl NOVEMBER 10, 1993 2ECOS:
46 PAGES 1
i a
i NEALR.GROSSANDC0.,INC.
1 COURT RFPCRTERS AWD TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20005
)
(202) 234-4433
~f l
l 1
l i
-l
-i
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory commission held on NOVEMBER 10,1993 in the commission's office at one s
White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
f r
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding 'as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
e NEAL R. GROS $
COURT ApotTMt$ AND TRAN$CRftfR$
j 1313 RH004 ISLAND AY9MUt, N.W.
tm) nuAss wAsmMotoN.OL 2000$
(m)m4&c i
i 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRIEFING BY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON AGING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS:
MANAGING PLANT LIFE AND DECOMMISSIONING t
I' PUBLIC MEETING i
l l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[
One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland Wednesday, November 10, 1993 The Commission met in open
- session, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.,
Ivan Selin, Chairman, presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
IVAN SELIN, Chairman of the Commission KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner FORREST J.
REMICK, Commissioner E.
GAIL de PLANQUE, Commissioner e
r NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 HHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHfNGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433
i 2
l STAFF AND PRESENTER SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:
1 WILLIAM C.
PARLER, General Counsel-l i
DOCTOR ANDREW BATES, Office of the Secretary i
5 DOCTOR ROBIN
- ROY, Project Director,.
Office of j
Technology Assessment.
{
t h
)
i l
I I
L t
t I
t i
i i
?
5 I
i f
i NEAL R. GROSS 3
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 -
WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (2021 234 4433 t
5
a 3
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
'I i
2 10:00 a.m.
I i
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Good morning, ladies and
'l 4
gentlemen.
i l
5 We're pleased to welcome Doctor Roy of the i
6 Office of Technology Assessment to brief us on the l
.]
7 recently issued OTA report, Aging Nuclear Power l
8 Plants: Managing Plant Life and Decommissioning. This 1
9 study was performed in response to a congressional i
s 10 request, as we understand it, and the objective was to I
i 11 examine the outlook for the nation's existing nuclear i
l 12 power plants as they
- age, the prospects for 13 decommissioning, and federal policies that could help i
t 14 address the economics and the safety issues for
'I i
15 existing power plants.
-t i
t 16 This is obviously a very important and j
k 17 timely issue.
In fact, I personally believe this is j
18 one of the most pressing and most important issues t
i 19 before the Commission at this point.
I'found.your l
f i
20 study to be very interesting.
The things that I i
21 thought I knew something about you sort of confirmed i
22 and therefore -- at least I start with, therefore, a 23 higher level of credulity as I read the parts that 24 were new to me.
We. appreciate the benefit of having j
i 25 the study and the views of the project staff.
f r
NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 l
=_ - -_.
-a.
.i i
1 Doctor Roy's report brief are available at I
2 the entrance to the room.
i 3
Commissioners?
4 Doctor Roy, please, if you would be kind-l 5
enough to proceed.
I i
6 DOCTOR ROY:
- Well, thank
- you, Mr.
~
r 7
Chairman, members of the Commission.
It's a pleasure
- i 8
to be here.
I appreciate the invitation to talk about.
i 9
our report on aging nuclear power plants.
?
}
10 Our work was, as you said, in response to 11 House and Senate committees interested in the question 12 of what are the prospects for plant life and 13 decommissioning and are there unresolved issued that i
14 are yet to be addressed.
15 Well, our report confirmed that there are 16 some issues, quite a few issues that are outstanding l
l 17 and also noted that there are a variety of activities 18 ongoing to address many of these issues.
Now, based 3
i 19 on my observations of activities. of the Commission i
20 ongoing, I don't believe our findings should hold much 21 surprise for you.
NRC activities are ongoing in a l
22 variety of areas, from thinking and rethinking the 23 license renewal rule, reexamining the research efforts i
24 on aging and safety and finally developing the site l
25 release standards which are so important for future i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
f 1323 RHODE IS1.AND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
5 1
decommissioning efforts.
2 Addressing these and all other related 3
areas are very challenging issues, challenging issues 4
for the Commission, for the industry and-for the 5
public too.
6 Now, while our findings may not hold much l
7 surprise, I hope the work is of some value to you as f
I 8
you face these issues in the future, particularly i
9 since it comes from such a different institutional j
i 10 perspective that we hold.
As you face the challenges-11 in the coming months and years, please, I hope you i
12 feel free to call on OTA if we can ever be of j
13 assistance in any way and answer some questions.
14 I'll outline our major conclusions.
Ask 15 questions any time.
I appreciate the discussion.
It 16 will probably be more useful than some sort of l
i h
17 lecture.
I'm not appropriate for that.
18 I'll focus on two main issues, NRC's age 19 and safety efforts and decommissioning.
20 But first let me take a moment to speak l
21 briefly about one of the most interesting issues l
22 that's facing nuclear power plants today, although 23 it's not an issue which really falls within the main t
24 regulatory interest of the NRC. Specifically, that's
{
i 25 many operating nuclear power plants are facing severe NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W
(?O2) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 j
-I 4
6 I
economic challenges'from an increasingly competitive 1
2-electric utility industry.
As you all know, there 3
have been a few retirements in the last few years.
i 4
Some analysts are suggesting there may be a couple 5
dozen more early retirements in the next decade.
It's t
t 6
pretty substantial.
It's a pretty substantial force 7
on the industry.
8
- Now, these estimates are not essarily 9
speculative, but what's important and the underlying 10 issue is that increasingly the utilities and the state t
11 utility commissions that are responsible for much of I
12 the regulation are increasingly investigating the
)
i 13 economics of continued plant operation.
It's a major l
14 development, j
l 15 Now, while responsibility for judging the 16 economic attractiveness of these existing plants rests t
s 17 primarily with the owners and with the state utility l
1 18 commissions, federal activities have major
[
19 implications for the economics.
For example, waste t
20 disposal, issues outside of the nuclear area pretty 21 much altogether, like addressing environmental i
22 challenges, like global climate change, the things 23 that have substantial effects.
NRC activities too, 24 like license renewal requirements, whatever those i
25 finally will be, and other safety regulatory NEAL R. GROSS COURT RE^ PORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 AHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(2c2; 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433 5
m...
7 i
1-activities also can have major economic impacts, as 2
you're all aware.
f 3
In any case, accelerating federal efforts
{
4 could help reduce some - of the uncertainty, the f
^
t t
5 substantial uncertainty that the utilities and the-t 6
states face as they address the continued operation,
{
7 economics of continued operation.
{
i 8
Well, with that, I'll turn to some of our
.i 9
thoughts on NRC's programs for assuring the safety of i.
10 plants as they age.
I'd like to focus on two, the a
11 main policy considerations we identified in our 12 report, but there are a couple of others and I'll to
-l 13 them very briefly a little later.
i 14 First, accelerated aging-related safety 15 efforts.
It seems that the early license renewal l
l 16 efforts suggest that NRC's existing age-related safety 17 efforts, although elaborate, could 'be accelerated.
?
l 18 According to NRC staff, for example, these early i
19 license renewal activities drew needed attention to j
20 two areas that are of generic importance during the f
21 original license term of plants.
These issues are 22 well known to you all by now, the environmental
.- i 4
23 qualification of electrical equipment and fatigue.
J
- 24 Early license renewal activities also 25 brought additional attention to a third topic of great 4
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE (SLAND AVENUE. N W (202; 2344433 WASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 234-4433 j
t
8-1 important to a smaller number of plants, that of 2
reactor pressure vessel embrittlement. This is a very 3
useful byproduct of the license renewal effort, but it 4
raises a question of how will a focus be raised for 5
other issues which may not have been raised already in 6
these early efforts.
7 In any
- case, the license renewal 8
activities, it's not surprising at all that they 9
brought this additional attention because the license 10 renewal rule placed great importance on fairly 11 elaborate integrated plant essessment activities, a 12 very detailed look at all the systems, structures and 13 components.
It's not surprising that that identified 14 some aging issues, even if these are aging issues that 15 are important in the original license term.
