ML20141B095
| ML20141B095 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/07/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141B082 | List: |
| References | |
| S-97-09, S-97-9, NUDOCS 9705150126 | |
| Download: ML20141B095 (33) | |
Text
http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/c97-09.htm http://www.nrc. gov.../nrerev/097-09.ht.
1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Public Affairs Washington DC 20555 Telephone: 301/415-8200 - E-mail: opa@nrc. gov No. S-97-09
" NUCLEAR ENERGY AND ECONOMIC COMPETITION: i THE NRC PERSPECTIVE" BY 1
DR. SHIRLEY ANN JACKSON, CHAIRMAN l 1
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '
KEYNOTE ADDRESS TO THE NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE I 4
FUEL CYCLE '97 CONFERENCE ATLANTA, GEORGIA APRIL 7,1997 Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to be here today to address the Nuclear Energy Institute Fuel Cycle '97 Conference.
INTRODUCTION:
I know that your conference over the next three days will focus on many s xcific regulatory, economic, and technical issues of concern to those of you involved in the nuclear fue. cycle. Although I know that these specific issues, and their impact on your businesses and responsibilities, may be of greatest concem to you, I am pleased to see that the first session this moming is taking a broader look at the impact of the restructuring of the electric power industry on the nuclear industry worldwide.
Companies that are regulated do their business planning, not only within the context of market opportunities, but within the framework of the regulatory environments in which they operate. It is important, therefore, that regulators are straightforward and clear about what the regulatory requirements <
are, and how they might change. It also is important that regulators themselves interact, and coordinate their actions, within the law and their independent functions, as much as possible, to avoid duplicative or conflicting regulation. I have been asked to begin this session by sharing the views of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on electric power industry restructuring, from the unique perspective of nuclear safety regulation. '
Economic deregulation is bringing significant change to the electric power industry, but there are developments that may affect,you in the nuclear fuel cycle arena directly. Let me take a few minutes to talk about some of the emergmg issues that affect the nuclear fuel cycle, and that intersect with the yR C'-
9705150126 970429 PDR STPRO ESGF 1 of 8 04/23/97 09:56:13
http://www.nrc. gov.../nrcrev/c97-09.htm http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/s97-09.htt c
WEAPONS PLUTONIUM STORAGE AND DISPOSITION: i 1
On January 14,1997, the Department of Energy (DOE) issued its Record of Decision for the Storage and Disposition of Weapons-Usable Fissile Materials. This, of course, is an issue that is of particular interest to those of you at this conference. In its Record of Decision, DOE stated that it has decided to implement a program for the safe and secure storage of weapons-usable fissile material (plutonium and highly i enriched uranium), and a strategy for the disposition of surplus weapons-usable plutonium. DOE's I strategy for the disposition of surplus plutonium is to pursue a dual approach that allows for (1) l immobilization of surplus plutomum in glass or ceramic material, for disposal in a geologic repository; and, (2) burning some of the surplus plutonium as mixed oxide (MOX) fuel in existing domestic commercial reactors. DOE also is considering the feasibility of buming MOX fuel in CANDU reactors.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a great interest in this program because it impacts at least three major areas that the NRC regulates -- commercial nuclear power reactors, fuel cycle facilities, and the ;
high-level radioactive waste disposal facility. The NRC has been active in an evaluation of the proposed l plutonium disposition altematives since DOE's Record of Decision was issued. On January 27 of this year, the full Commission was briefed by the DOE on its plans for plutonium disposition. The DOE's strategy is predicated upon actions by the Russian government.
On February 21 and March 26,1997, the NRC hosted technical exchanges in which representatives of the nuclear industry, including NEl representatives, made presentations on the use of MOX fuel in commercial reactors, and the fabrication of MOX fuel. Last month, I toured the DOE Fuels and Materials Examination Facility (FMEF) located on the Hanford reservation in the State of Washington.
This facility is one of four that DOE has evaluated for possible use as the MOX fuel fabrication facility.
Hanford also is one of the two key sites under consideration for the immobilization option, as well.
Clearly, the Commission recognizes the importance of this program to this country and to other nations around the world, as well as the need to carry out the broader goals and objectives of the program successfully. After needed legislative clarification, the NRC intends to carry out our regulatory responsibilities in a manner that will avoid unnecessary delays or costs, but will be fully protective of public health and safety.
U.S. ENRICHMENT CORPORATION:
Another area of particular interest to this group began with the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which established the U.S. Enrichment Corporation (USEC) to operate the DOE gaseous diffusion plants in Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky. The Energy Policy Act of 1992 required the NRC to establish standards that would govern the gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facilities owned by the Department of Energy (DOE). The Act also required that the Commission establish a certification process to ensure that the U.S. Enrictment Corporation (USEC) complies with those established standards.
As required by the Energy Policy Act, the NRC issued regulatory standards entitled " Certification of Gaseous Diffusion Plants," (10 CFR Part 76) on September 23,1994. A complete USEC application for certification was received by the NRC on September 15,1995. A proposed NRC certification decision was prepared and issued on September 19,1996, and the actual certificates were issued to the USEC on November 26,1996.
On March 3,1997, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission officially assumed regulatory jurisdiction, from the DOE, over the USEC operations at the gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plants at Paducah, Kentucky and Piketon, Ohio.
USEC PRIVATIZATION:
The next major milestone for the USEC was set into motion by the passage of the "The USE Privatization Act," in April of 1996. This Act provides for the USEC to become a priva'.e corpomtion, 2 of 8 04/23/97 09:56:12
http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/s97-09.htm http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarcv/s97-0 .
l and for a five year certification cycle. The USEC currently is awaiting approval by the Administration to
. move forward with privatization. ,
' The private sector entity that purchases the assets of the USEC will be responsible for the operation of the two gaseous diffusion plants, and the development, by the USEC, of any new uranium enrichment 1 processes. The Act prohibits the issuance of a certificate of compliance to that entity if the Commission l
! determines that:
I l (1) The entity is owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign i government; or !
1 (2) Issuance of a cenificate would be inimical to the common defense and security of the United States; l or 1 i
(3) Issuance of a certificate would be inimical to the maintenance of a reliable and economical domestic ,
source of enrichment services.
l The NRC stafTsubmitted, for Commission approval, on December 19,1996, SECY-96-258, " Direct and )
Final Rulemaking: USEC Privatization Act - Conforming Changes and Revision to the NRC i Enforcement Policy (NUREG-1600)." With this paper, the staff proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 2,40,70 and 76 to bring them into conformance with the statutory requirements of the Act. The requirements for prohibition ofissuance of a cenificate, if the Commission makes any of the determinations described above, were proposed for incorporation as 10 CFR Part 76, Section 76.22, entitled "Incligibility of Certain Applicants." The Commission approved this direct and final rulemaking.
l The issuance of the initial USEC certification was based upon a finding of compliance with NRC standards to protect the common defense and security. Subsequent recenification of the USEC, or certification of a USEC successor, will be based on the submission of changes to the initial application, and a similar review process. This review will include the Commission's determination on foreign ownership, control or influence, the USEC's implementation of the Compliance Plans, and accumulated regulatory experience. The staffis preparing a standard review plan for recertification of the gaseous diffusion plants.
The NRC and the USEC are coordinating activities to ensure that the Privatization Act requirements are met, and to facilitate a smooth transition from operation as a government corporation to operation as a private corporation.
HIGH-LEVEL NUCLEAR WASTE:
1 One area about which all of us are concemed is the storage and disposal of high level nuclear waste. A satisfactory resolution of this issue is essential to the continued role of nuclear energy in this nation's overall energy mix. The Congress currently is considering nuclear waste storage and disposal legislation which would provide for the development of a centralized interim storage facility, as well as continued development of a deep geologic repository for disposal of high-level nuclear waste. The NRC supports an integrated national high-level nuclear waste management plan, with three fundamental elements --
interim on-site storage; centralized interim off-site storage; and deep geologic disposal of high-level nuclear waste, primarily spent fuel; together with a transportation mechamsm to tie the three together.
However, we believe that the overall success of this country's high level waste management program is dependent on finding a solution to the permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
We already are examining our existing licensing be required if we were called upon toterim license an m, centralized capabilities storage and facility, as well as staff a deepresources, r geologic disposal facility. The NRC has issued Certificates of Compliance for several spent fuel storage casks which could be considered in the design of such a centralized storage facility.
I am confident that we can carry out, in a timely manner, the mandate of the Congress for the licensing i
3'of 8 04/23/97 09:56:11 )
. -___l
- http://www.nre. gov.../nrarev/c97-09.htm http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/s97-09.htt l i
of both an inthrim centralized storage facility as well as a deep geologic disposal facility, if reasonable !
' schedules are established, and adequate resources are provided by the Congress. What is important now l is that a decision be made as soon as possible on the direction of the Nation's high-level nuclear waste I program, so that the nuclear power industry, the NRC and DOE can plan accordingly.
l RESTRUCTURING OF THE ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY:
Having focused on some specific issues ofinterest to those of you associated with the nuclear fuel cycle, t ,
let me now tum to the broader issue of economic deregulation and restructuring of the electric power
- industry, and the NRC focus.
l l I think we would all agree that, when the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was passed, with provisions that - l j '
enabled wholesale competition in electricity generation, most of us could not have predicted the speed with which the moves from wholesale competition to retail competition would occur. Orders 888 and 889 issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and FERC's recent merger policies were major enabling actions for the economic deregulation of retail power markets. l The change to a competitive market for the electric power industry is certain to have long-term and far {
reaching consequences on how the nation produces and uses energy. This change will create some interesting chall enges for the nuclear power industry. These issues include: safe nuclear operations, l i
electrical grid reliability, availability of funds for decommissioning, and stranded costs. I would like to l address these issues from the NRC perspective.
The NRC is not an econanic or rate regulator, and you will be hearing from people this morning who do play an important role in those areas. However, the NRC, as the govemment agency responsible for the safety regulation of the nuclear industry, has an important function during this transition to a competitive market, and the challenges it poses to the nuclear power industry. In this changing business environment, as organizations restructure internally, as ownership changes, as mergers occur, and as utilities work to control and reduce costs, the NRC must understanc the effect on nuclear safety of these changes to the business environment. The structural changes and economic uncertainties that are driven by regulatory and market forces will determine how, and in what form, nuclear electric generators will continue to operate as economic deregulation continues to unfold. It is not the role of the NRC to dictate how the rules and legislative mandates undergirding economic deregulation change, nor is it our responsibility to prescribe how the electric power industry restructures. It is however, our responsibility to ensure that, as the business environment changes, economic pressures do not erode nuclear safety. We must do ourjob to see that nuclear electric generators continue to maintain high safety standards, with sufficient attention and resources devoted to nuclear operations, and with decommissioning funding secure.
1 SAFE NUCLEAR OPERATIONS:
Assessment of Performance I The NRC traditionally has relied on its inspection and plant assessment programs to identify any adverse trends in safety performance. Based on inspection program results, plant performance reviews, and other evaluative mechanisms, the NRC can take action it deems
'appropnate to protect public health and safety. In the current economic environment, with new business arrangements, competition, and economic constraints, it is imperative that our assessment mechanisms detect any problems early. l While the overall safety performance of the U.S. nuclear power industry continues to im? rove, we have seen events at several reactor sites which have signaled to us that there is a need for heig atened concern.
