ML20151A178
| ML20151A178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/17/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151A086 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-88-274 SECY-87-309, SECY-87-309-01, SECY-87-309-1, NUDOCS 8807190277 | |
| Download: ML20151A178 (10) | |
Text
""
9"T
,,....,.6..w,.:q v.A.
w.mp y'. u..gype.p w,y,, qp,, pm. e,gw%y"jp. a."
er
.f * " *%
Marmatica in this record was dele f0'd Freedom 0f Information ith E
F0lA.Y-Ml./
9
%,..... /
i RULEMAKING ISSUE (Affirmation)
December 17, 1987 SECY-87 309 For:
The Comissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr., Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, AND 72:
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR FACILITIES
Purpose:
To obtain Comission 6pproval to publish a fina rule that amends 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72 by setting forth technical and financial requirements for decomis-sioning nuclear facilities.
Sumary:
The amendments contain ceneral requirements for decomis-sioning and cover all NRC licen, sed facilities except waste disposal facilities and uranium mill tailings which have been covered in separate rulemakings. A proposed rule on decomissioning criteria was publisned (50 FR Sf00) for public cuneent.
The public coments have been reviewed and, in response, clarifications to statements in the Supplementary l
Information of the proposed rule and some modifications of the rule text, as appropriate, have been ma 4.
Cateco_ry:
This paper covers a minor policy question requi ing r
Comis:f on approval.
Resource estimates: Category 1, preliminary.
Issue:
Discussion:
Background.
I'n March 1978. the Consission announced in the l
Federal Reqitter (43 FR 10370) its intention to reevaluate its decoes ssioning policy and to consider amending its regulations in this regard.
The policy reevaluation incluifed the development of an infonnaticn base, a series of studies by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories on the technology, safety and costs of decomissioning various types of nuclear facilities, and the preparation of a draft generic environmental j
impact statement (January 1981).
I
Contact:
l K. G. Steyer, RES, 443-7739
[
8807190277 080629 I
I
/
The Comissioners 2
On February 11, 1985, the Comission published a notice of proposed rulemaking on decomissioning criteria for nuclear facilities (50 FR ao00).
The proposed amendments covered all NRC licensed facilities except waste disposal facilities and uranium mill tailings which have been covered separately in Parts 60 and 61 and in Appendix A of Part 40. The amendments proposed criteria in the fo11cwing areas: acceptable decomis-sioning alternatives; planning for decomissioning; assurance of the availability of funds for decomissioning; and environmental review requirements related to decomissioning.
The purpose of the amendments was to assure that decomis-sionings are carried out with minimal impact to public and occupational health and safety and to the environment, and in addition, to provide a regulatory framework for more efficient and consistent licensing actions related to decomissioning.
The issue of acceptable levels of residual radioactivity for release of property for unrestricted use.is being addressed separately.
Fisi Regulatio6s:
The original coment period on the pro-posed rule was due to expire on May 13, 1985, but was extended to July 13, 1985 to accomodate requests from interested persons for an extended coment period. A total of 143 differ-ent organizations and individuals submitted coments on the proposed rule.
Coments were received from Federal government agencies, State agencies (including State public utility commissions), local governments, universities, individuals.
electric utilities, material licensees, public groups, utility and industry groups, and financial, legal and engineering firms. The topics addressed by the comenters included a wide range of issues, covered all parts of the proposed rule, and presented a diversity of viewpoints.
The general response to the proposed rule was varied.
A number of commenters specifically expressed support for the rule and for the general content of the rule. Others agreed with the need 'or rulemaking but felt that the proposed rule was inadequate to satisfy its intent and generally recomended stricter, more detailed regulations.
In contrast, some commenters, argued that existing rules were adequate and that
l
~
The Commissioners 3
l this rule was unnecessary, too prescriptive, ano burdensome, 1
Major issues contained in the public comments are discussed in Enclosure A.
A sunmary of the major issues is as follows:
With regard to decommissioning alternatives, a number of correnters indicated that the rule does not contain sufficient criteria for use in choosin, nd valuatino the decommission-I i
alternative to be used.
l l
l number o commen ers expressed
_ d ng opinions as to antages and disadvantages of the alternatives (DECON, SAFSTOR, and different inions as to which should be acc able.
l With regard to planning for decommissioning, a number of l
' casenters were concerned that there should be more specific requirements in the regulations plicable to the actual conduct of decomnissioning activities.
I i
i i
l i
With regard to financial assurance, connents on decomission-
< ing costs and funding methods were received. The accuracy of De estinates of decommissioning costs made by Battelle Pacific j
aborator r the NRC was dispu commenters.
l 4
... ~
4 t
4 The Comissioners 4
4 4
A number of comenters objected to the requirement that power reactor applicants and licensees provide a certification of an amount of funds for decomissioning at least equal to an amount prescribed in the regulations and suggested deleting it; while other comenters either agreed with the cert ion method or offered suc estions a t.
j i
o l
With regard to funding methods, there was disagreement among corrnenters, with a number objecting to the inclusion of internal reserve as an acceptable funding method, while a number of
, others' favored its inclusion.
Det&iled discussion of this issue is contained in Enclosure A and a sumary is presented on page 5 of this paper in the section entitled "Response to Staff Requirements Memorandum.' With regard to materials licensees, several comenters indicated that a financial test, similar to that contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc}'s regulations 40 CFR Parts and 265 for hazardous iraste facil-ities, should be allowed.
I l
1 l
l l
l l
i
- ~.
?
i 1
i The Comissioners 5
4 h
1
%q p.;Q w.'_'3%f.fi W:., A.f; ':m;. Q.. Q :.
".L O_ \\
- 3. ~..