But any 16 dependence on license renewal activities to identify _
17 aging issues that are important from the original 18 license term really does leave unclear how and at what 19 point focus will be brought for issues that are 20 important to the original license term absent future 21 license renewal applications. I know you're grappling 22 with that now.
I'm not sure what the outcome will be.
23 We don't have the answer to that question, 24 but we had a couple of thoughts that you might want to 25 pursue and they're laid out there in some detail, but NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (20?) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 034-4433
9 1
not nearly enough detail to actually be an 2
implementation phase.
3 But
- first, it seems that NRC could 4
accelerate and intensify the review of topics that are 5
raised through industry and NRC-aging research 6
- programs, through application to regulatory 7
activities.
There's a lot of follow through, but it 8
might be interesting to take. a more ' systematic 9
approach and look at all the research results and see 10 what are the implications and following up on that on
}
11 a regular basis very intensely.
Somehow the EQ and 12 the pressure vessel embrittlement and the fatigue 13 issues somehow didn't get that attention, although l
14 those were all well known in -- previous to the 15 industry and to the NRC through previous research 16 programs.
These were longstanding research topics, 17 which has now gained greater attention.
18 Another approach that might be worth 19 considering would be to base it around the maintenance 20 cule.
As utilities finalize compliance over the next 21 few years with the maintenance rule, NRC could monitor -
22 and specifically report on whether the flexible 23 approach that's taken in the maintenance rule 24 adequately identifias and addresses age and 25 degradation.
In a nutshell, does this more flexible NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202)2344433 WASH!NGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4431
10 l
)
1 approach work best?
It may well.
It's a very j
2 interesting experiment, but it's worth asking that l
3 question, I think.
J 4
In particular, in reviewing the 5
maintenance for compliance and adequacy, you might I
6 consider whether the level of technical detail and 7
analysis of aging issues that are provided by
[
8 something like an IPA as laid out in the license 9
renewal rule would provide a greater assurance that 10 age and issues are addressed through the maintenance l
11 rule in a systematic fashion.
Now, in no way, by no i
12 means are we suggesting that something akin to an IPA 13 needs to be performed for the maintenance rule.
h 14 Rather, what I think is more significant is raising li, the question in that fashion and addressing it j
16 specifically would be worthwhile as NRC and industry 17 gain more experience with the maintenance rule.
I 18 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
- Now, you're not 19 suggesting we do things differently from the way we f
20 would otherwise do them in a maintenance rule, but
.i 21 rather link the likely results of the maintenance rule
' j 22 to the prospective procedures for license renewal.
1 i
23 DOCTOR ROY:
That's a second topic.
I e
24 think you might want to do things -- you might want to I
25 look at the maintenance rule is being implemented to i
NEAL R. GROSS j
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W 6
(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (20',, 234-4433 l
i i
t 11 1
see how satisfied you are with the flexible approach.
2 It sounds like it's an interesting approach.
It may 4
' i 3
be really worthwhile, but it seems like it's worth l
4 considering explicitly how has this flexible approach i
5 worked, is this working well for us, are we happy with 6
the maintenance rule, or would something which is very f
t 7
detailed -- not to suggest that we should do a license f
t 8
renewal link it right now, but is something very l
9 detailed like the integrated plan assessment going to 10 provide a greater assurance, something which has much l
l 11 less flexibility than the maintenance rule has in
)
12 going through all the systems and structures and i
13 components, f
f 14 It's not to say that the maintenance rule i
15 should necessarily be made more strict, but that you
{
16 should consider asking the question, how well is it
)
f 17 working for us in the next few years.
3 18 CHAIRMAN SELIN: But given the maintenance t
i i
19 rule, is there something to learn for license renewal?
I 20 Not going back and changing the maintenance rule to j
i 21 carry more of the weight than we otherwise see it i
22 carrying.
1 23 DOCTOR ROY:
Well, that's an interesting i
24 topic too.
In fact, I'll hit on that one right now, 25 what can we learn -- what's going on with the license NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W i
QCh 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 2 02) 234-4433 1
.)
12 1
1
_ renewal' rule.
That's.of great interest to a lot of l
l 2
people around and NRC is rethinking a lot of the j
?
3 issues of the license renewal rule and its f
4 implementation.
The question of whether some i
j 5
simplification may be warranted, greater reliance on i
6 ongoing programs, for example, as the maintenance rule j!
l 7
will be, as it's fully implemented.
I think there are l
8 great reasons for this rethinking of. the license l
9 l renewal rule.
A principal justification for it was l
10 that for the rather elaborate requirements in there, j
i 11 the IPA, integrated plant assessm'ent, as promulgated l
t 12 in
- 1991, was the need to address aging-related I
f 13 degradation issues that arise only in the license i
14 renewal term but not in the current licensing term.
(
f 15 That's the concept of aging-related degradation that's 16 unique to license renewal.
l 17 But that concept se9ms -- the practical I
18 distinction between aging which is unique to license 19 renewal and aging generally is somehow hazy, somewhat
.20 artificial, it seems for most systems, structures, f
i 21-components.
For many of them, aging management and
{
f f
22 the current license term involves revalidation of i
23 previous analyses of design margins and estimated f
24 degradation r'ates and such things and as ~ nore I
25 operating experience and research results are.
t NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 7344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4 33
-[
t
i-13 1
conducted.
That is that what may seem to be unique tn-i 2
license renewal now may not actually be in a few i
3 years, so why are we thinking of it as unique to i
^
?
5 For that reason, it seems like it may be t-6 better to view aging management as a more continuous 7
process than reflected in the rule.
For example, to 8
draw more heavily on ongoing programs like-the a
9 maintenance rule, provided we're satisfied that the-I 10 maintenance rule and other ongoing programs really do l
t 11 give that level of assurance that aging is being i
12 properly addressed.
13 Then we're back to that first question, 14 are we really satisfied with the maintenance rule and k
15 other activities to address aging?
It 's ' something 16 you're going to have to grapple with.
But if you are
?
17 satisfied with the maintenance rule and other aging 18 management techniques, then it seems'that this more j
19 continuous process could be reflected in the license
- l t
20 renewal rule and could be used to simplify, to justify i
21 some vocation considerably.
22 It's conceivable to me to -- if we really
?
)
23 believe that the - ongoing programs are adequate, to j
24 treat license renewal as a
relatively_
simple-
]
25 administrative procedure like that used for recapture NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPuRTERS AND TRANSCR!BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W, (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D L 20005 (202) 234-4433
14 l
1 of the construction period.
It's possible to see it 2
being relatively simple. That would still provide for l
3 public input and participation in the renewal process.
4 It's still a licensing action.
There are, again, the 5
questions of what needs to be considered and what are '
6 the boundaries on what can be raised, i
7 One can see it moving in that direction if 8
we're really satisfied with the ongoing aging l
9 management programs.
Again, to be really happy with
^
10 the aging management programs, it might be interesting 11 to think about, be more systematic about the research i
-1 12 programs and translating the results into a sense of 13 what more needs to be done and following up on ' -
on 14 a continual basis.
l 15 In any case, we --
16 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
While you're talking i
a 17 about translating results, although I understand your
[
18 remarks were basically procedural, that we should be 19 on the regulatory side more aware of it and more 20 rapid, more timely in our use of research results.
i 21 Are there other areas than the equipment qualification 22 area that you're aware of that'are likely to come up_
[
23 and invite us that we haven't identified as-being i
24 important for the management of aging on the licensing 25 side?
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR:BERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
&c2; 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 c02) 2344433
15' 1
DOCTOR ROY: We didn't identify particular 4
2 areas we thought that were high-risk areas that needed 3
to have additional focus drawn on.
But it is more 4
procedural, as you say.
i 5
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
But you talked to a lot 6
of people and if you came to some side conclusion i
i 7
along that, I'd be interested --
l 8
DOCTOR ROY:
Didn't really come to the j
9 conclusion about what the particular topics would be.
f 10 There are questions about containments and there are 11 questions about support and there are questions about
}
12 all sorts of areas.
It's not clear which areas of the i
13 many of the huge numbers of systems, structures and fa 14 components really deserve additional attention.
Some i
15 of the work that comes out of the aging research L
16 program can help focus that attention.