An NRC special independent safety assessment of the Maine Yankee Nuclear Station concluded that, while overall performance at the plant was adequate for continued operation, there were a number of significant deficiencies. These deficiencies stemmed from two closely related root causes. The first was economic pressure to be a low-cost energy producer, which limited the resources available for corrective actions and plant improvements. The second was a failure to identify and to correct promptly problems j 4 of 8 04/23/97 09:56:11
__.___._.-________m _.
http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/s97-09.htm http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/s97-09.hti arising in areas that management viewed, not always correctly, as having low safety significance.
The Commission has taken some action to respond to these signals. To ensure that the NRC can detect any safety degradations at other facilities, the staff has been asked to examine measures to identify plants where economic stress may be impacting safety. The NRC also has issued for public comment a paper entitled, " Establishing and Maintaining a Safety Conscious Work Environment." The paper includes as
" evidence of an emerging adverse trend" the following example: " cost-cutting measures at the expense of safety considerations."
The safety performance of all nuclear power plants is evaluated using licensing information, inspection results, operating experience, performance indicators, enforcement actions, and assessments of the licensees' effectiveness in identifying and correcting problems. NRC Senior Management Meetings (SMMs) are conducted semiannually to ensure that the NRC is focusing its resources properly on facilities that most need regulatory attention, based on safety performance, and the issues of greatest safety significance. The result of the Senior Management Meeting discussions is a pro 30 sed list of facilities that have demonstrated weaknesses that warrant increased NRC attention, altaough such facilities always must operate in a manner that adequately protects public health and safety.
To improve the effectiveness of the Senior Management Meeting process, the NRC staff was asked to identify objective, meaningful, " leading" performance indicators of nuclear plant performance, and to identify an enhanced approach for monitoring and assessing licensee corrective actions. In the Summer of 1996, I asked the NRC staff to commission an outside study to evaluate the SMM process, to suggest improvements to the timeliness and thoroughness of plant safety assessments, to recommend performance indicators based on objective data, and to define a methodology for assessing management and operational effectiveness.
The product was the Arthur Andersen Assessment of the Senior Management Meeting Process and l Information Base. The report makes several recommendations, and proposes a methodology for using existing performance indicators in reaching SMM decisions. The Commission has tasked the NRC staff to evaluate the Arthur Anderson report in order to develop a methodology to more effectively use existing performance indicators in the NRC's decision making processes, with new risk-based indicators being phased in as they are developed.
Electrical Grid Reliability Another area of concern to the NRC is electrical grid reliability, or security. NRC reviews in recent years have left no doubt that a Station Blackout at a nuclear )ower station is a major contributor to reactor core damage frequency, Events of this type are definec as Loss-of-Offsite-Power events, coupled with the inability of the onsite emergency diesel generators to provide power to necessary plant safety equipment. Although Station Blackout events have been extremely rare to date, there have been a num :er of Loss-of-Offsite-Power events. There also have been instances where diesel generators at plants have not been operable for periods of time. Therefore, the possibility of a Station Blackout is of concern to the NRC.
In 1996, two electrical disturbances (within a five-week period) on the Western Grid caused 190 plants to trip off-line, including several nuclear units. Nuclear plants are designed to withstand unexpected trips. However, events of this type cause unnecessary challenges to plant safety systems. Of course, the nuclear plants themselves are an important element of maintaining electrical network stability.
In reviewing these events, the Western Systems Coordinating Council listed the following contributing factors: high Northwest transmission loads; ec uipment out of service; inadequate maintenance of right-of-way; operation in a condition in which a single failure would overload parallel lines, triggering cascading outages; communication failures to neighboring utilities, prior to the disturbances; and no response to earlier events. ,
Therefore, from the perspective of a nuclear safety regulator, the NRC is convinced that economic deregulation must proceed with a sensitivity to, and an understanding of, the vulnerability of nuclear 5 of 8 04/23/97 09:56:12
q
- http://www.nre. gov.../nrarev/897-09.htm http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarcv/s97-09.htt l i' \
- plants to Lossef-Offsite-Power events. This means that transmission network govemance structures l must reflect that standards of performance, operational criteria, and training of personnel are critical I oversight issues, which all must be factored in, and properly addressed, as deregulation proceeds.
Whatever form network govemance structures assume, their authority needs to be strong enough to ;
assure that these considerations are enforced.
4 l Although grid reliability is a voluntary function under the North American Electric Reliability Council l
j and the regional councils, federal oversight currently is located at the Federal Energy Regulatory )
i, Commission (FERC), and at the Department of Energy (DOE). The DOE has created a working :
advisory committee on the reliability of the U.S. electric system. NRC has been coordinating with the I DOE, and will remain abreast of this effort, and will participate as appropriate.
j This month the Commission has scheduled two public meetings on aspects of electric power industry restructuring. The first meeting, on April 23,1997, will focus on Grid Performance and Reliability, and the second meeting, on April 24,1997, will address Electric Utility Restructuring, and will include a i discussion ofindependent system operators (ISOs). These meetings will bring together representatives j of the nuclear power industry, as well as economic regulators, from both the federal and state i governments. Our goal is for the Commission, and the public, to have an opportunity to gain an l understanding of where we are on the road to economic deregulation and industry restructuring. More
, specifically the goal of the NRC is to explore the safety questions, and to ensure that we are taking the i nght actions, at the right time, in the appropriate manner.
DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING:
Another important concern for the NRC as electric power industry deregulation proceeds, is the i cvailability of adequate decommissioning funding for nuclear plants, whether they operate to the end of l their license terms, or shut down prematurely. Moreover, since deregulation may change the economic '
umbrella for some of our licensees, the NRC may need to monitor their financial qualifications more closely.
Most electric power companies have been regulated economically by the States through their Public l Utility Commissions (PUCs). In initiating plans to deregulate these entities, the states and state PUCs ,
have responded to pressures from consumers and others for lower electricity rates by developing 1 programs that. ultimately, will provide customers with a choice of suppliers for their electricity service.
As these changes unfold, it is critical that the NRC understand the changes and that, as appropriate, we provide an understanding of safety concems to the agencies responsible for economic regulatory decisions. One of my initiatives has been to foster increased staff-level contacts between the NRC, as a health and safety regulator, and federal and State economic regulators (including FERC and NARUC),
so that we can share thoughts about our respective roles.
The NRC is aware of the many options being discussed in the States to accomplish deregulation. For example, generation, transmission, and distnbution assets may be spun offinto subsidiaries or fully separate companies (e.g., into "GENCOs," "TRANSCOs," and " DISCOS").
We expect to see a variety of hybrid ownership arrangements that go beyond the current, typically geographically defined, vertically integrated structures. States and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) are developing a variety of approaches to address the problem of above-market or
" stranded" costs, including some nuclear plant capital and decommissioning costs. Remedies being considered include exit fees for customers leaving a company's system, transmission access fees for new bulk electricity suppliers, and other transmission or " wires" charges. In some States, nuclear plant owners have been allowed to accelerate the depreciation of their plants, so that by the time full retail competition arrives, the capital costs of some nuclear plants will have been fully amortized. Companies clso are exploring securitization of stranded costs, in those states where the remedies such as exit fees, and transmission access fees have been established.
Although it is not the responsibility of the NRC to determine how nuclear " stranded" costs (assets) should be addressed by state public utility commissions or state and Federal legislatures, it is our 6 of 8 04/23/97 09:56:11
. http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/o97-09.htm http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/s97-09.htt l
responsibility'to make clear that it is essential that our power reactor licensees continue to have l i
sufficient resources to operate and decommission their plants safely. That responsibility includes takmg regulatory action, where appropriate, if the issues lie within our jurisdiction, and, if warranted, to weigh in on legislative initiatives under consideration by the Congress, i 4
In order to ensure NRC readiness to respond to issues flowing from restructuring I initiated a i reevaluation of NRC policy regarding decommissioning funding in the Fall of 1995. The NRC issued an !'
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in April 1996, seeking additional information on
- electric utility restructuring. The ANPR also explained that some additional decommissioning funding assurance might be needed for those power reactor licensees no longer subject to rate regulation by FERC or the State regulatory commissions.
j NRC decommissioning regulations already have some built-in capability to address rate deregulation.
Currently, our regulations allow only licensees meeting the NRC defmition of" electric utility" to use the i external sinking fund method of decommissioning funding assurance. Investor-owned utilities, including generation or distribution subsidiaries, public utihty districts, municipalities, rural electric cooperatives, and State and Federal agencies, including associations of any of the foregoing, are included within the
- meaning of " electric utility." Power reactor licensees that are no longer considemd " electric utilities",
within the current NRC definition, will be required to provide some other methCf assurance, such as a j letter of credit or surety bond, for any unfunded balance of decommissioning costs.
- i As indicated in the ANPR, the NRC believes that additional regulatory measures may be required.
A Regulatory changes might include eliminating any ambiguities in the NRC definition of" electric 1 j utility," and taking account of alternative methods of providing assurance of decommissioning funding
-- for example, moled insurance, if available, or accelerated funding of decommissioning. Changes also j may be requirec in reponing requirements with respect to decommissioning funding. In light of the
- comments received in response to the ANPR, the NRC staff currently is developing a proposed nile, which is expected to be before the Commission for consideration in May,1997.
The NRC also has issued a Draft Policy Statement on the Restructuring and Economic Deregulation of l the Electric Utility Industry. Standard Review Plans (SRPs) have been drafted in the areas of financial qualifications, decommissioning funding assurance, and antitrust reviews. These SRPs were issued for
- public comment on December 27,1996. The staff currently is finalizing these documents, with
- consideration of public comments.
1 The policy guidance includes a discussion of our planned approach to future reviews. Under the planned j approach, the NRC will: continue to conduct financial quahfications, decommissioning funding, and
~
antitrust reviews; identify all owners, indirect as well as direct, of nuclear power plants; evaluate the i relative responsibilities of power plant co-owners /co-licensees; and reevaluate our regulations for their adequacy to address changes resulting from rate deregulation.
Because of the complexity of the proposed new business arrangernents, and because of our concem
- about the timing of asset divestiture in relation to rate deregulation, we issued an administrative letter on June 21,1996, informing licensees of their obligation, under our regulations, to report to the NRC any changes in ownership arrangements that would constitute a direct or indirect transfer of the license. The letter included a remmder of our licensees' responsibility to advise us promptly of any information bearing on financial qualifications and the assurance of decommissioning funding.
The current regulatory framework provides us the authority to obtain the information we need in order to determine whether any restructuring actions are creating problems in operational safety, or in financial assuiance for decommissioning. The issue we face is how to further strengthen our capabilities in these areas in response to rapidly evolving state and federal initiatives. As the ANPR and Policy Statement actions indicate, we intend to monitor these issues closely, to take whatever action is required in specific cases, and, as necessary, to modify our regulatory framework, including the promulgation of a rule on decommissioning funding.
