ML20153H363
| ML20153H363 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/1988 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-50FR5600, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-72 PR-880617, NUDOCS 8809090158 | |
| Download: ML20153H363 (162) | |
Text
~
>'+
A f /< MA (7590-01) c 7 0 M S M O )1 t:t xt tr.-
'WC
'88 JUN 21 P5 :37 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.F P'. . i , n - .r-10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72 $Ih$f' General Requirements for Oecomissioning Nuclear Facilities ,
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending !'.s regulations- -
to set forth technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear facilities. The amended regulations address decommissioning plan-ning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements.
The intent of the amendments is to assure that decommissioning of all licensed facilities will be accomplished in a safe and timely manner and that adequate licensee funds will be available for this purpose. The final rule also contains a response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM -
22), concerning decommissioning financial assurance, initially filed by the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), et al. on July 5,1977.
EFFECTIVE DATE: [30daysfromdateofpublication]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: K. Steyer, C. Feldman, or F. Cardile, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-3824. .
53Fn W W g90g158880617 30 50FR5600 PDR y pS/Q e
[7590-Of), g r
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction theNRCisamendingitsregulationstoprovidespecificrequirements for the de, commissioning of nuclear facilities. Specifically the regula-tions establish criteria in the following areas: acceptable decommission-ing alternatives; planning for decommissioning; assurance of the .svail-ability of funds for decommissioning; and environmental revi w require-ments related to decommissioning.
Decommissioning as defined in the rule means to remove nuclear facilities safely from service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and terai-nation of the license. Decommissioning activities are initiated when a licensee decides to terminate licensed activities. Decommissioning activi-ties do not include the removal and disposal of spent fuel which is con-sidered to be an operational activity or the removal and disposal of non-radioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the NRC license. Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste not necessary for NRC license termination is not covered by these regulations but would be treated by other appropriate agencies having responsibility over these wastes. If nuclear facilities are to be reused for nuclear ,.urposes, applications for license renewal or amendment or for a new license are submitted according to the appropriate existing regulation. Reuse of a nuclear facility for other nuclear purposes is not considered decommis-sioning because the facility remains under license.
These amendments apply to the decommissioning of power reacto.rs, nonpower reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, fuel fabrication plants, uranium hexafluoride production plants, independent spent fuel storage 2
,e t . (7590-01) licensing activities concerning decomissioning have had to be determined on a case-by case basis. This procedure results in inconsistency in dealing with licensees and in inefficient and unnecessary administrative effort. With the increased number of decommissionings expecte,d,,, case-by-case procedures would make licensing difficult and increase NRC and licensee staff resources needed for these activities.
Background
On March 13, 1978, the Comission published en Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Regis'ter (43 FR 10370) stating that
.the Comission was reevaluating its decommissioning policy and consider-ing amendments to its regulations to provide more specific requirements relating to the decommissioning of nuclear fact.lities. The plan for the l
reevaluation included the development of an information base, the pre-paration of a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS), and based on these, the development of amendments to the regulations. The infor-mation base for preparation of the final rule is complete and consists primarily of a series of NUREG/CR reports on studies of the technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning various kinds of nuclear facilities.
These reports were prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL).1 In addition, preliminary staff positions on the major decosmis-sioning issues have been presented in staff (NUREG) reports. On February 10, 1981, the Cossission announced the availability of the draft GEISforpubliccomment(46FR11666). Section 15 of the draft GEIS
'A bibliography of the PNL and NRC staff reports and other background documents is included at the end of the supplementary infomation.
These documents are available for inspection a.d copying for a fee in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street W. ,
Washington, DC 20555.
4 b5t6 J
~
[7590-0;]
. r e
installations, and nonfuel-cycle nuclear facilities. The decommission-ing of uranium mills and mill tailings, low-level waste burial facilities, and high-level waste repositories, has been treated in separate regula-tory actions. These amendments apply to nuclear facilities that operate through their normal lifetime, as well as to those that may be shut down prematurely. ,
The purpose of these amendments is to assure that decommissionings will be carried out with minimal impact on public and occupational health and safety and the environment. TheCommission'sobjectiveisthat decommissioned facility sites would ultimately be available for unrestricted use for any public or private purpose. The amendments provide a regulatory framework for more efficient and consistent licensing actions related to decommissioning. Although decommissioning is not an iminent health and safety problem, the nuclear industry is maturing, in that nuclear facilities have been operating for a number of years, and the number and complexity of facilities that will require decommissioning is expected to increase in the near future. Inadequate or untimely consid-eration of decommissioning, specifically in the areas of planning and financial assurance, could result in significant adverse health, safety i
and environmental impacts. These impacts could lead to increased occupa-i tional and public doses, increased amounts of radioacti.J waste to be disposed of, and an increase in the number of contaminated sites. The regulations make clear that the licensee is responsible for the funding and completion of decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety. Current regulations cover the requirements and ,
i criteria for decomissioning in a limited way and are not fully adequate 1
I to deal with licensee decommissioning requirements effectively. Many 3
l . . . .
.s (7590-01)
State agencies (including State public utility commissions), local governments, universitits, individuals, electric utilities, material licensees, public groups, utility and industry groups, and financial, legal, and engineering firms. The commenters offered from one,to over 50 comments each and presented a diversity of views. The topics addressed by the commenters addressed a wide range of issues and all parts of the rule.
The general response to the rule was varied. A number of commenters specifically expressed support for the rule in general (or that no comment was needed), although some of these made' suggestions for improvements.
.0ne commenter indicated that the proposed amendments will provide a foundation from which ceceptable decommissioning plenning and implementa-tion programs can be developed, and another indicated that the Commis-l sion's assumptions underlying the proposed rule are reasonable and fair.
Many specifically commented on the need for rulemaking. For example, one commenter stated that although some states have begun developing regula-tions, their efforts are hampered by the lack of Federal guidelines and another commenter urged the Cosnission to quickly promulgate a com-prehensive set of regulations governing the planning, safety, and financing of decoenissioning. Others implied the need for rulemaking but felt that the proposed rule was inadequate to satisfy its int.ent and generally recossended stricter, more detailed regulations. A few of these suggested the rule be redrafted and republished for comment. In contrast, some commenters argued that existing rules were adequate and that this rule was unnecessary, overly prescriptive, and burdensome. For example, one commenter indicated that there is no evidence from experience with l
l power reactors that there would be any adverse impacts in the absence of 6
L
[7590-01) , ,
contains certain policy recoar>endations. These recommendations, as modified by coseents received on the draft GEIS and other sources, pro-vided the basis for the propossd amendments to the Commission's regulatiors.
On February 11, 1985, theCommissionpublishedaNoticeo[ Proposed Rulemaking on Decoenissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 FR 5600).
The proposed amendments covered a number of topics related to decommission- l l
ing that would be applicable to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72 appli- l cants and licensees. The original comment period was due to expire Nay 13, 1935, but was extended to July 13, 1985 to accommodate requests from interested parties for an extended comment period in order to fully evalu-ate the issues raised and develop coseents on the proposed rule. Public coments received on the proposed rule were docketed and may be examined at the Commission's Public Document Room located at 1717 H Street NW.,
Washington, DC.
Acceptable levels of residual radioactivity for release of property for unrestricted use were not proposed as part of this rulemaking.
Cosmission staff is participating in an interagency working group, organ-ized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), developing Federal guidanceonthissubject. Proposed Federal guidelines are anticipated to be published by EPA and EPA has issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (51 FR 22264, June 18,1986). In the interim, NRC is developing interia guidance with respect to residual contamination criteria.
Overview of Comments on Proposed Rule A total of 143 different organizations and individuals submitted comments on the proposed rule. The commenters represented a variety of interests. Comments were received from Federal government agencies, 5
,, [7590-01) s .
Summary and Discussion of Comments on Proposed Rule A. Decommissioning Alternatives and Timing. Comments received on the subject of decommissioning alternatives covered several ar,eas. These included clarification of the definition of decommissioning, criteria used for the choice of the alternative in particular cases, and general questions as to acceptability of the de:osnissioning alternatives.
- 1. Definition of decommissioning. Two commenters indicated that requiring unrestricted use as part of the definition of decommissioning
, is too restrictive. Reasons given for this comment include the fact that it would inhibit future use of the site and would preclude alternative decommissioning methods which provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety witheyt releasing the site for unrestricted use. In .
contrast four commenters stated that decoenissioning should clearly result in safe unrestricted use of the site.
In response, it is the Commission's belief that there is nothing in l
the definition which would inhibit future use of the site once the license f is terminated. According to amended i 50.2 (and related ser.tions in the ,
other parts) decossissioning is defined as resulting in release of the property fer unrestricted use and termination of the license. Unre-stricted use refers to the fact that from a radiological standpoint, no '
l hazards exist at the site, the license can be terminated, and the site can be considered an unrestricted area. This definition is consistent with the definition of an unrestricted area as it exists in 10 CFR 20.3 l
I as being "any area access to which is not controlled by the licensee for i purposes of protection of individuals from exposure to radiation and l
l radioactive materials and any area used for residential quarters." The 8
(7590-81) t this rule and that this rule represented an unfair burden to nuclear power facilities compared to other public risks; and another pointed out that decomissioning methods are regulated by public utility commissions and that NRC should only step in to ensure safety, w-The detailed rationale supporting these general comments is presented in the succeeding sections of this Supplementary Information. Modifica-tions have been made to the rule as a result of some of these more specific comments. Based on its consideration of the comments, the Commission continues to believe that the rule's approach presents the best available method for assuring that licensees develop plats sufficient to carry out decomissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety.
Major issues contained in the public comments and resulting changes in the rule are discusse,d below, the detailed responses to individual coments are documented in NUREG-1221 entitled "Sunmary, Analysis and Response to Public Coments on Proposed Rule Amendments on Decomission-ing Criteria for Nuclear Facilities" (Ref. 26). Copies of NUREG-1221 may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20033-7CB2. Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfiald, Va 22161. A copy is available for inspection or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Rooe,1717 H Street NW. ,
Washington, DC 20555. The discussion of comments in this supplement 0ry Information is structured according to the general subjects treated by the rule and discussed in the Supplementary Information to the Proposed Rule.
These subjects include, in order of discussion, decommissioning al.ter-natives and timing, planning, financial assurance, residual radioactivity 1
11mits, environmental review requirements, and other general coments.
7
. [7590-01) s .
the return of the site to an "unrestricted area" according to the defini-tion of 10 CFR 20.3 and the terminstion of the facility license. In determining whether a particular site is free from radiological hazards.
the Commission will take a hard look at the extent to which the site has been previously used to dispose of low-level radioactive wastes by land burial and will decide what remedial measures,. including'tenoval of such waste offeite, are appropriate before the site can be released for unrestricted use and the license terminated.
Six commenters inf' Mted that the rule needed to provide clarifica-tion as to what fa., . are ccvered by the decommissioning rule. These ,
.commenters indicated that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the proposed $ 50.2 which defined decommissioning as removing a facility "safely from service and reducing residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license" and the Supple:nentary Information which indicates that decom-nissioning means to remove "nuclear facilities" from service including "the site, buildings and contents, and equipment associated with any licensed NRC activity." Two commenters indicated that it.: rule should cir'tfy that it does not apply to the nonradioactive portion of the f ai. ili ty.
In response to this comment, the definition of de ommissioning in 5 50.2 clearly defines what is intended by th's rulemaking, namely that decommissioning involves those activities necessary to remove a facility safely from service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release af the property for unrestricted use and termination of license. Section 50.82 indicates that a li a nsee must provide NRC with a plan indicating hw these activities will be cart fed cut and that this a
10
(7590-01], ,
alternatives for decomissioning provide different ways to accomplish decommissioning as defined in the rule, i.e., alternative ways to reduce residual radioactivity to a level permitting release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license. These alternatives are ,
DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB which are discussed in more detail below but which primarily consist of activities which ei,ther result in prompt dis-mantlement of the facility or which permit a storage period during which radioactive decay can occur prior to dismantlement of the facility. Each of the alternatives includes all those activities necessary to lead to termination vf the NRC license. Once the license is terminated, the facil-ity buildings and site can be used for any other non-nuclear purposes, including industrial purposes. The use made of the facility after termina-tion of the NRC license,is independent of the alternative used to decom-mission the facility. With regard to reuse of the site for nuclear pur-poses, there is nothing in the rule preventing such reuse. As indicated above, reuse of the nuclear facility for other nuclear purposes is not considered decommissioning. Therefore, a licensee would not be required to submit a decomissioning plan or apply for termination of license.
As noted in Sections A.2 through A.4 of this Supplementary Information, the rule considers the use of alternative decommissioning sethods which delay the completion of decommissioning thereby not releas-ing the site for unrestrictea use during a period of radioactive decay.
The definition of decommissioning as well as the definitions of the alter-natives contained in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule i indicata that, if permanent cessation of nuclear activity occurs at the facility, the licensee is to propose to NRC the method that it intends to use in decommissioning the facllity in a r.anner ultime.tely leading to 3
. [7590-01) s .
rule, specifically the degree of reduction in occupational radiation expo-sure, generation and disposal of waste, assurance that decommissionir.g will take place, radiation doses to the public, and quality of decomis-sioning operations. Other commenters mentioned that economic ,oe other,,
factors should also be incluoed as being sufficient benefit, including comparative cost of alternatives, presence of other facilities at the tite, development of new decommissioning techniques, and need to store .
wastes or spent fuel at the site. Some commenters indicated that it was not satisfactory to include criteria on acceptable alternatives in regu-latory guides as is proposed in the statement of considerations while
.other commenters indicated that it is.
In response, it should be noted that the intent of the r91e is to provide the necessary guidelines with regard to use of decommissioning l
alternatives in a manner which protects the public health and safety, l
l Specific 6:ly, the rule includes requirements that, at the time of termi-nation of operations, licensees submit a decomissioning plan to the NRC which contains an indication of the decommissioning alternative to be used and s description of the activities involved and the controls anc l limits on procedur;s to protect occupational and public health ant safety for that alternative. Discussion of how the decommissioning plan and the chosen alternative are evaluated in terms of protecting health and safety l
is contained below in ~ection B.2.
In addition, s 50.82 of t.1e proposed rule stipulated that alter-I n. s which significani,1y delay completion of decosmissitning, such as l use -' ' age period, will be acceptable if sufficient benefit results.
l This section of proposed rule has been modified in two ways. The first l
l l
l l
12
[7590-04]
p'an will be approved if it demonstra+es that the decommissioning will be performed in a safe manner. Sectiun 50.82(f) indicates that the NRC will terminate the facility license if the terminal radiation survey demonstrates that residual radioactivity has been reduced sM n ,
that the facility and site are suitable for release for unrestricted use. The definition of decommissioning in i 50.2 is genpral and its application in any given case will depend on spacific circumstances.
The decommissioning rule applies to the site, buildings and contents, and equipment associated with a ruclear facility that are or become contaminated during the time the facility is licensed, and to activities related to the definition of "decommission" in the amended regulations.
The decommissioning rule will not apply to the disposal of nonradioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the NRC license.
Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste not necessary fon NRC license termination is not covered by these regulations but would be treated by other appropriate age.1cies having responsibility over these wastes.
- 2. Criteria used for choice of alternative. A nnber of commenters indicated that the rule does not contain sufficient criteria that a utility can use in choosing which decommissioning alternative should be used and .
that can be used in the review and evaluation of that choice. Some of these commenters pointed out that these criteria should factor in impor-tant considerations tn be ude in the choice, including clarifying what is sufficient benefit for delaying decommissioning, and that the choice of alternative be based on a detailed assessment demonstrating that the health and safety of the public is protected. These commenters indicated that better criteria on sufficient bene'its should be included in the 11
. _ __E__-__ _.._l.____,___ __-._.___ E ____
[7590-01) d specific crit. cia on time periods for completing decommissioning, such as 4
indicated above for power reactors, are not included for ns swer reac-tors. However, the proposed rule has been modified to provide additional detail on the factors affecting acceptability of decommissioning alterna- _
tives for nonpower reactors. These factors include considerations affect-ing waste disposal for the different alternatives and other site-specific factors affecting capability to carry out decommissioning operations safely, such as preser.'e of other nuclear facilities at the site and
. . reduction of occupational and public radiation exposures associated with the different alternatives. Other factors not related to protection of health and safety are not included in the consideratior, of alternatives in the modified rule. In addition, Regulatory Guide 1.86 will be revised to provide additional guidance on the decommissioning alternatives, specifically guidance on the factors affecting delay in completion of decommissioning. Use of the modified rule in conjunction with the regu-latory g< eice will provide for an expeditious licensing procedure. A licensee's proposed decommissioning alternative vill be reviewed based on the criteria and guidance discussed here and in Section B.2 for accept-ability in terms of completing deco'amissioning and protecting public health and safety.
One commenter noted that neither the NRC nor the licensees can properly
- assess costs and benefits attributable to different alternatives due to the lack of sufficient information on occupational exposure. The commenter noted that NRC had no experience with decommissioning large, aged reactors and that, for example, the experience at the cleanup at TMI-2 had.shown 1
e 14
, , - - ,m-- - - - - - - -,----,,-,m v n.m,a-mm---vw---,, -n----,,e- e,,--,w.mm-, ,~~w,,- , , ,re.-,--w-- - -
v--- ~w--
o
[7590-017 ,
is to be more definitive in term" of acceptable deco m issioning alterna-tivta by permitting power reactors to use alternatives which provide for completion of decomissioning within 60 years. This is consistent with the technical data base developed as part of the rulemaking (Refs. 2 and
- 3) and with the conclusions of the Supplementary Information to the Pro-posed Rule. In the Supplementary Information,,it was indicated that DECON or SAFSTOR for up to 50 years are reasonable options for decommissioning a light water power reactor. The reason for both of these alternatives being acceptable is that both have benefits and both are capable of being carried out in r manner which protects public health and safety. In selecting 60 years as an acceptable period of time for decommissioning of a nuclear power reactor, the Commission considered the amount of radio-active decay likely to occur during an approximate 50 year storage period and the number of months expected to be needed to dissantle the facility (Refs. 2 and 3). In addition to this change, the modified rule also states that consideration will be given to a decoemissioning alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years for nower reactors only when necessary to protect public health and safety.
Factors, set out in the modified rule, which would be considered in i
evaluating an alternative which provides for completion of secommis-sioning beyond 60 years include unavailability of waste disposal l capacity and other site specific factors affecting capability to carry out decommissioning safely, including presence of other nuclear facili- )
l ties et the site. l Section 50.82(b)(1) of the proposed rule has also been modified for l nonpower reactors. Because of the variety of type of these reactors, I l
13 .
s
[7590-013 in particular, licensees should maintain exposures to wer,ers tc as low as reasonably achievable levels. Thus, radiation exposure to workers will be kept at acceptable levels for any of the alternatives used. The health impacts of radiation and concerns over whether limits (n exposure should be raised or lowered are outside the st: ope of this rulemaking and are the type of issues being addressed currently in a separate rulemaking that proposes to amend 10 CFR Part 20. The allowed occupational exposures during the decommissioning period will conform to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0586)
(Ref. 20) analyzed the occupational exposures which would be received during decommissioning and found that over a 4-year decommissioning period they would be similar to that which would be experienced at an operating facility on a. yearly basis. Thus, NRC dete wined that the health impact of decomissioning did not Ud significantly to the operating plant impact.
In summary, the information currently available provides NRC with a reasonable understanding of the safety aspects involved in decomission-ing and also provides sufficient information to evaluate alternatives.
As more information becomes available, NRC will factor it into the decision-making process. It is not feasible to compare the increases in the sstimates et THI-2 to decommissioning since the 1MI-2 estimates were for a post-accident situation where there was significant contamina-tion and the situation was initial'y uncertain with regard to contamination levels and cleanup procedures. When Itcensees prepare their decommission-ing plans for submittal to the NRC for approval under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82, they will have more information about the conditions in the reacter and will provide more up to date information about uccupational 16 9
[7590-02) , ,
i l
the workers were being uposed to radiation levels six times higher than expected. Thus, it is 1!kely the decomissioning estimates of exposure are gross underestimates. In addition the comenter stated that there is much uncertainty with regard to radiation effects on human hea1th. ,,
Furthermore the commenter indicated that the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decomissioning (NUREG-0586) (Ref, 20), which provides a basis for this rulemaking, does not adequately address health and genetic effects. Hence the comenter noted it is difficult to assess the proper alternative and that, in any event, in making assessments NRC should use conservative estimates.
In responding to this coment it should be noted that NRC has had Batte11e Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) prepare detailed analyses of the technology, safety, and costs of decomissioning. These reports were prepared for a number of nuclear facilities and are listed in the Refer-ence section. The PNL reports contain estimates of expected occupational radiation exposures based on an analysis of work activities involved in decomissioning and radiation levels expected at the end of reactor life.
While it is true that no large, sced reactors have been decomis-sioteJ, the PNL reports represent a reasonable analysis of the occupa-tional dose which woald be incurred at decoenissioning. They provide sufficient information on which assessment of different alternatives can be made, specifically that DECON can be carried out while maintaining occupational exposures at reasonable levels while SAFSTOR and ENTOMB can result in reduction in occupational exposures. Thus, choice of the alternative can be made. .
It should be noted that for any of the alternatives, occupational exposures will be limited by the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and that, 15
. [7590-01) s .
and waste volumes associated with each alternative. The PNL studies also considered the effects on decommissioning of interim inability to dispose of wastes offsite. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586) (Ref. 20) propar.ed by NRC also addressed the advantages and disadvantages of DECON versus SAFSTOR including the fact that DECON releases the site for unrestricted use in s such shorter time period than SAFSTOR, whereas use of SAFSTOR would reduce occupational exposures and waste volumes. Both of these alter-
. natives satisfy the definition of decoanissioning in 5 50.2. Based on the documents indicated above and on the discussion in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, the conclusion of the Supplementary Information regarding these two alternatives is that DECON or 30- to 50 year SAFSTOR are reasonable options for decommissioning light water power reactors. As indicated in Section A.2, the proposed rule has been modified to permit use of DECON or SAFSTOR for up to 60 years as long as it is de:nonstrated that they will be performed in a manner which protects public health and safety. Use of the 60 year time period in the modified rule is not intended to mean that if DECON is selected that it would be acceptable for it to last that long; periods of 5-10 years would be more reasonable for DECON.
With regard to SAFSTOR, six commenters stated that the rule should contain requirements that if the SAFSTOR alternative is chosen, reactor i
decommissioning be completed following storage periods of a maximum of 30-50 years because after this time period there will be little benefit in dose or waste volume reduction. In contrast, four commenters stated that even a 100 year period was too restrictive because periods of over 100 years are allowed in waste disposal facilities. Tour connenters 18
[7590-0a) exposures during decomissioning. At that time NRC will be able to evalu-ate the choice of decomissioning alternative for the specific facility.
- 3. DECON and SAFSTOR Decomissioning Alternatives. DECON and SAFSTOR are defined in the Supplementary Information of the proposed rule as follows: DECON is the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations; SAFSTOR is the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use.
A number of commenters expressed opinions on the rule with regard to allowing use of DECON and SAFSTOR. Some comenters favored the use of DECON, one in particular noting that it should be used at a site of high potential for a seismic event. Other comentet s noted the problems asso-ciatec w Rh DECON including the higher occupational exposure involved and problems associated with inability to dispose of wastes. Some commenters noted that site specific factors should come into play and that either DECON or SAFSTOR should be possible. Some commenters noted that because j cf problems associated with DECON, that SAFSTOR was the best option.
Two commentert, expressed the opinion that the rule seems to favor use of DECON for reactors.
The NRC is aware of and has considered the issues related to the advantages and disadvantages of the DECON and SAFSTOR options. The ;
studies done for NRC by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) con-sidered factors such as cost of the alternative and occupational exposure l
17
[7590-01)
Although the final rule does not contain specific restrictions on the time period involved for delay in completion of decommissioning, the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule does indicate that this period should be on the order of 100 years because this is considered ,
a reasonable time period for reliance on institutional control. Although commentert refer to longer periods of storage ,for waste disposal facili-ties there are some differences between these two situations which must be considered, including the fact that in the case of the waste disposal
. facility the "RC transfers the license for the facility to the State or Federal government agency that owns the' disposal site following satisfac-tory site closure whereas the reactor facility would remain licensed by a private organization, and that there are only a small number of disposal facilities compared to possibly over 100 reactor facilities.
- 4. The ENT0MB Alternative. ENTOMB was defined in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule as the alternative in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete; the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted relea'se of the property.
A number of commenters indicated that the rule should expressly pro-hibit the use of. ENTOMB as a decommissioning alternative for reactors.
Several reasons were advanced for this statement including the following:
the ENTOMB alternative could cause environmental damage due to the pre-sence of long-lived radionuclides which would be radioactive beyond the life of any concrete structure; the Supplementary .Information to t.hs p'ro-posed rule indicates ENTONS is not viable yet the rule does not explicitly prohibit it; ENTOM8 is inconsistent with the definition of decomnissioning 20
[7590-01) 1 indicated that the rule should provide criteria by which the appropriate '
length of time for the storage period of SAFSTOR can be determined, balancing site-specific costs and benefits.
The Commission does not believe it necessary for the rule ,
to contain an absolute time limit on how long SAFSTOR can last. Instead, as noted in Section A.2, modified S 50.82(b) indicates that a power reactor licen-see's decommissioning plan must indicate a choice of decommissioning alternative, that DECON or 60 year SAFSTOR is acceptable, and that con-sideration will be given to alternative methods for decommissioning which provide for completion of decommissionin'g beyond 60 years when necessary to protect public health and safety. Factors considered in evaluating an alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years include lack of waste disposal capacity or other factors affect-ing safety, including presence of other nuclear facilities on the site.