For example, i
17 with the probabilistic risk assessment, aging-related
[
i 18 probabilistic risk assessments.
They can help focus l
19 attention on those systems and structures and i
20 components which seem to have the greatest areas for 21 improving safety.
But no, we did not -- I can't tell 22 you which three.
I wish I could, but I don't think i
23 it's that simple. We certainly didn't have the staff.
24 Here_we have the staff.
We did talk to a lot of 25 folks, but we couldn't draw that kind of conclusion.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
'f 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
j (232) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
- ~.
m 16 t
1 We also touched on a couple other topics 2
on your ongoing age and safety efforts which are much 3
more broad than just age and safety. These are topics 4
of how to better relate the NRC safety goal policy to I
5 the age and activities and how to revise public l
6 participation procedures, provisions to simplify 7
license renewal. One of the great benefits of license i
8 renewal for nany interested members of the public is l
9 that it would be renewed attention and focus'in on an 10 opportunity for them to participate.
Just what other I
i 11 approaches could be taken to more early gain that l
12 input and that experience, we don't have the right f
13 answer to that and I know you're aware that there's j
14 legislation before the Congress now which would allow 15 for judicial review of the --
l l
16 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
2.206.
\\
17 DOCTOR ROY: The 2. 206, right. That's not 18 necessarily the right way, but it's really worth 19 considering what other ways can we draw in more public 20 participation earlier, as early as possible to meet 5
21 these needs and to take advantage of what the public a
22 comes up with. There's really not a right answer, but l
23 it seems to be an important issue in license renewal i
24 and I think also may be a very important issue for-25 aging management generally.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433 j
l
17 1
And then with the safety goal policy and 2
how that relates to aging activities, again there's no l
r 3
simple way even grappling with that for awhile.
How 4
J i
4 do you really translate a safety goal policy into some j
i 5
sort of procedures or operations?
There's no simple i
b But it is interesting to note that the safety 6
answer.
i 7
goal policy doesn't seem to show up in the statement-I 8
of considerations for license renewal, doesn't show up U
9 I in the maintenance rule discussion, just doesn't show i
10 i
up.
l I
I i
11 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Remick has 12 noted that several times.
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Or in the uiting l
14 rule?
[
15 DOCTOR ROY:
It's just a hard enough --
J
'I 16 but even to talk about it as a base and then we have 17 to depart because it's sort of the conceptual base for i
18 our activities.
I 19 COMMISSIONER REMICK: Incidentally, one of 20 the comments that is certainly true is that the NRC 21 was not able to 'evelop objectives for a comparative d
i 22 risk with alternative means of generating electricity 23 and that's true.
The Commission gave serir.
1 24 consideration to that in developing the safety goals, 25 but thought the NRC is not the.best agency to do a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
1202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
-)
=.
18 1
comparative risk study with coal plants.
Maybe OTA t
2 should undertake such a study of comparative risks of
-j i
3 alternative ways of generating electricity, but it j
4 would not be -- the Commission decided if NRC did it l
5 it would be self-serving or viewed as self-serving..
6 That's why it was not done.
7 Also, there's a comment in there that i
8 there is no cost benefit.
At one time there was a 9
cost benefit algorithm of $1,000.00 per person rem 10 saved and in doing that if you had a high population 11 site, that means more people that could potentially 12 receive dose, that you could justify larger cost to 13 make modifications.
So, at one time there was an 14 indirect high density or a societal risk component 15 through the cost benefit algorithm of if it costs less 16 than a thousand dollars to prevent a man rem, you 17 could make --. justify modifications.
If you had more l
t 18 people, that's more man rems you might save by the
)
19 modification.
So, there was an indirect societal risk i
20 consideration which admittedly was taken out by the l
21 Commission.
I 22 DOCTOR ' ROY:
This whole area of risk I
i 23 assessment is a tough one, and not just radioactive 24
- risk, but chemical risk too.
EPA.certainly is I
25 grappling with that and hasn't resolved the issue by 3
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 wASHtNGTON, D C. 2:XX)5 (202) 2344 433
19 i
l 1
any means.- Maybe it would be viewed as self-serving i
'l f
2 if the Commission did this type of work.
The i
3 Commission is well placed to do a lot of the work, the 4
work with PRAs and then health effects.
The 5
Commission has a
great deal of knowledge and 6
experience and research. ability. here and perhaps l
5 7
coordinating with other agencies might be the best
?
I 8
approach.
9 CHAIRMAN SELIN: To be blunt about it, the l
l 10 problem is that if you just treated all risk as the
?
11
- same, you would say nuclear power plants are l
12 incredibly safe compared to the alternatives.
But 13 people -- just the fact that there is an NRC, there's i
14 not a coal regulatory commission, places'like that.
f i
15 There clearly is a public sensitivity to nuclear risk 16 that goes beyond some overall risk criterion.
l 17 Furthermore, when you use the safety goal 18 you end up it's hard to match' safety goal and
.l 19 defense in depth together.
I guess I'd put it that j
20 way.
i 21 DOCTOR ROY:
Right.
f i
22 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
You would end up with j
23 requirements that wouldn't -- if you used only the l
1 24 safety goal as opposed to Commissioner Remick's point i
25 which is you've got to take a look at it along the way l
NEAL R. GROSS COUAT REPORTERS AND TRAN3CRIBERS -
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
1 (202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
l
'20 i
i 1
to see if you're in the ballpark or not, 'you would end j
2 up with requirements that would be less rigorous than j
3 those that we for other reasons think are called for.
4 So, our doing a study of relative risk that looks at 5
coal or oil or gas compared to nuclear, it would be 6
hard for us to say how much tougher should be the I
7 standard for nuclear risk than the other risk.
We act 8
as if it's a much higher standard, but we've never 9
really laid down that we have a safety goal for 10 nuclear plants, but none for non-nuclear plants.
11 DOCTOR ROY:
That's right.
I 12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
So, I would support l
13 Commissioner Remick's point that if this is to be an 14 important point, and I think it is, we really do need i
i 15 i an agency that's not identified, not so much pro or 16 con, but we spend 90 percent of our. time worrying 17 about one of multiple sources.
We really do need an 18 agency that's got a broader scope to do such work.
19 DOCTOR ROY:
The Department of Energy and i
20 its natural energy plan --
21 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Something like technology i
22 assessment is what we can --
23 DOCTOR ROY:
O?
it's a congressional 24 agency.
I'm so sorry.
It's the other branch of a
i 25 government.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE (SLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 234-4433 h
'21 1
Okay.
It is a very interesting area and I
2 it's not clear exactly where to go.
You raised a 3
point about the relative risk and how do you grapple
~
4 with some of these underlying issues like trading off' i
5 between ongoing low-level risks and we're sure of how 6
many dead there vill be day after day.
You can name f
i 7
a couple of activities which have fairly predictable 8
numbers of fatalities.
It's something which is very i
9 low probability, very high consequence risk and how 10 you trade off that.
I don't know how you do that.
11 You're right, it's not something that you'll have an 12 easy answer to.
We don't' think there's an easy 13 answer.
But again it's kind of fun to think about.
i i
14 Not fun, but maybe useful to think about it and ground 15 in some of your other work.
I'm not sure exactly 16 where you go with it, just that it's important. Also, t
17 it sensitizes too some public concerns that seem to 18 review catastrophic risks in a different way, very.
19 different way.
t 20 Although it's also interesting to look at --
21 airline risks.
There are low probabilities 'of
.{
22 substantial numbers of deaths from airline accidents
.1 4
23 apparently.
But in any case, that's just one-issue.
24 I'll turn'to decommissioning for just a 25 minute.
Absent license renewal, I guess we're all NEAL R. GROSS
~
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202; 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433 J
i m.
22 1
aware that three dozen plants will have to retire in h
2 the next 20 years.
There may be some earlier ones.if l
i 3
there are some economic retirements between now and j
4 then.
There may be quite a few of those, some people 5
think.
Just about all these plants, I think probably l
6 all of these plants are much larger and much more 7
contaminated than the plants that have been retired to i
8 date.
What that means, what it seems to me to mean, 9
is that commercial plant decommissioning is going to 6
10 become a much more visible issue in the next couple of 11 decades.