As I have stated, it is not the responsibility of the NRC to determine the stmeture of the electric power 7 of 8 04/23/97 09:56:12
http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/o97-09.htm http://www.nrc. gov.../nrarev/s97-09.hti.
l' industry. It is important that the NRC not be influenced in making safety regulatory decisions by the need to lower the cost of operating a nuclear plant. However, it is the responsibility of the NRC to meet fully its health and safety mission within the most efficient and effective regulatory framework possible
! - one that is efficient and effective for both the NRC and the nuclear energy industry. The NRC and the j nuclear energy industry have been working together to remove unnecessary regulatory requirements i through such programs as conversion to im proved Standard Technical Specifications for nuclear power i plants, marginal-to-safety rule changes, and the implementation of Regulatory Review Group j
recommendations. These recommendations include expedited review of cost-beneficial licensing actions, and the development of guidelines that would permit licensees to implement changes to, or reduce
!l commitments in, quality assurance programs, emergency preparedness plans, and security plans without i prior NRC review and approval, as long as the underlying regulations are met. We have continued the
' movement toward risk-informed, performance-based regulation through the development of a PRA Regulatory Guide, PRA Standard Review Plan, and pilot processes for potential risk-informed i regulation. This will assist the NRC and nuclear licensees in focussing their resources on the most
! safety-significant aspects of nuclear operations, while maintaining safety defense-in-depth. We will
] continue to identify opportunities for improvements to the regulatory process and framework.
) In closing, let me reiterate that the NRC will continue to take seriously its responsibility as a safety regulator. I firmly believe that ensuring safety is in no way inconsistent with economic deregulation and j competition. My own view is that adequate protection of public health and safety is entirely compatible I with a deregulated environment, provided economic restructuring of the electric power industry j addresses what is necessary for that protection. What is essential is that those responsible for economic j deregulation recognize the safety implications of change, and that those of you in the nuclear energy i industry recognize that there are no economic short cuts to safely operated, economically viable nuclear l generation. The many players who have a role in the interesting and challenging environment of electric l 1
power industry restructuring -- including the NRC as safety regulator, FERC and the State regulatory ;
i commissions as rate regulators, and you in the industry -- must work together, and must understand each
- other's concems in order to ensure that we will continue to enjoy the benefit of safely operated, soundly
- regulated nuclear-generated electricity, along with the economic benefits of deregulation.
1
! Thank you for the opportunity to address you. I wish you a very successful conference. I will be happy 3 to respond to your questions.
1, t
i 4
NRC Home Pace l News and Information l E-mail l
i i
i t
i 1
2 i
i 1
t i
- 8 of 8 04/23/97 09
- 56:11
7 ,
'f .
Federal Register / Val. 61. NA 145 / M:nday. September 23, 1996 / Prap-id Rules 49711 i -
payments that otherwise could be made regulatione unda provisions 44 U.S.C. Regulatory Commission, Washingten, l .# under this part may be withheld to the Qiapter 35 and OMB number 0560-i DC 20555, telephone (301) 411M 255, e-extent provided forin part 12 of this 0125 has been assigned. mail RSWtenre. govt or, for the anutrust title.
Signed at Washington, DC, en september espects of this policy statement. Wilham l (c) Any remedies permitted 00C tr. woe, Lambe, tele one (301) 415-1277,e-under this part shall be in addition to amanR. weber **II 8'V' bit o inalr edies,se a ons 7 #d" $'yh"p, Agency, ep w m u m M4A M
- for damages in favor of CCC, or the comm yonda carpereuen L P"' Pees .
l Unihd States, as sney be persnithd by l law. IFR Doc. 96-24268 Filed S-le-es; 4.e5 sal De of this drah policy gem statement to provide a discussion of '
(d) Absent a scheme or device to i
! , defeat the purpose of the program, when the NRC's potential safety concerns impacts onregardinbthe C
- ' an owner loses control of CRP acmage macter beenem mulung fran gwer due to foreclosure and the new owner ,900C.
m LEA.R REGULATORY economic dersgulation and
' chooses not to continue the contract restru according to $ 1410.51, refunds shall not of the electric utility be required from any participant on the 10 CFR Port 80 industry the means by which NRC contract. intends to address those concerns. This <
Draft Polloy Statement on #te draA pokey statement recognises the
- (e) Crop insursace requimments in Restructuring and Boonomic j part 1405 of this chapter apply to all changes that are occurring in the electric Deregulation of Wie Electic Utility utility industry and the importance acreage initially enrolled aAer October industry these changes any have for the NRC and 12,1994, as determined by the Deputy Administrator. AemecvNuclear Regulatory its hoensees.The NRC's principal amminaion. mission is to regulate the Nation's
! (f) Land enrolledin CRP aballbe t
classined as cropland for b time civilian use of byproduct, sourcs, and i ACTION:DraA Policy Statement request period enrolled in CRP and, aAer the for public comment. I nuclear materials to ensure i
! time period of enrollment, shall be to protection of the public health i j cuensany:no NRCis seeking comment and to promote the cosamon removed from such classiBeation upon t
a determination by b count on b dreA statement of policy defense and security, and to protect b committee that such land nofonger its expectations foi,and mWmmet. As of cutyW ut muts the conditions identi8ed in part intend approach to,its power reactor this mission,the C must monitor 718 of this title. UC'**"s as the electric uuuty industry ch uan in (g) Research projects may be proposed moves from an environment of rate hemm acuWum ud afas externa licensee activities, as wol by the State enmmittee and authorised mgulation kward gmate cepeduce. factors that may affect b abihty of by the Deputy Administrator to address The NRC is concerned that rate Individual liconeses to safely operate defirwd conarvation or land use ti and di Uon ad decaminin hemed pown yg, ,g production facihtim.
wi liba$itat : jects involvin8 Power reactor licensees could B. Background j must include objectives that m have adverse effects on the protection of Public health and enfaty, no electric utilityindustryis -
consistent with this part, involve land entering a period of economic that otherwise meets required eligibility oatts:De publicisinvited to submit dwegulation and restructuring which is '
criteria, provide bene 8cial information comments on this dreA Pokey Statement intended to lead to increased on economically and environmentally by December 9,1996. Comments competition in the industry. Increasing sound agricultural practices, not received aAer this date will be compeution may force integrated pown adversely affect local agricultural canaldsmd ifit is practical to do so, but systems to separate (or "dingsregate")
markets, and be conducted and assurance of considwetion cannot be bir s monitond by a bona Bde remarch given except as to comments received Thus,some ystems into functional licensees may divest areas.
entity, on or befom this dak. On the basis of electrical genwetion asuts from
- the submitted comments, the 9 1410.83 Permiselve uses. transmission and distribution assets by Commission will determine whether to forming separate subsidiaries or even Unless otherwise spec! Bed by the modify the dran Poucy Statement before separate companies for generation.
Deputy Administrator, no crops of any issuingitin Analform, Disaggregation may involve utility kind may be planted or hervested from Aconesses: Mall comments to: restructuring, mergers, and corporate designated CRP acreage during the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear tory spin-offs that lead to changes in ownns contract period. Commission. Washington 20555, or operators of Ilconsed power reactors 91410M apeelereennemnee Attention: Docketing and Service and may cause some licensen, Branch including owners, to cease being an In establishing policies, priorities, and Deliver Comments to: 11555 Sockville " electric utility" as de8aed in 10 CFR guidelines, FSA shall obtain the TPike, Rockville, M land, between 7:45 50.2.8 Such changa may affect the concurrence of the NRCS at aational, a.m. and 4:15 p.m.7ederal workdays, State, and localleviels' Mne copin of comments acWved 'seeuan sa.: deaaw electric uttury as *eny
$1410.ss Paperwork Reevealen Aet at: The NRC Public Document Room.
2120 L Stmet NW (Lower level),
',"$thet,,e,sume m ., or dg,ui=J ,g, t d gi,,ei3y ,, i.ai,sedy. throush reim nieblished by seeigned numbers. Washington, DC. the entity stestf or by to resulatory ne Of$ce of Management and Budget FOR FURTHER edP0m4AT10N 00087ACT: * "'
has approved the information collection Robert S. Wood, OfBee of Nuclear [I"7[sducon
, s d pu uc vuuty districs. municipeuues. rural electric requimments contained in bee Reactor Reguladon, U.S. Nuclear cau==8
i 49712 Federal Register / Vel. St. No.185 /hnday, September 23, 1996 / Prow Rul:s l
heensing' basis unider which the NRC '
,,i originally found a licenses to be NRC issued an Ast=laistrative Istter on over the operating hves of their June 21,1996, that inforined power facihties. For example, rete deregulation
- anancially quahSed to construct, resetor beensees of their ongoing s
operate or own its power plant, as well could create situations where a heensee responsibility to inform, and obtain that previously quahned as an " electric
- as to accumulate adequate funds to ensure decommissioning at the end of advance approval freso the NRC for any utility" under 10 CFR 50.2 may, at some reactor life. changes that would constitute a transfer point, no longer qualify for such status. -
of the boense, directly or indirectly, j Rate regulators have typically allowed through transfer of control of the NRC At that point, the NRC may require an electric utility to recover prudently licensees 16 submit proof pursuant to to license to any person pumuant to 10 l incurred costs of pnerating, CFR 50.33(f)(4) that they resnain CFR 50.00. This ad=ini=aetive letter
- tansmitting, and distributing electric also reminded addressess of their Saancially queh6ed and willrequim services. Consequently,in 1964, b responsibility to assure that information them to meet the more strinpnt
- NRCehrnineted Anancialquali$ cations regarding a licensee's Anancial da===t-ionhg funding assuruce requimments of10 CFR 50.75 that are t
reviews et b operating license stage for quah5 cations and deca ==l=<aning those hansees that met b de8altion of funding assurance which may have a applicable to non electric utlhties.
i " electric utility"in 10 CFR 50.2 (49 FR eigniBeant implication for public health Although new and unique 1
35747; Sept.12,1964). & NRC based and safety is promptly reported to the metructuring proposals will namuarily
! this decision on b assumption bt NRC. invoin ad hoc myims by b NRC, the s i "the rete process assures that funds &==l= ion will exercies dimet i needed for safe operation will be made I.Pohey Statement oversight of such reviews to maintain i cvailable to regulated electric utilitin" b NRC is concerned with the consistent NRC policy toward new (49 FR at 35750). However, the NRC Potential impact of utility restructuring entities.N NRC has considered on public health and safety. N NRC recognized that anancial qualiBcations mergers, the formation of holding '
myiews for operating license applicants has not found a consistent relationship companies, and the outright sala of might be appropriate in particular cases beween a heensee's Anancial health facilitim or portions of facilities, to where, for example, "the local public and pneralindicators of safety such as require NRC noti $ cation and prior utility commission will not allow the the NRC's Systematic Assessment of approvalin accordance with to CFR total cost of operating the facility to be Licensee Performance (SALP). Thus, the 50.80 in order to ensure that the recovered through rates"(49 FR et NRC has traditionally relied on its transferee is appropriately qualified. For 35751). The Commission also has inspection process to indicate when example, the NkC determines whether cxpressed potential concern with safey periwrnance hu begun to shw the surviving organlaation will remain various State proposals to implement adverse tands. Based on inspection an " electric utlhty" as de6ned in to economic perforrnance incentive Program woults, the NRC can take CFR 50.2.