The rule does not contain a specific limitation on the length of time for SAFSTOR beyond the time period indicated in the modified rule.
The case-by-case considerations, such as shortage of radioactive waste disposalspaceoffsiteorpresenceofanadjacentreactorwhosesafety might be affected by dismantlement procedures, or other similar site specific considerations, mean that the appropriate delay for a specific facility must be based on factors unique to that f'acility and could result in extension of completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years.
Based on this, the NRC considers the setting of an absolute time limit on SAFST0R to be impractical and unnecessary. In addition, the expected revisions to Regulatory Guide L86 setting out guidance on the factors discussed above will provide the NRC the flexibility to consider specific cases while still providing assurance that the health and safety of the public is protected.
19
. [7590-01)
As noted above, concerns were expressed by the commenters that the ENTOMB option would cause environmental damage due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides which would be radioactive beyond the life of any concrete structure, that it is inconsistent with the definition of decommissioning requiring unrestricted release, and that some reactors are located in highly populous areas. In addition, the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicated, in general, that there may be ,
difficulties with the use of ENTOMB, in particular in demonstrating that the radioactivity in the entombed structure had decayed to levels permitting unrestricted release of the property in a period on the order
.of 100 years. In response, the rule contains requirements that a licensee must submit an alternative for decommissioning to the NRC for approval and that consideration will be given to an alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years only when necessary to protect health and safety. This provides the Commission ,
I with both sufficient leverage and flexibility to ensure that if the ENTOMB option is chosen by the licensee it will only be used in situa-l tions where it is reasonable and consistent with the definition of decommissioning which requires that decommissioning lead to unrestricted release. As indicated above, analysis of ENTOMB indicates that it can be carried out safely and with minimal environmental effect for the time periods presented in this Supplementary Information and in the guidance under preparation. However, based on the difficulties with ENTOMB described in the Supplementary Inforsation to the proposed rule and by the commenters, use of ENTOM by a licensee would .be carefully evaluated by NRC according to the requirements of the rule before its use is 22 1 . . .
[7590-01]
requiring release for unrestricted use; and some reactors are located in highly populous areas. In contrast several commenters stated that the ENTOMB alternative should be left as a possible option and that in addi-tion the 100 year period discussed in the Supplementary Informati.on as the time period in which ENTOMB should be completed was too restrictive. !
Some commenters indicated that ENTOMB had certain advantages including reduced occupational exposure and waste volumes while some noted that no options should be precluded at this time due to the developing nature of decommissioning technology.
It is the Commission's belief that- the ENTOMB alternative for decom-missioning should not be specifically precluded in the rule because there may be instances in which it would be an allowable alternative in protecting public health and safety and common defense and security. By not prohibiting ENTOMB, the rule is more flexible in enabling NRC to deal with these instances. These instances might include smaller reactor facilities, reactors which do not run to the end of their li'etimes, or other situations where long-lived isotopes do not build up to significant levels or where there are other site specific factors affecting the safe decommissioning of the facility, as for example, presence of other nuclear facilities at the site for extended periods. In addition there is potential for variations on the ENT0MB option where, for example, some
, decontamination has already been performed, thereby making the ENTOMB option more viable. Analysis of the ENTOMB alternative in the PNL reports (Refs. 2, 3) and in the GEIS (Ref. 20) indicates that it can be carried out safely and that it can have some benefit in the reduction of occupational exposure and waste requiring disposal.
21
. [7590-01) only after the Commission is satisfied that decommissioning has been pro-perly completed. Normally, an amended Part 50 license authorizing posses-sion only will be issued prior to the decomissioning order to confirm the nonoperatingstatusoftheplantandtoreducesomerequirewnjswhichare important only for operation prior to finalization of decoenissioning plans. The authority to possess radioactive materials under Parts 30, 40, and/or 70, as appropriate, continues to be incorporated in the modi-fied Part 50 license, as it is during operation. Subsequent license amdments will be issued as appropriate. The Comission will follow.its customary procedures, set out in 10 CFR Part 2 of the NRC Rules of Prac-
.tice, in amending Part 50 licenses to implement the decommissioning pro-cess. In the past, the period of safe storage or that following entomb-ment has been covered by an amended "possession-only" Part 50 license which does not authorize facility operation, with the term "order" used only in the case of a dismantling order, due to the more active nature of this stage of decomissioning. Except for the use of the term "decomis-sioning order," there has been no change from past practice. The term "decomissioning order" is used in lieu of the term "dismantling order" because, according to the amendments, the overall approach to decomis-sioning must now be approved shortly after the end of operation rather than an amended "possession-only" Part 50 license being issued without plans for ultimate disposition. -
As with any license, the authority to operate or to carry on licensed activities ceases at the expiration date unless the license is being renewed. However, the license and the responsibility to protect hdalth and safety and promote the comon defensa and security continues until the Commission terminates the license. Section 50.82(f) clearly indicates 24
[7590-b1} .
l l permitted. Regulatory Guides currently in preparation will provide more guidance in this area.
B. Planning for Decomissiening. Comments received on,_the subject of decommissioning planning covered several areas. These included the licensing scheme for the decommissioning proceps; the criteria for con-ducting and evaluating decommissioning plans and activities and license termination; occupational exposure, safeguards, and quality assurance during decommissioning; recordkeeping and facilitation; and the effect of the rule on shutdown reactors.
- 1. Licensing scheme for decommissioning. Several commenters found the proposed rule vague in the areas of what type of license is in effect during reactor decomissioning, how Part 70 applies to reactors during decommissioning, when the license terminates, procedural criteria for the termination process, and the restrictions and requirements that apply to a "possession-only license." One commeser indicated that there might be loopholes which would be exploited by the industry resulting in adverse impacts to the public and the environment and another commenter indicated that explicit procedural criteria would remove a needless burden on appli-cents and result in a more cost and time effective licensing process.
In response, it should be noted that application for temination of license occurs at the time of initiation of decommissioning which may be many years before actual termination of license is granted, that decom-missioning is carried out under an amenced license in accordance with the terms of a decommissioning order, and that the license is terminated 23 l
i
. . .. .-. .... ~ .- - - .- - - - -
,' (7590-01) conduct decommissioning with "virtually complete independence." Two commenters indicated that the rule "assumed" that utilities would follow basic safety criteria.
In response, it should be noted that continuing authorit(to possess a reactor in a decommissioned status is governed by the provisions in 10 CFR Part 50 governing operating licenses, as appropriate. As discussed earlier, it is the intent of the rule to provide the necessary guidelines to assure that decommissioning is carried out in a manner which protectr, the public health and safety. To this end, the rule contains requirements l
l that a decommissioning plar. contain a description of the following: the choice of the alternative for decommissioning and the activities involved; the controls and limits on procedures and equipment to protect occupational and public health and safety; a description of the planned final radia-tion survey; quality assurance and safeguards provisions, if appropriate; and a plan for assuring the availability of funds for decommissioning.
Based on this requirement the licensee submits the necessary information to the NRC in the decommissioning plan. The NRC's evaluation of the t
l information contained in this plan and the licensee's, subsequent conduct of decommissioning activities is based on existing regulations applicable to reactors and other facilities undergoing decossiissioning. These 1
regulations include 10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 61, 70, 71, and 73.
Part 20 contains the basic standards for protection against radiation and is applicable to all licensees during operation as well as decommis-sioning, including the storage period. Part 20 contains requirements for limits on both occupational and public exposure, including limits on radiation exposure and concentrations of radioactive material in both l
l 26
[7590-01) ,
the license is terminated by a determination of the Comission after the
'decomissioning has been performed and it has been adequately demonstrated that the facility and site are suitable for release for unrestricted use. '
Because decommissioning, including any change from the original operat-ing license, requires Comission approval, there are no "loopholes" which would allow adverse impacts to the public or environment.
For' clarification, it is noted that the term "decommissioning plan" refers to the plan submitted at the time the licensee decides to terminate the license, while the term "decomissioning funding plan" refers to plan submitted early in facility life which indicates the licensee's financial assurance provisions.
- 2. Criteria for decomissioning activities and license termination.
Many comenters were concerned with the lack of specific requirements applicable to the process of decomissioning, particularly in the case of reactors, and suggested that strong guidelines on requirements for conducting and evaluating decommissioling plans and sctivities and termi-nating licenses are necessary to protect public, occupational, and envir-onmental safety. Some suggest that the rule establish certain safety criteria and the ways in which the utility will meet these criteria. A few commenters were specifically concened with clarifying requirements during the "safe storage" period, such as those for security, inspection, reporting, and monitoring. Many were not clear as to whether the sug-gested "guidance" should be in the rule or if Regulatory Guides would be considered appropriate. Two consenters indicated that without more l specific criteria for acceptability of decommissioning plans, the.
1 Commission would exercise little authority over licensee actions during decomissioning and one comenter indicated that the licensees could 25
l
. ,' [7590-01]
facilitating decommissioning by reducing radiation dose based on NUREG/
CR-3587 (Ref. 25).
The primary means of protecting the health and safety of the public andworkersduringdecommissioningisthroughimplementation{,the decommissioning plan. The decommissioning plan would contain the licensee's means for complying with parts of the regulations discussed above which are applicable to non-operating facilities.
~
All amendments to the operating license which the licensee holds at the time the decommissioning plan is submitted are subject to Commission approval. Amendments to the license are'needed because many of the pres-
.crip6ive requirements of an operating license are for the purpose of assuring safe operation and are no longer necessary during decommission-ing. The decommissioning plan and the associated approval process provide an adequate legal framework for the regulation of facilities undergoing decommissioning. Therefore, the licensee would not have independence in ,
conducting decommissioning. The Commission does not merely assume the utilities will follow basic safety criteria. The licensing offices will review decommissioning plans based on the applicable criteria and guidance and the inspection t.nd enforcement staff will sonitor the carrying out of the plans. This approach should provide enough flexibility to accommodate
~
the varied nature of activities which are possible.
The proposed rule has been modified to provide some additional detail on the scope of decommissioning plans in the final rule. A pro- -
posed regulatory guide on contents of decommissioning plans for materials facilities has been published; a similar Regulatory Guide for reactors is -
being developed to provide guidance on the infonnation which should be submitted to conform to the rule, in addition, Regulatory Guide 1.86 l 28
[7590-01]
O restricted and unrestricted areas. In addition to the general limita-tions on exposure contained in Part 20, 10 CFR 20.1(c) indicates that j radiation exposures, and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, should be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Part 20 also contains, among other things, requirements on radiation monitoring, personnel monitoring, precsutionary procedures, and reporting.
Part 50, Appendix B contains broad requirements on quality assurance provisions which can be used, as appropriate, to the extent consionsurate with the safety functions to be performed by facility structures, systems, and components during decommissioning ac'tivities. Part 50 also contains l
guidelines on radioactive waste system design. Part 61 contains require-ments on land disposal of radioactive waste including criteria for classi-fication and characteristics of waste acceptable for disposal. Part 71 contains requirements for the packcging and transportation of radioactive I material. Parts 70 and 73 contain requirements for physical protection of plants and materials. Although all of these parts do not specifically mention decommissioning activities, the criteria of these parts would
' apply, as appropriate, to decommissioning. In addition, regulatory l
I guides, many of which already exist and some of which are under considera-tion, can provide additional guidance for planning and conducting decom-missioning in accordance with the applicable regulations. For example, Regulatory Guide 8.8 provides guidance on ensuring that occupational exposures are ALARA and Regulatory Guide 1.143 provides guidance on radio-active waste treatment systees. Also, as noted below in Sections 8.4 and B.5, guidance is being considered on safeguards and on quality assurance provisions during decommissioning and on procedures to be considered for 27
~
l (7590-01]
Commission must approve the decommissioning alternative and major struc-tural changes to radioactive components of the facility or other major changes, the licensee may proceed with some activities such as decontami-nation, minor component disassembly, and shipment and storage ,of_ spent fuel if these activities are permitted by the operating license and/or i 50.59. These matters will be further discussed in a revision to Regulatory Guide 1.86 under consideration.
- 3. Occupational exposure during decommissioning. Many commenters emphasized the importance of worker protection. Many of these suggested more specific criteria to minimize worker exposure. A number were con-
.cerned that the rule did not specifically address radiation monitoring.
One felt that reporting of all phases to NRC should be required. One felt that strict enforcement of safety standards should be required, and also indicated that experience at TMI and Shippingport would indicate that total occupational exposures are apt to be substantially higher than estimated. Another believed that exposures during decommissioning will l
be substantially higher than from operations. One coenenter suggested specific requirements such as training of workers prior to work in highly radioactive areas.
In respanse, minimizing worker exposure during decommissioning is one of the main goals of this rulemaking and of the guidance being devel-oped in connection with this rulemakir.g. Detailed plans for decommission-ing are the primary means of minimizing worker exposure. Procedures for carrying out decommissioning will be evaluated by NRC staff for adequacy of occupational exposure. control; plans for appropriate training are an area of review. Basic radiation protection, monitoring, and reporting requirements need not be developed specifically for decommissioning 30
[7590-01) l I
provides guidance on conducting decomissioning activities, including '
storage periods, in a manner to meet applicable requirements. This Regulatory Guide is currently being revised to be fully consistent with the regulations. RegulatoryGuideshavebeenusedsuccessfull{to provide uniform application of requirements while affording Commission staff flexibility to consider unique factors in any situation. In addi-tion, the staff would use standard review plans (SRPs) which contain review procedures and the acceptance criteria used in evaluating licensee applications, including decomissioning plans. These SRPs would be l available and contain the bases for the acceptance criteria.
One comenter noted that it was unclear what activities should not be started prior to approval of decommissioning plans. Other commenters requested that the regulations be clarified in order to delineate those activities related to decommissioning that could proceed without approval of the decomissioning plan if those activities are allowed by the oper-ating license and I 50.59.
In response it should be noted that i 50.59 pemits a holder of an operating license to carry out certain activities without prior Commission ,
approval unless these activities involve a change in the technical specifications or an unreviewed safety question. However, when there is a change in the technical specifications or an unreviewed safety ques-tion, 5 50.59 requires the holder of an operating license to submit an application for amendment to the license pursuant to 5 50.90. Section 50.59(a)(2) contains criteria as to what is deemed to be an unreviewed i
, safety issue. The amendments contained in this rulemaking do not. alter a l
licensee's capability to conduct activities under 5 50.59. Although the i
- 29 i
.m----,----- ,n .r-,----.- -- - - - ,.-,-.----- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(7590-01)
The Commission agrees that quality assurance is important for decom-missioning. The intent to include QA in decomissioning plans was men-tiened in the statement of considerations of the proposed rule, but the scope of plans in the regulation itself was very general. The final rule indicates that QA provisions during decommissioning are to be described, as appropriate, in the decomissioning plan. A large part of the QA program for operating reactors pertains to equipment and procedures neces-sary for the safe operation of the plant; the equipment and procedures requiring QA procedures during decommissioning is such more limited. It is not considered necessary to detail th'ese requirements in the regula- ,
tions because of the limited nature of the QA requirements. As noted above in Section B.2, information in the decommissioning plan would describe QA provisions as they comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B to the extent commen-surate with the safety functions to be performed by facility structures, systems and components during decomissioning activities. Guidance is
, being considered to assist in the development and review of the quality assurance provicions of decomissioning plans.
- 6. Recordkeeping and facilitation. Comenter opinions concerning the recordkeeping requirements proposed was mixed. Several thought it was important enough to in:lude specific support for the requiremsnts as proposed indicating why such records were important. Other commenters indicated that existing recordkeeping requirements are sufficient. One commenter huggested that records might be limited to those events result-ing in the spread of contamination outside of radiologically controlled areas identified in the updated FSAR. .
The Commission is retaining recordkeeping requirements for decom-missioning. Experience has shown that incomplete knowledge of facility 32
[7590-d1], ,
because generally applicable criteria are already contained in 10 CFR
'Part 20. The radiation levels to which workers will be exposed will be l similar to levels of major maintenance activities conducted during opera-tions. If total exposures prove to be higher than estimated,_this could be factored into decisions concerning alternatives and approaches in the future. Also contributing to the minimization.of worker exposure are the l l
recordkeeping requirements of this rule. Other aspects of facilitation of decommissioning will be considered in the review of license applications.
- 4. Safeguards during decomissioning. A comenter pointed out that the applicability of safeguards requirements to decommissioning is unclear.
In response, as noted above in Section B.2, the existing regulations on safeguards for nuclear facilities are considered to contain criteria appli-cable to the decomissioning process. Therefore it is not considered necessary to amend those regulations. However, the Commission has modified the proposed rule to indicate that safeguards provisions during decomis-sioning are to be described, as appropriate, in the decomissioning plan.
In addition, appropriate guidance documents will be issued identifying which of the current operating requirements on safeguards are to apply during decomissioning.
S. Quality assurance during decommissioning. Many commenters were concerned that the proposed regulation did not include mention of quality assurance and/or quality control for decommissioning. Some of these indicated that QA/QC requirements need to be clearly specified. A few comments indicated the need for a separate or independent QA/QC staff.
Two comenters suggested some specific procedures which should be subject to Q/A and two others refer to problems with decontamination activities at Saxton because of lack of QA.
t 31
[7590-01) e general criteria contained in existing regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70 and 72. To the extent that design features or operational techniques are of known value in facilitating decomissioning, the Comission staff may consider these factors in reviewing applications for construction permits or operating licenses under the more general criteria contained in the regulations. The Comission has done some preliminary studies to identify possible beneficial features and tech-niques (NUREG/CR-3587, Reference 25).
- 7. Shutdown reactors. A number of commenters were concerned about I
! the exemption of reactors permanently shut down prior to issuance of the l
. rule from the requirement to submit decommissioning plans. Some thought that this would mean a lower level of protection for the public living t
near such a plant. One,comenter suggested that those licensees be required to review their plans within a set time after the effective date j of the rule and submit' any revisions necessary to make their plans l consistent with the new regulations and two commenters suggested an exemption procedure in the regulations would be better than a blanket exemption.
In response to this coment, it should be noted that reactors which l are permanently shut down prior to the effective date of this rule, have l had their status reviewed by applying for a possession-only license (a few had obtained a materials license only). These plants are being ade-l -
quately controlled under their modified license and license conditions to protect the health and safety of the public while in this decommis-sioning mode. Any further delay in completion of . decommissioning would have to be considered formally if an extension is requested beyond the 1
expiration of the possession-only license. Detailed plans for ultimate l
34 l
l
(7590-d1), ,
design and history can result in significant difficulties and greatly underestimated costs at the time of decomissioning. Although many of the records, particularly in the case of reactors, would be kept for other purposes, it is expected that an improvement in assurance of avail-ability of the records will result from the amendments. The amendments have been written to minimize the additional e,ffort required, thr. is, requiring only centralized reference to pertinent records and their loca-tion rather than duplication of the records and, if drawings are refer-enced, not requiring that each relevant document be indexed individually.
Some comments were submitted concer'ning facilitation of decommission-ing. The commenters favored consideration of facilitation except for one who indicated that additional plant design requirements and operating procedures to facilitate decommissioning are not necessary. One commenter discussed how design facilitation and improvements in the technology of decommissioning (such 'as robots and remote devices) can reduce the costs, time, and exposures of decomissioning. Other commenters recomended that specific requirements for facilitation of decommissioning in design and operating procedures be included in the regulations.
In preparing the proposed rule, the Commission did not conclude that additional plant design requirements and operating procedures to facilitate decomissioning are unnecessary but rather that, other than recordkeeping, no specific design feature nor operating procedure need be '
1 i
required specifically for all licensees at this time. As noted in the l
Supplementury Information to the proposed rule, although no specific requirements are being imposed at this time, the effects of facili,tation on design of facilities and operational procedures can be considered under 33
o (7590-01]
sillion. Other commenters cited estimates which range from $600 million to as high as $3 billion. The variety of estimates are cited by some commenters as being indicative of the uncertainty of estiertes. One commenter indicated that the estimates in the PNL studies were high.
~~
(b) The data base of the PNL reports is limited because the reports are based on small research reactors and on thp Elk River reactor. In particular, Elk River and Saxton operated at low power loads and for only a very short time, not long enough for long-lived radionuclides to build up. Thus, necessary experience to make accurate cost estimates does not exist and commenters quote the PNL reports as stating that "extrapolations from these experiences to large commercial reactors are considered to be generally unreasonable." Moreover commenters stated that the PNL studies are outdated. Some commenters point out that certain necessary data for estimating costs does not exist. These data include information on con-crete contamination, activated vessel components and biological shield and soil contamination and uncertain status of requirements regarding occupational dose, waste disposal, and residual radioactivity.
(c) ' Shippingport, a 65 We reactor, has been astimated to cost $98 l
million to decommission. Larger reactors would likely cost significantly more than this, perhaps more than three times as much. In addition, Shippingport cost estimates are probably lower than typical because the reactor vessel will be removed intact and the wastes will be disposed of in a Federal Repository. Other estimates at Saxton and Humboldt Bay (which the commenter indicated as being $600 million in 2015 dollars) indicate PNL estimates are too low. ,
36 1
[7590-01) dismantlement of reactors currently in safe storage would be defernd under the provisions of this rule. Requiring a decommissioning plan for these reactors at this time, or an application for exemption, would involve administrative efforts on the part of these li:ensees with no significant impar.t on health and safety. Funding and recordkeeping requirements in the uendments apply to these reactors since they possess an "operating license," albeit modified. Details concerning financial assurance, primarily the time period for accumulating funds not set aside during operation, would be decided on a case-by-case basis.
C. Financial Assurance. Comments received on the issue of assur-ing the availability of funds for decommissioning included questions regarding costs of decommissioning, use of certification of a specified amount and funding plans for reactors, acceptable funding methods, sub-mittal of funding plans, specific comunents on funding for material l
licensees, funding for Fede di licensees, and general questions concern-ing need for funding requirements and relationship of the rule to the functions of other regulatory agencies.
- 1. Cost of decomriseloning. A number of commenters questioned the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) estimates of the cost of decoenissioning as discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule. A variety of alternative estimates and reasons for questioning the estimates were given. A summary of these are as follows:
(a) Commenters indicated that other estimates have been sade which make the PNL studies appear to be too low. Commenters from the nu, clear industry indicated costs are more likely in the range of $126 to $178 35
. . [7590-01)
In making cost estimates of decommissioning, the PNL reports include work scheduling estimates, staffing requirements, specialty contractors, essen-tial systems, radioactive materials disposal, supplies, etc.
The PNL raartor decouaissioning studies were performed during the period 1976-1972 and PNL has since preparei updates of the original PWR l and BWR studi64 (NUREG/CR-0130 (Ref. 2) and NURFG/CR-0672 (Ref, 3),
respectively) in whirt the earlier estimates were adjusted for inflation due to increases in labor costs, waste disposal charges, and other general
- - cost increases since the original studies. In addition to inflation, l
several e.spects not consitiered in the original Studies were examined:
l the use of a general dec maissioning contractor in place of the utility acting as its own con' actor; the use of an external engineering firm to j
develop the detailed plans and procedures for accomplishing decosnission-l ing; and the addition of sufficient staff to assure that radiation doses to decommissioning workers du not exceed 5 rem per year, Sased on the above factors and adjustments, PNL estimat n of power reactor decommissioning in January 1986 dollas s are in the range of
$105 - $135 million. A creakdown of t'ise costs is contained in the Fi'.a1 Generic Environmental Impact 'StatLesent on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilitics (Ref. 20). The PNL costs do not include the cost of demoli-tion and removal of noncontaminated structurls, storage and shipment of
)
spent fuel, or restcration of the site.
Although it ma3 " difficult to make simple comparisons between dif ferent cost esti, ate : .c diffs % plants because of site-specific I considerations, it . W'W - e .: ML estimates represent a reason-able approximation .., :> ; maissioning coc u , in particular becaust they use engi, . ; :. , a ans and are based on decommissioning 38
_, _ _ _ _ _ _. _ . . . . - - _ _ _ _ . . o _ __ . _ _
[7590-01]* ,
(d) Estimates of costs of other activities such as reactor construc-tion, TMI-2 cleanup, and Saxton decommissioning have been greatly under-estimated. Costs of decomissioning will likely 1scalate much higher than estimated today.
~-
(e) The cost of decommissioning a reactor will likely equal the cost of construction of the plant. .
The following is a discussion of the response to these concerns. ,
NRC, as part of its efforts on rulemaking for decomissioning, con-tracted with Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs (PNL) to develop an analysis of estimated costs of decomissioning va'rious nuclear facilities, includ-ing FWRs and BWRs, on a generic basis, based on an engineering evaiuation of setivities involved in decomissioning. As indicated above, certain of the commenters disputed the accuracy of the PNL studies to varying degrees.
The PNL reports on decomissioning a reference PWR anc referen:e BWR are detailed engineering studies of the conceptual de:omissioning of a large PWR (the 1175 We Trojan Nuclear Plant is used as the reference plant) and a large D'ut (the 1150 We WNP-2 plant is used as reference).
The PNL reports consider: (1) the detailed plant design and layout of the reference plant; (2) estiinatad conditions in the plant at the time of shutdown (just prior to decosmissioning) including estimates of radio-nuclide inventory and radiation dose rates; (3) techniques for decontam-ination a;id d, .sntiing which are current end proven; anJ (4) radiation protection requirements for workers and the public. Sased on these con-siderations, the PNL reports pretent detailed work plans and time
! schedules to accomplish decommissioning, including those for planning and preparation, decontamination, and cosponent disassembly and transrort.
37
[7590-01) ;
o .