I bet you're all aware of that already.
I 12 think actually working to fill in one of the big gaps i
13 that there is right now in policy towards 14 decommissioning and that's 'in the site. release i
15 standards.
I think some people call it BRC-3 in a 16 way, but it's --
ii 17 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Not in this room.
18 DOCTOR ROY: Not in this room. Well, see, 19 I'm from a different branch, like I said.
I've heard 20 a number of folks refer to it.
'b7 21 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
I don't want to over v
2 22 react, but the difference between this and BRC is t')
23 we're taking here a well-defined problem for'which 5
24 there's general, belief that a solution is needed.
I'm j
25 not trying to generalize to other also interesting NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20305 (202) 2344433
[
)
23 f
1 problems but different ones, but trying to take a 2
particular
- case, which is decommissioning, 3
decommissioning standards.
Clearly when you said a i
4 standard, there will be a level below which people can I
5 act as if there's no radiation.
But we're not trying 6
to set a general standard that covers everything from 7
consumer products to previously licensed facilities, 7
8 but are tightly focused on when can licensed i
9 facilities be returned to general use.
10 DOCTOR ROY:
Hopefully that tighter focus 11 will make this effort more successful.
It is 12 definitely very important. These final radioactivity 13 standards, I guess they're scheduled for 1995, is that 14 right?
1995.
They'll play a big role.
They could l
.s 15 play a big role.
Well, they will play a big role in l
i 16 determining the ultimate scope and cost of 17 decommissioning work, how much material we have to l
r 18 remove from the site and there's a
lot of 19 implications, and what's the remaining exposure to the j
l 20 public and the environment.
)
i 21 As part of this rulemaking on site review
.i 22 standards, it's been raised, I've seen it in a couple 23 of the papers and it was certainly voiced at some of l
24 the public meetings that enhanced public participatory J
i 25 process, by the way, seemed like an excellent way to NEAL R. GROSS
)
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS j
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(20?) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (202) 2344433
24 l
1 bring in public views early on in the rulemaking' l
.i 2
process. That seems to have been a really -- to me it
=f I
3 seems like a very interesting and useful approach 4
before having things cast in concrete.
But that's an 5
aside.
6 As part of the rulemaking process,.it 7
really might be worth seriously considering developing I
8 additional options, options beyond the single goal of l
~
9 unrestricted use.
In some cases, you're aware that' 10 clean-up to a level that's suitable for unrestricted 11 use may-neither be necessary for public health and 12 safety nor economically desirable.
If_we can find a.
l 13 way to allow for restricted uses, it may actually be 14 preferable to some in the states and the public by 15 allowing them some more control or showing that you'll 16 retain some sort of control for whatever residual 17 radioactivity there is at the site.
{
18 This could be interesting. It's certainly 9
19 not the only approach that should be taken, but-it may I
20 be an-additional option that's worth-considering in i
21 the rulemaking.
I don't know how far along that J
22 concept is going.
23 CHAIRMAN SELIN: Would you suggest that --
1 1
24 I mean this is reading more into your words than you-11 25 said, but I think they are the implications, that the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIDERS 1323 RMODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 2344433 W ASHINGTOL, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
[
25 1
role of the NRC shouldn't be both to pick an objective 2
and set the health standards, but to identify for i
3 perhaps several different objectives what the j
4 appropriate health and safety and protection standards l
I 5
would be and then leave it to more the political 6
process to decide which option is appropriate for i
7 which facility.
8 DOCTOR ROY:
That is reading a little bit 9
more into my words, but that's a reasonable outgrowth 10 of some of the things we' re saying.
That line of 11 thinking can be very useful, certainly in deciding 12 whether that's the line you'd like to follow.
State I
13 and regulatory interests are very important and state
+
i 14 and local too because local governments may be playing f
i 15 an important role in land use restrictions and things 16 like that.
How you'd coordinate those types of 17 activities, public interests which may really. vary '
(
)
18 from site to site, those are important considerations.
i i
19 Generally to expand the options and think 20 is it really necessary to have the unrestricted site 21 release, that could be really useful.
It-could be 22 useful for all involved.
j 23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
You are aware-that 1
?
f 24 that is being considered in the enhanced participatory
?
25 rulemaking, that very question.
b NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W
'I
. G02) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 200%
(202) 234 4433
26 1
DOCTOR ROY:
I am aware that it was 2
raised.
I know that some of the papers have suggested 3
this, the Commission papers.
I know the public has 4
mentioned that.
It's not clear how thoroughly that l
5 approach will be investigated.
I don't know.
Maybe t
6 this is one that you will really pursue aggressively.
-l i
7 You have lots of options, lots of paths you can take..
t 8
This is one that might be useful to really think about 9
seriously.
It seems to us based on our hearing.
If 10 you have that under control, that's great.
That's l
11 wonderful.
12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
No, it's not -- the fact 13 that we've thought of something doesn't mean it's i
14 under control, but there really is a difference in i
r 15 philosophy between saying one of the functions of the 16 Commission is to decide what objective is the t
I 17 appropriate one and then set standards for it.
That f
5 i
18 would be one extreme.
Another extreme would say one I
19 of the Commission functions is to be more of a
}
20 technical agency, to say for each of several standards I
i i
21 which might be set outside of our process what'would'
?
\\
22 be the appropriate health and safety and physical 23 protection standards for that option.
3 24 I think that's an open question.
I really 25 do.
Your comments are quite timely on that issue.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202)2344433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 f
i
,,,s-.,
27 1
DOCTOR ROY: It will be interesting to see
[
h 2
how that resolves itself over the next couple of r
3 years.
t 4
Along the same lines, but a little bit l
r 5
different, it might be interesting to think again
[
6 about the entombment option.
That was one that, I 7
guess, in 1988 the Commission considered dropping l
8 entomb as an option for decommissioning, but instead S
9 decided to develop more specific guidelines on how i
10 entomb could be applied and how useful it would be.
I 11 There hasn't been any -- I don't believe there's been 12 any guidance along those lines since then. This might 13 be a good time for it and it could fit reasonably well i
14 with the site release criteria, particularly if we're 15 thinking about options such as restricted uses after 16 release.
i 17 And reexamining entomb has them thinking i
18 about release generally. The benefits of minimal site 19 work and the occupational hazards, both radiological 20 and non-radiological, reduced waste volumes, deferred I
21 and reduced needs for low-level waste sites of entomb 22 are going to be tough but important to balance with 23 some of the additional
- costs, like deferring i
24 responsibility to future generations and regulating i
25 retired plants or sites as temporary low-level waste NEAL R. GROSS 1
q COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR$ERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4 433.
28 I
i 1.
sites, how exactly will they deal with that.
But in 2
any case, these are issues that might be worth 3
considering.
Entomb option may be a reasonable i
b 4
approach for safety and economic reasons and 5
receive -- it depends on the site and you'd have to' i
6 find this out, do some more examinations might 7
receive a favorable state and public acceptance in 8
some cases.
It might be a useful option.
i 9
Well, overall, it seems that the long-term i
10 l
prospects for the 107 plants and the few that are t
11 retired already are unclear and much more unclear than-12 we seem to think they were a couple years ago.
A few i
13 years ago we thought they were clearer than maybe we 14 should have been thinking.
But anyway, as these 1
I 15 plants age, the issues related to plant lives and 4
16 decommissioning are sure to become much more visible L
17 and draw much more public attention.
I wish you luck 18 in grappling with these issues and again I extend my r
19 offer to have OTA to help how we can.
i 20 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
But absent some request 21 either from us or the Congress, what, 'if anything i
22 else, does OTA plan to do at this point?
23 DOCTOR ROY: On this topic? We don't plan 24 to do anything, absent requests.
-A couple of papers l
25 we've been asked to write in summarizing our work and NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W I
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
-... ~. _
h 29 1
we'll do that.
We send out lots of copies, we speak l
i 2
at a few places.
That's the end for us.
f I
3 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
What I heard you say t
j 4
today were a number of remarks about license renewal, 5
in particular how this interpretation would be unique 6
to license renewal aging, might be taken or not taken
[
7 and a suggestion that more reliance on refurbishment f
8 and maintenance programs, be it the maintenance rule.
l 9
or other things that are done in the current area.