programs.*
- {timatePropriate u action, including, idm e n of e m e m in its 1988 decommissioning rule, the lant shutdown,to protect NRC again distinguished between public h and safety. However,if a es NRC wiu Mu4 d@b clectric utilities and other licensees by Pl ant is rmanently shut down, that and restructuring activities as they electric utilities"to s n evolve.N NRC will take all allowings"te accumu. funds for decommissioning naes s)may no
- appropriate actions to carry out its
,, ,,, ,g f,,9ds for decomminioning over the remaining terms of their mission to protect the health and safety l sperating licenses. NRC adons the facility. If rete deregulation and of the public and,to the extent ofits '
" s oesr a s organisational divestiture occur statutory mandate, to ensure fded ex po and ederal concurantly with the shutdown of a consistency with Federal antitrust laws.
nucl**r P lant either by NRC action or by b NRC intends to implement bvernment ilities) to provide licensees fundi usurance of certaina licensee's economic decision, that policies and take action as described in for the full estimated cost o Econsee may not be able to provide this policy statement to ensure that its d i sioni ihr throu full adequate assurance of decommissioning power mactorlicensees remain funos. Thus, the NRC believes that its u funding r by some al weble responsible for safe operations and guarantee or suret mechanism. concerns with deregulation and decommissioning. In summary, the NRC A discussion of the current and future metructuring lie primarily in the aros of will:
NRC review process will be contained adeque of decommisaloning funds aMou h is also cowned we the' (1) Continue to conduct its Enancial in two Standard Review Plans that the Peen eHect eat econanic (unli$
NRC lans to issue-one for Anancial dingcations, decommissioning and antitrust reviews as qualikestions and decommissioningdemgulauon may han a operational _p, descrbd in the Standard Review Plans funding for antitrust assurance reviews. Inreviews addition,and the the other ts 3,Y'he electric utility industry moves being developed in concert with this from an environment of substantial Policy statement; economic regulation to one ofincreased (2) Identify all. owners, indirect as Ens *$iftfo"n*soNn competition, the NRC is concemed . well as direct, of nuclear power plants; inclue.d wisia e. meaning of i.ctric a sa remible s.fety imp.cu of scenesite b.Y" .- ey uN'.
abouten the pace of restructuring and rete (3) Establish and maintain sta!! level deregulation. Approvaloforganisational working plationships with State and performnin toe nuv .Finalroticy ra snesauty 24. seesL for th MtC's comarna sisi.m.nt tse and rete dengulation changes may occur rapidly without the NRC's Federal rat
- regulato"'-
gatasg*,*,,g,,
, ygg,7,,i=,i.n$1, knowledge, b pace and degree of such
, (4) Evaluate the relative sun in utui.d many of th.* programs u . amens changes could affect b factual "8Ponsibilities of power p ant co-crencour sing el. cme uuuun to lower ei.etrie ownes/celicenews; and underpinnin4s of the NRC's pmvious c
conclusions that power resetor licensees (5) Reevaluate its regulations for their "g"*"""."n,,%. s iny e . ec e perormance toe uv prosroms cittrastery mey be can reliably secumulate adequate funde adequacy to address changes resulting nplaced by fuH merket camp.uuon. for operations and decommissioning from rete deregulation.
i .
4 y,- Federal Register / Vgl. 81, No.185 / Woday, September 23, 1996 / Propa=d Rules 49713 IV, Issues Related to
- _ ^
___: ,and allowing adeguate expenditwas for Ecemenic Deregnistian of the Elodric other than to determine that such nuclear plant safety as electric utibtles Hama- in fact, remain " electric UtilityIndustry . fece deregulation, the NRCintends to utilities."However, the NRCis ,
! N NRC beheva em Hs regulgary take a number of actions toincrease evalun the need to develop framework is generaHy aumdmat to . cooperation with State and Federal rete addidgv ststoensure address many of the restruct.arings and and Baancialregulators to promote against potential dilution of capability 4 dial o and =ini=1== the possibilit reorganis,ations
, ,,e,1, o eiec,, , ,,1h,, t, hat d,,,,,ie will hkaly ariseI.eg,oguiad as m one,acuons a.y of.mw .for safe Ta"d.e bom mie d.egui I" "*"Ig O
- i W t to y g* NRCs "" review consult the Secti 84 the Atomic Energy Act j State FUCs through the National
- Qork* or wiu mherwim foHow and to CFR 50.80 provide that no a
policies consistent with the NRC's Association of Regulat Utihty Boones shall be transferred, directly or
" Commissioners (NAR , and with indirectly, through transfer of control of beh i PERC and the Securities and Exchange the hennes, unless the r'ammission I
need t be further aluate7l7 des Com nissim M to coordinge conents in wddagA NRCintends to ,
I P ,
developed. Therof , this section activities and exchange infonnation. soview transfers to determine bir addresses NRC policies with respect to electric utility restruct economic deregulation and R. Co-owner Dvision of Responsibelty Many of b NRC'spower reactor
("t quah8cetions and organizadonal control
' i as these W :: own their piants jointly with and authority over the facility and to
- - Pohcies can be carried out under current regulations and as matters under other, non related organisations. provide adequate funds for safe 4 Although some co owners may be only consideration for further resolution. operation and daeammissioning. Such authorised to possess the nuclear consent is clearly required whm a A. NRCResponsibilities vis a vis Star, facility and its nuclear material, and not corporate entity seeks to transfer a and FederalEconomic Regulefors to operate it, the NRC views all co- Beense it holds to e different corporate owners as co licensees who are I The NRC has recognized the primary entity. SeeNuc Lonbsland ar Power1.ighting Co.
4 responsible for complying with the (Shoreham Station, Unit role that State and Federal economic agulators serve in setting rates that terms of their licenses. Public Service 1) CLI-02-4,35 NRC 69 (1992). The Company ofIndiana,Inc. (Marble Hill NRC staff has advised Econsees that include appropriate levels of funding for Nuclear Generating Stadon, Units 1 &
safe operation and decommissioning. cy consent should be sought and 2), ALAB-459,7 NRC179,200.201 For example, the preamble to the 1988 under l50.80 for the formation
. (1978). The NRC is concerned about the of a new holding company over an decommissioning rule statah "The rule, effects on b availability of operating existing licensee. Other types of a
and not does b NRC dal withsAnancial implementation ratemal ofit,dag and decommissioning funds, and about transactions, including those involving b division of responsibility for issues such as rate of fund collection, transfers of operating subrity or procedums for fund collection, cost to operating and decommissioning funds, responsibility to non-licensed when co owners Ble for bankruptcy or organisations, have been considad by l ratepayers, taxation effects, equitability otherwise encounter Anand=1 between early and late ratepayers, the staff on a case by case basis to dif$culty.8 The NRC is evaluating determine whether l 50.80 consent is accounting procedures, ratepayer versus courses of action to ensure that stockholder considerations, required.The NRC is evaluating what operating and Aaea==talaning costs tvoes of transfers or restructurings responsiveness to change and other are paid by owners.
similar concess' * *. These matters SVould be subject to $ 50.80 review.
are outside NRC s jurisdiction and are C. Financle1 Qualifications Reviews Effective December 28,1995, all orders the responsibikty of the State PUCs and prov $ 50.80 transfers have been The NRC believes that the existing ed
- Ithe Federal Enwgy Regulatory regulatory framework contained in the Director Office of Nuclear actor lation.The NRC staff will Commission] FERC"(53 FR at 24038: $ 50.33(f) and in the guidance in to CFR
, June 27,1988). Part 50, appendix C,is generally inform the Commission of unique or Notwithstanding the primary role of unusual licensee restructuring actions.
sufficient at this time to provide economic regulators in rete matters, the reasonable assurance of sne Anancial D. Decommissioning Funding Assurance NRC has authority under the Atomic quellBeations of both electric utility and Compliance Reviews Energy Act of 1954, as amended,(AEA) non-electric utility applicants and to take actions that may affect a The NRC believes that b existing i licensees under the various ownershlP decommissioning funding assurance i licensn's Anancial situation when these arrangements of which the staffis I actions are warranted to protect public currently aware. Ila==aans that remain
- provisions in $ 50.75 generally provide an adequate regulatory basis for new health and safety. To date, the NRC has " electric utilities" will not be subject to licensees to provide reasonable found no signincant instances where NRC financial quali8 cations review, i State or Federal rate regulation has led assurance ofdecommtasioning funds. !
However, to address this and other to disallowance of funds for safety-related operationaland gg,g,W,,,Q,,gs1"""" issues related to decommissioning l
er nuchar poww sha funding assurance in anticipation of rate -
decommissioning expenses. Some rete ch. pier is or che b.s.ns and code:Puhile senkruper who and mag, dwegulation, h NRC published an reguletors may have chosen to reduce Service Campany of New Hampsidro (pSpoth e ok advance notice of proposed rulemaking allowable proSt margins through rate disallowances, or licensees have for w
'"nn ang'c7sieriButrospgspe" p. (ANPR)(81 FR 15427; April 8,1996).
.cese poww ca pneuve other reasons encounted Anancial v.g.
scalun[wai; . 4 . erthe niver nood piani. soih e co owner E~ Antitrust Renews l difBculty. PSNH and IPEC continued their pre rete
'fbe NRC must be able to accurately the sad
, in order for the NRC to make its safety @ ,,,,,, identify all owners ofits licensees to views known and to encourage rete me MirMhankrupey.celu.
4 meaningfully assess whether thm have j regulators to continue bir practics of romanas in henkrupicy been "signi6 cant changes" since the 4
4
- , , - - ,-.--.c -
- - . - . - - - - - - - - - - -~~~ ~ ~~~ ^ ~~~ ~ ~ ~
!, , 49714 Federal Register / Vd. 61, No. '185 / M:nday, September 23, 1996 / Proy=' Rules l7 I- licensing reviews /The NRC antidpates that competitive reviews over the next wtB not have scenes to the main intended to allowinterested persons l.
" FedWorld system.
' 5 to 10 years will arise primarily from If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, additional time to submit comments to FDA on the proposed regulations.
changes in control oflicensed facilities, you will see b NRC ares and manus, b regulatory review ad Dan Written commats by Decemba i includina the Rules Menu. Although transfer of contml oflicenses un to you wiUhe able to download s.1996.
CFR 50.00 will be used to determine
! whether new owners or tors will documents and leave messages, you will AnoResses: Subsalt written comments not be able be subject to en NRC si $ cent change Sks (comments). If you contact to write comments or upload to the Dockets Management Branch i- review with respect to antitrust matters. FedWorld using F17,all Eles can be (HFA-305), Food and Drug l Electronic Access accessed and downloaded but uploads Administration,12420 Parklawn Dr.,
- are not aUowed: all you will ese is a list rm.1-13 Rockville, MD 20857.
Comments may be submitted of Ales without descripdans (normal Pon PURTHER 50P0084ATIOt1000ffACT:
i clectronically,in eithw ASCD text or
. Wordperfect format (vwston 5.1 or Gopher look). An index Sie listing all Carolyn W. Miles, Center for Food later), by calling the NRC electronic Ales within a subdirector Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS.-
' descriptions,is available.y, Therewith is a 15- 456),200 C St. SW., Washington, DC l Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. The minute time limit for F'l? ecues. 20204,202-401-4858.
bulletin board may be accessed by using Although FedWorld can also be i a e
nal com uter commonfy ava,ilable a modem, and one acxassed thmugh the World Wide Web, "" N '"'"O* '
i like FTP that mode only provides acones Federal Register of July 9,1996 (61 FR communications soAware nWn or for downloading Sles and does not 36154), FDA issued a rule to
! directly via Internet. " unJ display b NRC Rul.s Menu.