River tas to gain a perspective on the types of operations necessa the types of tooling appropriate to accomplish dissantlement.
The fact that the activation levels experienced in Elk River were lower than those anticipated in a reactor after a full lifetime of opera tion ha* little effect on the PNL analyses, because components that are highly activated are generally disasserbled under water. With water shielding, still higher activation levels will not influence the approach and methods of disassembly and packaging in any significant way.
With respect to the lack of data on contamination and activation levels throughnut the plants at the end.of life, the activatlon levels
.were calculated using well proven methods and the contamination levels were based on data from actual operating plants after 3 to 6 years of operation.
These values are not unreasonable estinata of end-of' lif conditions because current operating practice is to perform syctee and surface deccntaminations periodically as required to keep occupational radiation doses to operations personnel within reasonable bounds.
The quotation from the PNL report to the effect that "extrapolations of these experiences to large commercial reactors are censidered to be unreasonable" needs to consider the remainder of the discussion in the PNL report for the proper context.
Tha statement in the F"L report was not intended to toply that reasonable analyses could not be made for the large re: ars.
The statement was intended instead to discourage persons froe performing linear extrapolatic9s of the Elk River decommis-sioning costs to a large power reactor by using the ratio of their power levels.
In fact, the PNL studies go on to state in Section 4.3 of, NUREG/CR-0672 that dthe primary v41ue of past decommissioning experie
{
16 in identification of tne methods and technologies of decommissionin 40 w %
- - - - . - , , v .-- __ , - - . , - _ , - - - - - - . . - , - _ . . -. _ - - - , , , - - - - - -
(7590-01) . o experience. Other estimates aade independently from PNL and made using engineering ass mptions are in the same general cost range as PNL.
Estimates in the range of $600 million to $3 billion appear to be unreasonably high. The $600 million figure is for decommissioning Humboldt Bay and is in year 2015 dollars and hance includes the atsumed effects of price escalatio:. between 1984 and 2015 which could te sub-stantial. No specific bases or data are presented by the commenter to justify the $3 billion figure. It may be based on comparisons of construction and decommissioning rosts. However, this is not necessarily a valid comparison as discussed below.
Explanation of differences between the PNL cost estimate range and that cited by the nuclear industry of $126 to $176 million rests partly
.sith site-specific differences and partly with differing assumptions regarding labor necessary to complete certain decommissioning tasks and differing assumptions regarding waste disposal volumes and charges.
These different assumptions come about based partially on the uncertainty inherent in making these cost estimates at this time. Further analysis in revisions to the estimates to account for recent technical information obtained since the original PNL studies were prepared may well reduce the differences in the assumptions and estimates. For example, the NRC has research programs underway to obtain data from the decommissioning of the Shippingport reactor. The rule amendments provide for these differences by allowing the use of site-spec lfic cost estimates in financial assurance provisions.
The commenters in (b) above questioned the PNL data base because it used small reactors as a basis. As discussed below, th) priaary use ef information from earlier decommissionings of small reactors like 21k 39
[7590-01)
The commenters in (c) questioned the PNL estimates due to the costs of the Shippingport decommissioning. In response, first, it should be l noted that the Shippingport reactor has all of the components of a large commercf al reactor and, in addition, the ratio of the physica[ size of components at Shippingport compared to the physical site of components at a large commercial reactor is such larger than the ratio of power levels. Thus, the kinds and numbers of operations required to accomplish .
dismantlement are very similar. The cost of assemblinf, and paying a crew
. for the decommissioning is high and makes up a large fraction of the cost
- of decommissioning. Even for smaller fa'cil' ties, a crew must still be l
assembled and must perform a number of tasks similar to those in large reactors such as decontamination of piping loops, decontamination of con-crete surfaces, vessel and pipe cutting, etc. The costs of staff labor l
for these activities is significant in each case.
I Second, the specific situation at Shippingport must be considered.
In particular, the Shippingport dismantlement is being conducted as a learning exercise and an information/ technology transfer opportunity for the nucleir industry. More time and effort are being devoted to planning, executing, and documenting each task than would othenvise he necessary
, during a commercial rea%9r decommissioning project. Thus, the costs should be greater than expected for a plant of that site. In addition, the Shippingport cost estimate is escalated to real dollars spent during
- the active decommissioning period up to 1990 which is a reasona'ble estima-tion method because DOE needs to project actual year dollar costs for budget purposes. However, this is different from the method used in the ,
PNL estimates e ich was to use constant 1984 dollars in the proposed rule.
To e?kt a va31d comparison, t,oth estimates would have to be in the same l
42
[7590-05). .
In Section 4.3.3, NUREG/CR-0672 describes some of the lessons learned from past deconcissionings, including the fact that "Past decommissionings have demonstrated some of the aspects of the practicality and acceptabil-ity of the various decomissioning approaches. The necessary technology not only exists, but has been safely and successfully applied numerous times to a wide variety of nuclear installations." As can be seen in Appendix G of NUREG/CR-0672, information on techniques and methods from earlier decosaissionings, gathered from various sources, is used in considering which techniq.es are applicable to larger facilities. Some examples are decontamination, physical cleaning, removal of structural material, and equipment disassembly. Thus, as discussed in NUREG/CR-0672, direct extrapolation or comparison of decommissioning the small facilities is not used by PNL in evaluating costs of decomissioning for the larger reference facilities, but rather the usefulness of the earlier decomis-sionings is in their demonstration of available and successful decomis-sioning rethods and techniques to accomplish specific tasks.
PNL utilizes this information, where applicable to large reactors, and also considers the design and plant layout of the large reactors, and
.the estimated conditions in the reactor at the time of shutdown, including estimates of radionuclide inventory and radiation dose rates, as well as decontamination techniques and radiation protection measures more appro-priate for large reactors. Based on these considerations, the PNL studies developed detailed work plans and time schedules to accomplish cecommis-sioning which are described in more detail in Sections 4.2 and 9 and Appendices F and G of NUREG/F-0130 and Sections 3 and 9 and App' es G, H and I of NUREG/CR-0672.
41
- [7590-01]
The cost estimate for cleanup at THI-2 has not increased appreciably since 1981 due in part to a better understanding of the work scope. The cleanup following an accident is not comparable to a normal decommissioning in terms of either technology or cost and the conditions for a,, reactor decommissioning can be much more sharply defined than could the condi-tions for THI-2 cleanup. Also, the activities,needed to decommission are l
not first-of-a-kind, but reflect direct applications of developed tech-niques and equipment. Thus, cost increases of the magnitude experienced by the TMI-2 cleanup effort are unlikely to occur for a normal decom-missioning effort.
The comenters in (e) indicated that the cost of decoamissioning would likely equal the cost of construction of the plant, i.e., with costs of constructicn running at $3 billion, the cost of decommissioning f would be $3 billion. First, there have been no detailed analyses pre-sented to indicate that decomissioning costs will equal construction I
costs and, in fact, there is not a specifically defined or fixed rela-tionship between these two costs. The PNL studies on decommissioning (1:UREG/CR-0672 and NUREG/CR-0130) have not identified a specific rela-tionship between construction costs *and decommissioning costs. As can I
be seen in Section 10 of NUREG/CR-0672, decommissioning costs depend on various specific, factors such as costs of staff labor to accomplish decommissioning tasks, costs of disposal of waste, special tools and equipment, since11aneous supplies, etc. Cost of construction includes several items which have little or no effect on decommissioning costs such as licensing, extensive quality assurance procedures during construc-tion, site preparations, installation and testing of instrumentation, control and electrical systems, the cost of interest on the money used 44
l
[7590-01} ,
year dollars. Inflation over this period may be an important factor.
Another factor in the difference in cost is that the Shippingport esti-mates include cost of demolition of certain facility structures and site restoration, which are not included in the PNL estimates. Inyd,ition to these factors, DOE indicated the existence of certain unique items in l l
the Shippingport decommissioning including: the testing of certain decommissioning methods to determine if they fit particular applications; efforts involved to share technology with utilities; and efforts involved in considering the presence of the nearby operating Beaver Valley plants during decommissioning.
The commenters in (d) questioned the cost estimates due to earlier underestimates of construction costs at nuclear plants and cleanup costs at THI-2. In respons9, while there is no doubt that decoenissioning costs will continue to escalate in step with general price increases, it i
does not follow that because reactor construction costs exceeded original estimates, decoenissioning cost estimates will also be greatly exceeded.
Cost overruns in the construction of nuclear plants reflected the regulatory requirements necessary to license a reactor for construction j and operation,.the cost of interest to borrow money during protracted delays, and other site-specific problems rather than a basic inability to project the technological costs. Decoenissioning cost estimates do not include a number of the factors involved in obtaining an operating ,
i license and should not necessarily be subject to such increases. The cleanup at TMI-2 is a first-of-a-kind endeavor with potential for increased costs. The initial cost estimates were based on very limited knowledge of the actual conditdons to be overcome, and in addition, there '
were delays in the program caused by technical and regulatory problems.
43
(7590-01)
.'O (2) Comenters generally felt that because of the wide range of site specific cost estimates, any one value would not be accurate and not be representative of most plants and therefore the number of licensees using certification would be low. Most commenters argued that $100 ,mi,111on was too low while a few argued that it was too nigh.
(3) The use of a prescribed amount will not decrease utility efforts because they will still have to prepare site specific cost studies for the rate regulators regardless of the certification procedure. Cossenters noted that the use of the $100 million figure or other similar prescribed amount will be viewed by state and Fedsral rate regulators as a limiting value, thus placing a burden on utilities to justify to the rate regula-tors an alternative funding level even if site specific studies show the prescribed amount to be. inappropriate for that plant. Some commenters noted that this situation had already occurred in specific situations.
(4) The use of a specific prescribed amount as stated in the certi-( fication was seen by some comenters as setting a revenue requirement which is a function for state and Federal rate regulators.
l (5) The inflation factor centained in the proposed rule was con-sidered to be inaccurate because there was no basis to expect the decom-L sissioning cost to increase at twice the CPI in the future, and the factor ;
could be subject to misuse as noted above in (c).
I l (b) Some cossenters indicated that if certification is retained that it should be revised and clarified. The following suggestions were made as to what should be done if certification is kept:
(1) The certification requirement should be clarified to indicate that it is not intended to and does not represent the actual cost of decom-l missioning, that it is not fixed but is for reference purposes only, that 46
3
[7590-01]
during construction, etc. This discussion does not attempt to define or provide costs of these and other items, but to point out the differing nature of many of the construction costs versus decommissioning cost items, and why there was no identification of a defined relati,onship between them in the Battelle-PNL reports.
Secondly, .n any comparison of costs it ip necessary to place the costs in the same year's dollars in order to have a moningful basis for comparison. Certainly in about 30-40 years when the reactors are decom-missioned, inflation may well drive the decommissioning costs towards the current cost of construction. However,.the decommissioning rule amend-
.ments, which will require maintenance of funds by methods which keep pace withinflationandperiodicadjustmentoffundstoaccountforeffectsof inflation, will provide, assurance that funds are available to pay for decommissioning when needed.
- 2. Use of certification of a specified amount and funding plans for reactors. The proposed rule contained provisions that a utility applicant i or licensee may submit a certification that financial assurance for decom-i
- missioning will be provided in a prescribed amount stipulated in the regula- '
j tions as $100 million (in 1984 dollars). The proposed rule also indicated that this value is to be adjusted annually using an inflation rate twice that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index. The following were comments received on this issue:
(a) A number of commenters objected to the use of r.ertification for I the following general reasons.
1 .
i
- (1) The use of site specific estimates is preferable to a prescribed l l
amount because they will be more realistic and accurate and able to j account for site-specific factors, i
l .
45 i
[7590-01) use of certification is to minimize the administrative effort of licensees and the Commission while still providing reasonable assurance that funds will be available to carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety. The certification amount was based ,on,the significant data base on decommissioning developed as part of the policy evaluation. The intent expressed in the proposed rule remains valid, however, it appears from the comments that the intent and proposed use of certification has been misunderstood. Thus, the retention of certifi-cation requires clarification and adjustment for it to be useful in the manner it was intended. These points are discussed in the following paragraphs.
First, it is still expected that a proper certification method would provide clear criteria and would minimize the amount of administrative effort that the NRC and licensees must expend in establishing reasonable financial assurance for decomissioning. The certification is also in-tended to minimize NRC involvement in the rate regulatory process, which is an area outside of NRC's jurisdictient. The fact that site specific cost estimates may still have to be prepared for rate regulators is out-side the scope of this rulemaking. 4 Second, the comments that a site specific cost estimate is preferable as noted in (a)(1) above, that the prescribed amount in the ' certification is not representative of most plants as noted in (a)(2) above, and that the use of the prescribed amount will oe viewed as a limiting upper value by rate regulators as noted in (a)(3) above, indicates the certifice.ino method in the proposed rule has bien misunderstoed.. The proposed rule stated that a utility could submit a certification that financial assur-ance for decommissioning will be provided in en amount at least equal to 48
(7590 01) it is only intended to insure minimum financial responsibility and that it is not intended to bind regulatory ratemaking bodies to that figure either as a minimum or maximum.
(2) The amount should be increased to the $120 to $170 million range ,
so that it is sufficiently high to include realistic decommissioning costs.
(3) Indicate that, despite the allowance,of certification, use of a site specific study is preferable and should be used if available. Only allow use of certification in certain cases when it can be shown that costs are less than $100 million.
(4) There should be consideration given to including means to adjust the certification numbers to account for such things as plant size, design, other site specific factors, BWR vs PWR, pre- or post-TMI units, decommis-sioning alternative, two-unit site savings, etc.
(5) Clarification should be included as to what the $100 million includes, namely whether it covers both radioactive and nonradioactive structures, whether it includes contingencies, whether it is per unit.
(6) The use of the inflation factor should be clarified, in partic-ular that it is not intended to reflect the actual rate of increase of decommissioning costs, and the inflation factor should be modified using other esc:lators, for example, Handy-Whitman indexes for labor and materials and separate data sources for waste disposal.
l (c) With regard to funding plans, several commenters indicated that i
there needed to be more specific or quantitative description of NRC's criteria for approval of cost estimates in power reactor funding plans 1 and that lack of criteria could result in confusion.
l In responding to these comments it should be noted that, as discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, the intent of the .
l !
47
. [7590-01]
assessment of major factors that could affect decomissioning cosu and would include relevant, up-to-date information. These factors could include site specific factors as well as then current information on such issues as disposal of waste, residual radioactivity r,riteria, ,etc., and I would present a realistic appraisal of the decommissioning of the specific i
reactor, taking into account actual factors anfi details specific to the reactor and the time period.
Combination of these steps, first establishing s. general level of adequate financial responsibility for decomissioning .stly in life, followedbyperiodicadjustment,andthenevaluationofspecific l . provisions close to the time of decommissioning, will provide reasonable assurance that tht Comission's objective is met, namely that at the time of permanent and of operations sufficient funds are available to decomis-sion the facility it a manner which protects public health and safety.
More detailed considiration by NRC early in life beyond the certification is not considered necessary because of the steps discussed above. in addition, because public utility cornissions are to set a utility's rates such that all reasonable costs of serving the public may be recovered and because NRC requirements concerning termination of a license are part of the reasonable cost of having operated a reactor, it is reasonable to assume that added costs beyond those in the prescribed amount could be obtained if the latter were too low as stggested by the commenters.
Based en the above discussion, the level of review contained in this decoenissioning rule provides reasonable assurance for funding. In response to those commenters who were concerned that the criteria for-evaluation of power reactor funding plans were not sufficiently specific t
i or quantitative, the certification process provides clear requirements 50 l
[7590-01) o 5100,000,000 (Emphasis 'added). Accordingly, the proposed rule did not 1ntend to prevent site specific cost estimates from being done and amounts greater than the prescribed amount being estimated and used for financial assurance planning as long as the estimate exceeded tt e prescribed amount.
Under the provisions of the proposed rule, licensees could prepare a site specific cost estimate and if it exceeded the prescribed amount, which would be acting as a threshold review level, the estimate would not be a matter for NRC consideration. The amount listed as the prescribed amount does not represent the actual cost of decommissioning for specific reac-tors but rather is a reference level established to assure that licensees demonstrate adequate financial responsibility that the bulk of the funds !
necessary for a safe decommissioning are being considered and planned for early in facility life, thus providing adequate assurance at that time that the facility would not become a risk to public health and safety -
when it is decommissioned. It is not intended to bind ratemaking bodies to that specific figure. The text of the final rule states that, if a site specific cost evaluation is pm pared, it can form the basis for the ,
i certification and the licensee may indicate that provisions are being '
made for an amount greater than tb4 prescribed amount.
! Use of the certification approach is a first step in providing
- reasonable assurance of funds for decosmissioning from the Coanti,sion's l perspective. The second step is that the amendments require the licensee.
! five years prior to the expected end of operations, to submit a cost l estimate for decommissioning based on an up-to-date assessment of the actions necessary for decommissioning and plans for adjusting levels of j funds assured for decommissioning. As noted in the Supplementary Informa- j
! tion to the proposed rule, this estimate would be baseo on a then current I
! 49 l
(7590-01]
e e
cost estimate to indicate that provisions are being made for an amount
. greater than the prescribed amount and to delineate the correct usage of the certification.
(2) As indicated in 5 50.75(c), the amount has been increased. ,
The revised amount is based on recent evaluations done for NRC by its con-tractor Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. As discussed in Section C.1, these estimates are considered to represent a reasonable engineering estimate of the range of decammissioning costs. In preparation of the ,
final rule, the original PNL estimates were reevaluated and coopered with other estimates and updated estimates were developed based on recent information.
l (3) In response to the public comments, the rule text has been revised to clarify what would be covered by the prescribed amount and I
provisions have been included in the rule to adjust the amount for such factors as plant size and reactor type. This adjustment for plant size j is based on PNL's generic evaluation of the effect of plant size on decomissioning cost and overall review of a number of plant cost l
estimates. An indication of the bases for tn. prescribed amounts and for the adjustment is contained in addenda to NUREG/CR 0130 and NUREG/CR-0672.
I (4) The final rule text also indicates that amounts are based on activities related to the definition of "decommission" in 10 CFR 50.2 and do not include the cost of removal and disposal of spent fuel or of non-radioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate ,
the NRC license. Costs of disposal of nonradioactive hazardous wastes not necessary for NRC license termination are not included in t'he i
prescribed amounts.
i
)
! I t 52
,, , ,.e !
, , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ __ ___,._r__ , _ _ _ . _ , . _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - . - . _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[7590-01]
and wilt achieve the objective of reasonab b assurance of funding while minimizing associated administrative effort. Therefore, the amendments do not contain requirements for a cost estimate early in reactor life.
The more oetailed review 5 years prior to end of life is consistent with the requirements for non-reactor facilities who are required to submit updated nians at the time of license renewal (which occurs every five years).
As discussed above, the intent of the amendments is that there be reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning. Other issues normally outside NRC's jurisdiction such as rate 'of collection and whether a
. funding method is equit nie should be considered by utilities and their ratemaking bodies. For example, to be more equitable to ratepayers, the utilities and ratemaking bodies may want to consider whether amounts should be collected based on a site specific cost estimate which exceeds the prescribed amount rather than the stepwise approach discussed above.
The final rule contains text recognizing that funding for decommissioning of electric utilities is also subject to the regulation of agencies having jurisdiction over rates, and that the NRC requirements are in addition to, and not substitution for, other requirements, and are not intended to be used, by themselves, by other agencies to establish rates. Hence, NRC will not become involved in the rate regulation process as it relates to decommissioning.
Based on these considerations, the certification requirement has been retained. However, it has been modified in several ways to incor-porate public comments to clarify its purpose and use as follows:
(1) As noted above, the text of the rule has been revised to indicate clearly that a licensee may use a site specific decommissioning 51
(7590-01]
(5) In response to a number of comments, the escalation factor con-tained in the proposed rule has been revised to better account for factors affecting increases in decnmissioning cost. The factors for labor, energy, and waste burial are indicated separately and are based on the addenda to HUREG/CR-0130 and NUREG/CR-0672 and on NUREG-1307 (Ref. 27).
- 3. Acceptable funding methods. The proposed rule listed internal reserve as one of the funding methods considered acceptable in providing assurance of funds for decomissioning. In internal reserve, funds are placed into an account or reserve which is not segregated from licensee assets and is within the licensee's administrative control. A number of comenters either disagreed with or favored the inclusion of internal reserve as an acceptable method. The following were comments received on this issue:
(a) Those that disagreed with inclusion of internal reserve did so for the following principal reasons:
(1) There may be problems with liquidity of tbn internal reserve if j the acquired assets and investments do not preserve value over time and there may be problems in issuing bonds against thesa assets to pay for decomissioning. In particular, funds could be used for new nuclear con-struction or other uses such as accident cleanup. With this method one cannot insure that money taken from customers will be available in the future for decossaissioning. This could cause serious cash flow problems at the time of decommissioning, especially if utilities are replacing old plants with new ones at the same time decoenissioning takes place, i (2) The future financial viability of utilities cannot be assured and the potential exists for utility instability and insolvency. The comenters expressed concern that the utilities could not raise funds for ,
53
[7590-01,)
o decommissioning if they were having severe financial problems or were facing insolvency. Commenters cited examples of potantial situations.
(3) The level of assurance provided is inadequate and the genera-tion of insufficient funds could compromise safety, cause delg,ys, and cause rate boosts. Nuclear power should pay its way fairly. In addition, by not requiring external funds NRC has not responded to the petition for rulemaking made by the Public Interest Research Group in 1977 or to I:A0's concern that decommissioning costs be paid by current beneficiaries, not
. future generations. One ccamenter's anelysis indicated that internal reserve costs exceed external reserve co'sts when they are adjusted to equalize relative risk with respect to the availability of funds.
(b) The commenters who agreed with the inclusion of internal reserve as an acceptable funding method did so for the following principal reasons:
(1) The use of internal reserve would enhance utilities' financial positions by reducing extarnal financing needs. In addition, utilities have investments, cash flow, and annual earnings which are large compared to decommissioning costs.
l (2) The likelihood of instability and insolvency is remote and utilities are good investments and have large' assets. Commenters noted that utilities whose rates are regulated are essentially guaranteed a minimum return on investment and have an obligation under the ratemaking system to pay for decoenissioning. Commenters also noted that in times of financial difficulty, an internal reserve is sufficient because it l
is unlikely that electric generation service would not be provided and, l
even in the case of insolvency, there will be a successor to the insolvent utility who would retain the obligation to decommission. l t
l l
54
. [7590-01)
(3) Severil connenters s,pported internal reserve because it can earn a higher rate of return, reduces revenue requirements, and provides a reasonable balance between cost and assurance. Also, commenters noted that there are financial risks associated with external reserve.
w ..
In developing the Proposed Rule, the Commission considered the question of the use of internal reservt in several documents. These include NUREG-0584, Revs. 1-3, "Assueing the Availability of Funds for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities," ('tef.14), NUREG/CR-1481, "Financing Strategies for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning," (Ref. 15) and NUREG/CR-3899, "Utility Financial Stability and the Availability of Furds for De,.ommissioning" (Ref. 18). In addition, the Commission held a meeting soliciting public and industry views on decoeveissioning on September 19, 1984 and the NRC staff reviewed comments in the area of financial assurance submitted on NUREG-0586 "Draft Generic Environmental ,
Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities" (Ref. 20). These reports and meetings considered several factors regarding availability of funds for public utilities in the United States. One factor is that utilities are large, very heavily capitalized enterprises whose rates are comprehensively regulated by the State Public Utility Commissions (PUC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This factor permits the utilities to charge reasonable rates subject to reasonable regula-tion and rules. In addition, the Commission has taken action recently ,
in the promulgation of 10 CFR 50.54(w) tn set requirements to establish onsite property damage insurance for use after an accident. Although these !
insurance proceeds would not be used directly for decosmissioning, they
- would reduce the risk of a utility being hit by a large demand for funds I after an accident. Most utilities are now carrying insurance well in 55
(7550001) excess of $1 billinn. Other factors considered are the long time period before decommissioning takes place during which time reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning must be maintained, as well as concerns regarding utility solvency and potential problems regarding availability of funds which may occur as a result of bankiwiatcy.
Before publication of the proposed rule, t.he NRC evaluated the adequacy I
c,f various funding methods in light of financial problems encountered by l some utilities which, faced with lower growth in electricity demand than theyprojectedandrapidlyincreasingcostsofconstruction,hadbeen forced to cancel nuclear plants in advanced stages of construction and
.the ramifications these conditions, as well as issues related to bankruptcy, could have on a utility's ultimate ability to pay for decommissioning.
Details of this evaluation are contained in NUREG/CR-3899, (Ref. 18) prepared by an NRC consultant, Dr. J. Siegel of the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Based on the results of NUREG/CR-3899 in which it is indicated that internal reserve can be a valid funding method and on the considerations .
discussed in the Supplementary Information to the Proposed Rule, the pro-posed decommissioning rule permitted a range of options, including internal reserve, for providing assurance that sufficient funds are available. for decommissioning. However, the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule noted that the regulatory approach for assuring funds for decommissioning had been particularly difficult to resolve and specifically requested additional information and comments in this area.
In particular, the Supplementary Information stated that: ;
- % ore specifically, Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal continue to be concerned about the vulnerability of the internal funding 56 )
[7590-01) l mechanism for decommissioning funds, particularly where the funds I are used to purchase assets or reduce existing debt."
l l
Based on this concern, Constissioners Asselstine and Berntha1 requested "public comments on the need to consider the possibility of insolvency and its impact on the continued availability of decommission-ing funds."