10 Second is in the decommissioning, to perhaps not 11 settle on a specific option and then derive standards, i
i 12 but look at several
- options, unrestricted
- use, 13 restricted use, et cetera.
I don't know if you 14 suggested that we also look at the economics as well i
15 as the standards of these different pieces.
That 16 wasn't clear.
You mentioned something about the 17 economics, but it wasn't clear to me if that was part f
i 18 of your recommendation.
i l
19 DOCTOR ROY:
I'm not actually sure how NRC 20 can grapple with economic issues like. that, but I
ii 21 certainly the economics are very important in a lot of a
22 these former -- these plant sites.
\\
23 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
But we would leave it to i
.h 24 the economic regulators to --
l 25 DOCTOR ROY:
Make those decisions.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS a
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
30 1
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
-- do the economics and 2
in your recommendation we would provide the health and 3
safety and security guidance that would go with these 4
options.
5 DOCTOR ROY:
That's right.
6 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
And that in the aging 7
research that -- you were pretty gracious, but it 8
seemed to be that you were admonishing the agency to 9
be more attentive to its own research program and move 10 more quickly then perhaps we have in the past on 11 drawing some conclusions of the aging research.
You 12 didn't identify anything that's missing in the 13 research program, but you did suggest that we haven't 14 been as fast as we might have been in seeing the 15 implications of some of the research results and 16 putting that into the regulatory and licensing process 17 on aging.
18 DOCTOR ROY:
I think we did identify'one 19 thing that's missing.
It's not a particularly system 20 or structure component, but it's a process.
It's a 21 process to do this translation. The simplest piece of 22 evidence is-this license renewal activity.
23 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Okay.
So you're' going.
24 beyond the aging research.
You're using that as an 25 example of a perceived weakness in the process that we NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
31-1 go from doing the research to taking advantage of that l
1 2
in our regulatory --
3 DOCTOR ROY:
That's right.
The license I
i 4
renewal rule seemed to be instrumental, take this j
5 information which was already known information in the L
6 areas of EQ and fatigue and pressure vessel 7
embrittlement.
Lots of research was being performed.
8 But it seemed to take the license renewal effort to j
9 focus attention and to really raise this issue and 10 nove it a little bit out from the research side into 11 thinking, "Well, what more really do we need to do?"
l 12 Maybe those are the only three issues.
That would be I
13 interesting, it would be wonderful if it was the case.
!i 14 But maybe those are not the only three issues which 15 could have been identified if the license renewal 16 activities, as those first two lead plants, if we'd i
i i
17 continued along that path.
18 It seems -- well, first, if we do rely on l
i 19 the rule to raise these kinds of issues, that means we l
l 20 can't really simplify the rule.
That's going'to be 21 very difficult to do because we're relying on the rule 1
22 to address ongoing aging management issues.
On the-23 other hand, what if we do continue to rely on-the rule 24 but we don't have -- the. license renewal rule, but we 25 don't have many license renewal applications for NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 WASHNGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433
i 32' 1
awhile?
Then it leaves open the question of how do I'!
i 2
these types of issues make the translation.
I I
3 The maintenance rule is a
wonderful 4
vehicle because it is very broad and it is taking a f
I f
5 new approach.
It's one very nice vehicle. We can see I
i 6
how happy we are with that, that this is being
(
-i 7
implemented, and address the question of how would a
(
8 less flexible approach prclorm.
l L
9 Also, the other side is the research. The i
I1 10 research is translation -- we could do a little bit 11 more and become a little bit more satisfied in the
)
i 12 ongoing process.
l 1
I 13 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
But what I heard you say l
14 about research is not that you've done an exhaustive i
15 look at even research supporting aging, but three' 4
16 cases should be enough to make your point.
You don't j
-l 17 need --
f 3
18 DOCTOR ROY:
They're pretty big cases.
I r
19 CHAIPMAN SELIN:
You didn't need to go f)'
s 20 further to make the point.
The reason you didn't.go l,
i 21 further was because they made your point, not because l
b 22 there might or might not be other cases.
23 DOCTOR ROY:
Absolutely.
They are big f
24 cases.
They seem very important.
They apply to lots 25 of plants.
i 1
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
I (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 2344433
,l
33 1
CHAIRMAN SELIN: Is that a fair summary of j
r 2-your major points with respect to the issues at the L
.i 3
table, license renewal and plant aging?
]
4 DOCTOR ROY:
I believe it covers most of i
I 5
it.
There are a number of other smaller issues.
e 6
CHAIRMAN SELIN: A lot of specifics in the 7
excellent report.
8 DOCTOR ROY: Yes, pages and pages of stuff 9
here.
But there's one other area that really is of i
10 interest to NRC.
I'm not sure how important it is, 11 but we had to raise it.
It's on decommissioning, only
.i 1
12 because you ask.
That's on the decommissioning 13 financing.
There is a question mark out there about I
i 14 how.much it's going _to cost.
We don't know really i
15 low-level waste costs.
We don't know how well we're i
4 16 going to -- how different is -- we know how to tear
.l 17 down big pieces of equipment.
That's something that 18 goes on.
Steam generator is a great example.
You
}
(
19 take them out, you move them.
But we don't know what
-i 20 the kinds of economies will be as we go through 21 systematically tearing down a plant.
l t
22 So, there an e questions -in the labor
?
t 23 required.
There are big questions in the low-level
.)
24 waste disposal cost.
There are actually questions in i
)
25 the spent fuel disposal costs that are worth a couple NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W j
l goz,2344 33 wAssiNatoN. D c. 20o0s (2o232344433-
34 1
tens of millions.of bucks per site.
Big-questions.
2 It's interesting the Commission's l
3 financial assurance provisions for decommissioning 4
specifically consider some reasons why there may not j
.h 5
have been adequate funds built up.
For example,-I i
6 think you have early retirements.
You have a rule on l
i 7
that.
There's another reason why I might not have I.
8 adequate funds.
That's if the costs accelerate l
9 rapidly.
[
E 10 Looking at the financial assurance i
i 11 provisions for these early retirements, that's a rule I
12 they came out with a couple of years ago, it's 13 interesting to note that the six plants that have i
14 retired in -the last four
- years, none of them t
15 apparently met the conditions that you were expecting k
16 and laid out in the statement of considerations.
It 17 may be a sign that there's some more work that'can be 18 done.
You can do something which is more thorough.
1 19 There is a question of how much do you really gain by.
20 trying to be more thorough, more all encompassing.
5 21 It's not obvious what would be gained.
But it does j
22 leave a question-about what do(~ '
's rule mean and lf i
23 how useful is it.
.j
~
24 I think that is a summary of everything.
25 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
So that's a good fourth
[
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
.f (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 A
35 i
i point, which is the decommissioning funding, not just 2
but also for early retirements because as you know i
3 we're not happy with the situation even for plants 4
that run full-term.
There's a major review of both t
5 the estimates and also some of the components, like 6
the handling of the spent fuel and the increased i
7 standards to green fields on that.
8 Thank you very much.
9 Commissioner Rogers?
10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, thank you very 11 much. It's been an interesting report and interesting
?
12 to hear from you.
l 13 I wonder if you might comment a little bit i
14 on what seems to be, I think, possibly a difference in j
15 point of view here with respect to how important 16 research is in aging -- in identifying specific aging
)
17 mechanisms because I think that our point of view with 18 respect to current plants, current license period has I
19 been that the maintenance rule takes care of aging t
i 20 phenomena taking place during that first 40 years of
..i 21 life through inspections and replacements and things 1
22 of this sort and that identifying mechanisms for 1
I 23 aging, while perhaps very interesting, may not really 24 be specifically as important as developing a program 25 that anticipates the need to change a part out or to NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202) 2344433 W ASHINGTON, O C. 20005 (202) 2344433
.i 36-b 1
change something out based on past performance.