! mvise its infant form a agulations io
' documents on the drah cy statement For more information on NRC bulletin wtablish mluirements for quality an also available. as procucal, for boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems I downloading and viewing on the factors and current good manufacturing
! Integration and Development Branch, Practice (CGMP); to amend its bulletin board.
! NRC, Washington. DC 20555, telephone requirements on quality control If usin (301)415-5780;e-mail AXD3Gntc. gov.
! modem,g a personal computer and Procedures, notiScation, and records 6 NRC Rulemaking subsystem en FedWorld can be accessed directly Deted et Rackville. Maryland, thh teth day and reports; to requim that infant of september 1996. formulas contain, and be tested for, by dialing the toll free number (800)
For the NuclearNf: tory r%mmwloo. certain nutrients, he tested for any 303-9672. Communication software parameters should be set as follows: g ag,y g, nutrients added by the manufactumr throughout their shelflife, and be arity to none, data bits to 8, and stop Secrem'IWe Ceiwssim'm a:
Its to 1 (N,8,1). Using ANSI or YT-100 FR DocM242rs Ned b2 45 aml pmduced under strict microbiological controls; to require that manufacturers l
terminal emulation. the NRC ""'*****'**'** i Rulemaking subsystem can then be implement the CGMP and quality accessed by selecting the " Rules Menu" control pmcodum requirements by cption from the "NRC Main Menu." DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND establishing a production and in process Many NRC subsystems and data bases HUMAN SERVICES contml system of their own design; and also have a "Hel /laformation Center" to implement certain noti 8 cation option that is tai ored to the particular Food and Drug Adminletrodon requirements in the Federal Food. Drug, subsyste. and Cosmetic Act. Interested persons The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can 21 CFR Ports 100 and 107 were given until October 7,1996, to elso be accessed by a dimet dial (Doeket No. GEN-4000) comment on b propowd rule.
t:le bone number for the main FDA received a request for an Fsdborld BBS,(703) 321-3339, orRINbyopt 04A04 extension of the comment period on its using Telnet via laternet: fedworld. gov. ,
If using (703) 321-3339 to contact Current Good Manufacturing Practice, QPond rule to mWee ula regulations. Hsinfant AAer careful i
FcdWorld, b NRC subsystem will be QueHty Control Procedures, QueHty consideradon, FDA has decided to accesad from the main FedWorld menu Factors, Notfication Requirements, extend the comment period to December by selecting the " Regulatory, and Records and Reports, for the i Production ofinfant Formule; 6,1996, to allow addubnal use for &
Government Administration and State gatansion of Comment Period Systems," then electing " Regulatory eutunimie Mcaments on the Propowd mvisions to its infant formula Information Mail." At that point, a AesNev: Food and Drug Administration, segulations.
menu willbe displayed that has an HHS.
cption "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Interested persons may, on or before Acnom Pmpond rule; extension of December 6,1996, submit to Dockets Commission"that will take you to the comment period.
NRC Online main menu. The NRC Management Branch (address above)
Online ares also can be accessed sueAAARY:The Food and Drug written comments regarding this directly by typing "/go arc"at e Ad=Inistration (FDA)1g extending to propond.Two copim W any comments FedWorld command line. If you access December 6,1996, the comment period are to be submitted, except that NRC from FedWorld's main menu,you on the proposed rule that published in bdividuds may submh one .
may return to FedWorld by selecting the the Federal Register ofluly 9,1996 (61 Comments am to be identi8e th the
" Return to FedWorld" option from tle FR 36154). & document pmposed to docket number found in brackets in the NRC Online Main Menu. However,if revise FDA's infant formula regulations. bending of this document. Received you access NRC at FedWorld by using The agency is taking this action in comments may be som in the ofBee NRC's toll free number, you wiu have response to a request for an extension of above between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
full access to all NRC systems, but you the comment period. This extension is Monday through Friday.
l l
TIP38 http://www.nrc. gov /OPA/gmo/tip/tip38.ht.
f.
- 6 Selected NRC Documents W) .....
EFFECTS OF ELECTRIC INDUSTRY DEREGULATION ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Background
The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 have opened the way for a number of State Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to initiate actions leading to the deregulation of the electric utility industry. The industry is moving away from traditional rate based regulation toward increased competition. This could potentially have profound impacts on the long-term ability of NRC's power reactor licensees to obtain adequate funds to operate anc to decommission their plants safely. Al though the NRC is not normally involved in economic or rate regulation, we have recognized over the years a possible relationship between access to capital and safety of operations. While there is much evidence that an efficiently operated facility is a safe facility, we must be increasingly vigilant to ensure that economic pressures do not result in a degradation in safety at operating plants.
Areas ofNRC Concern The NRC needs to ensure that adequate provision is made for decommissioning funding whether nuclear plants operate to the end of their license terms, or are shut down prematurely. In addition, given the potential for significant early recapture of capital investment, and reduced access to ratepayers that deregulation may engender for nuclear power reactor licensees, some increase in financial qualifications momtoring may be appropriate as electric utilities are deregulated. The NRC needs to be apprised in a timely manner of any potential changes to ownership or control oflicensed facilities that could affect safety or NRC safety oversight, and whether significant changes in the organizational and/or financial support for each plant are contemplated.
Traditionally, the electric utility industry has functioned as a regulated monopoly, providing essential electrical services under an exclusive franchise in exchange for having rates closely regulated by State Public Utility PUCs and FERC. Primarily due to this established economic regulatory process, the NRC has exercised limited financial oversight (of electric utility licensees). The NRC also allows electric utility licensees, unlike most other licensees, to accumulate funds for decommissioning over the 40-year terms of their operating licenses. However, with the advent of deregulation, the NRC's assumptions regarding assurance of access to funds must be reevaluated. Some policies may need to change as a result of this reassessment.
In the fall of 1995 the NRC initiated a re-evaluation of NRC policy regarding decommissioning funding.
The staff was directed to develop a comprehensive action plan to provide a framework for this re-evaluation. One element of the action plan was to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, issued in April 1996, seeking additional mformation on electric utility restructuring and comments on additional measures to ensure adequate decommissioning funding.
The NRC is also considering issuance of policy guidance on specific actions planned in response to deregulation initiatives. This guidance would include: (1) a discussion of safety concems with respect to electric utility deregulation; (2) a discussion of the current regulatory framework with respect to the conduct of financial qualifications, antitrust, and decommissioning funding assurance reviews for the mergers, holding companies, and other restructurings seen so far; and (3) a discussion of the planned approach to future reviews as rate deregulation accelerates. This will include possible rule changes to NRC regulations covering evaluation of transfers of control, which are perceived to include asset transfers and restructurings. As another part of this second issue, the NRC plans to address its responsibilities vis-a-vis State and Federal rate regulators and the NRC view of the responsibilities of 1 of 2 04/23/97 09:55:10
TIP38 i
http://www.nrc. gov /OPA/gmo/tip/tip38.htt.
!.'r .
k{ co-ow'ners of nuclear plants.
The NRC recognizes the role of PUCs and FERC in rate matters; but also recognizes that the NRC must meet its statutory mandate to protect public health and safety. We are actively pursuing increased contacts with the PUCs, through the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, with FERC, and with the SEC to broaden areas of cooperation where our interests and responsibilities overlap.
Because of the complexity of new business arrangements that have been proposed or discussed, and l.. because of our concern about the timing of asset divestiture in relation to rate deregulation, the NRC will be taking a more proactive role in informing licensees of their obligation to report new ownership
, arrangements. Where appropriate, the NRC will seek additional information to determine whether i licensees remain electnc utilities as the NRC defines that term; or conversely, whether some mechanism must be put into place to ensure decommissioning fund collection.
j- CONTACT:
i Ralph Architzel, Chief. Environmental / Financial Section, Generic Issues and Environmental Projects i Branch, NRR, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555, (301)415-2804
- HIGHLIGHTS i
Economic deregulation and restructuring in the electric utility industry could potentially have profound j impacts on the long-term ability of decommission their plants safely. power reactor licensees to obtain adequate funds to operal
{
4 j The NRC needs to ensure that adequate decommissioning funding is available whether nuclear plants
' operate to the end of their license terms, or they shut down prematurely. Also some increase in financial qualifications monitoring is appropriate as electric utilities are deregulated. !
4 In April 1996 the NRC issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, seeking additional information i on restructuring and comments on additional measures to ensure adequate decommissioning funding.
! There may be rule changes to NRC regulations covering evaluation of transfers of control, which are j perceived to include asset transfers and restructurings.
l The NRC is actively pursuing increased contacts with state PUCs through the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, and with FERC and SEC to broaden areas of cooperation where our interests and responsibilities overlap.
i.
Go to Technical Issues Pacers Index - Office of Public Affairs Pace - NRC Home Pace f Send questions or comments to ooa@nrc.cov.
4 I
i l
I i
i i
i
- 2 of 2 04/23/97 09:55:10 i
---g -
-g.gy ~y +.i m- - --w., vy,..i. - . _ _ ,_ e.+ ... m-,- g. .w
Decommicsioning http://www.nrc. gov /OPA/gmo/tip/tip24.ht.
X NRC TechnicalIssues Papers l (h
Technical Issues index l News and Infbrmation l NRC Home Pace DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Background
l l
Several licensees have announced their decisions to permanently cease power operation of their nuclear i power plants. The licensees' decisions have been based on economic and technical considerations. Thus, these facilities and several others have entered the decommissioning process before their operating licenses expire, earlier than originally anticipated. Decommissioning highlights for individual plants are presented in Tables I and 2.
Decommissioning Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.2 (10 CFR 50.2), defines decommissioning as the safe removal of a facility from service and reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits l release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. Decommissioning involves three different alternatives: DECON, SAFSTOR, or ENTOMB.
Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
Under SAFSTOR, often considered " delayed DECON," a nuclear facility is maintained in a condition that allows the decay of radioactivity to reduce radiation levels at the facility; afterwards, it is dismantled.
Under ENTOMB, radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material such as concrete and the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property.
To be acceptable, the method selected must provide for completion of decommissioning within 60 years.
A time beyond 60 years will be considered only when necessary to protect public health and safety in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.
Other rulemakings that are anticipated in the decommissioning area include a revision of regulations to address spent fuel cooling periods and indemnity issues; decommissioning costs, funding, and financial assurance.
Prematurely Shutdown Plants Since the original decommissioning mle was published in 1988, seven power reactor facilities have shut down prematurely:
o Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station, o Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, o Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, a Yankee Rowe Nuclear S ation, o San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, o Trojan Nuclear Plant, and 1 of 6 04/23/97 09:57:3E
i Dacommissioning http://www.nrc. gov /OPA/gmo/tip/tip24.ht j .
o MaddantNeck Plant.
- Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, also ceased operation after the March 28,1979, accident. In j addition, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit I and Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, '
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3, and Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor, which were shut dowTi in 1974,1978,1980, and 1987, respectively, are in the decommissioning process.
j Approved Decommissioning Plans In June 1992, the NRC issued an order to Long Island Power Authority, approving the Shoreham
, decommissioning plan. Long Island Power Authority announced completion of dismantlement of the facility in October 1994.