Although commenters did not generally refer specifically to the separate request for comment by Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal, a number of comments, noted above, were received in this area. Those who
, disagreed with the inclusion of internal reserve in the rule cited problems with liquidity of the internal reserve and with the future financial viability of utilities with resultant problems in providing decommissioning funds, and stated that the level of assurance is inadequate. In contrast, other commenters agreed with the use of internal reserve citing the fact that the Itkelihood of instability and insolvency ic remote, that utilities have investments, cash flow, and l annual earnings which are large in comparison to decommissioning cost, and that the internal reserve does provide reasonable assurance.
l As part of the review of the comments, NRC has had NUREG/CR-3899 ,
updated to consider the current situation in the utility industry. This )
analysis is contained in NUREG/CR-3899, Supplement 1, (Ref. 18) which reviewed six utilities which have been subject to severe financial distress. Based on the analysis, NUREG/CR-3899, Supp.1 indicates that, ;
since NUREG/CR-3899 was published in 1984, the financial health of the l nuclear utilities has improved, with the exception of Public Service of 57
(7590-011 l
New Hampshire (PSNH), and that from a financial standpoint, use of internal l reserve currently provides sufficient assurance of funds for decommissioning.
The basis for this conclusion is the fact that the likelihood of future crises developing, although not impossible, is extremely remote; that the _
total market value of the securities of each of the six utilities studied substantially exceeds its decommissioning cost); that it is not necessarily true that bankruptcy of a utility is tantamount to default on decommission-ing obligations; and the potential that the costs of decommissioning would .
be recognized as a prior obligation with regard to creditors.
Despite tnese conclusions, NUREG/CR-3899, Supp. 1 notes that PSNH has said that, unless it undergoes financial restructuring and gets the rate increase it is seeking, it probably would become the first major
- utility to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Act in nearly 50 years.
(Subsequent to the preparation of the analysis of NUREG/CR 3899, Supple-ment 1, PSNH filed a petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S.
! Bankruptcy code.) In addition, Supplement I notes that if PSNH's Seabrook plant becomes operational, the prospects for PSNH greatly improve although bankruptcy still cannot be precluded as a possibility due to the potential for large rate hikes and resultant defections from its electric system.
Hence Supplement I concludes that internal reserve should not be allowed for Seabrook until the financial prospects of the utility are clarified and the viability of the corporation insured.
In addition, NUREG/CR-3899, Supp. 1. noted that it is imperative -
that, in the case of the sale or other disposition of utility assets, no i
nonies are distributed to any security holders until a fynd is established to assure payment for decommissioning. Supplement I also recommended l r
1 d
58
. [7590-01) changes in Federal and State bankruptcy laws relating to utilities and the inclusion in the prospectus of newly issued securities of an explicit statement of the utility's financial obligations to provide adequate funds for decommissioning. Further, Supplement I noted that b,ecause of
- changing economic and financial conditions, the NRC should conduct periodic reviews of the overall financial health of utilities with ongoing and prospective nuclear facilities. If such a review indicates the finan-cial condition of utilities taken as a whole or individually is such thtt internal reserve does not provide reasonable assurance of funds for decom-I missioning, then additional rulemaking or other steps should be taken to insure availability of these funds.
The Commission has considered the conclusions in NUREG/tR-3899, Supp.1, as well as the.public comments received on the issue. The Commission's review in this area is confined to its statutory mandate to protect the radiological health and safety of the public and promote the common defense and security which stems principally from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of :
1974, as amended. In carrying out its licensing and related regulatory
- responsibilities under these act!. the NRC has determined that there is a
! significant radiation hazard associated with nondecommissioned nuclear reactors. The NRC has also determined that the public health and safety can best be protected if its regulations require licensees to use methods -
which provide reasonable assurance that, at the time of termination of operations, adequate funds are available so that decommissioning can be
< carried out in a safe and timely manner and that lack of funds does not result in delays that may cause potential health and safsty problems.
Although the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act do not i
i 59
- ,- - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . - - _ = _ _ - . . . . _ . - _ _ _ _ - _
- - _ , -~ y
(7590-d1], .
permit the NRC to regulate rates or to supersede the decisions of State or Federal agencies respecting the economics of nuclear power, they do authorize the NRC to take whatever regulatory actions may be necessary to protect the public health and safety, including the proeJ1 gat, ion of rules prescribing allowable funding mathods for meeting decommissioning costs. (See Pacific Gas & Electric v. State Energy Resources Conserva-tion & Development Commission, 461 U.S.190, 212-13, 217-19 (1983);
see also United Nuclear Corporation v. Cannon, 553 F. Supp.1220,1230-32 (0.R.I. 1982) and cases cited therein.)
. 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Commission continues to be concerned l l
with the use of an internal reserve. The Commission notes the concerns expressed in NUREG/CR-3899, Supp. I regarding bankruptcy at PSNH as well as the changing economic and financial conditions discussed in NUREG/
- CR-3899, Supp. 1. The Commission also notes that many utilities are engaging in diversified financial activities which involve more financial risk and believes therefore it is increasingly important to trovide that decommissioning funds be provided on a more assured basis.
In addition, to the extent that a utility is having severe financial l
difficulties at the time of decommissioning, it say have difficulty in funding an internal reserve when needed for decommissioning. The Commission recognizes that the market value of the stock of those util-ities studied in NUREG/CR-3899 has exceeded decossissioning cost. How-ever, although the law in this area is not fully developed, in the event of bankruptcy there is not reasonable assurance that either unsegregated or segregated internal reserves can be effectively protected from claims of creditors and therefore internal reserves cannot be made legally secure. In addition, because of the nature of the internal reserve, the 60
[7590-01)
- a funds collected are not isolated for use for decommissioning. Instead the utility may use the funds for other unrelated purposes.
For the above reasons, the Commission concludes that the internal reserve does not provide reasonable assurance that funds will ,be, avail-able when needed to pay the costs of decommissioning and hence does not provide reasonable assurance that decommissionjng will be carried out in a manner which protects public health and safety. Accordingly, the pro-posed rule has been modified to eliminate the internal reserve as a i possible method of providing funds for decommissioning. '
In reaching its conclusion not to permit use of internal reserve 1
for decommissioning, the Commission believes it important not to impose inorc;inate financial burdens on licensees. The modification to the pro-posed rule is not expected to impose such a burden for several reasons.
First, licensees have 2 years from the effective date of the final rule i before they have to submit information regarding financial assurance.
Second, the external reserve is a sinking fund accumulated over a period i
of time. Third, a number of states (accounting for almost 50% of power reactors) already require external funding methods. Fourth, recent changes in the tax laws allowing current deductions for external reserves may reduce the cost differential between internal reserve and external
- reserve. Finally, the rule does not require funds,arcumulated to date t
in internal reserves to be transferred to external reserves, however those existing funds if left in internal reserves would not be acceptable for use in meeting the requirements of 5 50.75(e)(1) and (3).
61
_ _ _ . - - . - :-. - -. - -____ 2.- _ _ __ - - _ _ - .
[7590-0k). .
In a related comment, several commenters discussed the funding methods they preferred over internal reserve. These included principally the use of prepayment of the funds or the use of an external fund coupled with insurance against premature decommissioning. Principal (essons for favoring these methods include the fact that there may be shutdown of a '
reactor before the date of its expected end of. life due to either an accident or problems with reactor aging or obsolescence. Consequently, sufficient funds for decosnissioning might not have been collected by a method which accumulates funds over projected reactor life. Conversely, several connenters indicated that it is 4ppropriate to rely on the property
. damage insurance requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w) to supplement decommission-ing funding methods. They argue that, with the substantial amount of property insurance required, even in the highly improbable event of an
! accident-related, premature decosmissioning, the utility will still have sufficient resources available after the decontamination process to carry 1
out decommissioning. Some of the commenters recognized the possible difficulties in obtaining non-accident premature decommissioning insurance.
One connenter stated that surety bonds or insurance are not viable alter-I natives for normal decommissioning or premature decommissioning not asso-c I
! ciated with an accident. The commenter noted that nuclear property l insurance would be available only if an insured event necessitated ,
premature decosnissioning and only in the amount necessary to repair the plant for damages caused by the accident. Premature decommissioning due to regulatory mandate would not be covered. The commenter also noted 1
that surety bonds in the amount of $100 million are not generally available.
62
[7590-01)
The Comission notes that these coments must be considered within the context of Comission requirements for onsite property damage insurance, the proceeds from which could be used to decontaminate a reactor after an accident. Although these insurance proceeds would not be used directly for decomissioning, they would reduce the risk of a utility being subject to a tremendous demand fpr funds after an accident.
The Commission has implemented its proposed requirement in 10 CFR 53.54(w) for slightly over $1 billion of insurance. An important consideration in selecting an acceptable method for providing funds for decommissioning is that the method be reasonably cost effective. Prepayment of funds has been recognized by several studies as being significantly more costly than the other methods. In view of the unlikely nature of the events and the potential problems being considered, prepayment Denars11y has a cost too high for the benefit that would be realized. Use of insurance for non-accident related decomissioning was found in an earlier study performed for the NRC, NUREG/CR-2370 (Aer. 16), to have potentially serious problems of insurability and moral hazard and is not currently available. (Moral hazard is a ters used in the insurance industry to indicate a situation of laxity with respect to loss prevention or loss control where those insureo have access to risk prevention.) Finally, earlier stucies in NUREG-0584 found that surety bonds were not generally available in the amounts necessary for decosnissioning power reactors.
In light of the factors considered, including the assurance provided i
by the various methods, the unlikely nature of the various events and the
(
l cost and practicality of providing more absolute assurance by certain methods, the Coanission has concluded that the funding methods listed in the rule as modified by the exclusion of internal reserve are adequate.
63
- _ _ -_. _ . _ - ____ 1
(759061), .
Two commenters stated that well capitalized, finnly established private organizations operating research and test reactors should be allowed to guarantee compliance with financial assurance requirements by ,
use of the certification process which is permitted for gover p nt enti-ties. In response to this comment, it is noted that certain government licensees are permitted in the pendments to meet the funding require-eents of the rule by submitting a statement of intent that the appropriate government entity will be guarantor of decommissioning funds. Private -
organizations were not afforded that option in the proposed rule. The different treatment arises because there is reasonable assurance that the appropriate government entity, whien has the power of taxation, will pro-vide adequate funding in the future to decommission the facility in a manner which protects public health whereas this is not necessarily the case with private organizations even if they are currently adequately capitalized. If they have no funds for decommissioning there can be problems with completion of decommissioning. As noted in Section C.5 below, use of parent company guarantees backed up by financial tests will be permitted for private organizations operating research and test reactors.
Four commenters indicated agreement with proposed 5 50.82(c)(1) which would require a licensee planning to delay completion of decommissioning by including a period of safe storage or long-ters surveillance to place funds into an externsi fund or use a surety or certification method, while -
four coenenters tilsagreed with the proposal indicating that utilities should not be required to shift to external funding. In response, as ,
I noted in the response to a previous comment, the proposed rule has been modified to delete internal rese've as an acceptable funding method.
64 l
[7590-01)
O Because there is as great or greater need for assurance of funds over the extended timeframe involved with a facili:y in SAF5 TOR when the facility is no longer a revenue producing asset, the proposed requirement in
$ 50.82(c)(1) for external funding during SAFSTOR remains. ,
- 4. Funding plans. A number of commenters indicated that it was important for the funding plan to be updated eyer the operating life of the facility because there would be increates in costs over facility life.
Some commenters indicated that there should be periodic adjustments of the funding level, and most said there should be a specific frequency indicated in the regulet'..,ns with most snying frequencies of 5 years and home indicating it should be more frequent.
In response, the Comission agrees with the importance of updating the funding plan over the operating life of the plant. This was recognized in the proposed rule which requires that a funding plan include "means of adjustingcostestimatesandassociatedfundinglevelsoverthelifeof the facility" and which also requires each reactor li:ensee to update his costestimate"atorabout5yearspriortotheprojectedendofopera-tions." In order to clarify that the updates should take place over the course of the facility lifetime, the proposed rule has been modified to indicate that a funding plan include means of adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the facility.
The frequency for these updates is not included in the rule but would be included in regulatory guidance under consideration. This will provide more flexibility in dealing with different types of licensees and finan-cial considerations. It is expected that regulatory guidance will indi-cate the frequency of adjustment for cost estimate and funding levels.
65
[7590001).
A number of commenters objected to the requirement in the rule that submittals of reactor funding plans be a condition of license. The com-menters indicated that by doing so any change in the funding plan could be interpreted as a license amendment. The consenters argued th 6 this was unnecessary since the funding requirements do not have a direct impact on the safe operation of the plant. This could have a negative effect on continued plant operations even though there was no safety concern. Most commenters argued that the requirements would be better promulgated as regulations which would not decrease NRC's enforcement authority. The Commission has considered these comments'in light of the need to pro-vide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decossnissioning and, in response, in order to build flexibility into the rule, has modi-fied the proposed rule to make the reactor funding requirements a specific regulatory requirement in 5 50.75 instead of a license condition.
- 5. Funding requirements for material licensees. For material licen-sees, the proposed rule contained provisions that an applicant or licensee may submit a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in a prescribed amount stipulated in proposed 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70. The amount is depeadent on the quantity of licensed material which the licensee possesses. Two commenters indicated that the cost amounts prescribed in the regulations for 10 CFR Tarts 30,'40, and 70 licensees are too high for the quantities of material listed and that the prescribed cost amounts should be set more realistically or the pre-scribed radioactivity levels should be increased. One of the two com-menters who felt the estimates were too high noted that the multiples of Appendix C quantities prescribed in the rule for some isotopes amount to absolute quantities of less than a curie and the coernenter did not think 66
[7590001)
- O that the decommissioning costs for such a license would amount to the sums prescribed in the proposed rule. The other commenter indicated as an example that the amount of Am-241 in unsealed form requiring a decom-missioning cost of $500,000 is 10 millicuries. Three other commenters felt that the prescribed amounts appeared to be too low and cited specific examples to support their claim. These included the following: cleanup of a U.S. Army building which had burned cost over $300,000; cleanup of the extensive contamination at a USAEC contractor facility at Weldon -
Spring cost $200,000,000; cleanup of four igloos at the Seneca Army Depot l
l by the U.S. Army cost $300,000 to $1,000,000; cleanup and storage of contaminated soil by DOE in the vicinity of the W. R. Grace and Stepan Chemical facilities cost $2-4 million. In addition, one of the commenters pointed out that use of, contractors to perform the work could increase costs.
In response to the comenters who felt the estimates were too high, it is the opinion of the Commission, based on the data base cited in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, that the prescribed amounts are reasonable estimates and that it is not the rule's intent that the indicated costs be used in every situation. The purpose of setting the amounts is to provide an approach which minimizes the burden on the majority of licensees and on the NRC while,providing aserrece of funds for decommissioning. If, in a particular case, the prescribed cost amounts are too high, the licensee has the option of submitting a funding plan with a facility specific cost estimate.
In response to the couneaters who felt the estimates were too low, certain points must be considered in assessing the cosubents and the examples cited. Some of the examples appear to be casas where there was 67
[759000.1) o accidental spread of contamination beyond that normally encountered. The funding assurance provisions of the proposed rule are not intended to address the costs of cleanup resulting from an accident. Provisions for l funding cleanup of accidental releases of radioactive matcrial,were e noted as being under consideration in a separate rulemaking (see Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published June 7, 1985, 50 FR 23960).
Another point to consider is that certain facilities contain larger quantities of radioactive material than are specified in the sections
.. of the rule amendments (i.e., il 30.35, 40.36, and 70.25) permitting use of a prescribed funding amount. Licensies of these facilities would be
. required to submit a decommissioning funding plan con ^aining a cost estimate specific to those larger facilities. Under the provisions of the appropriate sections, licensees of these larger facilities would be permitted to initially use a prescribed amount of $750,000 in their financial assurance planning. However, use of this prescribed amount is only a tesporary action which is intended to reduce the administrative effort associated with implementation of the rule amendments and these licensees are required by the indicated section of the rule to eventually submit a funding plan (with the fac~ility decommissioning cost estimate) at the time ci application for license renewal.
PNL has provided updated decommissioning cost estimates to NRC for use in the final Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Appropriat,e information has been taken fro.a those update s for use in the final rule to account for factors such as inflation. The cost estimates for mate-rial licensees do not specifically include the assumed use of contractor costs because, based on the PNL studies, the prescribed amounts listed in 68
. (7590-01) the rule are considered reasonable in providing adequate funds so that a facility does not become a concern to public health and safety. The additional expense associated with requiring all material licensees to set aside in their funding method the added costs of assuming,use of a contractor is not justified compared to the small number of licensees expected to have to use contractors. ,
The estimated cost of decommissioning is based on activities related to the definition of "decommission" in 10 CFR 30.2 (and similar sections in other parts) and does not include the cost of removal and disposal of nonradioactive structures and materials'beyond that necessary to terminate the NRC license. Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste not necessary for NRC license termination is not covered by these regulations but would be treated by appropriate agencies having responsibility over these wastes.
Several comments were received on the proposed rule sections which list funding methods that 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 applicants and licensees say use and that are considered to provide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning. Five commenters indi-cated that this list was too restrictive and that financial tests of licensees should be utilized in determining acceptable funding methods for materials licensees. These commenters argued that use of financial tests on a case-by-case basis would improve the degree of financial assurance and eliminate unnecessary cost burdens for many non-utility, non government entities. As precedents and examples of tests which could be used by NRC, the commenters generally referred to the financial tests contained in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 for hazardous waste facilities regulated by EPA. The commenters indicated that these tests could be 69
[759001) used alone or combined with licensee guarantees of funds, with self-insurance or with internal reserve as acceptable methods for assuring funds for decommissioning. One commenter indicated that letters of credit provided a cost-effective method for his operations. , , , ,
The Commission did not include the financial test as an acceptable funding method for materials facil' ties in the, proposed rule. It was felt that because of the potential for changing licensee financial conditions and the fairly lengthy time period involved before decoenis-sioning would take place that the financial test would not provide sufficient assurance of the availability' of funds for decommissioning.
Also, additional staff time 4.ould be necessary to monitor the financial status of a number of licensees. This position and the funding methods listed in the proposed decommissioning rule were consistent with the funding methods listed in earlier NRC promulgated rules in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, regarding requirements for funding the decontamina-tion and decomissioning of uranium mills and tailings, and in 10 CFR Part 61 regarding funding for closure of low-level-waste burial grounds.
The commenters point out that the Environmental Protection Agency permits the use of financial tests when accompanied by corporate guarantees for its hazardous waste facilities and recossended that the NRC use similar financial tests for meeting financial assurance require-ments. The staff recognizes that financial tests may be useful in certain situations and can minimize impacts on licensees. Hence, the regulation -
has been modified in the final rule to specifically permit licensees to use parent company guarantees with accompanying financial tests to meet the financial assurance requirements of the regulation. The use of the 70
O parent company guarantee and finsncial test it, taken iPom the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agenc/'s regulations 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.
Use of the parant comp 3ny guarantee and financial test provides assurar.:e in that the company will provide an independent coenitment beyond _ ,
that of the licensee to expend funds. This requirement is condstent with the NRC's Policy Guidance Regarding Parent Company and Licensee Guaran-tees for Uranium Recovery Licensees issued in December 1985. A parent company guarantee may not be used in combination with the other financial methods listed in the rule to satisfy the requirements of this section.
Other funding methods, including letters of credit, will continue to be acceptable for providing assurance of funding. Use of prepaymer.t or other external trust funds is different in approach ' rom use of a surety bond, insurance or other guarantee method. With prepayment, the licensee is actually using the ir,strument to pay for decoenissioning of the facility, while with the second approach, a financial instrument is used as backup to pay for decommissioning in the event that the licensee is unable to complete these activities. If a surety, insurance, or other guarantee method is used to actually pay for decoenissioning, the licensee is still fully responsible for all of its decommissioning requ'rements.
NRC intends to periodically review the overall financial status of licensees to assess the effectiveness of the funding methods permitted in the regulations.
One commenter was concerned that, 'a the case of licensees having satarials licensed under more than one part of 10 CFR and used within 71
e comon facilities, the rule would require a separate decent.issioning plan for each license and recomended that a consolidated plan be allowed. In responte to this coment, in some cases where byproduct, source, and/or special nuclear material are used in the same facilities, it woul.d be very ,
difficult to develop separate decommissioning or funding plans for termin-ating each license, in particular where there is interdependence of t'acili-ties, operations,orprojecteddecommissioningactivities. Consolidated plans based on a combined analysis of the facility decommissioning would be permitted. If a licensee operates multiple independent facilities and/or sites under a single license, a consolidated decommissioning or funding plan would have to delineate procedures and cost estimates for each facility / site. The regulatory guides currently under consideration 1 would include further details concerning these situations. The rule is broad enough to encompass these situations.
Two commenters expressed concern regarding the licensee's respens-ibility for decommissioning. One comenter indicated that it was not clear in the proposed rule whether financial assurance requirements apply to each license, each licensee, or each facility and recommenced that the licensee be specified as the responsible unit. The other commenter I
expressed the concern that there exists th> potential for reducing com-panies' liability for dee.ontamination activities should the WRC approved funding plan be inadequate.
Ir response to these cossents, it should be noted that amended 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 require that each holder of a t,pecifi; j license provide financial assurance for decommissioning thus specifically 1
indicating that the licensee is the responsible party for financial assurance. Funding and decomissioning plans submitted by a holder of f .
l
\ 72 l
, (7590 01) f multiple materials licenses may be consolidated. It is expected that the
{ remdrements contained in amended 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 will provide reasonable assurance that funds are available for decomissioning nuclear facilities. Specifically, 6 30.35 (and related sections in other parts) requires submittal of a funding plan containing an estimate of the cost of decomissioning or use of a certific0 tion of an amount prescribed in l the regulations. The cost estimate contained in the funding plan will be based on site conditions and can use, as a base, information developed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) in a series of reports on l '
technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning nuclear facilities. NRC's
! review and evaluation of the estimate can use not only the PNL reports but experience gained at other materials fe!Iity decomissiunings.
Section 30.35 also providas that the licensee include provisions in the funding plan for adjusting decomissioning cost estimates and associated
( funding levels over the life of the facility to take into account changing i
economic and technical conditions. Even in the event that these efforts result in a shortfall of funds at decommissioning, a matter which concerns the comenter, the regulations specifically state that it is the licensee's responsibility to fand and carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety. Accordingly, the licensee would be under a continuing obligation ta find the seens fo'r completing decommis-sioning.
- 6. Funding requirement, for Federal licensees. One commenter, the 5
Department of the Army, indicated that the proposed requirements for Federal agencies, specifica;ly proposed sections 1.n Parts 30, 40,.50, 70, and 72, requiring a certification that the appropriate government entity will be guarantor of decomissioning funds, appear inconsistent with 73 1
tshrum Federal statute. The commenter suggested either NRC should spearnead statutory relief or establish a Federal agency funding strategy in order to satisfy the intent of the NRC proposed rule.
The Commission, in responding to this comment, notes that,i,t is based on the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. 1341. The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits the creation of an obligation or the expenditure of funds in wxcess of appropriations unless the contract or obligation is authorized by law. The purpose of the Act la to "keep all departments of the Gnvernment, in the matter of incurring obligations for expenditures, within the limits and purposes of appropriations annually provided for
. conducting their lawful functions." 42 Comp. Gen. 272, 275 (1962). The Act applies to transactions among g M rnment agencies as well as transac-tions betwer.n the government and the private sector. See 59 Comp. Gen.
386, 389 (1980).
While the Anti-Deficiency Act might prohibit the expenditure of funds for decommissioning in the absence of an appropriation, nothing in the Anti Deficiency Act prevents a government agency froe seeking appro-priations for future obligations. Nor is there anything in the Act that bars a government agency from obligating appropriated funds for the purpose of complying with rules imposed by other government agencies at the time those rules require an expenditure of funds. Thus, in practice, use could be made of other funding methods besides the certification option such as external funding.
As discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule.,
the purpose of the proposed sections with which the commenter is concerned is to permit licensees to obtain a guarantee that a government agency will assume financial responsibility for decommissioning the facility. This 74 l -
(7590-01) would most likely be possible when the licensee is a State or Federal )
agency or a State-affiliated organization such as a university or hospital.
This provision of the rule recognizes that these licensees should be capable of providing funds for decomissioning. The intentien,of, the proposed rule is that these State and Federal licensees should, early in their facilities' lifetime, be aware of the evpntual decommissioning of the facility, specifically its cor,t, and make their funding bodies aware of those eventual costs. The provisions of the rule requiring naming a guarantor of funds may be subject to misinterpretation. Accordingly, the proposed rule is being modified to indicate that Federal and State lican-
. sees should provide a statement of intent that they have an estimate of the cost to decomission their facilities and that they will obtain funds when necessary for decomissioning. This modification should satisfy the need for assurance from these facilities within the constraints of govern-mental budgetary policies.
- 7. General coments on financial assurance. A number of comenters disagreed specifically with the need for the funding provisions contained in the proposed rule for electric utilities. The primary reasons cited by the commenters for the disagreeunt were the following: utilities are regulated by State and Federal rate regulators who are bound to set a utility's rates such that reasonable costs of serving the public are recovered; NRC has recently eliminated financial qualifications require-ments for reactors and this is a similar situation; most utilities already recover decoennissioning costs in ratc,; utilities recognize that those who benefit from the plant should pay for decommissioning; and that the proposed rule will impose a financial penalty on utilities and will com-plicate the existing process.