In 2
other words, a kind of phenomenological approach to a 3
plan rather than a
scientific understanding of i
4 precistly how long it will take for evidence of aging l
5 to take place, to show up, but rather the development i
6 based on past history and the collection of
[
7 performance data as a way of assuring that aging j
8 phenomena are adequately dealt with'without actually 9
perhaps understanding the details of all those in a 10 way that might be intellectually satisfying.
i 11 I think that was really more or less the i
12 point of view that we've adopted.
That isn't to say-I i
13 that we don't feel that aging phenomena shouldn't be i
i 14 looked at, but that we felt pretty comfortable that i
15 once a sufficiently robust database could be developed
(
16 with respect to performance, that that was adequate to l
17 guide repairs, replacements and so on and so forth to l
l t
18 avoid the demonstration of aging before it even i
t
-i 19 started to appear.
I 20 But beyond the first 40 year period, there
)
21 might be something else turning up and for that reason 22 the license renewal rule really started to look.at f
.j 23 mechanisms and identified nechanisms as an important I
24 consideration because there might be something of a 25 mechanism that would not show up in the performance-NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
/
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(202; 234 4433 W ASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433 i
37 1
data of the first 20. years. That's really, I think in 2
a way, what guided our development here.
3 But coming back to your point about 4
research, current research being used in dealing with 5
aging during the first 20 years period, I wonder if 6
you discussed at all in your group the necessity for 7
a detailed understanding of mechanisms versus an 8
adequate database of actual performance in the field 9
which would guide a regulatory set of requirements or 10 a maintenance program of some sort that would just 11 take care of those things without really understanding 12 all of the details that might lead to some kind of 13 aging degradation.
14 DOCTOR ROY:
It was definitely a topic j
15 that came up.
A number of people we talked to l
16 suggested that -- I think uhat it came down to was the 17 type of research that was necessary depending on the 18 type of system, structure, component.
How long we i
19 expect it to live.
What type of database one could 20 have for long-lived components expected to live for 21 the life of the plant as steam generators once were 22 and pressure vessels still are and containments still 23 are.
It's hard to get that history, in-service 24 history in great detail.
Certainly, I guess, cabling 25 may be an example.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERR 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
j
- 002s2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202J 2344433
38 1
We had ar opportunity, ~ perhaps, with
{
2 Trojan to go through and look at' what's happened with 3
the electrical equipment at Trojan in hard to access i
4 places and you can learn a great detail from that.
I
[
5 But the ability to get the kind of information for 6
these long-lived components may not be great and in 7
most cases studies of the mechanisms of degradation
-f 8
might be really what are called for.
For short-lived 9
components, equipment that's refurbished or replaced l
I 10 through some process, certainly a different approach, 11 different type of research would be needed.
12 A type of research that's more useful, 13 perhaps more useful than the mechanisms, would be 14 research on the operating experience and just i
15 following through tracking the databases. You may not l
16 call that research, but I'd like to consider the full 17 spectrum of activities research.
The industry l
18 conducts a broad spectrum of research activities, not i
s 19 just on mechanisms but on how to determine what types 20 of analysis and research to perform.
l 21 Definitely there's a need for a range of i
22 activities, but I think you see that -- you certainly 23 see that with the NRC's research program. Included in 24 research are such concepts, not just mechanisms of 25 degradation, but the probabilistic risk assessments, I
IJEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W_
(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 234 4433 i
+~
~
39-l 1
1 age-related probabilistic risk assessments.
That's i
2 considered research too and that is useful for some 3
types of questions.
It depends on the question and 4
the component that we need to address, what kind of I
5 research needs to be done.
i 6
COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Well, I appreciate l
I 7
your comments.
I think that's very interesting.
l f
8 Raising the issue of release to f
i 9
unrestricted use of contaminated sites, that certainly 10 is something that is being discussed and, particularly 11 as Commissioner Remick pointed out,-has come up time j
1 12 and time again in the participatory rulemaking I
13 activities.
I think there is an interesting dynamic f
14 in work on that question because I think some years f
15 ago there was great public concern about anything that i
16 involved releasing a contaminated site at all for any f
17 purpose.
I think as time has gone on and these l
18 questions are being looked at harder and harder and i
19 debated in greater detail, I think there is more
{
f 20 interest starting to develop now in the possibility of j
?
21 releasing sites for restricted use.
)
22 There is the question, of course, of the
)
t 23 continued oversight that is necessary to see that j
24 those restrictions are not violated and that's an 25 issue, but I think there is a dyna'mic process taking NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAN50RIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 2344433.
WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202)2344433
't 5
.. _. ~__-__-
- r 40 I
i i
place here with respect to public opinion - on this I
'f 2
issue.
A few years ago, I would say, it was very 3
difficult to find any proponents for release of a i
I 4
contaminated site for any purpose other than 5
unrestricted use. Today that seems to be changing, so 6
I think your comments are probably very timely.
~!
.. i 7
DOCTOR ROY:
That's interesting, the use
[
l 8
of the word " release," because that's not really f
i 9
released if it's restricted, but, yes, that's true.
I 10 We hve to use the language that we have.
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
That's all I have.
I i
12 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Commissioner Remick?
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
- First, I.'d like to 14 say I really thought it was an excellent report.
I i
15 found it very interesting in a couple areas where I j
h 16 might have differed.
There were things where maybe 17 the factual statement was made, but I felt if more I
i 18 digging had been done an explanation could have been i
19 given, but they were not of great consequence.
But in -
20 general, I thought it was an excellent report.
21 The one area, I guess, where 'I would e
22 greatly disagree with what you've said this morning is i
23 putting reactor pressure vessels in a category that 24 only through the license renetal has. this come 25 forward.
I greatly disagree with that, because a i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W 2
- eaa 2344433 WASHINGTON. o c 2000s (202) 2344433
41 1-t'remendous amount of' effort has been done on reactor 2
pressure vessels going back to the '60s, continuously
[
3 since then, and the pressurized thermal shock issue 4
back a
decade ago really brought the Agency's 5
attention to develop criteria.
6 The thing that happened differently in
{
7 license renewal in one particular plant, it was found 8
that the assumptions -- we thought that they knew what 9
the actual conditions of that pressure vessel were 10 from the standpoint of materials and welding materials i
11 and so
- forth, and we found out it was assumed 12 conditions not known conditions.
That brought that i
13 particular issue to light in one particular plant, but 14 the background and the research and so forth had been 15 ongoing for years and the criteria established for how i
l 16 this embrittlement issue would be handled with plants.
17 So, I don't put RPV in the same category in the same 18 category as equipment qualification and fatigue from 19 that standpoint.
It came up as an issue in one plant, i
20 but that's because what we thought was known was only-l 21 assumed to be known.
l 22 DOCTOR ROY:
I can accept what you're 23 saying, but certainly you'd agree that there's been a-24 lot of work over time on the cables too.
That's an l
l 25 area that we've spent -- the industry and NRC spent a NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCR!BER$
1323 RHODE IS!.AND AVENUE, N W.
J (702) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 23&4433
'i I
. ~.
I 42 t
1 lot of time --
1 2
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
No, I'm saying the
.j 3
only one I disagree with is reactor pressure vessel, I
s 4
putting it in that category that that's something that i
j-5 was uncovered through the license renewal process.
2 6
i DOCTOR ROY:
Well, that's an important i
7 area.
Certainly that was not uncovered.
There's a 8
great history of interest and attention paid to RPVs.
l 9
There's no doubt about it, the PTS rule.
It's been f
l 10 j going on and evolving for a long time, but there was i
i 11 some additional attention that was brought by this j
i 12 license renewal application that raised this question t
13 that you've noted about what were the actual weld l
r 14 materials.
But this is a useful thing to have been l
I 15 brought up by the license re.newal rule.
16 I don't mean in any way to say that 17 there's been no work and that this is a surprise, that 18 there's a surprise in the NRC or in the industry that f
19 RPVs and embrittlement are important issues.
I think I
i 20 it was well known that you could talk to probably
]
21 anybody at the Commission and anybody in industry and 22 they would agree this is important, and any of the i
23 concerned public groups would agree too.
But, it was l
~
24 important and it seems that the license renewal rule 25 had an important role in bringing ' to light the
)
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W J
(?D2) 2344433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 2344433
43 1
questions of the weld materials.