2 y a.. ~..
_:.p. %v;. Q.,.' W ;,p.,
...... v. e,.;
.. s,.
.h.,..' r...,3
+
x
.~,: _.
i-
.v.
, a;,.. '.
- 1.p...
- u.=
y 6 :ge..... ;...J 4,-
fi.';.pyy:%.,."W.x.A.
glq.4..
e v 4;y;M; 'i, \\ :. 0 :;
. &x..;.
V.3, qi :. '.,p G.: Sh.
- n: c 4
a. 9.
- g. -
V @y 4.::.t.
a,..
- v. r e.
v.:
g4 f$n ' f.Q$@AM.. 4-LCW. s ;.%,;%g%.;.
w.
u v
n, s.-:.
e Response to Staff Requirements Memorandun On 9/21/87, a memorandum was sent from S. J. Chilk, Secretary, to V. Stello, Jr., EDO, regarding "Staff Reouirements - Briefing l
on Status of Decomissioning Activities. 2:00 p.m. Thursday, September 3,1987, Comissioners' Conference Room DC Office."
This remorandum identifies five areas for the staff to address in the rulemaking package.
l 1
' ' ^ '-.;
., 4.
' (-
m v
k
..h*
4., y 9,y g.',,n+ n. 9. n e> c.:.n: ;.. m., :x;.Ja.
w.
mv
. 5. 9;~p,
.a
..g. <. ' '
^ ' 1. '.'
V
~ ~?
~
..' 0a?)'.' $...f. q ,,$ ' %.I.l X
... ;. ',. ;. s ?';. '., V ^ '. '
r
.r..
J j
b.
A y.
.g.
b ~ ;; s. :
'. ~,.*
f.try.;' ?:?.3-f u.i x
W _N Cx: m _ _G; $ &..0
$W:.;. n g$'q.u$'.3.c..
0 N.. ?. h. >..
k"
~,.t-O
.. "V. *' :' ~.. < -
B a.9
- s..
. ?.
1
..<\\ L,,...'.w%. %.,?
.s
- u 1.-
- ~
- r
' f.] ll[.: S. % h[. N h.?' ; :
'ly _ x y _,(ifD n
ff 0:l *.y[;:Mrg;W W':
~$
i
. %q h.
.. - % L. :" '
f.
- Q ; d,
~ 7 ' l J.[f-l:=.x.i
..' y.:- ; -
. ::y i
i?&p\\ll -
'?.L lf,:{ 6 ' c.
. T,yr.,. '. Sld.4 'yi.3'% MV l
t... <. S.w: 5.. ; -,....,, y:Qppg^ -
~. c.g 4 s. %...t..%.,# - Q ;- -E;..,,,.. y'dg,
x ki.g.,
s
... '.,:. % ;.... g y a.t 4,
- u. w..;.
r
.a
.:e.+y j;
f ?#g pk
.M g:r
,. 3
.t..
1 p7
.. n r
- a..;
n.
.4-c.
I i
j n
L b
- l l
l i
E i
i
The Corrissioners 5
Response to Staff Requirements Memorandun On 9/21/87, a memorandum was sent from S. J. Chilk, Secretary, to V. Stello, Jr., EDO, regarding "Staf f Recuirements - Briefing on Status of Decomissioning Activities, 2:00 p.m. Thursday, September 3,1987, Conrissioners' Con'irence Room, DC Office."
This nrorandum identifies five areas fc' the staff to address in the rulemaking package.
The Comissioners 6
1
The Comissierers 7
Resource Requiremnts
-..... =
8 The Coct.ssioners N.
- 4. IW M P T.MCTN i ST*3 4 '. s v u a." a y eg pi+ m y t.' = n r :' C ~.??1 ' ~ l',N('L';' f
- . m...
.,c.
,.. m...
..,n
. y, u.,....,.., :,.
..n.m...
. _ j r.. r r,. ;',..y 9,..z.s:.?...:...
,... ;.:. >p peqyQ~y.. gQ.3..y.....
's.
- -.,,...df, ?=*...*
d.'*.,..
. %a
, q' a s '..e s
- .,',,s-
- d
,.../g.,,,,
p
,a,,,.,
9,.-
..g..
l.
7*.
~.
e
\\
I e
e
.. - ~ _..
~.,..
i
{
l
(
I The Corrissioners 9
,t'
. v,, > >... m., Q.
, ey.: i j 0:,,v., m it
,I Ui' 4.'M'.?,,,j.{g,$.ft ;.,.Q.6.;;@)i.% gh. fide
+
u.
j
- [, *.. ~T,$
.I
[(
s
%.e
.8' l
i l
(
l I
V f
J r
i P
i i
b L
[
i 4
l
The Comissioners 10 i
Scheduling:
If scheduled on the Comission agenda, recomenc this paper be considered at an open meeting.
No specific circumstance is known to staff which would require Comission action by any particular date in the n(ar tenn.
l o,_
s
/
fctor tell'o,Jf
Enclosures:
As stated - /
e Appendix - Comparison of Decomissioning Funding Alternatives A - Final Rule Arrendments B - Regulatory Analysis C - Draf t Congressional Letters D - Draft Public Announcement E - Memorandum, Dr. J. Siegel, to C. Z. Serpan, RES and Updated HUREG/CR-3899 F - NUREG-0584, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decoavnissioning Nuclear Facilities" G - Final Gels (on file in SECY)
' Commissioners' comments or Jensent should be provided directly to the office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, Jan ary 8, 1988.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, December 30, 1987, with an information copy to the Of fice of the Secretary.
If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an Open Meeting during the Week of January 11, 1988.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC (H Street)
OI OIA GPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO OGC (MNBB)
1
-. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -. - -.