4 Ici November 1992, the NRC issued an order approving the Fort St. Vrain decommissioning plan and dismantlement activities are nearly completed.
T he NRC approved Yankee Rowe's decommissioning plan on February 14,1995. Subsequently, due to a
^ U S. Court of Appeals ruling, the Commission rescinded its approval on October 12,1995. A hearing was conducted and on October 18,1996, the Commission denied the most recent petition regarding the
. decommissioning plan. On October 28,1996, the NRC staffinformed Yankee Atomic that
- decommissioning activities may be conducted at Yankee Rowe.
On June 16,1993, the NRC staffissued its safety evaluation and environmental assessment of the Rancho Seco decommissioning plan. The plan proposes safe storage (SAFSTOR) of the facility for ;
i about 20 years followed by dismantlement and decontamination. Approval of the decommissioning plan was delayed because of contentions raised by the Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO). However, ECO reached a settlement with the Sacramento Municipal Utility
, District, the licensee for Rancho Seco, and on August 1,1994, withdrew from the proceeding. The staff l reviewed and updated its previous safety evaluation and issued the order authorizing decommissioning ;
of Rancho Seco on March 20,1995.
l l l On April 15,1996, the NRC issued an order approving the Trojan decommissioning plan and :
dismantlement activities are ongoing. '
l NRR/NMSS Memorandum of Understanding on Decommissioning On March 15,1995, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of Nuclear Material
, Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) reached agreement on a realignment of certain responsibilities regarding power reactor decommissioning. In the future, NRR will maintain project management responsibility for
." power reactor facilities until fuel is permanently transferred from the spent fuel pool.
1
, CONTACT:
Seymour H. Weiss, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear j Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-2170 i.
DECOMMISSIONING HIGHLIGHTS Table 1 INDIAN POINT UNIT 1 o October 31,1974, plant was permanently shut down because its emergency core cooling
! system did not meet current regulatory requirements.
2 of 6 04/23/97 09:57:35
j Decomminsioning http://www.nrc. gov /OPA/gmo/tip/tip24.htt i ,
I a January 1976, reactor was defueled.
! a June 19,1980, NRC order revoked authority to operate plant.
, a October 17,1980, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan. NRC review has been j ongoing since then and has prompted numerous supplemental licensee submittals.
a January 1996, the proposed decommissioning plan was submitted to Commission for l
! approval.
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3 l c July 2,1976, plant was shut down due to seismic issues.
, a July 30,1984, Decommissioning Plan submitted.
j a July 19,1988, SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan approved. Spent fuel (390 assemblies) will remain onsite in the spent fuel pool until a federal repository is available for it.
DRESDEN UNIT 1 i
i a October 31,1978, plant was shut down to meet new federal regulations and to perform
, chemical decontamination of major piping systems.
i a January 7,1986, while plant was still out of service, licensee announced its decision to i decommission the plant, rather than comply with regulations imposed in response to the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2.
, a July 23,1986, license was amended to possession only license (POL) status. l
- a September 3,1993, decommissioning plan was approved.
a January 25,1994, licensee personnel discovered about 55,000 gallons of water in the i containment building. The source of the water was a service water line which that had frozen
- and ruptured within the unheated containment. The water was pumped from the containment building for processing by the site radwaste system. The NRC responded by
- conducting a two-week special team inspection that identified numerous discrepancies that
, the licensee had to address.
a July 13,1994, licensee submitted a check for $200,000 in response to the NRC-imposed civil penalty for its failure to maintain required systems and to staff unit in accordance with
- Dresden Unit I decommissioning plan.
) LA CROSSE o April 30,1987, plant was permanently shut down.
a August 7,1991, SAFSTOR decommissioning plan was approved.
, FORT ST. VRAIN i
o August 18,1989, plant was permanently shut down because of failure of the control rod drives and degradation of the steam generator ring header.
- a May 21,1991, license was amended to possession only license (POL) status, a June 11,1992, all fuel was placed in an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation i (ISFSI).
a November 23,1992, NRC issued order approving licensee decommissioning plan.
o September 1,1993, removal of the prestressed concrete reactor vessel top head was completed.
a April 1,1994, all of the graphite reflector blocks had been removed from the reactor vessel and shipped to the low level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington.
a July 1,1996, dismantlement is nearly complete.
SHOREHAM a June 28,1989, licensee's shareholders approved agreement with the New York State to not i operate the facility.
- a August 24,1989, reactor vessel was defueled.
3 of 6 04/23/97 09:57:36
Decommionioning http://www.nrc. gov /OPA/gmo/tip/tip24.ht.
1 a June 14l1991, license was amended to POL status. !
- a February 29,1992, license was transferred to Long Island Power Authority for ;
decommissioning of plant.
o June 11,1992, NRC issued order approving licensee decommissioning plan. ;
a September 1993, transfer of fuel to Limerick began. Fuel transfer was completed June 1994.
a October 1994, the licensee announced completion of the dismantlement. Confirmatory surveys conducted.
o April 11,1995, decommissioning complete, POL terminated. .
RANCHO SECO a June 7,1989, plant was shut down because voters approved non-binding referendum prohibiting licensee from operating facility.
a December 8,1989, reactor vessel was defueled.
o March 17,1992, license was amended to POL status. !
o Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO) was active intervenor in -
regards to proposed decommissioning plan.
o June 16,1993, NRC issued safety evaluation and environmental assessment of proposed decommissioning plan.
a November 30,1993, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) admitted for hearing
. certain contentions associated with decommissioning funding and costs of Rancho Seco independent spent fuel storage installation.
o August 1,1994, ECO reached settlement with Sacramento Municipal Utility District and filed l, notice of withdrawal; ASLB terminated proceeding.
o September 2,1994 Commission order (CLI-94-14) authorized NRC staff to issue ,
decommissioning order. '
o March 20,1995, NRC approved the decommissioning plan for SAFSTOR by issuing the decommissioning order.
YANKEE ROWE o October 1,1991, plant was shut down and vessel defueled because of concerns about reactor vessel integrity. !
a February 27,1992, licensee announced permanent cessation of operations because ofinability to address uncertainties associated with the safety margin of the reactor vessel.
a August 5,1992, license was amended to POL status.
i a July 15,1993, NRC stated it had "no objection to early component removal activities" i proposed by the licensee. .
a November 16 to December 8,1993, as part of the early component removal activities, the four
- steam generators and pressurizer were shipped from the plant to the low level waste burial l site in Barnwell, South Carolina.
a March 11,1994, NRC stated it had "no objection" to use of decommissioning trust funds for proposed second phase of activities associated with early removal of components, including reactor coolant pumps, contaminated piping, and asbestos. Activities were completed by June 30,1994.
o March 31,1994, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) filed a complaint in the Massachusetts District Federal Court claiming the NRC did not follow National Environmental Protection :
Act (NEPA) in its review oflicensee's early component removal program. The court denied the complaint on jurisdictional grounds; however, CAN appealed to the U.S. Court of ;
Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.
a February 14,1995, NRC approved the decommissioning plan for SAFSTOR.
a March 23,1995, Yankee Atomic applied for a (10 CFR 71) license to enable shipment of the reactor vessel. The vessel will not be shipped before summer 1996.
a July 20,1995, First Circuit found that the Commission erred when it rejected CAN's request for a hearing on the component removal program, that CAN was entitled to a hearing under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, and that the NRC had violated NEPA by permitting YAEC to initiate the component removal program before the agency had prepared an 04/23/97 09:57:36 4 of 6
- . - - . . . . . - - - . ~ - . _ . - . . - - - - . _ . . - _ _- - - - .
- Dacommiecioning http://www.nrc. gov /OPA/gmo/tip/tip24.ht; environinental assessment or impact statement. The Court remanded the case to the Commission for further action.
o October 27,1995,in response to the July 1995 Court of Appeals decision, the NRC staff
, issued a Federal Register notice offering the public an opportun!iy for hearing.
j o November 30,1995, CAN and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution submitted a i,
joint petition to intervene on the Yankee decommissioning plan.
o October 18,1996, the Commission issued an order which denied CAN's latest petition i regarding the decommissioning plan.
! o October 28,1996, the NRC staffinformed Yankee Atomic that decommissioning activities may be conducted at Yankee Rowe.
THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 a March 28,1979, accident occurred in the plant that caused permanent cessation of operations.
- o January 30,1990, reactor was defueled.
- o August 12,1993, processing of accident-generated water was completed.
1 o September 14,1993, POL amendment was issued.
o December 28,1993, post-defueling monitored storage technical specifications were issued.
l SAN ONOFRE, UNIT 1 o November 30,1992, based on settlement agreement with California Public Utilities l Commission licensee permanently shut down plant rather than bring it into compliance with
! current NRC safety requirements.
o October 23,1992, POL amendment was issued. Amendment became effective March 9,1993, j when reactor vessel was certified as completely defueled.
l o December 28,1993, permanently defueled technical specifications were issued.
- a November 3,1994, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan for NRC review.
i j TROJAN i a January 4,1993, licensee announced permanent cessation of operations.
j o January 27,1993, reactor was defueled.
1 o May 5,1993, NRC issued POL amendment.
- a November 1994, licensee commenced removal of steam generators and pressurizer for ;
i shipment to the U.S. Ecology low level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington. i
- o January 26,1995, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan.
1 o November 1,1995, licensee completed the large component removal project. ,
j o December 22,1995, NRC staff published FederalRegister notice offering opportunity for l 4
public comment on Environmental Assessment and Safety Evaluation for the decommissioning plan. The 30-day comment period passed without a request for hearing.
4 o March 31,1996, permanently defueled technical specifications were issued.
j o April 15,1996, NRC issued the order approving the decommissioning plan.
i HADDAM NECK
- December 4,1996, licensee announced permanent cessation of operations.
- BIG ROCK POINT i
< a May 31,2000,is expiration date of current license.
! o February 27,1995, licensee submitted SAFSTOR decommissioning plan for early NRC
! review.
j o February 14,1996, Consumers Power Company requested that the NRC defer review of the
- Big Rock Point decommissioning plan until after issuance of the revised 10 CFR Part 50 decommissioning regulations.
3 5 of 6 04/23/97 09:57:36 i
Decommiccioning http://www.nrc. gov /OPA/gmo/tip/tip24.htt.
Table 2 REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING STATUS SHUTDOWN POWER REACTORS :
i Reactor Type L cation Shutdown Status Power j Onsite l Indian Point 1 PWR -
615 M W Buchanan NY ! 10/31/74 SAFSTOR !
lYes lDresden 1 ! BWR 700 MW l Morris IL 10/31/78 SAFSTOR llYes l Fermi 1 JFast Breeder 200 MW l Monroe Co. MI l[9/22/72 SAFSTOR lNo l lGE VBWR lBWR [50MW Alameda Co. CA 12/9/63 I (SAFSTOR ]No l Yankee Rowe PWR Franklin Co. MA 10/1/91 jYes
.l600MW _ lDECON CVTR '
65 MW Parr SC 1/67 SAFSTOR No
{Hea ter Pathfinder
~
Superheat BWR 190 MW Sioux Falls SD 9/16/67 N
pan 30 No lHumboldt Bay 3 lBWR l200 MW l Eureka CA y/02/76 lSAFSTOR ]Yes ,
jPeach Bottom 1 ]HTGR l115MW York Co. PA l 10/31/74 lSAFSTOR JNo f2 Onofre 1 lPWR l1347 MW San Clemente CA i 11/30/92 lSAFSTOR (Yes Haddam Neck : PWR 1825 MW Haddam Neck CT l 7/22/96 f,*n Yes g
lFon St. Vrain lHTGR l842MW lPlatteville CO ll8/l8/89 DECON lYes l Rancho Seco PWR 6/7/89
]2772 MW l Sacramento CA lSAFSTOR fes e ile .