75 i
P
, t
- , - - . - - - - - - - . - - , - . - - - , , - ~- ,a--
[7590-01)
In contrast, a number of other commenters indicated that there was a need for rules in this area because they had several concerns over whether adequate funds will be available for decomissioning. Several comenters expressed concern that there must be a clear statement with regard to the ,
responsibility for decomissioning and that utilities should not be able to evade liability for funding of decommissionjng costs. In particular one comenter indicated that a utility could avoid liability for decom-missioning by forming "holding companies" which would protect assets from the liability of a shutdown reactor. The commenter indicated that these holding companies could diversify into new ventures outside the scope of Federal and State regulation, could take funds from the power company, and thus leave the electric utility portion of the company in a finan-cially weak condition. This financially weak utility might find it very difficult to fund decommissioning and therefore become a threat to public health and safety. The comenter indicated that the rule should provide guidelines to address these issues otherwise ratepayers would be stuck with this problem and radiological hazards may exist.
Several comenters addressed the issue of the proper roles of NRC and State and Federal ratemaking agencies in establishing funding methods.
l Some comenters indicated that the rule as presented is satisfactory as long as it is clear in allowing other involved State and Federal authori-ties to decide issues related to the ratemaking impact of decommissioning fund accumulation. The connenters also stated that the rule should not go any further in applying more prescriptive requirements or pre-empting ,
State laws and that the specific funding method should not be prescribed i
by the rule but should be determined by the ratemaking authorities because l l 76
[7590-01) they are in the best position to determine the most effective and economic method to arrive at the least cost option, taking into account taxation, accounting, financial and other local considerations. One commenter indi-cated that the rule should explicitly permit State and Federal ,ratemaking agencies to apply more stringent funding requirements. Commenters indi-cated that NRC's jurisdictional responsibility.and therefore its principal concern should be that decoenissioning is carried out in a safe sanner and that ratemaking bodies should have responsibility for choosing cost-effective funding methods. One comenter expressed concern that there may beseriousjurisdictionalproblemsanddisputeswithNRC'sruleinthatNRC is seeking to exercise control over economic matters related to decomis-sioning expense. The commenter indicated that the NRC should make it clear what functions of,other ratemaking agencies it intends to supplant and how its regulations will fit with existing State and Federal regulation of decomissioning costs. One comenter questioned how NRC will implement the rule in the case of a licensee whose rate regulator does not allow the licensee to recover funds in its rates and set up a decosnissioning fund.
In response to these comments it should be noted that the Cosnission's statutory sandate to protect the radiological health and safety of the public and promote the cosmon defense and security stems principally from l
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. In carrying out its licensing and related 1 I regulatory responsibilities under these acts, the NRC has determined that l this regulation is needed because there is a significant radiation hazard associated with nondecoanissioned nuclear facilities. The NRC has also determined that the public health and safety can best be protected by 77
[7590-01).
promulgating a rule requiring reasonable assurance that at the time of termination of operations adequate funds are available so that decom-missioning can be carried out in a safe and timely manner and that lack of funds does not result in delays that say cause~ potential health and safety problems. Although these Acts do not permit the NRC to regulate rates or to interfere with the decisions of State or Federal agencies respecting the economics of nuclear power, they do authorize the NRC to take whatever regulatory actions may be necessary to protect the public health and safety, including the promulgation of rules prescribing allowable funding methods for meeting decomissioning costs. (See Pacific Gas & Electric v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Develop-ment Comission, 461 U.S.190, 212-13, 217-19 (1983); see also United Nuclear Corporation v. Cannon, 553 F. Supp. 1220, 1230-32 (D.R.I. 1982) and cases cited therein.) The fact that these regulatory actions may have an economic impact does not mean that they lie outside NRC's jurisdiction.
The Comission has considered the roles of the state Public Utility Comissions (PUCs) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), ,
as well as the NRC, in establishing acceptable methods available to nuclear power reactor licensees for accumulating funds for decommission-ing. Each of these agencies has a role in this area. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the responsibility for setting rates for the transmission and r, ale (wholesale) of electricity by investor owned util-ities in interstate cooperce and authorizes the conditions, rates, and charges for interconnections among electric utilities. The sales of 1
I electricity for which FERC would set rates are small, comprising about i
78 i
(7590-01) 13 percent of total U.S. electricity sales. State public utility commis-sions have the responsibility for setting rates for retail sales of electricity to homeowners and companies doing business in their states.
The NRC staff has had contact with staff of the Federal Energy Re,gulatory ,
Commission and with State agencies. These agencies indicated that they recognize the NRC's role in setting standards with respect to health and safety, and, in particular, that they support the rule as it was promul-gated with certain modifications as long as it is understood that states may choose among the funding alternatives based on their specific respon-Jibilities for protecting the interests of consumers by developing reasonable rates for providing public utility services. Under the existing statutory scheme the'NRC has the authority to require specific funding arrangements in order to protect public health and safety whereas i the other agencies do not. NRC's rule amendments permit a State or Federal rata regulatory agency to choose from among the funding alter-natives listed in the final rule and to choose levels of funding based on i
specific considerations related to their ratemaking responsibilities, as for example cost and equitability for escly ratepayers versus later ratepayers.
In response to coseents that there should not be funding requirements for decoenissioning because financial qualification requirements for con-struction have been eliminated, it is NRC's view that the elimination of financial qualification requirements does not eliminate the need for pro-i i viding reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning. When the rule on elimination of financial qualifications was proposed, the Commission stated that decommissioning was more properly dealt with in the separate 1
79 4
- _ . . _ _ _ . . - _ - _ ~ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ , .. . _ _ . _ _ - . - _ - - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ , _ - - , - . _ - ,_n
(7590-01). i l
rulemaking then say. In promulgating the proposed rule on decommis-sioning, Commis,1oner Bernthal drew a distinction between decommissioning '
assurance and the rule on eliminating the financial qualification review at the licensing stage. Factors cited by the cossenters, such,es the presence of rate regulators or recognition that those who benefit from plants should pay all costs, do not provide reasonable assurance in and of themselves thtt health and safety vill be protected.
Some commenters stated that the proposed rule would impose a finan-cial penalty on utilities and complicate the existing regulatory process.
The NRC staff does not believe that this'will occur. The proposed rule l has the narrow focus of protecting public health and safety by having in place basic minimum standards for funding methods which provide reason-
, able assurance of funding for decommissioning in a safe and timely manner. The methods allowed include a variety of methods currently available to licensees. As noted in the response to a coseent in Sec- l
?
l tion C 3, the proposed rule has been modified to delete internal reserve as an acceptable funding method, however, this is not expected to add significantly to licensea's burden for the reasons discussed in Sec-I' tion C.3. As noted in Section C.2 the' certification of funding levels which may be more than but not less than amounts prescribed in the rule 1 is included as a means for minimi.ing licensee burden in complying with the amended regulations. The rule, and the NRC's implementation of it, does not deal with financial ratesaking issues such as rate of fund i i
collection, procedures for fund collection, cost to ratepayers, taxation i
' effects, equitability between early and later ratepayers, accour. ting I procedures, ratepayer versus stockholder considerations, responsiveness j to change and other similar concerns. In addition, the rule does not J 80 i
_ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _ _ , , _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _
[?590 01) deal with costs of demolition of nonradioactive structures and equipment or with site restoration after termination of the NRC license. These matters are outside NRC's jurisdiction and are the responsibility of the State PUC's and FERC. As outlined above, considaring the dist,inc,t roles that the NRC and the ratemaking agencies have, NRC will not become involved in the rate regulation process as it , relates to decomissioning.
Based on the above discussion, the Comission believes that the rule is an equitable means of requiring reasonable assurance of funding for decommissioning without imposing an undue burden on licensees.
With regard to the specific concern regarding formation of b61 ding companies, the NRC could condition the approval of the decomissioning plan by requiring the licensea to include sufficient funds in the er, tab-lishuent of the holding company. In other words, the NRC would not approve the decommissioning plan unless the holding company had suffi-cient assets to meet its obligations pursuant to the decomissioning plan in addition to its normal obligations. Thus, the licensee could not sequester assets and liabilities in a manner which would defeat the decom-missioning plan. The NRC would have sufficient autnority under the Atomic Energy Act and its existing regulations that, if a utility were to try to
! reorganize in order to evade its decommissioning obligations, the Commis-
! sion would be able to take action to prevent any adverse health and safety impacts.
The coreenters also indicated that there must be a clear statement with regard to the responsibility for decommissioning. The Supplementary Information to the proposed rule states that "The licensee is responsible l
for corpleting decommissioning in a manner that protscts health and safety."
In addition, the Supplementary Information and the text of the rule make 81
9' W Vba clear that the licensee must take responsibility for planning for deeort-missioning by providing a reasonable level of assurance that funds are available for decommissioning and, at the time of permanent termination of operations, by submitting a decomissioning plan which addresses ,
the choice of decomissioning alternatives, methods to control occupational and public health and safety, the planned fina) radiation survey, and funding for decomi:;sioning. These provisions make clear that the licensee has the legal responsibility to plan for and accomplish decom-missioning of the facility by preparing the property for release for unrestricted use and that this responsibility cannot be evaded.
D. Residual radioactivity. Comrenters expressed enneerns about the absence of residual radioactivity limits, and urged the NRC to develop such levels as quickly as possible. Reasons given were health and safety concerns, dif ficulty of decomissioning planning, and comonality of objectives concerning waste burial and decomissioning requiring a de-minimis level. Several comenters made specific coments on the nueeric value of the residual limit and how it shoultt be chosen. Comenters also expressed concern that this rule should not be issued until the rule on residual radioactivity levt1 is issued because without it one cannot plan or estimate cost and entirely satisfy financial assurance requirements.
Commenters also indicated that the value of residual radioactivity limits !
will impact cost for non power reactors. l The Comission is participating in an EPA organized interagency l working group which is developing Federal guidance on acceptable residual
- radioactivity levels which would permit property to be released for i
3 82 l
\
p o v w.;
e unrestricted use. Proposed Federal guidance is anticipated to be published by EPA. NRC is planning to implement this guidance as soon as possible. The selection of an acceptable level is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Currently, criteria for residual contani.iatier. levels do exist and research and test reactors are being decosnission'ed using present guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86 for su.* face con-taminstien plus case-by-case considerations for direct radiation. As an example, NRC provided such criteria in letters to Stanford University, dated 3/17/81 and 4/21/82 providing "Radiation criteria for release of the dismantled Stanford Research Reactor to unrestricted access." The NRC is currently developing interim guidance with respect to residual contamination criteria. The cost estimate in a funding plan can be based on current criteria and guidance regarding residual radioactivity levels for unrestricted use. The information in the studies by Battelle j Northwest Laboratory (Refs. 2 thru 13) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory 1
(Refs.17 and 19) on decomissioning have indicated that in any reason-able range of residual radioactivity limits, the cost of decommissioning i
- is relatively insensitive to the radioactivity level and use of cost data i
based on current criteria should provide a reasonable estimate. Even in situations where the residual radioactivity level might have an effect on decommissioning cost, with the update provision in the rule it is expected I that the decommissioning fund available at the end of facility life wil)
! approximate closely the actual cost of decommissioning.
It is imperative that decennissioning regulationr. in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72 be issued at this time because it is incortant to establish financial assurance provisions, as well as other decommissioning J
- 83 t
TFSD8 voj planning provisions, as soon as possibie so that funds will be available to carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety. Based on the need for tne decommissioning rule to supplement provisions currently existirg with those contained in the rule amendments, the Commission believes that the rule can and should be issued now.
E. Environmental Review Reqairements. A number of commenters were concerned that the proposed rule would not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (Els) in connection with each decommis-sioning of a reactor but would require only an environmental assessment
.(EA) unless the assesse.ent showed that an EIS should be prepared in a patticular case, while other commenters made specific comments supporting i this aspect of the proposed rule. Of the commenters opposed, several thought that the proposed rule violated the National Environmental Policy Act, one commenter felt that there ret 1ed to be more successful experience at decommis', toning various types of rst: tors before it could be decided that an EA was sufficient, another sugg.ated that an EIS should be pre-pared for major facilities such as power reactots and fuel fabrication facilities but an EA would be appropriate for smaller facilities, and one commenter suggested that there should be an EIS but that reference to the GEIS could be allowed if careful study or testing or both at a given 1
facility showed that the generic approach was adequate.
A number of commenters who opposed the elimination of the requirement t for a site specific EIS argued that the EIS at licensing could not adequately estimate impacts in detail because much could change in the 30 ,
L i
to 40 years before decommissioning. Although the proposed rule discussed l l 84 1
Li owm the fact that EIS's at licensing should address the impacts of decomis-sioning, the analysis of those impacts at that time is not considered to
(
take the place of evaluating environmental impacts at the time of decom-missioning. At the time of decomis6 4oning, a large quantity of waste !
must be hsndled and disposed of; this waste is essentially a result of having operated. The NRC action to be taken at the time of decommission-ing is to approve an appropriate method of handling this waste. Alterna-tive methods of handling this waste will have different impacts which l can be systematically assessed.
The Commission's primary reason for eliminating a mandatory EIS for i decomissioning is that the impacts have been considered generically in a l GEIS. The Comission determined that examination of these impacts and their cumuistive effect on th* environment and their integration into the waste disposal process could t'est be examined generically. A final, l updated GEIS has been issued (Ref. 20). The GEIS shows that the differ-i ence in impacts among the basic alternatives for decomissioning is small, !
i l and the dose impact of decomissioning is small, whatever alternative is chosen, in comparison with the impact accepted from 40 years of licensed operation. The relative impacts are expected to be similar from plant to plant, so that a site-specific EIS would result in the same conclusions
! as the GEIS with regard to methods of decomissioning. Although some !
t
) comenters correctly point out that an EA is much less detailed in its f j assessment of impacts than an EIS, if the impacts for a particular plant are significantly different from those studied generically because of site specific considerations, the environmental assessment would discover f i
1 l
85 i
(7590001]
those and lay the founday, ion for the preparation of an EIS. If the impacts for a particular plant are not significantly different, a Find-ing of No Significant Impact would be prepared. In answer to the com-ment concerning violation of NEPA, the Comission's rules concernine ,
EA's and EIS's comply with case law and Council on Environmental Quality regulations. In response to the concern that decisions on decomission-ing will be made without public input, decomissioning involves amendment of the operating license and the NRC rules provide an avenue for public input with respect to license amendment.
F. Other General Coments. A number of coments of a general nature, some of which were outside the scope of the regulation, were received. Detailed responses to individual coments are contained in NUREG 1221. General coments discussed below include questions regarding applicability of the regulations to different licensees and those regarding waste disposal.
- 1. Applicability of regulatic.i to different licensees. Some l
l comenters were concerned that the regulations may have been draf ted with l
power reactors in mind and applied to non-power reactors without adequate realization or consideration of the differences in the level of difficulty in decomissioning between these classes of f acilities. They suggested ,
that the rule should distinguish between reactor types and make require- )d sents appropriate for non-power reactors. One comenter pointed out that the costs of decomissioning research reactors are considerably less than those for power reactors and also that there was considerable experience in decomissioning research reactors and that there were no real uncer-f tainties. Another comenter indicated that adequate budgets were difficult 86
O to obtain, that the "existence of research reactors at universities hangs on a thin thread " and that the burden 3f additional requirements could cause these threads to be cut. One comenter suggested that the health and safety of the public is better protected if research reactors are operating and effective rather than to have them shut down or sade ineffec-tive and that additional rules which result in "nonproductive" work and costs take resources needed for effective tesearch centers.
In response, it should be noted that the Commission has not drafted the rule amendments for power reactors and then applied it to non power reactors without taking into consideration the differences. The data base included a contractor study addressing the techno13gy, safety, and costs of decommissioning research and test reactors (Ref. 4). The com-ments concerning lower costs, more experience, fewer hazards, and open-ended operating life are true, however, these factors na94 been considered.
The rule does distinguish between power and non power reactors in the methods allowed for financial assurance. The methods allowed for non-power reactors are the same as for saterials licensees and require commitJnent or guarantee at startup of the total amount of funds needed for decomissioning, whereas power reactor licensees have the option of I
building up the fund over facility life. As a means of minimizing the burden, Federal or State government licensees may provide a statement of intent indicating that funds for decommissioning will be obtained when necessary. Tne burden of providing financial assurance in the case of private non-power reactors is unavoidably greater, but will be in line withtheprojectedcostsfortheparticularreactor. The remarks of the comenter concernad about existence of research reactors hanging on a 87 1.
thin thread, in fact, support the conclusion that financial assurance is *
- needed in the case of research reactors.
In regard to decomissioning plans, no.vpower reactors were never exempted from submitting "dismantlement plans." The rule sets out the contents of deconenissioning plans with no distinction for classes of reactors. However, the level of effort in dev, eloping plans and in the amount of material submitted will vary in practice commensurate with the
. level of effort required for the decomissioning. The Comission has attempted to minimize the burden of complying with these rules to the extent possible.
- 2. Waste disposal considerations relats *..' decomissioning. A numcer of comenters indicated that NRC must carefully study wastes resulting from decomissioning and provide proper classification of these wastes. Commenters stated that decommissioning standards should incit c clear definitions of high level (including spent fuel), low-level, and "intermediate level" wastes and consideration should be given to means of i
transport and proper disposal for different types of decommissioning I wastes so that wastes are not placed into burial grounds for which they
- are not suited. Also, consideration should be given to availability of disposal capacity for the different classes of decossaissioning wastes.
In particular, long lived activation oducts, such as Ni-59 or Nb-94, should not be classified as low-level waste nor buried at LLW disposal I sites. Commenters suggested that long lived wastes and wastes containing intense emitters be classified as high level waste. Also "intermediate ;
level" wastes containing long lived isotopes should not be buried in f low-level waste disposal sites. Concern was expressed by four commenters l that without availability of disposal capacity there could be problems l
- u l
l
l uith carrying out decommissioning, in particular lack of high-level taste sites could cause problems.
In response to these comments it should be noted that criteria for wastes needing te be disposed of at the time of decommissioning are con-tained in existing regulations and are beyond the scope of f.hf's Fulemaking action. Disposal of spent fuel will be via geologic repository pursuant to requirements set forth in NRC's regulation 10 CFR Part 60. Disposal of low-level wastes is covered under NRC's regulation 10 CFR Part 61.
Because low-level w e tes cover a wide range in radionuclide types and activities, ?.0 CFR Part 61 includes a waste classification system that establishes three classes of waste generally suitable for near-surface disposal: Class A, Class B, and Class C. This classification system provides for successively stricter disposal requirements so that the potential risks from disposal of each class of waste are eswntially equivalent to one another. In particular, the classification system limits to safe levels the concentrations of both short- and long-lived radionuclides of concern to low-level waste disposal. The radionuclides considered in the waste classification system of 10 CFR Part 61 include long-lived activation products such as Ni-59 or Nb-94, as well as "intense emitters" such as Co-60. -
Wastes exceeding Class C limits are considered to be not generally suitable for near-surface disposal, and those small quantities currently
( being generated are being safely stored pending development of disposal capacity. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L.99-240, approved January 15, 1986, 99 Stat. 1842) provides that disposal of wastes exceeding Class C concentrations is the responsibility 89 l
of the Federal government. These wastes cay be considered to basically a correspond to the "intermediate-waste" designation suggested by comenters.
As far as decommissioning wastes are concerned, technical studies coupled with practical experience from decomissioning of small reactor units indicate that wastes from future decomissionings of larg[ power reactors will r ve a very similar physical and radiological characteristics to those currently being generated from reactor operations. Two of the studies performed by NRC include NUREG/CR-0130, Addendum 3, (Ref. 2) and NUREG/CR-0672, Addendum 2, (Ref. 3) which specifically address classifica-tion of wastes from decommissioning large pressurized water reactor (PWR)
,and large boiling water reactor (BWR) nuclear power stations. These studies indicate that the classification of low-level decomissioning wastes from power reactors will be roughly as follows:
Waste Class PWR (Vol. %) BWR (Vol. %)
A 98.0 97.5 B 1.2 2.0 C 0.1 0.3 Above C 0.7 0.2 As shown, the great majority of the waste volume from decomissioning will be classified as Class A waste. Only a small fraction of the wastes will exceed Class C limits.
Transportation of decomissioning wastes will involve no additional technical considerations beyond those for transportation of existing radioactive material. Existing regulations covering transportation of radioactive material are covered under NRC regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20, 71, and 73, and Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR Parts 170-189.
90
Ow1'%3 O
Disposal capacity for Class A, Class B, and Class C tastes currently exists. Development of new disposal capacity under the State compacting process is covered , der the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Poiicy Amendments Act referen ed above. This Act provides for incentives for development of such capacity, ts well as penalties for failure to develop su'c'h capacity.
NRC staff expects that Congress will provide guidance for development of disposal capacity for wastes exceeding Class C concentrations. For spent fuel, which although not included as a decomissioning activity could nevertheless impact on the decommissioning schedule, a detailed schedule for development of monitored retrievable, storage and geologic disposal capacity is provided in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
Licensees will have to assess the situation with regard to waste disposal as part of the decommissioning plan which they submit according to the requirements of 10 CFR 30.36, 40.42, 50.82, 70.38 and 72.38. In addition, the rule amendments require that at or about five years prior to the projected end of operation, each reactor licensee submit a prelimi-nary decomissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decomissioning and an up-to-date assessment of the actions necessary for decomissioning.
The Supplementary Information of the proposed rule indicated that this requirement would assure that consideration be given to relevant, up-to-date information which could be important to adequate planning and funding for decomissioning well before decommissioning actually begins. These considerations include an assessment of the current waste disposal condi-tions. If for any reasori disposal capacity for decomissioning wastes were unavailable, there are provisions in 5 50.82 to allow delay in completion of decomissioning which would permit temporary safe storage of decomissioning waste. In addition, 5 50.82 contains requirements to 91
ensure that adequate funding is available for completion of delayed .-
decommissioning.
The Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicated that the DECON decomissioning alternative assumes availability of capacity to dispose of waste. Alternative methods of decommissioning are avail-able including delay in completion of decommissioning during which time there can be storage of wastes. Delay in decomissioning can result in a reduction of occupational dose and waste vol:.me due to radioactive decay.
PIRG, et al. , Petition for Rulemaking, D.ocket No. PRM-50-22.
On July 5,1977, as supplemented October 7,1977, and January 3,1978 the Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), Arizonans for Safe Energy, Citizens United Against Radioactive Environment, Community Action Research Group, Critical Mass Energy Project, Environmental Action Foundation, Environmental Action, Inc., New Mexico Public Interest Research Group, New York Public Interest Research Group, North Anna Environmental Coalition, Texas Public Interest Research Group, and National Consumer Law Center Energy Project (hereinafter the ' petitioners'), petitioned the Comission to initiate rulemaking to promulgate regulations for nuclear power plant decommissioning which would require plant operators to post bonds, to be held in escrow, to ensure that funds would be available for proper and adequate isolation of radioactive material upon each plant's decomissioning, i
On June 22, 1979, the Comission published in the Federal Register i (44 FR 36523) a partial denial of the petitioners' request. In this 1
, notice the Commission specifically denied tne petitioners' request to l imediately initiate rulemaking to implement a specific decomissioning 1
funding plan that would require nuclear power plant operators to post j 92 l
L/ m -01J
\
O surety bonds to cover decommissioning costs. The Comission granted the j petitioners' request to reconsider the adequacy of its regulations on l 1
decommissioning. The Commission indicated that other issues and funding alternatives rai:,ed by the petitioners would be considered within the context of the NRC decomissioning rulemaking proceedings.
In addition to surety bonds, the petitioners advanced two other options to finance nuclear power reactor decomissioning: (1) funds in an amount sufficient to pay for projected decomissioning would be set aside in an escrow account before comencing reactor operations, and (2) funds would be accumulated in a sinking fund during the life of the plant supplemented by a surety arrangement as necessary to allow for the risk of a licensed utility going bankrupt before the sinking fund had accumulated sufficient funds. The petitioners indicated that the require-ments should apply to existing licensees as well as future licensees.
The petitioners also raised the issue of the Commission's jurisdiction to regulate the arrangements for decommissioning. The original petitioners joined by others, submitted coments in response to the Federal Register i
notice (44 FR 36523, June 22, 1979). These coments were received on l
November 21, 1979. The coments discussed NRC's jurisdiction to promul-l gate rules mandating specific require.nents covering decomissioning costs, the need for NRC to establish a rule requiring its licensees to make specific financial plans to meet decomissioning costs, surety bonds as a supplementary option, and the disadvantage of unfunded alternatives.
The PIRG petition and the petitioners' supplementary coments were considered in the development of this rule. The Comission agrees that its regulationr. should be amended to require that licensees plan for decommissioning and provide reasonable assurance that 'unds will be 93
r
[7590-01]
O available to cover decommissioning costs when needed. For reasons discussed in the previous sections, the Commission does not believe it is necessary, or desirable, to require a specific financial method for col-1ecting decommissioning funds beyond the listing in the modifi,ed proposed rule. The amendments require licensees to submit a report indicating the level of funding and the funding method for assuring that funds will be available for decommissioning. Acceptable methods are indicated in the amendments. This procedure covers all applicants for operating licenses and existing licensees under Part 50. To the extent that the petitioners would require promulgation of a specific method for financing power reactor
. decommissioning, the petition is denied. To the extent that the proposed amendments would allow consideration of the petitioners' suggested financing methods, including surety bonds if they are available, the petition is granted. This action completes NRC consideration of the issues raised in PRM-50-22.
References
- 1. Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Policy on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0436, Revision 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion, December 1978, and Supplement 1, Jt.ly 1980, and Supplement 2, March 1981.
- 2. R. I. Smith, G. J. Konzek, and W. E. Kennedy, Jr., Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0130, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, June 1978, Addendum 1 August 1979, Addendum 2, July 1983, Addendum 3, Septtember 1984, and Addendum 4, (To Be Published).