2 COMMISSIONER REMICK: The question of weld 3
materials goes way back.
In this case, they thought 4 j, they knew what the material was.
{}
5 i' DOCTOR ROY:
The importance of the il 6
material, but it brought to light that what we were 7
thinking wasn't quite what we should have been l
8 !
thinking, so it did have a useful role and it's not
!i 9 ll clear when we would have determined that the weld il 10 II materials were other than we had been assuming these 11 years absent the license renewal process.
I I
12 I agree with what you're saying.
There's 13 a great history in looking at this issue and a great 14 attention to understanding the importance.
But there 15 are some benefits that the license renewal rule 16 brought even in this issue.
l 17 l
CHAIRMAN SELIN:
It wasn't the rule, it e
ll 18 !>
was some point you made earlier, but in preparing for i
19 i license renewal that's the time to review all at the i
20 l same time and in the same place a lot of facts which, 21 under the normal regulatory process, have broken up 22 into different groups and might not get the cross 23 cutting and the complete review that they would get in 24 the preparation for a specific license.
25 DOCTOR ROY:
Right.
It wasn't the rule, NEAL R. GROSS COURT PEPORTERS AND TRANSCRtBERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND A'sENUE, N W
.?O2r 2344433 W ASH!NGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
[
44
.l 1
it was the activities that were inspired by the rule 2
that were important for me complying with the rules.
l 3
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
That's all I have.
l 4
- Really, I
say sincerely I
think it's a
very 5
interesting report and a good job in general.
6 DOCTOR ROY:
Thank you.
I
{
7 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
And in a
step of I
8 conspicuous bravery, Commissioner de Planque will now 9<
ask --
l 10 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Yes.
I'm not 11 sure how many words I can get out, but I'll try.
f 12 Pardon my voice.
I i
13 I enjoyed the report very much too.
I
.l 14 think it was extremely well done.
15 One issue came to my mind and I don't know i
16 if you had either the time or the ability to discuss i
i 17 what other countries are doing in this respect, but it t
18 certainly came to my mind in the sense that we're 19 dealing with license renewal because we deal with a i
20 given of a 40 year license.
This isn't the procedure 21 used by some of the other countries and so they don't 2
22 have the equivalent 23 Did you at all discuss how other countries l
24 are approaching this or did you discuss the concept. of 25 a set license at all?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (20h 2344433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 2344433 i
i
45 1
DOCTOR ROY:
We did.
Early only when we f
2 started out this work, we wanted to compare and
[
3 contrast and see what we could learn from other 4
nation's experiences and other nation's regulatory 5 !
approaches and industrial approaches. We did not have f
I 6
the resources to do that, but we did touch on that i
7 issue a couple of places in here.
One of the reasons l
8 it was very difficult and we knew we didn't have the l
9 resources for it was because the industry structures 10 l and the regulatory structures are so different and I
i 11 it's not simply that there's -- it's not that all the 12 j regulations are the same with the exception of the 40 a
13 year license life.
14 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
That's right.
15 DOCTOR ROY:
There's the whole industry 16 regulatory interaction. It seems to vary a great deal l
17 from country to country.
It was hard to look in i
18 isolation at just the license renewal issues.
{
19 Certainly there's a lot of interest and attention in 20 the international community on aging issues, growing i
21 attention it seems on aging
- issues, a
lot of 22 experience is being gained.
But there were such basic
+
23 differences it was very hard to draw much more 24 conclusion.
25 Also, it came up in our panel meetings, we i
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N W
~ $02) 2M4433 W ASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 234 4433
46 1
have these lovely advisory panels with lots of folks J
2 from dif ferent backgrounds. Some people noted, and it s
i 3
seemed hard for us to find a way around this, that the 4
history that brought us to our form of regulation and j
5 industry views and public views and how those are all j
the history is 6
mixed together is different 7
different from the other countries and the outcome is i
8 different and so how could you really apply these 9
lessons? Well, there are some lessons you,can apply, 10 but probably the engineering lessons are easier than i
11 the political science and the political process 12 issues.
That made it really tough for us to try to 13 draw that conclusion, so we don't.
Sorry.
14 COMMISSIONER de PLANQUE:
Okay..
Thank 15 you.
h i
16 CHAIRMAN SELIN:
Thank you very much, t
17 Doctor Roy.
I join my colleagues in expressing our 18 admiration and respect for the report and' thanking you 19 for coming out here and making the presentation.
i 20 DOCTOR ROY:
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
21 (Whereupon, at-10:55 a.m.,
the above-22 entitled matter was concluded.)
5 23 24 t
25 NEAL R. GROSS l
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE'NUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 2m (202) 234 4433 l1
?
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
{
This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting l
of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled:
i i
TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING BY OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT f
ON AGING NUCLEAR POWER PLAN'2S l
PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND f
t
?
DATE OF MEETING: 11-10-93 I
i were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription f
is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate tacord of the foregoing events.
~1 Reporter's name: PETER LYNCH a
i t
i e
i i
e i
i NEAL R. GROSS cover asooersas me vnanscansas j
1333 AMODE MLAND AVENUE M.W.
(202) 234 4433 wasMneSTON D1 20005 (202) 232-8000
I p
11/9/93 t
SCHEDULING NOTES
Title:
Briefing by Office of Technology Assessment on Aging Nuclear Power Plants:
Managing Plant Life and Decommissioning Scheculec:
10:00 a.m., Wednesday, November 10, 1993 (PUBLIC) e Duration:
Approx 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />
Participants:
Office of Technolooy Assessment l
- Robin Roy, Ph.D.
[
Document:
0TA report " Aging Nuclear Power Plants:
Managing Plant i
Life and Decommissioning" dated September 1993 i
i I
i 1
5 i
i l
I
r m.
-m--ue-
- dmen.=*
a*J-3-86hedd,e n*'--W--V-A-d =a-mi..waa w as aum._.,
..gw
.ga eh.,.iL_a.
m
.Ea.4.p h aa.h
-.u.g.m ma G eLa-A-.h_A..a..kmaJ.,34#_
e.
.,4
-u.4d4.,3%gha a
(_ama
,,,A__gJ, i
)
1 d
A
)
s
~
i 4 -
A k
L i
r 4-i ll 4
t 1
d.
a i
l 1
4 l
1 I
l
' l t
I
' h i
1 i
e l
I r
n l
9 e
i l
5
?
l l
4 l
5 i
I l
a l
8 I
i!
m t
e i
e i
1 l
h 1
2 n
4 1
I i
I 4
L i
l N
l-2 -
9 I
B
=nmn
(
SEPTEMBER 1993 ong-term prospects for the Nation's 107 oper-Despite these substantial challenges, there ating nuclear power plants are increasingly has also been good news for the U.S. nuclear unclear. Proponents argue that these plants, industry recently. Reversing a decades.long which supply over 20 percent of the Nation's trend of rapid increases, average nuclear power electricity, are vital to reliable, economic plant operating and maintenance costs have electricity supplies, has e environmental ben-decreased in recent years. Average plant reli-L g
efits (e.g., they emit no greenhouse pases such ability and availability base improved 4bsd as carbon dioxide), and reduce dependence substantially. Safety performance has also on imported oil. Opponents, howeser, argue been good. There have been no core damage that nuclear plants bring risks of catastrophic accidents since Three Mile Island in 1979, nor accident, create unresched waste disposal an abnormal numt.cr and severity of eventy problems, and are often uneconomic. As these that could have led to core damage, much less plants age, issues related to plant lives and any actual offsite releases of large amounts of decommissioning are likely to become much radioactivity. Aserage occupational radia-g more visible and draw more public attention. tion exposures, already well below NRC The past few years brought unexpected limits, have also declined substantially.
nUCIBar developments for nuclear piant hves and decommissioning. Since 1988, six nuclear AGING AND SAFETY p0Wer pner plants have been retired cady, well After many years of intensive ef forts by the before the expiration of the 40-year operating NRC and the nuclear power industry, no
$ licenses granted by the U.S. Nuclear Regula-insurmountable industry-wide safety chal-tory Commission (NRC). Owners of sescral lenges related to aging have been identified.