PWR 2772 M W Middletown PA ; 3/28/79 SAFSTOR* . No e
Shoreham BWR 2436 MW Suffolk Co. NY 6/28/89 :
No nated jTrojan lPWR 3411 M W Portland OR 11/9/92 lDECON :lYes ;
l Lacrosse lBWR l165MW Lacrosse WI j4/30/87 lSAFSTOR JYes
- Post-defueling monitored storage (PUMS).
6 of 6 04/23/97 09:57:40
o .
BP24 (12/96)
DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Backaround Several licensees have announced their decisions to permanently cease power operation of their nuclear power plants.
The '
licensees' decisions have been based on economic and technical considerations. Thus, these facilities and several others have entered the decommissioning process before their operating licenses expire, earlier thrn originally anticipated.
Decommissioning highlights for individual plants are presented in Tables 1 and 2.
Decommissionina Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reculations, Section 50.2 (10 CFR 50.2), defines decommissioning as the safe removal of a facility from service and reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. Decommissioning involves three different alternatives: DECON, SAFSTOR, or ENTOMB.
Under DECON (immediate dismantlement), equipment, structures, and portions of the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits release for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
Under SAFSTOR, often considered " delayed DECON," a nuclear facility is maintained in a condition that allows the decay of radioactivity to reduce radiation levels at the facility; afterwards, it is dismantled.
Under ENTOMB, radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material such as concrete and the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property.
To be acceptable, the method selected must provide for completion of decommissioning within 60 years. A time beyond 60 years will be considered only when necessary to protect public health and safety in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.
Reculations The procedure for decommissioning a nuclear power plant is set out principally in NRC regulations 10 CFR Parts 50.75, 50.82, 51.53, and 51.95. An underlying assumption embodied in the regulauions when the Commission issued the original decommissioning regulations in 1988 was that decommissioning would occur after the facility operating license expired. Five
4 g BP24 (12/96) years before the licensee expected to end operation of the plant, it was obligated to submit a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up-to-date assessment of the major technical factors that could affect planning for decommissioning. Then, within one year before expiration of the license, (or two years after operation for plants closing before their license expires) a licensee had to submit to NRC an application for authority to decommission that facility, together with an environmental report covering the -
proposed decommissioning activities. However, several licensees have permanently ceased operations prematurely without having l
submitted the documentation required under the regulations. In l addition, these licensees requested exemptions from some safety '
requirements to reflect their status of no longer having fuel present in the reactor. Because the regulations did not specifically address prematurely shutdown facilities, these
, situations were handled on a case-by-case basis.
Throughout fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the NRC staff worked on revisions to NRC regulations to clarify their applicability and to make certain changes in decommissioning policy regarding permanently shut down reactors. On July 20, 1995, the Commission issued a " Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Plants." On July 2, 1996, the Commission approved the final rule. The rule was published in the Federal Register July 29 and became effective 30 days from the date of publication (on August 28, 1996). The final rule redefines the decommissioning process, defines terminology related to decommissioning, requires licensees to provide the NRC with early notification of planned decommissioning activities at their facilities, and explicitly sets forth the applicability of certain NRC requirements to permanently shutdown reactors.
The Commission believes the amendments will enhance efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process for nuclear power reactors. The amendments allow for public participation in the decommissioning process and furnish the licensed community and the public a better understanding of the process as the operating personnel at a nuclear power reactor facility undergo the transition from an operating organization to a decommissioning organization.
The revisions to 10 CFR 2, 50, and 51 related to the final rule on decommissioning power reactors require that:
(a) Within 30 days after a nuclear power plant licensee decides to cease operations permanently, the licensee must submit a written certification to the NRC, and (b) When the licensee permanently removes nuclear fuel from the reactor vessel, the licensee must submit another written certification to the NRC.
BP24 (12/96)
When NRC receives these certifications, the licensee's authority to operate the reactor or load fuel into the reactor vessel will be removed by regulation. This will entitle the licensee to an annual fee reduction and eliminate the obligation to adhere to certain requirements needed only during reactor operation.
Within two years after submitting the certification of permanent cessation of operations, the licensee must submit a post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR) to the NRC. This ,
report must provide a description of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities, along with a schedule for accomplishing them, and an estimate of the expected costs. i In the PSDAR, the licensee is required to discuss the reasons for concluding that environmental impacts associated with the site-specific decommissioning activities have already been considered in environmental reports or environmental impact statements !
prepared previously. If this has not been done, the licensee !
would have to request a license amendment for approval of the '
activities and submit to the NRC an environmental report on the additional impacts.
i After receiving a PSDAR, the NRC must publish F. notice of receipt, make the PSDAR available for public review and comment, and hold a public meeting in the vicinity of the plant to discuss the licensee's intentions.
Ninety days after the NRC receives the PSDAR, and generally 30 days after the public meeting, the licensee can begin to perform major decommissioning activities without specific NRC approval.
These activities could include permanent removal of such major components as the reactor vessel, steam generators, large piping systems, pumps, and valves.
The final regulations state that decommissioning activities conducted without specific prior NRC approval must not:
e foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, e result in there being no reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available for decommissioning, e cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed.
If any decommissioning activity could not meet these terms, the licensee is required to submit a license amendment request, which would provide an opportunity for a public hearing.
Initially, the licensee could use up to three percent of the amount specified in 10 CFR 50.75 for decommissioning activities without prior NRC approval. An additional 20 percent could be expended 90 days after submittal of the PSDAR. The remaining decommissioning trust funds would be available for decommissioning activities when the licensee submits a detailed
9 BP24 (12/96) site-specific decommissioning cost estimate to the NRC.
Rulemakinc A new rule, entitled " Safeguards for Spent Nuclear Fuel or High-Level Radioactive Waste - 10 CFR Parts 60, 72, 73, and 75" (SECY- 1 95-104), addresses physical protection requirements for the storage of spent fuel and high level radioactive waste in a permanently shutdown reactor, independent spent fuel storage installation, monitored retrievable storage installation, or a geologic repository. The Commission published the proposed rule on August 18, 1995. After a period for public comment, a final rule was scheduled to be issued April 15, 1996. However, the NRC staff is requesting a Commission policy review of ISFSI safeguards based on public comments and staff reviews. Following the Commission policy review, the proposed rule will be revised and will be submitted for public comment if significant changes occur. j Other rulemakings that are anticipated in the decommissioning area include a revision of regulations to address spent fuel cooling periods and indemnity issues; decommissioning costs, funding, and financial assurance.
Prematurelv Shutdown Plants Since the original decommissioning rule was published in 1988, seven power reactor facilities have shut down prematurely:
e Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station, e shoreham Nuclear Power Station, e Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, e Yankee Rowe Nuclear Station, e San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1, o Trojan Nuclear Plant, and e Haddam Neck Plant.
Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, also ceased operation after the March 28, 1979, accident. In addition, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Unit 1 and Dresden Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3, and Lacrosse Boiling Water Reactor, which were shut down in 1974, 1978, 1980, and 1987, respectively, are in the decommissioning process.
Accroved Decommissionina Plans In June 1992, the NRC issued an order to Long Island Power Authority, approving the Shoreham decommissioning plan. Long Island Power Authority announced completion of dismantlement of the facility in October 1994.
BP24 (12/96)
In November 1992, the NRC issued an order approving the Fort St.
Vrain decommissioning plan and dismantlement activities are nearly completed.
The NRC approved Yankee Rowe's decommissioning plan on February 14, 1995. Subsequently, due to a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling, the Commission rescinded its approval on October 12, 1995. A hearing was conducted and on October 18, 1996, the Commission denied the most recent petition regarding the decommissioning plan. On October 28, 1996, the NRC staff informed Yankee Atomic that decommissioning activities may be conducted at Yankee Rowe.
On June 16, 1993, the NRC staff issued its safety evaluation and environmental assessment of the Rancho Seco decommissioning plan.
The plan proposes safe storage (SAFSTOR) of the facility for about 20 years followed by dismantlement and decontamination.
Appr. oval of the decommissioning plan was delayed because of contentions raised by the Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO). However, ECO reached a settlement with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the licensee for Rancho Seco, and on August 1, 1994, withdrew from the proceeding. The staff reviewed and updated its previous safety evaluation and issued the order authorizing decommissioning of Rancho Seco on March 20, 1995.
On April 15, 1996, the NRC issued an order approving the Trojan
, decommissioning plan and dismantlement activities are ongoing.
NRR/NMSS Memorandum of Understandinc on Decommissioninc On March 15, 1995, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) reached agreement on a realignment of certain responsibilities regarding power reactor decommissioning. In the future, NRR will maintain project management responsibility for power reactor facilities until fuel is permanently transferred from the spent fuel pool.
CONTACT:
Seymour H. Weiss, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415-2170
BP24 (12/96)
TABLE 1 DECOMMISSIONING HIGHLIGHTS INDIAN POINT UNIT 1 e October 31, 1974, plant was permanently shut down because its emergency core cooling system did not meet current regulatory requirements.
e January 1976, reactor was defueled.
e June 19, 1980, NRC order revoked authority to operate plant.
o October 17, 1980, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan. NRC review has been ongoing since then and has prompted numerous supplemental licensee i submittals.
e ' January 1996, the proposed decommissioning plan was submitted to Commission for approval.
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3 e July 2, 1976, plant was shut down due to seismic issues.
e July 30, 1984, Decommissioning Plan submitted. l e July 19, 1988, SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan approved. Spent I fuel (390 assemblies) will remain onsite in the spent fuel pool until a federal repository is available for it.
l DRESDEN UNIT 1 e October 31, 1978, plant was shut down to meet new federal regulations and to perform chemical decontamination of major ,
piping systems. l e January 7, 1986, while plant was still out of service, i licensee announced its decision to decommission the plant, I rather than comply with regulations imposed in response to the March 1979 cccident at Three Mile Island Unit 2.
- July 23, 1986, license was amended to possession only license (POL) status. I e September 3, 1993, decommissioning plan was approved.
e January 25, 1994, licensee personnel discovered about 55,000 gallons of water in the containment building. The source of the water was a service water line which that had frozen and ruptured within the unheated containment. The water was pumped from the containment building for processing by the site radwaste system. The NRC responded by conducting a two-week special team inspection that identified numerous l discrepancies that the licensee had to address. I e July 13, 1994, licensee submitted a check for $200,000 in response to the NRC-imposed civil penalty for its failure to maintain required systems and to staff unit in accordance i with Dresden Unit 1 decommissioning plan.
t
, BP24 (12/96)
LA CROSSE o April 30, 1987, plant was permanently shut down.
e August 7, 1991, SAFSTOR decommissioning plan was approved.