- 3. H. D. Oak et al. , Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissionino a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0672, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for.the U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, June 1980, Addendum 1, July 1983, Addendum 2 September 1984, and Addendum 3, (To Be Published).
94
- 4. G. J. Konzek, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning Refer-ence Nuclear Research and Test Reactors, NUREG/CR-1756, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1982, and Addendum, July 1983.
- 5. Norm G. Wittenbrock et al., Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decom-missioning Light Water Reactors at a Multiple Reactor Station, NUREG/
CR-1755, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U. L huclear Regulatory Commission, January 1982.
- 6. Emmett B. Moore, Jr. , Facilitation of Decommissioning of Light Water Reactors, NUREG/CR-0569, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 1079.
- 7. E. S. Murphy, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning Refer-ence Light Water Reactors Following Accidents, NUREG/CR-2601, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1982.
- 8. K. J. Schneider and C. E. Jenkins, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Deconmissioning a Reference Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plant, NUREG-0278, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1977.
- 9. H. R. Elder and D. E. Blahnik, Te:hnology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plant, NUREG/
CR-1266, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1930.
- 10. H. R. Elder, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Plant, NUREG/CR-1757, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, October 1981.
- 11. C. E. Jenkins, E. S. Murphy, and K. J. Schneider, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Small Hixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant, NUREG/CR-0129, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1979.
- 12. E. S. Murphy, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning Refer-ence Non-Fuel-Cycl _e Nuclear Facilities, NUREG/CR-1754, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1981.
- 13. J. D. Ludwick and E. B. Moore, Technology, Safety and costs of Decom-missioning Reference Independent 5 pent Fuel Storage Installations,
) NUREG/CR-2210. Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 1984.
I 14. Robert S. Wood, Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommission-ing Nuclear Facilities Draft Resort, NUREG-0584, Revision 3, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,i4 arch 1983.
l 95 l
l l
l
[7s90-01] l
- 15. Financing Strategies For Nuclear Power Plant Decomissioning, NUREG/
CR-1481, Prepared by Temple, Barker, and Sloan, Inc., for the New England Conference of Public Utilities Comissioners, Inc. , for U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1980. I
- 16. P. L. Chernick et al., Design, Costs and Acceptability of an Elec-tric Utility Pool for Assuring the Adequacy of Funds for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Expense; NUREG/CR-2370, Prepared by Analysis and Inference, Inc. , for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comis-sion, December 1981.
- 17. C. F. Holoway and J. Witherspoon, Monitoring for Com>11ance with Decommissioning Tennination Survey Criteria, NUREG/CF2082, Prepared ,
by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory '
Comission, June 1981.
- 18. J. J. Siegel, Utility Financial Stability and the Availability of !
Funds for Decommissioning, NUREG/CR-3899, Prepared by Engineering I and Economics Research, Inc., for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,
Comission, September 1984 and Supplement 1, (To Be Published).
]
'19. J. P. Witherspoon, Technology and Cost of Termination Surveys Asso- l ciated With Decomissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG/CR-2241, !
Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory foi U3. Nuclear Reguu- 1 tory Comission, January 1982.
- 20. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0586, January 1981, and Final Generic Environment.a1 Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis- ,
sion, NUREG-0586, (To Be Published). !
- 21. H. K. Elder, Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning Refer-ence Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Non-Fuel Cycle Facilities Following Postulated Accidents, NUREG/CR-3293, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, May 1985.
- 22. H. K. Elder, Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning Refer-ence Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities, NUREG/CR-4519, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comis-sion, May 1986.
- 23. J. C. Evans et al., Long Lived Activation Products in Reactor Mate-rials, NUREG/CR-3474, Frepared by Pacific Corthwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, August 1984,
- 24. K. H. Abel et al., Residual Radionuclide Contamination Within and Around Comercial Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-4289, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, February 1986.
! 96 1 1
- - - - - - , , - - _ . - - , . , . g. - --,._,, ,-,,,-._,,,.,,,y__,__ _ . _. ,y ,_ , , , , , , , , . , _ , , ,
'o 25. 1. S. LaGuardia and J. F. Risley, Identification and Evaluation of Facilitation Techniques for Decommissioning Light Water Power Reat-tors NUREG/CR-3587, Prepared by TLG Engineering, Inc. for the U.S.
NucTe,ar Regulatory Commission, June 1986.
- 26. Summary, Analysis, and Response to Public Conaents on Proposed Amend-ments on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-1221, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, (To Be Published). =-
- 27. Report on Waste Buried Charges, NUREG-1307, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
( Commission, (To Be Published).
Draft copies of reference Items 18, 20, 26, and 27 and of Addendum 4 of Reference 2 and Addendum 3 of Reference 3 are available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW.,
Washingtcn, DC 20555. These items are to be published in the near future l
l as NUREGs. After publication, these items will also be made available through the U.S. Government Printing Office and the National Technical Information Service.
Copies of all other referenced documents may be purchased through the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, l'.S. Department of Comerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is available for inspection or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20555.
Environmental Impact Statement: Availability As required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has 97
prepared a final generic environmental impact statement on the decomis-sioning of nuclear facilities.
A draf t of the final generic environmental impact stntreent (FGEIS) is available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20555.
The FGEIS is to be publist.ed in the near future as a NUREG.
Af ter publication, the FGEIS will also be available by purchase from the U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202)275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.
Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S.
Departr.,ent of Commerce, 5285 Port Roye.1 Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. ).
These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget under approval numbers:
Part 30-3150-0017; Part 40-3150-0020; Part 50-3150-0011; Part 70-3150-0009; and Part 72-3150-0132.
Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this final regulation.
The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the altu-natives considered by the Commission.
The analysi,s is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from C. Feldman, or 98 I
(7590-01]
F. Cardile Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-3883.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as-
- As required by the Regulatory Flexibility,Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the NRC has carefully considered the effect on small entities in
@ veloping the final rule and has attempted to tier the requirements to reduce the impact on small entities to the extent possible while adequately protecting health and safety.,
Based on the information available, it is not expected that this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rule broadly affects all Comission applicants and licensees and, because Agreement States will be required to maintain compatibility with the proposed changes, the rule also affects Agreement State applicants and licensees. There are approximately 9,000 Commission l
licenses, which include about 5,200 byproduct ma+arial licenses under Parts 30 through 34, 2,500 medical licenses under Part 35, 400 source material licenses under Part 40, 200 production and utilization licenses f
(including approximately 50 applications in various stages of review) under Part 50, 700 special nuclear material licenses under Pt.rt 70, and 1 license and approximately 5 potential applicants under Part 72. Between 11,000 and 12,000 Agreement States' licensees are also affected.
The Comission estimates that approximately 40 percent of its licensees are considered small entities under the recently adopted NRC size standards (51 FR 50241; December 9,1985). The NRC size standards for entities to be considered as small businesses are as follows:
l l 99 l
l 1 - . - -
(7590-013'
- For most licensees, annual billings of $3.5 million or less
- For private practice physicians, annual billing of $1 million or less
- For State or public education institutions, the instpution is supported by a jurisdiction with a population of 50,000 or less .
- For other educational institutions, the institution has 500 or fewer employees.
Licensees under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 72 are not considered small entities.
All licensees including small entities will be required to keep records important to decommissioning. In general, for small licuisees, such recordkeeping is "good practice" and should not ccnstitute a signif-icant change in operation. Generally, keeping records important to decommissioning reduces both the costs and health and safety impacts of decommissioning and can also result in savir.gs in doses or costs during operation. Costs of recordkeeping would tend to De recouped either in operation or at decommissioning.
The changes contained in this rule at the time of termination of license affect few small entities. ThJse changes consist primarily of specifying in more detail contents of decommissioning plans, presently called "decontaniination plans" in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70. Although more detailed plans may be required than have been considered acceptable in the past, there will also be a reduction in administrative effort because there will be less uncertainty as to what.is expected. Overall, these changes are not expected to have a significant impact.
i 100
[7590-01]
The most significant impact of this rule on licensees is likely to result from the financial assurance requireme.its. A cost estimate for decommissioring and a method of providing assurance of funds for decom-missioning will be required of roughly 830 Commission licensees ,
of which few if any will be small entities. Roughly another 660 Commission licee sees including about 280 small entities will have the option of providing financial assurance in a prescribed amount and submitting a certification to that effect or submitting a funding plan to support a lower amount. A similar number of Agroement State licensees would also be affected. Those small entities affected would be almost. exclusively industrial licensees.
Because the historical information indicates that small industrial licen-sees tre the most likely to default, it is particularly important that financial assurance be provided by these licensees. The rule allows as much flexibility as possible to licensees for providing financial assur-ance, in order to reduce the impIct. Also, the economic impact of making cost estimates can be reduced by using the data base which has been developed.
The cost of this requirement depends on the method used. A surety I or insurance method is likely to be used by small entities; it is esti-1 mated to cost approximately 1 to 2% of the face value, or 1 to 2% of decommissioning costs annually, plus the administrative cost of either l
devt. loping a cost estimate and reporting on the funding methods to NRC or of making a certification. The cost of a surety using the prescribed amounts proposed in the rule would thus be in the range of $500 - $10,000 per year. For a few small entities affected this would be a significant economic impact, however, these cases would present the highest risk of l default.
l 101 L
[7590-01) ,.
A more detailed analysis of impacts to small entities is included in the Regulatory Analysis.
Backfit Analysis The Commission has determined, on the basis of the record in this rulemaking, that tha backfits which will be imposed as a result of this rule are necessary to ensure the adequate protection of public health and safety. Therefore, under section (a)(3) of the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, neither a backfit analysis not application of the backfit rule's coet-benefit stanfards is required for this rule. The regulatory analysis
.of these amendments constitutes the documented evaluation required by section (a)(4) of the backfit rule. This analysis contains the objectives of, and reasons for, the backfits entailed by these amendments and provides the basis for claiming that these backfits are necessary to ensure adequate protection to public health and safety.
ListofSubjects Part 30 - Byproduct material, Government contracts, Intergovern-mental relations, Isotopes, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Radiation pro-tection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Part 40 - Government contracts. Hazardous materials - transportation, Nuclear materials, Penalty, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Source material, Uranium.
Part 50 - Antitrust, Classified information, Fire prevention, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power i
l 102
[7590-01) plants and reactors, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Part 51 - Administrative practice and procedure, Environmental impact statement, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Part 70 - Hazardous materials - transportation, Nuclear acterials, Packaging and containers, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.
Part 72 - Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72.
PART 30 - RULES OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY TO DOMESTIC LICENSING OF BYPRODUCT MATERIAL
- 1. The authority citation for Part 30 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 81, 82, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat. 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amend 2d (42 U.S.C. 2111, 2112, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 30.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 30.34(b) also issued under sec. 184, 103
N 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 30.61 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273), $$ 30.3, 30.34(b) and (c), 30.41(a) and (c), and 30.53 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and $$ 30.6, 30.9, 30.36, 30.51, 30.52, 30.55, and 30.56(b) and (c) are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 2. Section 30.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (aa) to read as follows:*
$ 30.4 Cefinitions.
A A A A A (aa) "Decommission" means to remove (as a facility) safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted uoe and termination of license.
- 3. Section 30.32 is amended by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
$ 30.32 Application for specific licenses.
A A A A A (h) As provided by 6 30.35, certain applications for specific licanses filed under this part and Parts 32 through 35 of this chapter must r.outain a proposed decoreitsioning funding plan or a certification of firancial .isourance for decommissioning. In the case of renewal
[2yearsafter applications subnitted befure effective date] this submittal may follow the renettal application but .iust be submitted on or befort [:wo years aff.er effective date].
104
[7590-01)
- 4. A new $ 30.35 is added to read as follows:
$ 30.35 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decomissioning.
(a) Each applicant for a specific license authorizing the possession and use of unsealed byproduct material of half-life greater than ,_
120 days and in quantities exceeding 105 times the applicable quantities set forth in Appendix C to 10 CFR 20 shall submit a decommissioning funding plan as described in paragraph (e) of this section. The decomissioning funding plan must tiso be submitted when a combination of isotopes is involved if R divided by 105 is greater than 1 (unity rule), where R is defined here as the sum of the ratios of the quantity of each isotope to the applicable value in Appeni x C.
(b) Each applicant for a specific license authorizing possession and use of byproduct material of half-life greater than 120 days and in quantities specified in paragraph (d) of this section shall either--
(1) Submit a decommissioning funding plan as described in para-f graph (e) of this section; or (2) Submit a certification that financial assurance for decommis-sioning has been provided in the amount prescribed by paragraph (d) of this section using one of the methods described in paragraph (f) of this section. For an applicant, this certification may state that the appro-priate assurance will be obtained af ter the application has been approved and the license issued but prior to the receipt of licensed material.
As part of the certification, a copy of the financial instrument obtained
! to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section is to be subritted to NRC.
l l
105
[7590-01]
(c)(1) Each holder of a specific license 1ssued on or after [two years af tet effectivedate] which is of a type described in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section, shall provide financial assurance for decommissioning in accor-dance with the criteria set forth in this section.
(2) Each holder of a specific license issued before [2yearsaftereffectivt date) and of a type described in paragraph (a) of this section shall submit, on
[2yearsafter or before effective date), a decommissioning funding plan or a certifi-cation of financial assurance for decommissioning in an amount at least .
equal to $750,000 in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. If the licensee submits the certification of financial assur-ance rather than a decommissioning funding plan at this time, the licen-see shall include a decommissioning funding plan in any application for license renewal.
(3) Each holder of a specific license issued before [2yearsafter effectivedate]
and of a type described in paragraph (b) of this section shall submit, on L2 years after or before effective date3 a certification of financial assurance for decommissioning or a decommissioning funding plan in accordance with the ,
criteria set forth in this section.
(d) Table of required amounts of financial assurance for decommis-sioning by quantity of material.
greater than 104 but lets than or $750,000 equal to 105 times the applicable quantities of Appendix C of Part 20 in unsealed form. (For a combination of isotopes, if R, as defined in 9 30.35(a), divided by 10' io greater t than 1 but R divided by 106 is less than or equal to 1.)
106
. [7590-01) greater than 108 but less than or equal $150,000 to 108 times the applicable quantities of Appendix C of Part 20 in unsealed form. (For a cos,bination of isotopes, if R, as defined in 5 30.35(a), divided by 103 is greater than 1 but R divided by 104 is less than or equal to 1.) , , ,
greater than 1010 times the applicable $75,000 quantities of Appendix C of Part 20 in sealed sources or plated foils. (For.
a combination of isotopes, if R, as defined in 5 30.35(a), divided by 1010 is greater than 1).
(e) Each decommissioning funding plan must contain a cost estimate for decommissioning and a description of the method of assuring funds for decommissioning from paragraph (f) of this section, including means of adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the facility.
(f) Financial assurance for decommissioning must be provided by one or more of the following methods:
(1) Prepayment. Prepayment is the deposit prior to the start of operation into an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control of cash or liquid assets such that i
the amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs.
Prepayment may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, j certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities.
(2) A sure'ty method, insurance, or other guarantee method. These methods guarantee that decommissioning costs will be paid should the licensee default. A surety method may be in the form of a surety bond, letter of credit, or line of credit. A parent company guarantee of funds for decommissioning costs based on a financial test may be used if the guarantee and test are as conteined in Appendix A to this part. A parent 107 l
L /WU-Ulj company guarantee may not be used in combination with other financial methodh to satisfy the requirements of this section. Any surety methed or insurance used to provide financial assurance for decoenissioning must contain the following conditions: ,
(i) The surety m6thod er in?vrance must be open-ended or, if written for a sper.1 fled term, such as five years, w st,be renewed automatically urle:3 Su days or more 'oita to the renewal date, the issuer notifies the Commission, the beneficit v, ed the licentee of it; intention not to renew. The surety method v. inwaruce must also provide that the full face amount be paid to the bk.sficiary autozatically prior to the
, expiration withot t proof of forfeiture if the licensee fails to provide a replacement acceptable to the Comission within 30 days af ter receipt of notification of cancellation.
(ii) The surety method or insurance must be payable to a trust established for decommissioning costs. The trustee and trust must be acceptable to the Commission. An acceptable trustee includes an appro-priate State or Federal government agency or an entity which has the authority to act as a trustee and whose trust operations are regulated and examined by a Federal or State agency.
(iii) The surety method or insurance must remain in effect until the Commission has terminated the license.
(3) An external sinking fund in which deposits are made at least annually, coupled with a surety method or insurance, the value of which may decrease by the amount beirg accumulated in the sinking fund,. An external sinking fund is a fund established and maintained by setting aside funds periodically in an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control in which the total amount 108
)
[7590-01]
of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs at the time termination of operation is expected. An external sinking fund may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities. The surety or insurance provisions must be as stated in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(4) In the case of Federal, State, or lopal government licensees, a statement of intent containing a cost estimate for decommissioning or an amount based on the Table in paragraph (d) of this section, and indi-cating that funds for decommissioning will be obtained when necessary.
(g) Each person licensed under this part or Parts 32 through 35 of this chapter shall keep records of information important to the safe and effective decommissioning of the facility in an identified locat 4 n until the license is terminated by the Commission. If records of relevant in-formation are kept for other purposes, reference to these records and their locations may be used. Information the Commission considers impor-tant to decommissioning consists of--
(1) Records of spills or other unusual occurrences involving the spread of contamination in and around the facility, equipment, or site, These records may be limited to instances when contamination remains after j
any cleanup procedures or when there is reasonable likelihood that con-taminants may have spread to inaccessible areas as in the case of possible seepage into porous materials such as concrete. These records must include l
j any known inforeation on identification of involved nuclides, quantities, forms, and concentrations.
(2) As-built drawings and modifications of structures and equipment in restricted areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored, and of locations of possible inaccessibis contamination such as buried 109
(7590-Q1]
pipes which may be subject to contamination. If required drawings are referenced, each relevant document need not be indexed individually. If drawings are not available, the licensee shall substitute appropriate records of available information concerning these areas and l g ations.
(3) Records of the cost estimate performed for the decommissioning funding plan or of the amount certified for decommissioning, and records of the funding method used for assuring funds if either a funding plan or certification is used.
- 5. Section 30.36 is revised to read as follows:
$ 30.36 Expiration and termination of licenses.
(a) Except as provided in 5 30.37(b) and paragraph (e) of this sec-tion, each specific license expires at the end of the day, in the month ,
and year stated in the license.
(b) Each licensee shall notify the Commission promptly, in writing under i 30.6, and request termination of the license when the licensee decides to terminate all activities involving materials authorized under the license. This notification and request for termination of the license must include the reports and information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (v) of this section and a plan for completion of decommissioning if required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section or by license condition.
(c)(1) If a licensee does not submit an application for license renewal under i 30.37, the licensee shall on or before the expiration date specified in the license -
i 110 i
(7590-01)
(i) Terminate use of byproduct material; (ii) Remove radioactive contamination to the extent practicable except for those procedures covered by paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section; ,,
(iii) Properly dispose of byproduct material; (iv) Submit a completed form NRC-314, which certifies information concerning the disposition of materials; and (v) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed activities were carried out and submit a report of the results of this survey, unless the licensee demonstrates that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use in some other manner. The licensee shall, as appropriate -
(A) Report levels of radiation in units of microrads per hour of beta and gama radiation at one centimeter and gama radiation at one meter from surfaces, and report levels of radioactivity, including alpha, in units of disintegrations per minute (or microcuries) per 100 square centimeters removable and fixed for surfaces, microcuries per milliliter for water, and picoeuries per gram fcr solids such as soils or concrete;
- and (B) Specify the survey insttument(s) used and certify that each instrument is properly calibrated and tested.
l (2)(i) In addition to the information required under paragraphs l
l (c)(1)(iv) and (v) of this section, the licensee shall submit a plan for completion of decommissioning if the procedures necessary to carry out decommissioning have not been previously approved by the NRC and could I
increase potential health and safety impacts to workers or to the public such as in any of the following cases:
111
[7590001)
(A) Procedures would involve techniques not applied routinely during cleanup or maintenance operations; or (B) Workers would be entering areas not normally occupied where surface contamination and radiation levels are significa,nt,1y higher than routinely encountered during operation; or (C) Procedures could result in significantly greater airborne concentrations of radioactive materials than are present during operation; or (D) Procedures could result in significantly greater releases of raoactive material to the environment than those associated with
. operation.
(ii) Procedures with potential health and safety impacts may not be carried out prior to, approval of the decommissioning plan.
(iii) 'e proposed decomissioning plan, if required by paragraph (c)
(2)(i) of th u lection or by license condition, must include--
(A) Description of planned decomissioning activities; (B) Description of methods used to assure protection of workers and the environment against radiation hazards during decommissioning; (C) A description of the planned final radiation surve/; and i (0) An updated detailed cost estimate for decommissioning, compar-ison of that estimate with present funds set aside for decommissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds for completion of decomissioning.
(iv) The proposed decomissioning plan will be approved by the l Comission if the inforsation therein demonstrates that the decommission-ing will be completed as soon as is reasonable and that the health and
! safety of workers and the public will be adequately protected.
112 l
-- - - - - - -----w_---_.-------~g
. ,,--,--,,-.-_,w ,.m _._n-_n.,.- ~ , . - - , - -,-.,,,.--,.----,n-- e..-, m-
(7590-01)
(3) Upon approval of the decomissioning plan by the Comission, the licensee shall complete decommissioning in accordance with the approved plan. As a final step in decommissioning, the licensee shall again submit the information required in paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this sectio,n and shall certify the disposition of accumulated wastes from decomissioning.
(d) If the information submitted under ppragraphs (c)(1)(v) or (c)(3) of this section does not adequately demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use, the Comission will inform the licensee of the appropriate further actions required for termination of license. -
(e) Each specific license continues in effect, beyond the expiration date if necessary, with respect to possession of residual byproduct mate-rial present as contamination until the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated. During this time, the licensee shall--
(1) Limit actions involving byproduct material to those related to decommissioning; and (2) Continue to control entry to restricted areas until they are suitable for release for unrestricted use and the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated.
(f) Specific licenses will be terminated by written notice to the licensee when the Commission determines that--
(1) Byproduct material has been properly ;isposed; (2) Reasonable effort has been made to eliminate residual radio-
- active contamination, if present; and (3)(i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use; or i
113
l
[7590-01) e' (ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use. I S. A new Appendix A is added to Part 30 to read as folbws:
APPENDIX A .
CRITERIA RELATING TO USE OF FINANCIAL TESTS AND PARENT COMPANY GUARANTEES FOR PROVIDING REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUNDS FOR DECOMilSSIONING
.I. Introduction.
An applicant or licensee ray provide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning based on obtaining a parent company guarantee that funds will be available for decommissioning costs and on a demonstration that the parent company passes a financial test.
This appendix establishes criteria for passing the financial test and for obtaining the parent company guarantee.
II. Financial Test.
A. To pass the financial test, the parent company must meet the criteria of either paragraph A.1 or A.2 of this r', 'n:
- 1. The parent company must have:
(i) Two of the following three ratios: a ratio of total liabilities to net worth less than 2.0; a ratio of the sum of net income plus deprecia-tion, depletion, and amortization to total liabilitie greater than 0.1; and a ratio of current assets to current liabilities greater than 1.5; and 4
114 1
[7590-01]
(ii) Net working capital and tangible net worth each at least six times the current decommissioning cost estimates (or prescribed amount if a certification is used); and (iii) Tangiele net worth of at least $10 million; and ar *
(iv) Assets located in the United States amounting to at least 90 percent of total assets or at least six times the current decommissioning cost estimates (or prescribed amount if a certification is used).
- 2. The parent company must have:
(i) A current rating for its most recent bond issuance of AAA, AA, A, or BBB as issued by Standard and Poor.'s or Aaa, Aa, A, or Baa as issued by Moody's; and (ii) Tangible net worth at least six times the current decommission-ing cost estimate (or prescribed amount if a certification is used); and (iii) Tangible net worth of at least $10 million; and ;
(iv) Assets located in the United States amounting to at least 90 percent of total assets or at least six times the current decommis-sioning cost estimates (or prescribed amount if certification is used).
B. The parent company's independent certified public accountant must have compared the data used by the parent company in the financial test, which is derived from the independently audited, year end financial statements for the latest fiscal year, with the amounts in such financial statement. In connection with that procedure the licensee shall inform NRC within 90 days of any matters coming to the auditor's attention which cause the auditor to believe that the data specified in the financial test should be adjusted and that the company no longer passes the test.
115
(7590-01)
C. 1. After the initial financial test, the parent company must repeat the passage of the test within 90 days after the close of each succeeding fiscal year.
- 2. If the parent company no longer meets the requirements of para- ,
graph A of this section, the licensee must send notice to the Commission of intent to establish alternate financial assurance as specified in the Commission's regulations. The notice must be sent by certified mail within 90 days after the end of the fiscal year for which the year end financial data show that the parent company no longer meets the financial test requirements. The 'iicensee must provide alternate financial assurance within 120 days after the end of such fiscal year.
III. Parent Company Guarantee.
The terms of a parent company guarantee which an applicant er licensee obtains must provide that:
A. The parent company guarantee will remain in force unless the guarantor sends notir.e of carxe11 5 t L oy certified mail to the licensee and the Commission. Cancellation may not occur, however, during the 120 days beginning on the date of receipt of the notice of cancellation by both the licensee and the Commission, as evidenced by the return receipts.
B. If the licensee fails to provide alternate financial assurance as specified in the Commission's regulations within 90 days after receipt by the licensee and Coanission of a notice of cancellation of the parent company guarantee from the guarantor, the guarantor will provide such.
alternative financial assurance in the name of the licensee.