There are some notable uncertainties for the g other plants are insestigating the economics of early retirement as well. The owners of the longer term, however. While not presenting first large commercial nuclear power plants immediate challenges, some aging-related slated for decommissioning anticipate costs safety issues such as the extent of metal much greater than estimates made only a few fatigue occurring over the life of a plant, OC0nOmiC 3 cats cadier. And aner a seserai year efn rt,degradation of cabiing and other eiectncai the two lead plants in a program to demon-equipment, and reactor pressure vessel f$$$y[@$ strate NRC's plant license renewal process embrittlement wi!! have yet to be determined j
halted or indefinitely defened their plans to ef f ects on operating lives.
file an application-in one case as part of an Experience with and understanding of early tetirement decision. While w ork contin-aging issues continue to grow. In total, the ucs to develop and esentually demonstrate a histories of the more than 400 nuclear plants
{
regulatory process for license renewal, it will worldwide provide seural thousand reactor-
)
be several years before the first application is years of operating experience. Ilowever, be-filed and acted on. Absent license renewal, cause of the industry's youth, experience with about three dozen operating nuclear power plants will have to retire in the next 20 years.
i t-
i l
a i
I 4
Commercial r-
,o I
j
,1 nuclearpower a
a
,,,,,,o plantsinthe
-17 MM..
M j
UnitedStates
- '- L ' 8 NO
- L ' 9
- t@ s,
'l'l""* '?
T pt4,_, intpyde,,, (
8 9,,
1 r
-t
~
_. oo
- ~,
7
~x E%
i
-ex m
o, a
~
- a c,_
-a 2
.to
- :r=.
~,,, _,,,,
e:
.o T"ifol
_ *:T ' :"7 -., g y,0o
+
,, a
~O
- == 00 gg o,,,
g g g, s
i
'"* '"Sfa
}']T..
= y
[
1 o ooo u
,3 t so. ao u
uno 3 ao ao ro ano i
e o,m i
a m.e -,m e
ao S Shut ik.m is'888****
r 1.on5 nuclear power plant aging in the second half The industry and NRC are working to of the 40-year licensed lives is limited. This address aging issues, but their efforts could be j
limited experience with aging can be particu-accelerated to determine better the long-term larly important for some major long-lived prospects for existing plants and to assure
)
The Office of equipment such as the reactor pressure vessel, adequate long-term safety. For example, NRC Technology cables, and piping that are intended to func-could intensify its review of aging safety Assessment tion for the full life of a facility.
research for possible regulatory applications.
j isan analyticalarm Current and planned nuclear power plant Greater attention to aging safety issues during 3
of the U.S. Congress. aging management practices are designed to a plant's original license term could also help OTA'sbasic identify and address challenges before they justify a substantial simpi.fication of the functionis to help become a threat and to provide a reasonable NRC's still-undemonstrated license renewal f
legislatorsanticipate assurance of adequate safety. These practices process.
1 and plan for the depend heavily on elaborate plant mainte.
positive andnegative nance programs and on ongoing research. AGING ISSUES IN PLANT effectsof There will always remain some risk how. LIFE ECONOMICS j
technological ever, and continued industry and Federal regu-Many nuclear power plants face severe eco-latory vigilance is crucial. Attention to aging nomic pressures. The six carly retirements changes.
2 issues is crucial not just in considering license occurring between 1989 and early 1993 con-r renewal but in a plant's original license term s ey the variety ofissues likely to be involved as well.
n b
I
(.
4 l
in the future, as economic life decisions are lation (e.g., resolution of license renewal made. In several of these decisions, aging requirements) can have major economic
~
i l
degradation and its effects on plant costs and impacts. Accelerating these Federal efforts i
performance played a prominent role. Other could help reduce uncertainty facing utilities factors have also played prominent roles in ar.d State utility commissions as they make j
determining plant lives and will continue to plant life decisions. Federal policies outside do so in the future. These include rising the nuclear arena, such as addressing global t
operational costs; radioactive waste disposal; climate change and other environmental chal-l public attitudes toward nuclear power; and lenges, can also have major impacts on the
]
the changing electric industry context, in-economics of existing nuclear plants. Federal ciuding increased competition and attention efforts are ongoing in these areas, but the j
to environmental impacts. While future eco-outcomes remain uncertain.
i nomic conditions are highly uncertain, some j
analysts have suggested that as many as 25 DECOMMISSIONING
{
plants may be retired in the coming decade. Several decommissioning is oes remain un-llowever, the economy of most nuclear power resolved, although work is ongoing to address plants appears at least moderately attractive, them. There remains substantial uncertainty assuming the recent leveling of 30 j
costs continues.
Fuel g
g Any tendency tojudge theindus-25-E NmM
-\\
power lant s
try by early retirements may give a g
,[
production misleadingly dim view of the re-j20-
)
=
q costs, j
maininglivesofothernuclearpower p
[
i q 1970-1991
~
l plants. The great diversity among g
y
/ j l
1 (1991 dollars) plants and plant performance, and
- ,oy ;
}
the changing electricity market con-
{
l !
+
ditions across the country make the s-l long-term prospects neither uniform l
nor clear. Thus, no single develop-y 4 ' f,,',g ' ',,',,' '
,,,g l
j ment is likely to affect uniformly the future of the Nation's existing nuclear in decommissioning costs and the adequacy l
power plants. Rather, the futures of the exist-of decommissioning financing in cases of i
ing plants are hkely to be determined indi-early retirement or rapid cost escalation. Al-
{
vidually over time, based on a host of separate though decommissioning costs are uncertain i
l decisions made by utilities, State utility com-and large if viewed as a one-time expense, l
missions, and Federal regulators.
they are not large relative to lifetime plant l
Responsibility for judging any plant's production costs. Case studies of early retire-l economic attractiveness lies primarily with ments could be used to learn more about the j-the owning utility and State regulators. How-prospects for decommissioning costs and per-j ever, Federal activities in such arcas as nuclear form,nce. Perhaps of greatest importance, waste disposal and nuclear plant safety regu-I 1
l i
i f
~ ~
i l
t J
howeser, is the future disposal capacity and As with many other modern societal ac-l cost for radioactive waste. Estimated low tivities, decommissioning cannot provide i
level waste disposal costs have increased ten-absolute protection of public health and safety, fold in the past decade, and there has been even if all radionuclides associated with the limited progress in developing new disposal plant are removed from a site. For example,
[
facilities.
there will be some radiological risks associ-f The nuclear plants currently in operation ated with the waste disposal site, and are generally larger and more contaminated nonradiologic.al transportation and occupa-l than the plants decommissioned to date. Ilow-tional risks. Background radiation from other ever, experience with decommissioning small sources will also remain. The NRC has re-l reactors and with major maintenance activi-cently undertaken a process to revise residual ties at htrge plants suggests that the task of radioactivity requirements for terminating a decommissioning can be performed with ex-license. NRC could extend this effort to isting technologies. Final decommissioning examine alternatives to its current require-
)
of a!! but a few very special cases will likely ment of unrestricted site release. For ex-J not be performed before early in the next ample, because future exposures depend on j
century. Rather, most retired plants will go land use (e g., industrial, residential, or agri-i through a waiting period of between 5 years cultural). NRC could investigate different and several decades, allowing short-lived radiological standards matched to restricted isotopes to decay, land uses.
)
I i
i Copies of the report coucarss orint Uwrrto Starts I
l j
Orrict or Tremotocy Asstssutm forcongressional Pos1 AGE ANo rtts two
{
WasenNoton,DC 20510-8025 orriCE OF EcmOLOGy A5sLSSMrNT use are available by 379 m
)
cal!ing4 9241.
rFiCIAL BUSINESS summmmumms
- PLNALTY FoR PRIVATE USE, $' X) k-f 1
i Copiesof thereportfor 1
j noncongressionat use l
can be ordered from
{
j the Superintendent j
ofDocuments,
(
U.S. Government i
j PrintingOffice, S/N 052-003-01342-8, j
i
$11.00each, I
j P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, P A, 15250-7954, (202)783-3238.
O P._.-_.
eurst wrtman mA a
t g
i 1
1
.m
,x
.-. ~