FORT ST. VRAIN e August 18, 1989, plant was permanently shut down because of failure of the control rod drives and degradation of the steam generator ring header.
e May 21, 1991, license was amended to possession only license (POL) status.
, o June 11, 1992, all fuel was placed in an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).
e e November 23, 1992, NRC issued order approving licer.see decommissioning plan.
e September 1, 1993, removal of the prestressed concrete
{
reactor vessel top head was completed.
e April 1, 1994, all of the graphite reflector blocks had been removed from the reactor vessel and shipped to the low level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington.
e July 1, 1996, dismantlement is nearly complete. I SHOREHAM
- June 28, 1989, licensee's shareholders approved agreement with the New York State to not operate the facility.
e August 24, 1989, reactor vessel was defueled.
e June 14, 1991, license was amended to POL status.
e February 29, 1992, license was transferred to Long Island Power Authority for decommissioning of plant.
1 e June 11, 1992, NRC issued order approving licensee decommissioning plan.
e September 1993, transfer of fuel to Limerick began. Fuel transfer was completed June 1994.
- October 1994, the licensee announced completion of the dismantlement. Confirmatory surveys conducted.
e April 11, 1995, decommissioning complete, POL terminated.
4 RANCHO SECO e June 7, 1989, plant was shut down because voters approved non-binding referendum prohibiting licensee from operating
. facility.
- December 8, 1989, reactor vessel was defueled.
- e March 17, 1992, license was amended to POL status.
o Environmental and Resources Conservation Organization (ECO)
- was active intervenor in regards to proposed decommissioning plan.
e June 16, 1993, NRC issued safety evaluation and 4
environmental assessment of proposed decommissioning plan.
_ . _ . . - - - - - _ - - _ - - ~. .
BP24 (12/96) e November 30, 1993, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) admitted for hearing certain contentions associated with decommissioning funding and costs of Rancho Seco independent spent fuel storage installation. l 4 e August 1, 1994, ECO reached settlement with Sacramento Municipal Utility District and filed notice of withdrawal; !
ASLB terminated proceeding.
~,
e September 2, 1994 Commission order (CLI-94-14) authorized NRC staff to issue decommissioning order.
o March 20, 1995, NRC approved the decommissioning plan for
- SAFSTOR by issuing the decommissioning order.
YANKEE RONE e October 1, 1991, plant was shut down and vessel defueled because of concerns about reactor vessel integrity. ;
e February 27, 1992, licensee announced permanent cessation of I operations cecause of inability to address uncertainties
- associated with the safety margin of the reactor vessel.
- August 5, 1992, license was amended to POL status, o July 15, 1993, NRC stated it had "no objection to early component removal activities" proposed by the licensee. i e November 16 to December 8, 1993, as part of the early j component removal activities, the four steam generators and pressurizer were shipped from the plant to the low level l 1 waste burial site in Barnwell, South Carolina.
- March 11, 1994, NRC stated it had "no objection" to use of
. decommissioning trust funds for proposed second phase of activities associated with early removal of components, including reactor coolant pumps, contaminated piping, and asbestos. Activities were completed by June 30, 1994.
- March 31, 1994, Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) filed a complaint in the Massachusetts District Federal Court claiming the NRC did not follow National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) in its review of licensee's early component removal program. The court denied the complaint on jurisdictional grounds; however, CAN appealed to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston.
e February 14, 1995, NRC approved the decommissioning plan for
, SAFSTOR.
e' March 23, 1995, Yankee Atomic applied for a (10 CFR 71) license to enable shipment of the reactor vessel. The vessel will not be shipped before summer 1996.
, e July 20, 1995, First Circuit found that the Commission erred when it rejected CAN's request for a hearing on the component removal program, that CAN was entitled to a hearing under section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, and that the NRC had violated NEPA by permitting YAEC to initiate the component removal program before the agency had prepared an environmental assessment or impact statement.
2 The Court remanded the case to the Commission for further action.
. - -- - . - . . -~ _ - - .-
8 .
l 1
BP24 (12/96) e -October 27, 1995, in response to the July 1995 Court of Appeals decision, the NRC staff issued a Federal Register e
notice offering the public an opportunity for hearing. l
- November 30, 1995, CAN and the New England Coalition on l Nuclear Pollution submitted a joint petition to intervene on j the Yankee decommissioning plan.
.
- October 18, 1996, the Commission issued an order which denied CAN's latest petition regarding the decommissioning 1 plan.
l e October 28, 1996, the NRC staff informed Yankee Atomic that decommissioning activities may be conducted at Yankee Rowe.
THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 e March 28, 1979, accident occurred in the plant that caused permanent cessation of operations.
,e January 30, 1990, reactor was defueled.
- August 12, 1993, processing of accident-generated water was completed.
e September 14, 1993, POL amendment was issued.
e December 28, 1993, post-defueling monitored storage technical specifications were issued.
l SAN ONOFRE, UNIT 1 e November 30, 1992, based on settlement agreement with California Public Utilities Commission licensee permanently shut down plant rather than bring it into compliance with current NRC safety requirements.
o October 23, 1992, POL amendment was issued. Amendment became effective March 9, 1993, when reactor vessel was certified as completely defueled.
e Decemoer 28, 1993, permanently defueled technical specifications were issued.
e November 3, 1994, licensee submitted proposed decommicsioning plan for NRC review.
TROJAN e January 4, 1993, licensee announced permanent cessation of operations.
e January 27, 1993, reactor was defueled.
- May 5, 1993, NRC issued POL amendment.
- November 1994, licensee commenced removal of steam generators and pressurizer for shipment to the U.S. Ecology~
low level waste burial site at Hanford, Washington.
e January 26, 1995, licensee submitted proposed decommissioning plan.
- November 1, 1995, licensee completed the large component removal project.
i
. 1 BP24 (12/96) )
e December 22, 1995, NRC staff published Federal Register notice offering opportunity for public comment on Environmental Assessment and Safety Evaluation for the decommissioning plan. The 30-day comment period passed without a request for hearing.
e March 31, 1996, permanently defueled technical specifications were issued.
- April 15, 1996, NRC issued the order approving the decommissioning plan.
RADDAM NECK 1996, licensee announced permanent cessation of
- December 4, operations.
BIG ROCK POINT e May 31, 2000, is expiration date of current license.
e February 27, 1995, licensee submitted SAFSTOR I decommissioning plan for early NRC review.
- February 14, 1996, Consumers Power Company requested that the NRC defer review of the Big Rock Point decommissioning plan until after issuance of the revised 10 CFR Part 50 decommissioning regulations.
,I , ,
TABLE 2 REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING STATUS -
SHUTDOWN POWER REACTORS DOCKET NO. THERMAL SHUT PRESENT FUEL REACTOR POWER LOCATION DOWN STATUS ONSITE?
50-3 Indian Point 1 615 MW Buchanan 10/31/74 SAFSTOR Yes (PWR) New York -
50-10 Dresden 1 700 MW Morris 10/31/78 SAFSTOR Yes ]
(BWR) Illinois 50 16 Fermi 1 200 MW Monroe Co. 9/22/72- SAFSTOR No l (Fast Breeder) Michigan 150-18 GE VBWR 50 MW Alameda Co. 12/9/63 SAFSTOR No (BWR) California 50-29 Yankee Rowe .600 MW Franklin Co. 10/1/91 DECON Yes (PWR). Massachusetts 50-114 CVTR (Pressure 65 MW Parr 1/67 SAFSTOR No Tube,. Heavy-Water) 5. Carolina 50-130 Pathfinder 190 MW Sioux Falls 9/16/67 DECON No (Nuclear Superheat BWR) South Dakota NRC Part 30 50-133 Humboldt Bay 3 200 MW Eureka 7/02/76 SAFSTOR Yes California (BWR) 50-171 Peach Bottom 1 115 MW York Co. 10/31/74 SAFSTOR No (HTGR) Pennsylvania i 50-206 San Onofre 1 1347 MW San Clemente 11/30/92 SAFSTOR Yes (PWR) California 50-213 Haddam Neck 1825 MW Haddam Neck 7/22/96 Decision Yes (PWR) Connecticut Pending 50-267 Fort St. Vrain 842 MW Platteville 8/18/89 DECON Yes (HTGR) Colorado 50-312 Rancho Seco 2772 MW Sacramento 6/7/89 SAFSTOR Yes (PWR) California 50-320 Three Mile 2772 MW Middletown 3/28/79 SAFSTOR* No (PWR) Island 2 Pennsylvania 50-322 Shoreham 2436 MW Suffolk Co. 6/28/89 License No (BWR) New York Terminated 50-344 Trojan 3411 MW Portland 11/9/92 DECON Yes (PWR) Oregon 50-409 Lacrosse 165 MW Lacrosse 4/30/87 SAFSTOR Yes (BWR) Wisconsin
- Post-defueling monitored storage (PDMS).
= . .
I EXECUTIVE TASK MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
j
<<< PRINT SCREEN UPDATE FORM >>>
TASK # - 7E285
, DATE- 04/22/97 . .. ,_
MAIL CTRL. - 1997 TASK STARTED - 04/22/97
~~~~~~~~~~~~ TASK
~~~~~~~~
DUE - 05/05/97 TASK COMPLETED - / /
~~~~--~~~~~ --
TASK DESCRIPTION - LTR FROM PAT LEE, FLORIDA TO NRC RE: NARUC STAFF SUB-
--~~--~~~~~~~~~~
COMMITTEE ON DEPRECIATION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION REQUESTING
-~~~--~~~~--~~~
OFF. - EDO REQUESTER - WITS - 0 FYP - N
~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~
PROG.-
~~~~
SCD PERSON - STAFF LEAD - SCD PROG. AREA - ,
--~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ;
PROJECT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STATUS - 4
\
PLANNED ACC. -N LEVEL CODE - 2 l
2, PIL i
i i
l l
l t
i
. 1
' ~ ~
ACTION EDO Principal Correspondence Control I I
l i
FROM: DUE: 05/05/97 EDO CONTROL: G970285 l DOC bl. 04/16/97 ;
FINAL REPLY:
l NARUC Staff Subcommittee on Depreciation Public Service Commission, State of Florida TO:
NRC FOR SIGNATURE OF : ** GRN ** CRC NO: 97-0369 Bangart DESC: ROUTING:
SURVEY OF UTILITY COMMISSIONS RELATIVE TO THE Callan ISSUE OF STRANDED INVESTMENTS Jordan Thompson Norry l Blaha Burns l DATE: 04/22/97 Collins, NRR I Cyr, OGC ASSIGNED TO: CONTACT:
SP Bangart SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
4 x
O v>
O
]
w
, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
- PAPER NUMBER: CRC-97-0369 LOGGING DATE: Apr 21 97 ,
- ACTION OFFICE
- EDO
' AUTHOR: PAT LEE
- , AFFILIATION
- FLORIDA ADDRESSEE: NRC LETTER DATE: Apr 16 97 FILE CODE:
p
SUBJECT:
SURVEY OF UTILITY COMMISSIONS RELATIVE TO THE ISSUE OF STRANDED INVESTMENT ACTION: Appropriate DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN i
SPECIAL HANDLING: NONE 4
CONSTITUENT:
, NOTES:
DATE DUE:
SIGNATURE: . DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION: )
i 1
4 i
i
]
l r
'T EDO -- G970283
..