116
C. The parent company guarantee and financial test provisions cust remain in ef fect until the Commission has terminated the license.
D. If a trust is ertablished for decommissioning costs, the trustee and trust must be acceptable to the Commission. An a(ceptable trastee includes an appropriate State or Federal Government agency or an entity which has the authority to act as a trustee and whose trust operations are regulated and examined by a Federal or State agency.
PART 40 - DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F SOURCE MATERIAL
- 7. The authority citatiun for Part 40 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Sees. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat.
932, $33, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, secs. 11e(2), 83, 84, Pub. L.95-604, 92 Stat. 3033, as amended, 3039, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444,
- as amended (42 U.S.C. 2014(e)(2)), 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2311, 2113, 1
l 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat.
l l
688 (42 U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842,.5846); sec. 275, 92 Stat.
3021, is amended by Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2067 (42 U.S. 2022).
Section 40.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10,*92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 40.31 (g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 40.46 also issued under sec.184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 40.71 also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
For the purposes of 'sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. t 2273); il 40.3, 40.25(d)(1)-(3), 40.35(a)-(d), 40.41(b) and (c), 40.46, 117
(7590-O'1] ,
40.51(a) and (c), and 40.63 are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended. (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); and $$ 40.5, 40.9, 40.25(c), (d)(3),
and (4), 40.26(c)(2), 40.35(e), 40.42, 40.61, 40.62, 40.64, and 40.65 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 8. Section 40.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (s) to read I
as follows: ,
. l
$ 40.4 Definitions. l
- a a a n l
(s) "Decommission" means to remove (as a facility) safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license.
- 9. Section 40.31 is amended by adding a new paragraph (1) to read l r i
as follows: ,
$ 40.31 Applications for specific licenses.
= = = a m (i) As provided by $ 40.36, certain applications for specific f licenses filed under this part must contain a proposed decommissioning 9
funding plan or a certification of financial assurance for decommission- l ing. In the case of renewal applications submitted before [2 years af ter effective date) this submittal may follow the renewal application but must be [
submitted on or before [2 years af ter #ffective date] '
t I
l f t
1 118 l
- (7590-01)
- 10. A new i 40.36 is added to read as follows:
6 40.36 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning.
Except for licenses authorizing the receipt, possession, and use of source material for uranium or thorium milling, or byproduct material at sites formerly associated with such milling, for which financial assurance requirementt are set forth in Appendix A of this part, criteria for pro-viding financial assurance for decommissioning are as follows:
(a) Each applicant for a specific license authorizing the posses-sion and use of more than 100 mci of source material in a readily dispers-ible form shall submit a decot:cissioning funding plan as described in
! paragraph (d) of this section.
(b) Each applicant for a specific license authorizing possession and use of quantities of source material greater than 10 mci but less than or equal to 100 mci in a readily dispersible form shall either--
(1) Submit a decommissioning funding plan as described in para-graph (d) of this section; or
, (2) Submit a certification that financial assurance for decommis-sioning has been provided in the amount of $150,000 using one of the methods described in paragraph (e) of this section. .For an applicant, this certification may state that the appropriate assurance will be ob-tained after the application nas been approved and the license issued but prior to the receipt of licensed material. As part of the certification, a copy of the financial instrument obtained to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section is to be submitted to NRC.
119
(7590-01) ,.
(c)(1) Each holder of a specific license istued on or after [2 years af ter effectivedate) which is covered by paragraph (a) or (b) cf this section, shall provide financial assurance for decommissioning in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section.
(2) Each holder of a specific license issued before [2 years af ter effectivt date] and covered by paragraph (a) of this section shall submit, on or (2 years af ter before effective date} a decommissioning funding plan or certification of financial assurance for decommissioning in an amount at least equal to
$750,000 in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. If the licensee submits the certification of financial assurance rather than a decommissioning funding plan at this time, the licensee sna11 include a decommissioning funding plan in any application for license renewal.
a (3) Each holder of a specific license issued before ,ff,aC ve te]
and covered by paragraph (b) of this section shall submit, on or before
[2 years af ter effective date), a certification of financial assurance for decommission-ing or a decommissioning funding plan in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section.
(d) Each decommissioning funding plan must contain a cost estimate for decommissioning and a description of the method of assuring funds for decommissioning from paragraph (e) of this section, including means of adjusting i ist estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the facility. 1 (e) Financial assurance for decommissioning must be provided by one or more of the following methods:
(1) Prepayment. Prepayment is the daposit prior to the start of operation into an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the ,
licensee's administrative control of cash or liquid assets such that the 120
(7590-01) amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs. Pre-payment may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities.
(2) A surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method. These methods guarantee that decomissioning costs will be paid should the licensee default. A surety method may be in the form of a surety bond, letter of credit, or line of credit. A parent company guarantee of funds for decommissioning costs based on a financial test may be used if the guarantee and test are as contained in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 30. A parent company guarantee may not be used in combination with other finan-cial methods to satisfy the requirements of this section. Any surety method or insurance used to provide financial assurance for decomission-ing must contain the following conditions:
(i) The surety method or insurance must be open-ended or, if written for a specified term, such as fiv2 years, must be renewed auto-matica11y unless 90 days or more prior to the renewal date, the issuer notifies the Comission, the beneficiary, and the licensee of its inten-tion not to renew. The surety method or insurs. ice must also provide that the full face amount be paid to the beneficiary automa'.ically prior to the expiration without proof of forfeiture if the licensee fails to I
provide a replacement acceptable to the Comission within 30 days after receipt of notification of cancellation.
(ii) The surety method or insurance must be payable to a trust established for decommissioning costs. The trustee and trust must be acceptable to the Commission. An acceptable trustee includes an appro-priate State or Federal government agency or an entity which has the 121 i
e
[7590-01) authority to act as a trustee and whose trust operations are regulated and examined by a Federal or State agency.
(iii) The surety method or insurance must remain in effect until the Commission has terminated the license.
(3) An external sinking fund in which deposits are made at least annually, coupled with a surety method or insu,rance, the value of which may decrease by the amount being accumulated in the sinking fund. An external sinking fund is a fund established and maintained by setting aside funds periodically in ar account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control in which the total
, amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs at the time termination of operation is expected. An external sinking fund may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities. The surety or insurance provisten must be as stated in paragraph (t)(2) of this section.
(4) In the case of Federal, State, or local government licensees, a statement of intent containing a cost estimate for decommissioning or an amount based on paragraph (b) of this section, and indicating that funds for decommissioning will be obtaired when necessary.
(f) Each person licensed undar this part shall keep records of information important to the safe and effective decommissioning of the facility in an identified location until the license is terminated by the Commission. If records of relevant information are kept for other pur-poses, reference to these records and their locations may be used. Infor-mation the Commission considers important to decommissioning consists of--
l l
4 l 122 i
[7590-01)
(1) Records of spills or other unusual occurrences involving the spread of contamination in and around the facility, equipment, or sh .
These records may be limited to instances when contamination remains after any cleanup procedures or when there is reasonable likelihood that contam-inants may have spread to inaccessible areas as in the case of pBssible seepage into porous materials such as concrete. These records must include any known information on identification of involved nuclides, quantities,
. forms, and concentrations.
(2) As-built drawings and modifications of structures and equipment in restricted areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored, and of locations of possible inaccessible contamination such as buried pipeswhichmaybesubjecttocontamination. If required drawings are referenced, each relevant document need not be indexed individually. If drawings are not available, the licensee shall substitute appropriate records of available information concerning these areas and locations.
(3) Records of the cost estinate performed for the decommissioning funding plan or of the amount certified for decommissioning, and records of the funding method used for assuring funds if either a funding plan or certification is used.
- 11. Section 40.42 is revised to read as follows: ,
5 40.42 Expiration and termination of licenses.
(a) Except as provided in i 40.43(b) and paragraph (e) of this sec-tion, each specific license expires at the end of the day, in the month and year stated in the license.
(b) Each licensee shall notify the Commission promptly, in writing under 5 40.5, and request termination of the license when the licensee 123 m .- -. - - . - , - , - -- n---- ,,,------- - - - . ~,
e
(7590 01) decides to terminate all activities involving materials authorized under the license. This notification and request for termination of the license must include the reports and information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (v) of this section and a plan for completion of decommis-sioning,ifrequiredbyparagraph(c)(2)ofthissectionorby'1fcense condition. ,
(c)(1) If a licensee does not submit an application for license renewal under i 40.43, the licensee shall on or before the expiration date specified in the license--
(i) Terminate use of source material; (ii) Remove radioactive contamination to the extent practicable except for those procedures covered by paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section; (iii) Properly dispose of source material; (iv) Submit a completed form NRC-314, which certifies information concerning the disposition of materials; and (v) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed activities were carried cut and submit a report of the results of this survey, unless the licensee demonstrates that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use in some other manner. The licensee shall, as appropriate-- .
(A) Report levels of radiation in units of microrads per hour of beta and gamma radiation at one centimeter and gamma radiation at one meter from surfaces, and report levels of radioactivity, including alpha, in units of disintegrations per minute (or microt:uries) per 100 square 124
. (7590 01) centimeters removable and fixed for surfaces, microcuries per milliliter for water, and picoeuries per gram for solids such as soils or concrete; and (B) Specify the survey instrument (s) used and certify that each instrument is properly calibrated and tested.
(2)(i) In addition to the information requirJd under paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) and (v) of this section, the licensee shall submit a plan for completion of decommissioning if the procedures necessary to carry out decommissioning have not been previously approved by the NRC and could increase potential health and safety impacts to workers or to the public such as in any of the following cases:
(A) Procedures would involve techniques not applied routinely during cleanup or maintenance operations; or (B) Workers would be entering areas not normally occupied where surface contamination and radiation levels are significantly higher than routinely encountered during operation; or
. (C) Procedures could result in significantly greater airborne concentrations of radioactive materials than are present during opera-tion; or ,
(D) Procedures could result in significantly greater releases of radioactive material to the environment than those associated with
' operation.
(ii) Procedures with potential health and safety impacts may not be carried out prior to approval of the decoenissioning plan.
(iii) The proposed decommissioning plan, if required by parsgraph(c)
(2)(i) of this section or by license condition, must include--
l 1
125 l
l
(7590-01)
(A) Description of planned dacomissioning activities; (B) Description of methods used to assure protection of workers and the environment against radiation hazards during decommissioning; (C) A description of the planned final radiation survey; and
~
(D) An updated detailed cost estimate for decommissioning,' compar-ison of that estimate with present funds set apide for decomissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds for completion of decomissioning.
(iv) The proposed decommissioning plan will be approved by the Comis-sion if the information therein duonstrates that the decomissioning will
,be completed as soon as is reasonable and that the health and safety of workerk and the public will be icequately protected.
(3) Upon approval of the decomissioning plan by the Comission, the licensee shall complete decommissioning in accordance with the approved plan. As a final stcp in decomissioning, the licensee shall again submit the information required in paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section and shall certify the disposition of accumulated wastes from decomissioning. I (d) If the information submitted under paragraphs (c)(1)(v) or (c)(3) of this section does not adequately demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use, the Commissian will inform I the licensee of the appropriate further actions required for termination of license.
1 (e) Each specific license continues in effect, beyond the expiration l l
date if necessary, with respect to possession of residual source material ,
present as conta:nination until the Comission noti.fies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated. During this time, the licensee shall--
126 l
l
(1) Limit actions involving source material to those related to decommissioning; and (2) Continue to control entry to restricted areas until they are suitable for release for unrestricted use and the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated.
(f) Specific licenses will be terminated by written notice to the licensee when the Commission determines that--
(1) Source material has been properly disposed; (2) Reasonable effort has been made to eliminate residual radio-active contamination, if present; and (3)(i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use; or (ii) Other information submitted by the licensee is sufficient to demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use.
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
- 12. The authority citation for P6rt 50 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended. 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as atended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
127
[7590-08) !
l
,- 1 Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and
~
50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. S55 (42 U.S.C. 2235). Sec-tions 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also !
issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42
,U.S.C. 2152). Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat.
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234). Section 50.103 also under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138). Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.", C.
2273); il 50.10(a), (b), and (c), 50.44,50.46,50.48,50.54,and50.80(a) <
i are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b));
IS 50.10(b) and (c), and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611, 6A Stat. 945, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and il 50.9,50.55(e),50.59(b),50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, and 50.78 are issued undtr sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 13. A new definition is added to $ 50.2 in appropriate alphabetical order to read as follows:
5 50.2 Definitions.
128
[7590-08)
"Decommission" means to remove (as a facility) safely from service and reduce residual ra.iioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license.
A R R R R
~
- 14. Section 50.33 is amended by republishing the inbodultory text of paragraph (f), revising paragraphs (f)(2) and (4), and adding para-graph (k) to read as follows:
i 50.33 Contents of applications; general information.
Each application shall state:
a a n a n (f) Except for an electric utility applicant for a license to oper-ate a utilization facility of the type described in i 50.21(b) or 5 50.22, information sufficient to demonstrate to the Cosimirsion the nancial qualification of the applicant to carry out, in accordance with reguia-tions in this chapter, the activities for which the permit or license is sought. As applicable, the following should be provided:
. m a a n (2) If the application is for an operating ilcense, the a ciicant shall submit information that demonstrates the applicant p ssesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necossary to cover esti-mated operation costs for the period of the 1 4ense. The applicant shall l submit estimates for total annual operatin's costs for each of the first five years of operation of the facility. The applicant shall also indi-cate the source (s) of funds to cover these costs. An application to renew or extend the term of an operating license must include the same finan-cial information as is required in an application for an initial license.
. . a m .
129 l
(4) The Comission may request an establishsd entity or newly-formed entity to submit additional or more detailed information respect-ing its financial arrangements and status of funds if the Comission considers this information appropriate. This may include information regarding a licensee's ability to continue the conduct of the activities authorized by the license and to decommission the facility.
m a n x =
(k)(1) For an application for an operating license for a produc-tion or utilization facility, information in the form of a riport, as described in 5 50.75 of this part, indicliting how reasonable assurance will De provided that funds wi'l be available to decommission the facility.
[2 years m<nus 1 day (2) On or before after effective , each holder of an operating date]
license is a production or utilization facility in effect on [2yearsafter e
effective date] shall submit information in the form of a report as described in 5 50.75 of this part, indicating how raasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility.
- 15. Section 50.51 is revised to read as follows:
5 50.51 Duration of license, renewal.
Each license will be issued for a fixed p1riod of time to be speci-fied in the license but in no case to exceed 40 years fron the date of issuance. Where the operation of a facility is involved the Commission will issue the license for the term requested by the applicant or for the estimated useful life of the facility if the Comission determines that the estimated useful life is less than the term requested. Where l construction of a facility is involved, tee Commission may specify in the construction permit the period for which the license will be issued 130
if approved pursuant to i 50.56. Licenses cay be renered by the Comis-sion upon the expiration of the period. Application for termination of license is to be made pursuant to i 50.82.
- 16. A new i 50.75 is added to read as follows:
i 50.75 Reporting and recordkeeping for decomissioning planning.
(a) This section establishes requirements for indicating to NRC how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available for decomissioning. For electric utilities it consists of a step-wise procedure as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (e), and (f) of this section. Funding for decomissioning of electric utilities is also subject to the regulation of agencies (e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory Comission (FERC) and State Public Utili+,y Comissions) having jurisdic-tion over r:te regulation. The requirements of this section, in parti-cular paragraph (c), are in addition to, and not substitution for, other requirements, and are not intended to be used, by themselves, by other agencies to establish rates.
(b) .Each electric utility applicant for or holder of an operating license for a production or utilization facility of the type and power level specifiev,in paragraph (c) of this section shall submit a decom-1 missioning report, as required by 5 50.33(k) of this part containing a
! certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be pro-vided in an amount which may be avre but not less than the amount stated in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, adjusted annually using
' a rate at least equal to that stated in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, i by one or more of the methods described in paragraph (e) of this section as acceptable to the Comission. The amount stated in the applicant's or 131
(759001) licensee's certification may be based on a cost estimate for decommission-ing the facility. As part cf the certification, a copy of the financial instrument obtained to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section is to be submitted to NRC.
(c) Table of minimum amounts (January 1946 dollars) requir'e'd to demonstrate reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning by reactor type and power level, P (in MWt); adjustment factor.1 ,
(1)(i) For a PWR:
greater than or equal $105 Million to 3400 MWt ,
between 1200 MWt and 3400 MWt $(75 + 0.0088P) Million (For a PWR of less than 1200 MWt, use P=1200 MWt)
(ii) For a BWR:
greater than or equal $135 Million to 3400 MWt between 1200 MWt and 3400 HWt $(104 + 0.009P) Million (For a BWR of less than 1200 MWt, use P=1200 MWt)
(2) An adjustment factor at least equal to 0.65 L + 0.13 E + 0.22 B t is to be used where L and E are escalation factors for labor and energy, respectively, and are to be taken from regional data of U.S. Department
, of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics and B is an escalation facter for waste burial and is to be taken from NRC report NUREG-1307, "Report on Waste Burial Charges."
' Amounts are based on activities related to the definition of "Decommis-sion" in 5 50.2 of this part and do not include the cost of removal and disposal of spent fuel or of nonradioactive struc'tures and saterials beyond that necessary to terminate the license.
132 1
\
- l (d) Each non-electric utility applicant for or holder of an operat-ing license for a production or utilization facility shall submit a decom- l missioning report as required by 5 50.33(k) of this part containing a cost estimate for decommissioning the facility, an indication of which method or methods described in paragraph (e) of this section as accept-able to the Comission will be used to provide, funds for decomission-ing, and a description of the means of adjusting the cost estimate and associated funding level periodically over the life of the facility.
(e)(1) As provided in paragraphs (e)(2) and (3) of this section, financial assurance is to be provided by.the following methods:
(i) Prepayment. Prepayment is the deposit prior to the start of operation into an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control of cash or liquid assets such that the amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decomissioning costs.
Prepayment may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or doncstt of government securities.
(ii) External sinking fund. An external sinking fund is a fund est:t:11shed and maintained by setting funds aside periodically in an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control in which the total amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs at the time termination of operation is expected. An external sinking fund may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities.
i (iii) A surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method. These methods guarantee that decomissioning costs will be paid should the licen-see default. A surety method may be in the form of a surety bond, letter i
133 l
i -_.
(7590 01) of credit, or line of credit. Any surety method or insurance used to provide financial insurance for decomissioning must contain the following conditions:
(A) The surety method or insurance must be open-ended or, if written for a specified term, such as five years, must be renewed automatically unless 90 days or more prior to the renewal date, the issuer notifies the Commission, the beneficiary, and the licensee of its intention not to renew. The surety or insurance must also provide that the full face amount be paid to the beneficiary automatically prior to the expiration without proof of forfeiture if the licensee fails to provide a replacement accep-
. table to the Commission within 30 days after receipt of notification of ;
cancellation.
(B) The surety or. insurance must be payable to a trust established fer decommissioning costs. The trustee and trust must be acceptable to the Commission. An acceptable trustee includes an appropriate State or Federal government agency or an entity which has the authority to act as a trustee and whose trust operations are regulated and examined by a l Federal or State agency.
(C) The surety method or insurance must remain in effect until the Commission has terminated the license.
(2) For a licensee other than an electric utility, acceptable methods of providing financial assurance for decomissioning are--
(1) Prepayment; (ii) An external sinking fund, in which deposits are made at least annually, coupled with A surety method or insurance, the Value of which may decrease by the amou n being accumulated in the sinking fund, 1
I 134 t
(1590-01) 0 (iii) A surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method. A parent company guarantee of funds for decommissioning costs based on a financial test may be used if the guarantee and test are as contained in Appendix A of 10 CFP Part 30. A parent company guarantee may not be used in combina-tionwithotherfinancialmethodstosatisfytherequirementso[this section. ,
(iv) In the case of Federal, State, or local government licensees, a statement of intent containing a cost estimate for decommissioning, and indicating that funds for decommissioning will be obtained when necessary.
(3) For an electric utility, acceptable methods of providing finan-cial assurance for decommissioning are--
(i) Prepayment; (ii) An external sinking fund in which deposits are made at least annually; (iii) A surety method or insurance; and (iv) In the case of Federal government licensees, a statement of intent containing a cost estimate for decommissioning or an amount based on paragraph (c) of this section, and indicating that funds for decem-missioning will be obtained when necessary.
(f) Each licensee shall at or about 5 years prior to the projected 1
and of operation submit a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decosnissioning and an up-to-date assessment of the i
major technical factors that could affect planning for decoenissioning.
Factors to be considered in submitting this information include--
(1) The decommissioning alternative anticipated to be used. The requirements of 5 50.82(b)(1) must be considered at this time; f
135
l
[7590-08) ,
(2) Major technical actions necessary to carry out decommissioning safely; (3) The current situation with regard to disposal of high-level and low level radioactive waste; l (4) Residual radioactivity criteria; (5) Other site specific factors which co,uld affect decommissioning planning and cost.
If necessary, this submittal shall also include plans for adjusting levels of funds assured for decommissioning to demonstrate that a reasonable level of assurance will be provided that funds will be available when needed to cover the costs of decommissioning. ,
(g) Each licensee shall keep records of information important to the safe and effective decommissioning of the facility in an identified loca-tion until the license is terminated by the Commission. If records of relevant information are kept for other purposes, reference to these re- i 1
cords and their locations may be used. Inforastion the Cosnission con-siders important to decommissioning consists of --
l i (1) ' Records of spills or other unusual occurrences involving the spread of contamination in and around the facility, equipment, or site. .
- i These records may be limited to instances when significant contamina-
- tion remains after any cleanup procedures or when there is reasonable likelihood that contaminants may have spread to inaccessible areas as in the case of possible seepage into porous materials such as concrete.
These records must include any known information on identification of l i
involved nuclides, quantities, forms, and concentrations.
(2) As-built drawings and modifications of structures and equipment f
in restricted areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored i
- 136
. [7590-01]
and of locations of possible inaccessible contamination such as buried pipes which may be subject to contamination. If required drawings are referenced, each relevant document need not be indexed individually. If drawings are not available, the licensee shall substitute appropriate records of available information concerning these areas and locations.
(3) Records of the cost estimate performed for the decommissioning funding plan or of the amount certified for decommissioning, and records of the funding method used for assuring funds if either a funding plan or certification is used.
- 17. Section 50.82 is revised to read as follows:
$ 50.82 Application for termination of license.
(a) Any licensee may apply to the Commission for authority to sur-render a license voluntarily and to decommission the facility. For a facility that permanently ceases operation af ter [effectiv2 date) this application must be made within two years following permanent cessation of operatior,, and in no case later than one year prior to expiration of the operating license. Each application for termination of license must be accompanied, or preceded, by a proposed decommissioning plan. For a facility which has permanently ceased operation prior to [ effective datel requirements for, contents of the decommissioning plan as specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section may be modified with approval of the Commission to reflect the fact that the decommissioning process has been initiated previously.
(b) The proposed decommissioning plan must include--
(1) The choice of the alternative for decommissioning with a des-cription of activities irvolved.
137
(7590-O'1] ,
(i) For an electric utility licensee, an alternative is acceptable if it provides for completion of decommissioning within 60 years. Consio-sideration will be given to an alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years only when necessary to protect ,
the public health and safety. Factors to be considered in evaluating an alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond -
60 years are set out in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
(ii) For a licensee other than an electric utility, an alternative is acceptable if it provides for completion of decommissioning without significant delay. Consideration will be given to an alternative which
.provides for delayed completion of decommissioning only when necessary to protect the public health and safety. Factors to be considered in evaluating an alternative which provides for delayed completion of decom-missioning are set out in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
(iii) Factors to be considered in making the evaluations required by paragraphs (b)(1)(i) &nd (b)(1)(ii) of this section include unavail-ability of waste di gosal espacity and other site specific factors affecting the licensee's esptbility to carry out decommissioning safely, j including prGience of c oer nuclear facilities at the site. .
a 1 (2) A desceIption of controls and limits on procedures and equip-ment to protect occupational and public health and safety; l (3) A description of the planned final radiation survey; l
(4) An updated cost estimate for the chosen alternative for decom-missioning, comparison of that estimate with present funds set aside for l
decommissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds
! for complation of decommissioning. l r
j l 138 1
[759001)
(5) A description of technical specifications, quality assurance provisions and physical security plan provisions in place during decom-missioning, (c) Decomissioning plans which propose an alternative that delays
~
completion of decommissioning by including a period of storage or long-term surveillance must provide that--
(1) Funds needed to complete decommissioning be placed into an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's admin-istrative control during the storage or surveillance period, or a surety rethod or fund statement of intent be maintained in accordance with the criteria of 5 50.75 (e), and (2) Heans be included for adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels over th storage or surveillance period.
(d) Fordecommissioningplansinwhichthemajordismantlement activities are delayed by first placing the facility in storage, planning for these delayed activities may be less detailed. Updated detailed plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of these activities.
(e) If the decommissioning plan demonstrates that the decomission-
- ing will be performed in accordance with the regulations in this chapter and will not be inimical to the comen defense and security or to the
- health and safety of the public, and after notice to interested persons, the Commission will approve the plan subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate and necessary and issue an order authorizing the decomissioning.
(f) The Comission will terminate the license if it determines that--
139
(759001) ,
(1) The decommissioning has been per formed in accordance with the approved decommissioning plan and the order authorizing decommissioning; and (2) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrates that the facility and site are suitable for release for unrestricted use. ,
PART 51 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS P
, 16. The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201);
l secs. 201, as amended, 202, B8 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C.
5841,5842).
Subpart A also issued under National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, secs.102,104,105, 83 Stat. 853 854, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4332, 4334, .
4335); and Pub. L.95-604, Title !!, 92 Stat. 3033 3041. Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as amended by 92 Stat. 3036-l 3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021). (
i 5 51.20 [ Amended) i
- 19. Section 51.20 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(5) and (10).
I I
l 140 l
[759001)
- 20. In 5 51.53, paragraph (b) is revised to read as fo11ews:
$ 51.53 Supplement to Environmental Report.
m a a e n (b) Post operating license stage. Each applicant for a license amendment authorizing the decommissioning of a production or utilization facility covered by 6 51.20 and each applicant,for a license or license amendment to store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor after expira-tien of the operating license for the nuclear power reactor shall submit with its application the number of copies, as specified in 5 51.55, of a separate document, entitled "Supplement.to Applicant's Environmental Report Post Opwating License Stage," which will update "Applicant's Environmental Report--Operating License Stage," as appropriate, to reflect any new information or significant environmental change associated with the applicant's proposed decommissioning activities or with the appli-cant's proposed activities with respect to the planned storage of spent fuel. Unless otherwise required by the Comission, in accordance with t he generic determ' nation in 5 51.23(a) and the provisions in 5 51.23(b),
the applicant shall only address the environmental impact of spent fuel storage for the term af the license applied for. The "Supplement to Applicant's Environmental R6 port -Post Operating License Stage" may incorporate by reference any information contained in "Applicant's Environmental Report--Construction Permit Stage," "Supplement to Appli-cant's Environmental Report--Operating License Stage," final environ-mental impact statement, supplement to final environmental impact statement or records of decision previously prepared in connection with the construction permit or operating license.
141
[7s v ulj
- 21. In 5 51.55, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
5 51.55 Environmental Report - Number of copies; distribution.
(a) Each applicant for a license to construct and operate a produc-tion or utilization facility covered by paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3) or (b)(4) of i 51.20 and each applicant for a license amendmen't authoriz-ing the decommissioning of a production or uti,lization facility covered by i 51.20, and each applicant for a license or lictnse amendment to store spent fuel at a nuclear power reactor af ter expiration of the operating license for the nuclear power reactor shall submit to the Director of Nuclear Res.ctor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and -
Safeguards, as appropriate, forty-one (41) copies of an environmental report, or any supplement to an environmental riport. The applicant shall retain an additional 109 copies of the environmental report or any supplement to the environmental report for distribution to parties and Boards in the NRC proceeding, Federal, State, and local officials and
, any affected Indian tribes, in accordance with written instructions !stued by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate.
a a a a a
- 22. Section 51.60 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
$ 51.60 Environmental Report - Materials licenses.
I (a) Each applicant for a license or other form of permission, or an amendment to or renewal of a Itcense or other form of permission issued i pursuant to Parts 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 40, 61. 70 and/or 72 of this chapter, and covered by paragraphs (b)(1)-(b)(6) of this section, shall l submit with its application to the Director of Nuclear Material Safety i 142
. (759001) and Safeguards the number of copies, as specified in 5 51.66, of a sepa-rate document, entitled "Applicant's Environmental Report" or "Supplerrent to Applicant's Environmental Report," as appropriate. The "Applicant's Environmental Report" shall cuntaia the information specified in S 51.45.
If the application is for an amendment to or a renewal f a license or '
other form of permission for which the applicant has previously submitted an environmental report, the supplement to applicant's environmental reperi, may be limited to incorporating by reference, updating or supp',e-menting the information previously submitted to reflect any significant environmental change, including any significant environmental change resulting from operational experience or a change in operations er pro-posed decommissioning activities.
m a a a a
- 23. In i 51.95, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
$ 51.95 Suppiertent to final environmental impact statement.
e n a n n (b) Post operating license stage, in connection with the amendment of an operating license to authorize the decommissioning of a production or utilization facility covered by 5 51.20 or with the issuance, amend-ment or renewal of a license to store spent fuel at a nuclear power react r af ter expiration of the operating license for the nuclear power reactor, the NRC' staff will prepare a supplemental environmental impact
- statement for the post operating license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, which will update the prior environmental review. The supplement or assessment may incorporate by reference any information contained in the final environmental impact statement, the supplement to the final environmental impact statement operating 143
license stage, or in the records of decision prepared in connection with the construction permit or the operating license for that facility. The supplement will include a request for coments as provided in i 51.73.
Unless otherwise required by the Comission, in accordance with the genericdeterminationin551.23(a)andtheprovisionsof55[.23(b),a supplemental environmental impact statement fo,r the post operating license stage or an environmental assessment, as appropriate, will address the environmental impacts of spent fuel storage only for the term of the license, license amendment or license renewal applied for.
PART 70 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SPECIAL NUCLEARNATERIAL
- 24. The authority section for Part 70 is revised to read as follows:
AUTh0RITY: Sees. 51, 53, 161, 182, 183, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 948, 953, 954, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2282); secs. 201, as amended. 202, 204, 206, 88 Stat.
1242, as amended, 1244, 1245, 1246 (42. U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5845, 5846).
Section 70.7 also issued under Pub. L. 95 601, sec. 10, 92 Stat.
2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851). Section 70.21(g) also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152). Section 70.31 also issued under sec. 57d, Pub. L.93-377, 88 Stat. 475 (42 U.S.C. 2077). Sections 70.36 and 70.44 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Section 70.61 also issued under secs, 186, 187, 68, Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.
2236,2237). Section 70.62 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2136).
144
. (7590-01)
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273), SS 70.3, 70.19(c), 70.21(c), 70.22(a), (b), (d)-(k), 70.24(a) and (b), 70.32(a)(3), (5), (6), (d), and (i), 70.36, 70.39(b) and (c), 70.41(a),
70.42(a) and (c), 70.56, 70.57(b), (c), and (d), 70.58(a)-(g)(3), and (h)-(j) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201(b));SS70.7,70.20a(a)and(d),70.20b(c)and(e),70.21(c),70.24(b),
70.32(a)(6), (c), (d), (e), and (g), 70.36,70.51(c)-(g),70.56,70.57(b) and (d), and 70.58(a)-(g)(3), and (h)-(j) are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and SS 70.5,70.9,70.20b(d) and (e), 70.38, 70.51(b) and (i), 70.52, 70.53, 70.54, 70.55, 70.58(g)(4),
(k), and (1), 70.59, and 70.60(b) and (c) are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 25. Section 70.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (bb) to read as follows:
S 70.4 Definitions, a
- a a n (bb) "Decommission" means to remove (as a facility) safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license.
- 26. Section 70.22 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:
$ 70.22 Centents of applications.
(a) Each application for a license shall contain the following information:
n e a a a 145
[7590-0J]
F (9) As provided by $ 70.25, certain applications for specific licenses filed under this part must contain a proposed decommissioning funding plan or a certification of financial assurance for decommission-
[2 years af ter ing. In the case of renewal applications submitted before effectivedate] '
this submittal may follow the renewal application but must be submitted on or before .
- a a a a
- 27. A new $ 70.25 is added to read as follows:
$ 70.25 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decormissioning.
(a) Each applicant for a specific license authorizing the posses-sion and use of unsealed special nuclear material in quantities exceeding 105 times the applicable quantities set forth in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20 shall submit a decommissioning funding plan as described in paragraph (e) of this section. A decommissioning funding plan must also be submitted when a combination of isotopes is involved if R divided by 105 is greater than 1 (unity rule), where R is defined here as the sum of the ratios of the quantity of each isotope to the applicable value in Appendix C.
(b) Each applicant for a specific license authorizing possession and use of unsealed special nuclear raterial in quantities specified in paragraph (d) of this section shall either--
(1) Submit a decommissioning funding plan as described in paragraph (e) of this section; or (2) Submit a certification that financial assurance for decommis-sioning has been provided in the amount prescribed by paragraph (d) of this section using one of the methods described in paragraph (f) of this 146 l
, [7590-01) section. For an applicant, this certification may state that the appro-priate assurance will be obtained after the application has been approved and the license issued but prior to the receipt of licensed material.
As part of the certification, a copy of the financial instru nent obtained to satisfy the requirements of parag oph (e) of this section is to be submitted to NRC.
a (c)(1) Each holder of a specific license issued on or fyeae e e) after ff'a
,ct ye te) which is of a type described in paren--
or (b) of this section, shall provide financial assurance for '.ecom-missioning in accordance with the criter'ia set forth in this section.
(2) Each holder of a specific license issued before fffar gt ve te) and of a type described in paragraph (a) of this section shall submit, on y a or before fflae e e} a d1 commissioning funding plan or certifica-tion of financial assurance for decommissioning in an amount at least equal to $750,000 in accordance with the criteria set forth in this sec-tion. If the licensee submits the certification of financial assurance ;
rather than a decommissioning funding plan at this time, the licensee shall include a decommissioning funding plan in any application for
, license renewal a
(3) Each holder of a specific license issued before fff8(fye g (e,j l
and of a type described in paragraph (b) of this section shall submit, on r W ore ya ca n nanc a anurance for ff,ct ve te'] a cu decommissioning or a decommissioning funding plan in accordance with the criteria set foeth in this section.
(d) Table of required amounts of financial assurance for decommis-sioning by quantity of material.
1 147
[7590-0))
greater tt.an 104 but less than or equal 6750,000 to 105 times the applicable quantities of Apperdix C of Part 20. (For a com-bination of isotopes, if R, as defined in i 70.25(a), divided by 104 is greater than 1 but R divided by 105 is less than or equal to 1.) ,,
greater than 108 but less than or equal $150,000 to 104 times the applicable qvantities of Appendix C of Part 20. (For a com- .
bination of isotopes, if R, as defined in S 70.25(a), divided by 108 is greater than 1 but R divided by 104 is less than or equal to 1.) .
l (e) Each decommissioning funding plan must contain a cost estimate I for decommissioning and a description of the method of assuring funds for !
decommissioning from paragraph (f) of this section, including means of 1
adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over l the life of the facilit .
(f) Financial assurance for decommissioning must be provided by one or more of the following methods:
(1) Prepayment. Prepayment is the deposit prior to the start of operation into an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the l the licensee's administrative control of cash or liquid assets such that the amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs.
Prepayment may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities.
(2) A surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method. These methods guarantee that decommissioning costs will be paid should the li-l consee default. A surety method may be in the form of a surety bond, letter of credit, or line of credit. A parent company guarantee of funds for decommissicning costs based on a financial test may be used if the 148
{' [7590-01) guarantee and test are as contained in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 30. A y,arent company guarantee may not be used in combination with other finan-ial methods to satisfy the requirements of this section. Any surety method or insurance used to provide financial assurance for decommissioning must contain the following conditions:
(i) The surety method or insurance must be open-ended or, if written for a specified term, such as five years, must be renewed auto-matica11y unless 90 days or more prior to the renewal date, the issuer notifies the Comission, the beneficiary, and the licensee of its inten-tion not to renew. The surety method or. insurance must also provide that the full face amount be paid to the beneficiary automatically prior to the expiration without proof of forfeiture if the licensee fails to pro-vide a replacement acceptable to the Comission within 30 days after receipt o' notification of cancellation.
(ii) The surety method or insurance must be payable to a trust established for decomissioning costs. The trustee and trust must be acceptable to the Comission. An acceptable trustee includes an appro-priate State or Federal government agenev or an entity which has the authority to act as a trustee and whose trust operations are regulated and examined by a Federal or State agency.
(iii) The surety method or insurance must remain in effect until tha Comission has terminated the license.
(3) An external sinking fund in which deposits are made at least annually, coupled with a surety method or insurance, the value of which may decrease by the amount being accumulated in the sinking fund. An external sinking fund is a fund established and maintained by setting aside funds periodically in an account segregated from licensee assets l
l 149 e
[7590-01) and outside the licensee's administrative control in which the total amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs at the time termination of operation is expected. An external sinking fund may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities. The surety or insurance provisions must be as stated in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.
(4) In the case of Federal, State, or local government licensees, a statement of intent containing a cost estimate for decommissirning or an amount based on the Table in paragraph (d) of this section, and indi-cating that funds for decommissioning will be obtained when necessary.
(g) Each person licensed under this part shall keep records of information important to the safe and effective decommist.ioning of the facility in an identified locat 4n until the license is terminated by the Comission. If records of relevant information are kept for other pur-poses, reference to these records and their locations may be used. Infor-ration the Commission considers important to decommissioning consists ,
of--
(1) Records of spills or other unusual occurrences involving the spread of contamination in and arouno the facility, equipment, or site.
These records may be limited to instancos when contamination remains after any cleanup procedu~es or when there is reasonable likelihood that conta~
minants may have tpread to inaccessible areas as in the case of possible seepage into porous materials suc'1 as concrete. These escords must include any known information on identification of involved nuclider, quantities, forms, and concentrations. .
(2) As-built drawings and modifications of structures and equipment in restricted areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored
.o
and of loca% ions of possible inaccessible contamination such as buried pipes which may be subject to contamination. If required drawings are referenced, each relevant document need not be indexed individually. If drawings are not available, the licensee shall substitute appropriate recordsofavailableinformationconcerningtheseareasandloIa[ ions.
(3) Records of the cost estimate performed for the decomissioning funding plan or of the amount certified for decommissioning, and records of the funding method used for assuring funds if either a funding plan or certification is used.
- 28. Section 70.38 is revised to read as follows:
5 70.38 Expiration and termination of licenses.
(a) Except as provided in S 70.33(b) and paragraph (e) of this sec-tien, each specific license expires at the end of the day, in the month and year stated in the license.
(b) Each licensee shall notify the Commission promptly, in writing under S 70.5, and request termination of the license wnen the lictnsee decides to terminate all activities involving materials authorized under the license. This notification and request for termination of the license must include the reports and information specified in paragraphs (c)(1)(iv) ,
and (v) of this f.ection and a plan for completion of decommissiuning if required by paragraph (c)(2) of this section or by license condition.
l (c)(1) If a licensee does not submit an application for license renewal under i 70.33, the licunsee shall on or before the expiration
- date specified in the license--
l l
l 151 l
l t
[7590-01]
(i) Terminate use of special nuclear material; (ii) Remove tsdioactive contamination to the extent practicable I
except for those procedures covered by paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section; (iii) Properly dispose of special nuclear material; l l
(iv) Submit a completed form NRC-314, which certifies information concerning the disposition of materials: and (v) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed activities were carried out and submit a report of the results of this survey, unless the licensee demonstrates ~that the premises are suitable
.for release for unrestricted use in some other manner. The licensee shall, as appropriate--
(A) Report levels.of radiation in units of microrads per hour of beta and gamma radiation at one centimeter and gamma radiation at one meter from surfaces, and report levels of radioactivity, including alpha, in units of disintegrations per minute (or microcuries) par 100 square contimeters removable and fixed for surfaces, microcuries per millilitar for water, and picoeuries per gram for Solf ds such as r siis or concrete; and (B) Specify the survey instrument (s) used and certify that each instrumeat is properly calibrated and tested.
(2)(i) In addition to the inforuation required under para-graphs (c)(1)(iv) and (v) of this section, t.he licensee shall submit a plan for completion of decomissioning if the procedures necessary to carry out decommissioning have not been previously approved by the NRC and could increase potential health and safety impacts to worker.
or to the public such as in any of the following cases:
152 I
, [7590-01] l l
l (A) Procedures would involve techniques not applied routintly durirg cleanup or maintenance operations; or j 1
(B) Workers would be entering areas not normally occupied ;
where surface contamination and radiation levels are significantly )
higher than routinely encountered during operation; or (C) Procedures could result in significantly greater airborne con-centrations of radioactive materials than are present during operation; or (D) Procedures could result in significantly greater releases of radioactive material to the environment than those associated with' operation.
(ii) Procedures with potential health and safety impacts say not be carried out prior to approval of the decomissioning plar.
(iii) The proposed decommissioning plan, if required by paragraph (c)
(2)(i) of this section or by license condition, must include--
, (A) Description of planned decomissioning activities; (3) Description of metheds used to assure protection of workers and the envirorment against radiation hazards during de:omissioning; l (C) A description of the planned final radiatien survey; and (D) An updated detailed cost estimate for decomissioning, compari-son of that estimate with present funds set aside for decomissioning, f and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds for completion l of decomissioning.
l l
(E) A description of the physical security plan and saterial I
control and accounting plan provisions in place during decomissioning.
i 153 l
(iv) The proposed decommissioning plan will be approved by the Commission if the information therein demonstrates that the decommission-ing will be completed as soon as is reasonable and that the health and safety of workers and the public will be adequately protected.
(3) UponapprovalofthedecommissioningplanbytheCoSission, the licensee shall complete decommissioning in,accordance with the approved plan. As a final step in decommissioning, the licensee shall again submit the information required in paragraph (c)(1)(v) of this section and shall certify the disposition of accumulated wastes from decommissioning.
(d) If the information submitted u.nder paragraphs (c)(1)(v) or (c)(3) of this section does not adec,_ately demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted use, the Commission will inform the licensee of the appropriate further actions required for termination of license.
(e) Each specific license continues in effect, beyond the expira-tion date if necessary, with respe.:t to possession of residual special nuclear materia 1 present as contamination until the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated. Durirg this time, the licensee shall--
- 0) Limit actions involving special nuclear material to those related to decommissioning; and l ,
(2) Continue to control entry to restricted areas until they are 1
suitable f or release for unrestricted use and the Commission notifies i
the licensee in writing that the license is terminated.
(f) Specific licenses will be terminated by written notice to the licensee when the Commission determines that--
154
. (1) Special nuclear material has been properly disposed; (2) Reasonable effort has been made to eliminate residual radioac-tive contamination, if present, and (3)(i) A radiation survey has been performed which demonstrates thatthepremisesaresuitableforreleaseforunrestrictedus5;~or (ii) Other information submitted by the , licensee is sufficient to demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release for ur. restricted use.
. PART 72 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STORAGE OF SPENT FUEL IN AN INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION
- 29. The authority citation for Part 72 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, M 7, 189, 6B Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, se:. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 1 2073, 2077. ." 92, 2003, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236,
- 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as arended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended,'202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amenced, 1244,1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5546); Pub. L.93-601, sec.10, l 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Section 72.34 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.
2239); sec. 134, Pub. L,97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2273); IS 72.6, 72.14, 72.15, 72.17(d), 72.19, 72.33(b)(1), (4), (5), (e),
155
[7590-01)
(f), and 72.36(a) are issued under sec.161b, 68 Stat. 948, as a tended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); SS 72.10, 72.15, 72.17(d), 72.33(c), (d)(1), (2), (e),
72.81, 72.83, 72.84(a), and 72.91 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat.
949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and SS 72.9a, 72.33(b)(3), (d)(3),
(f),72.35(b),72.50-72.52,72.53(a),72.54(a),72.55,72.56,72.80(c),
and 72.84(b) are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
- 30. Section 72.3 is amended by adding a new paragraph (y) to read as follows:
5 72.3 Definitions.
A 4 A A A (y) "Decomission" means to remove (as a facility) safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and terminatien of license.
- 31. Sectien 72.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as follows:
9 72.14 Contents of application: General and financial information.
A A A A A (e)
(3) Estimatsd decommissioning costs, and the necessary financial arrangements to provide reasonable assurance priot to licensing that decomissioning will be carried out after the removal of spent fuel from storage. .
156
( -
[7590-01)
O
- 32. Section 72.18 is revised by revising the section heading and paragraph (b) and by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
S 72.18 Decommissioning planning, including financing and recordkeeping.
.t 2 R R ,
2 (b) ThedecommissioningfundingplanmustcontaininforNtionon how reasonable assurance will be provided that, funds will be available to decommission the ISFSI. This information must include a cost estimate for decommissioning and a description of the meth0d of assuring funds for decommissioning from paragraph (c) of this section, including means of adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the ISFSI.
(c) Financial assurance for decommissioning must be provided by one or more of the following methods:
(1) Prepayment. Prepayment is the deposit prior to the start of operation into an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control of cash or liquid ast,ets such that the amount of funds would be suffici2nt to pay decommissioning costs.
Prepayment may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate cf deposit, or deposit of government securities.
(2) A surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method. These ,
methods guarantee that decommissioning costs will be paid should the licensee default. A surety method may be in the form of a surety bond, letter of credit, or line of credit. A parent company guarantee of funds for decommissioning costs based on a financial test cay be used if the guarantee and test are as contained in Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 30. A parent company guarantee may not be used in combination with other financial methods to satisfy the requirements of this section. Any surety method 157
[7590-01) or insurance used to provide financial assurance for decomissioning must contain the following conditions:
(i) Tne surety method or insurance must ba open-ended or, if written for a specified term, such as five years, must be renewed auto-matica11y unless 90 days or more prior to the renewal date, the kssuer notifies the Commission, the beneficiary, and the licensee of its intention j not to renew. The surety method or insurance must also provide that the
- full face amount be paid to the beneficiary automatically prior to the expiration without proof of forfeiture if the licensee fails to provide a replacement acceptable to the Comissior) within 30 days after receipt of
. notification of cancellation.
(ii) The surety method or insurance must be payable to a trust I
established for decommissioning costs. The trustee and trust must be 1
l acceptable to the Commission. An acceptable trustee includes an appro-l priate State or Federal governnent agency or an entity which has the authority to act as a trusure and whuse trust operations are retult,ted and extmined by a Federal or State agency.
(iii) Tha surety er insurance muet remain in effect until the Commis-sion has terminatet the license.
l (3) An exumal sinking fund in which deposits are made at least annually, (.oupled with a surety method or insurance, the value of which may dacrease by the amount being a:cwulated in the sinking fund. An external sinking fund is a fund ostablished and maintained by setting aside funds periodically in an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control in which the total amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decomissioning costs at the time termination of operation is expected. An external sinking fund may 158
[7590-01) be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities. The surety or insurance provision must be as stated in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(4) In the case of Federal, State, or local government licensees, a statement of intent containing a cost estimate for decommissioning, and indicating that funds for decommissioning will,be obtained when neces ary.
(5) In the case of electric utility licensees, the methods of S 50.74(e)(1) and (3) of this chapter.
(d) Each licensee shall keep records of information important to the safe and effective decommissioning of the facility in an identified location until the license is terminated by the Commission. If records of relevant information are kept for other purposes, reference to these records and their locations may be used. Information the Commission con-siders important to decommissioning consists of--
(i) Records of spills or other unusual occurrences ir.volving the spread of cont aination irt and arcund the facifity, equipment, or site.
These records siay be limited to instances when contamination remains after any cleanup proceduras or when there is reasonable likalihood that conta-minants may have spread to inaccessible areas as in the case of pon.sible These records must include seepage into porous naterials such as conerste.
any known information on identification of involved nuclides, quantities.
forms, and concentrations.
l (ii) As-built drawings and modifications of structures and equip-ment in restricted areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored, and of locations of possible inaccessible contamination such as burief s'3es which may be subject to contamination. If required drawings l
l l
159 t
[7590-01]
are referenced, each relevant document need not be indexed individually.
If drawings are not available, the licensee shall substitute appropriate records of available information concerning these areas and locations.
(iii) Records of the cost estimate performed for the decommission- ,
ing funding plan or of the amount certified for decomissioning, and records of the funding method used for assuring funds if either a fund-ing plan.or certificatica is used.
- 33. Section 72.38 is revised to read as follows:
S 72.38 Application for termination of license.
(a) Any licensee may apply to the Comission for authority to sur-render a license voluntarily and to decomission the ISFSI. This appli-cation must be made within two years following permanent cessation of operations, and in no case later than one year prior to expiration of the license. Each application for termination of license must be accompaniad, or preceded, by a proposed final decommissioning plan.
(b) The pioposed final deco missioning plan must include--
(1) The choice of the alternative for decomissioning with a description of activities involved. An alternative is acceptable if it provides for completion of decomissioning without significant delay.
Consideration will be given to an alternative which provides for delayed completion of decomissior,ing only when necessary to protect the pubite health and safety. Factors to be considered in evaluating an alternative which provides for delayed completion of decommissioning include unavail-ability of waste disposal capacity and other site. specific factors affect-ing the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning safely, includ-ing presence of other nuclear facilities at the site.
l 160
. [7590-01] !
(2) A description of controls and limits on procedures and equip-ment to protect occupational and public health and safety; (3) A description of the planned final radiation survey; and (4) An updated detailed cost estimate for the chosen alternative for decomissioning, comparison of that estimate with present funds set aside for decommissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds for completion of decommissioning including means for adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels over any storage or surveillance period.
(5) A description of technical specifications and quality assurance
, provisions in place during decommissioning, (c) For final decomissioning plans in which the major dismantlement activities are delayed by first placing the ISFSI in storage, planning for these deiayed activities may be loss detailed. Updated detailed plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of such activities.
(d) If the final decomissioning plan demonstrates that the decom-
' missioning vill be perf ormed in accordance with the regalations in this ,
chapter and will not be inimical to tne comon defense and security or to the nealth and safety of the public, end after notice to interested per-cens, the Commission will spprove the pit.n subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate and necessary and issue an order ,
authorizing the decomissioning.
(e) The Comission will terminate the license if it determines that--
(1) The decommissioning has been performed in accordance with the approved final decommissioning plan and the order authorizing decomis-sioning; and 161
[7590-01]
' (2) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrates that the ISFSI and site are suitable for release for unrestricted use.
l Dated at Rockville, MD, this k1[dayofm_ittr4_
f 1988.
r the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
(
r 1Thb (
lemuel J. Thilk%
- Q 3
decretary of the Comission.
i 162
.- .. -_..- - , - _. -. - _ - _ - .- - - - _ _ . _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - .