ML20195G365
| ML20195G365 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 08/07/1987 |
| From: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| AA40-2-43, NUDOCS 8708200077 | |
| Download: ML20195G365 (20) | |
Text
_.
~
/
'o UNITED STATES
~,%
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
/
{
,I w AssiNo T oN. o. c. 2ous k..../
August 7, 1987 g
fe M'l MEMORANDUM FOR:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING h0MBER 116 The Comittee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) met on Wednesday, June 10, 1987, from 1-5 p.m.
A list of attendees for this meeting is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
The following items were addressed at the meeting:
1.
R. Baer (RES), K. Steyer (RES), and F. Cardile (RES) rresented for'CRGR review proposed final rule amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 concerning requirements for decommissioning nuclear facilities.
The CRGR recommended that the ED0 approve this package and transmit it to t
the Commission for their consideration, following some revisions to i
incorporate CRGR comments.
This matter is discussed in Enclosure 2.
2.
A. Thadani (NRR) and W. Hodges (NRR) presented for CRGR review a proposed j
aeneric letter pursuant to 10 CFR 50.53(f) t..at would request PWR licensees to provide specific information concerning reactor operations with reactor coolant level below the reactor vessel head but above the mid point of the reactor vessel nozzles.
The CRGR recommended approval to issue the proposed generic letter following coordination with CRGR staff l
to incorporate certain recommended modificati.3ns to the letter.
This matter is discussed in Enclosure 3.
l 3.
J. Partlow (NRR) and R. Erickson (NRR) presented for CRGR review a l
p' Requirements for Criminal History Checks."roposed generic letter concer This review item was placed j
on the CRGR review agenda at the time of the meeting, therefore, it was not announced in an agenda modification memorandum prior to the meeting.
l The basis for the CRGR review is a memorandum included with Enclosure 4 to this meeting summary.
The memorandum is from T. Murley to E. Jordan, subject:
Committet to Review Generic Requirements Review of Generic letter, dated June 10, 1987.
The generic letter would autharize use of a temporary clearance program for plant workers until a final screening policy is established.
The CRGR recomended approval for issuance of this letter, with minor changes.
This matter is discussed in j.
l In accordance with the ED0's July 18,1983 directive concerning "Feedback and C'osure on CRGR Reviews'," a written response is required from the cognizant office to' report agreement or disagreement with CRGR recommendations in these O&O hty O
I minutes.
The response, which is required within five working days af ter receipt of there meeting minutes, is to be forwarded to the CRGR Chairman and if there is disagreement with the CRGR recommendations, to the EDO for decisionmaking.
Questions concerning these meeting minutes should be referred to Jim Conran t
(492-9855).
),
M. ar L ordan Chairman Committe toRevIewGeneric l
Requir>ments i
Enclosures:
As stated 1
cc: Commission (5)
I SECY Office Directors i
l Regional Administrators CRGR Members i
W. Parler i
G. Arlotto I
L Shao j
J. Partlow d
).
3 i
I I
a 4-t l
i f
i j
]
l 1
j
\\
t
.. - m -
c.
LIST OF ATTENDEES CR3R MEETING NO. 116 June 10, 1987 CRGR MEMBERS E. Jordan R. Bernero T. Martin J. Scinto D. Ross J. Sniezek
- OTHERS, J. Conran T. Cox C. Feldman K. Steyer F. Cardile R. Baer J. Johnson M. Kearney R. Wood D. Nash J. Clifford F. Witt P. Erickson S. Treby J. Hapes J. Partlow R. Erickson J. Dunleavy R. Fonner R. Brady R. Jones l
W. Hodges A. Gilbert W. Lyon C. Berlinger A. Spano A. Thadani 6
e
- to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 116 Proposed Final Rule Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 Concerning Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities
. TOPIC R. Baer (RES), K. Steyer (RES), and F. Cardile (RES) presented for CRGR review the proposed final rule concerning decommissioning requirements for all nuclear facilities except waste disposal facilities and uranium mill tailings which have been covered separately in Parts 60 and 61 and in an existing Appendix A of Part 40.
A copy of the written material used by the staff in their presenta-tion at this meeting is attached to this Enclosure.
BACKGROUND This rule was examined by the CRGR in two previous meetings; Meeting No. 62, April 25, 1984, and Meeting No. 68, August 8, 1984.
CRGR recommendations were incorporated and the package was forwarded to the Commission as SECY 84-354.
The proposed rule was published as 50FR5600 on February 11, 1985.
At CRGR Meeting No. 81, September 25, 1985, G. Arlotto and K. Steyer (RES)-
briefed the CRGR concerning the existing and future guidance associated with the decommissioning rulenaking.
The proposed final rule packace examined by the CRGR included:
1.
Cover memo, E. Beckjord to V. Stello, April 15, 1987.
2.
Oraft Commission Paper presenting the rule.
3.
Memoranda to RES from NMSS, ADM, SP, and PA indicating concurrence subject to some recornended changes.
4.
Enclosure A (proposed final rule) including Supplementary Information with embedded backfit analysis and determination, (p. 115), and the specific amendments to Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72, (p. 66).
5.
Enclosure B, Regulatory Analysis.
6.
Enclo:;ure C, draft congressional letter.
7.
Enclosure D, draft public announcement.
The proposed amendments contained general requirements in the following areas:
acceptable decommissioning alternatives; planning for decommissioning; assur-ance of the availability of funds for decoinmissioning; and environmental review requirements related to decommissionitc.
The most significant changes made in the rule language in writing the proposed final rule amendments were reflected in the Part 50 amendment, where most of the requirements were moved into a new section, 50.74.
The proposed rule allowed an electrf: utility licensee to submit either a certification of a minimum provision of $100M or a proposed decommissioning funding plan (50.33(k)(1)).
Facilities which were not ele;tric.
utilities were required to provide a funding plan.' The proposed final rule
?.
.g.
i 1
would require electric utilities to provide certification of a minimum pre-scribed amount to be determined using a new 50.7A(c).
DISCUSSION Points of discussion at this meeting regarding the proposed rulemaking were as follows:
1.
The CRCR discussed the relationship that a pending EPA rulemaking to establish dose criteria for decommissioning could or should have on the NRC decommissionir.s rulemaking effort.
Staff pointed out that EPA is i
currently scheduled to propose a rule in 1989, so specific EPA requirements cannot be expected earlier than several years from now.
Staff indicated that Regulatory Guide 1.86 for reactor plants and other i
new guidance would be revised or created as necessary to support implementation of the rule independent oi an EPA schedule to establish dose criteria.
Subsequently, as EPA requirements are established in regulation, NRC guidance can be changed as necessary to comport with i
whatevar EPA regulation is controlling.
2.
It was noted that OGC concurrence in this rulemaking had been obtained by I
the staff as indicated by a memo from S. A. Treby to E. L. Jordan dated May 22, 1987,
Subject:
CRGR Meeting No. 115.
i 3.
A CRGR comment ori Section 30.36(c)(1)(v)(A) (p.125) was that reported 1
i levels ef radiation should include alpha radiation es well as beta and i
gamma, and that this change should be effected in other parts of the 10 i
CFR as appropriate.
3 4
3 4.
A general discussion ensued over Section 50.82(b)(1) concerning the choice I
of deconnissioning alternative to be described in a proposed decommission-l ing plan.
Staff brought revised text for Section 50.82 to the CRGR meeting (see attachment, p. 7A). They were asked why the possibility i
of delaying decommissioning for up to 50 years was offered in this rule-l Laking.
They responded that this is designed to allow flexibility where
{
specific benefits can be shown to accrue from such delay.
CRGR questioned the logic of identifying as a benefit the provision of onsite storage capacity in the event of unavailability of waste disposal capacity.
CRGR discussed the proposition that abandonment of a contaminated facility should be considered a significant risk if long delays in decommissioning are permitted.
)
5.
CRGR disct.ssed funding methods at length.
One question was whether or not there was clear assurance that the internal reserve funding option (allowed for electric utilities owning more than one generating facility) would in fact yield available and sufficient funds in all cases when i
needed for decommissioning.
The Committee consensus was that the validity of the internal reserve funding method is an unresolved matter.
Another
)
item of funding discussed was 50.74(e)(3)(v) (p. 153), which would allow
)
Federal, State or loc'il government licensees to simply provide a statement I
of intent indicating that funds for decommissioning would be obtained when
)
necessary.
The CRGF contensus was that there is no assurance that State J
or local government /can or would produce the required funds when necessary, j
and that this parajraph of the rule should be deleted, j.-
6.
A comment was noted concerning the Supplementary Information, Summary and Discussion of Comments on Proposed Rule, Section B.2, next to last sentence (p. 28).
The statement that the licensee could not undertake activities under 50.59 which could cause an impact on safe decommissioning was considered incorrect and the CRGR recommended that it be deleted.
An inconsistency was noted between the discussion on pages 54-56 and page 7.
r 80 of the Supplementary Information.
The earlier pages argue for the j
inherent financial strength and responsibility of-electric utilities while the later page describes diminished financial assurance for stated
)
)
I i
reasons.
CRGR recommended that this inconsistency should be removed.
i j
8.
The CRGR noted that page 92 of the Supplementary Information declares that "The Conmission's primary reason for eliminating a mandatory EIS for i
decommissioning is that the impacts have been considered generically in a GEIS." However, the final GEIS referred to has not been issued and the CRGR has not seen this document.
The CRGR consensus was that the CRGR staff should review an available copy of the GEIS to verify that the 4
impacts have been considered in the document.
(The CRGR staff subsequently reviewed the GEIS and verified that the impacts were considered.
RES was notified of this by the CRGR Chairman's memo of J
July 31, 1987.)
1 1
9.
Page 5 of the Commission paper transmitting the rule amendments discusses 1
resources required to implement the amendments.
CRGR consensus was that i
power reactor licensees. pent to review decommissioning, funding plans for l
no resources should be s The rule changes are considered definitive and l
1 prescriptive enough that additional staff review outside of the normal inspection prograrr abould not be necessary.
The Commission paper should i
be revised to indicate how the resource requirements for funding plan I
reviews are allocated among the participating offices, and for what l
purposes.
1 10.
Section 50.54(g) (p. 153) was considered too prescriptive in the opening p'aragraph which requires that the licensee keep decommissioning records 1
...in a file explicitly for this purpose until the license is terminated j
by the Commission." CRGR recommended that the language requiring specific i
t files should be deleted.
11.
Section 50.54(g)(1) showed a deletion of the word "significant" with regard to contamination incidents for which records would be ker t.
This deletion would tend to require licensees to maintain records for occurrences resulting in even very insignificant residual contamination.
j CRGR recommended that the word "significant" should be retained.
4 12.
Section 50.82(b) would specify required elements of a proposed decommis-sioning plan.
Items (5) and (6) were added in response to public comment.
2 CRGR indicated concern that to emphasize quality assurance provisions and physical security plans to the exclusion of other important matters would be improper, and recommended that RES add a requirement to describe proposed transition technical. specifications applicable to the transition i
of the reactor plant from an operating reactor to a' facility having a "possession only" license.
1 1
.' 13.
CRGR recommended that the NRC staff develop and implement standard review plans and other appropriate regulatory guidance describing how the staff is to implement the final rule amendments.
Such guidance should include acceptance standards which include both surface contamination limits and personnel radiation evnosure limits.
14.
As a further comment on the matter of regulatory guidance, CRGR noted that when the final rule amendments go forward to the Commission, the forwarding paper should include a discussion of (1) what standards and guidance are now available for implementation, (2) what standards and guidance are planned but not yet available, and (3) a schedule for providing the remaining planned material.
The CRGR consensus was that the final amendments should go forward af ter consideration and action on the CRGR comments noted herein.
i i
I t
1 i
1 I
1 J
?;
j I
CA%f2 M a r n os. Alo. l 4 fo -- / O - 8 l INFORMATION FOR CRGR MEETING N0. 115 ON THE FINAL RULE AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PARTS 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, AND 72:
REQUIREMENTS FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR FACILITIES 1
l 1
0+-
J.N F O R M A T I O N F O R _C R G R M E E T I N G_ti9,. 115 o
BACKGROUND o
PUBLIC COMMENT! AtlD CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED RULE
(
I 2
^
B A C KG P.0 V N D CRGR__AND COMMISSION ACTIONS IN ISSUANCE OF_ PROPOSED RULE o
CRGR MEETINGS NO. 62 AND 68 HELD ON 4/2S/84 AND 8/8/84, RESPECTIVELY.
o CRGR MADE 7 RECOMMENDATIONS AT THOSE MEETINGS WHICH WERE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSED RULE BY RES.
e 3
9 e
m g
~
BACXGROUND CRGR AND COMMISSION ACTIONS
- -.I S S U.A.N C E O F P R O P O S E D __ _R U L E IN o
COMMISS10ft MEETING 10/10/84 o
SECY MEMO (1/4/85) TO EDO, INDICATING COMMISSION HAD APPROVED PROPOSED RULE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING MAJOR ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE RULE:
1.
A METHOD SliOULD BE INCLUDED TO ADJUST THE $100M CERTIFICATION AMOUNT TO ACCOUNT FOR INFLATION.
2.
A FUflDING PLAN SHOULD BE IN PLACE NO LATER THAN 5 YEARS PRIOR TO PLANNED END OF OPERATING LIFE OF THE FACILITY.
o MEMO FROM RES TO SECY (1/25/85) INDICATED THAT THESE CHANGES HAD BEEN INCORPORATED.
4
PROPOSED DECOMMISSIONING RULE ISSUED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT o
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 50 FR 5600 o
AMENDMENTS MADE TO 10 CFR 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 AND 72 o
MAJOR ISSUES COVERED BY PROPOSED RULES DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES PLANNING FOR DECOMMISSIONING ASSURAtjCE OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS e
i 1
I d
5 0
a PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE o
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSF.D 7/12/85 o
143 SEPARATE COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS AND 56 PUBLIC GROUPS FROM INDUSTRY (INCLUDING 62 ELECTRIC UTILITIES, MATERIAL FACILITY LICENSEES AND UNIVERSITIES)
FROM STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT 21 FROM FEDERAL GOVT. AGENCIES 4
l 6
1 l
MAJOR COMMENTS -
DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNAT!YES COMMENT MORE DETAILS NEEDED IN RULE ON CRITERIA RED RUTNG CH0 ICE OF DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE.
RESPONSE
o 50,82(b) 0F RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT INDICATES THAT CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVE MUST SHOW IT PROTECTS HEALTH AND SAFETY SEE NEXT SLIDE FOR A DELAYED ALTERNATIVE THAT SUFFICIENT BENEFIT RESULTS o
IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT HAS~
BEEN MODIFIED TO PROVIDE IURE XUDEU DETATE UR TKtTURS l
EURTRTHUTTHU T0 SUFFICIENT BENEFIT INCLUDING:
REDUCTION IN DOSE AND WASTE YOLUME PROVISIONS FOR ONSITE WASTE STORAGE DUE TO UNAVAIL-ABILITY OF DISPOSAL CAPACITY
- OTHER SITE SPECIFIC FACTORS AFFECTING DECOMMISSION-l ING SAFETY o
REVISION TO REGULATORY GUIDE 1.86 WILL PROVIDE ADDED
- GUIDANCE, 7
y e
{
ag t
b REVISED TEXT FOR SECTION 50.82 i
~
(b) THE PROPOSED DECOMMISSIONING PLAN MUST INCLUDE --
(1) THE CHOICE OF THE ALTERNATIVE FOR DECOMMISSIONING WITH A DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES INVOLVED.
FOR AN ELECTRIC UTILITY LICENSEE, USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH EITHER RESULTS 7
IN PROMPT DECOMMISSIONING OR WHICH DELAYS DECOMMISSIONING FOR UP TO 50 YEARS IS ACCEPTABLE. AN ALTERNATIVE FOR DE-COMMISSIONING WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY DELAYS COMPLETION OF DECOMMISSIONING BEYCND 50 YEARS WILL BE ACCEPTABLE IF SUFFICIENT HEALTP AND SAFETY BENEFITS RESULT.
BENEFITS ARE PROVISIONS FOR ONSITE STORAGE CAPACITY lN THE EVENT OF UNAVAILABILITY OF WASTE DISPOSAL CAPACITY AND OTP;ER SITE SPECIFIC FACTORS AFFECTING CAPABILITY TO CARRY OUT DECOMMISSIONING SAFELY.
G 7A e
0
- e
i l
' MAJOR COMMENTS DECOMMISSIONING PLANS i
COMMENT MORE CRITERIA NEEDED IN RULE FOR PREPARING AND i
EVXEUXTING DECOMMISSIONING PLANS AND FOR ACTUAL CONDUCT i
0F DECOMMISSIONING, IN PARTICULAR ON RADIATION PROTECTION, QA, AND SAFEGUARDS j
RESPONSE
o MOST OF C0MMENTERS CONCERNS ARE ALREADY COVERED BY
{
APPLICABLE EXISTING REGULATIONS, REG GUIDES, AND SRPS, E.G.,
l PART 20 CONTAINS STANDARDS FOR RADIATION 1
PROTECTION l
PART 61 CONTAINS LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL i
a REQUIREMENTS REGULATORY GUIDE 8.8 CONTAINS GUIDANCE ON l
1 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE AND'ALARA
)
o IN ADDITION RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT CONTAINED REQUIREMENTS (50.82(b)) THAT A DECOMMISSIONING PLAN DESCRIBE HOW DECOMMISSIONING WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A MANNER WHICH PROTECTS HEALTH AND SAFETY o
FOR CLARIFICATION, RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT HAS BEEN 1
MODIFIED TO REQUIRE 7RXT THE7RGRFTUTURTRFPLAN 1
UEIERTHE, AS APPROPRI ATE, QA AND
.? FEGUARDS-PROVISIONS DURING DECOMMISSIONING.
o REGULATORY GUIDANCE IN THESE AREAS IS BEING CONSIDERED o
REVISIONS TO SRPs ARE BEING CONSIDERED i
1 i
l
)
i 1
8
~.
l.
MAJOR COMMENTS USE OF CERTIFICATION COMMENT o
ONE GROUP OF COMMENTERS RECOMMENDED DELETION OF CERTI-FICATION o
SOME COMMENTERS INDICATED THAT IF CERTIFICATION WERE RETAINED THAT CHANGES SHOULD BE MADE
RESPONSE
o WE DISAGREE WITH COMMENTERS ON DELETING CERTIFICATION; CERTIFICATION HAS BEEN RETAINED:
CRGR STRONGLY ADV0CATED USE AND COMMISSION REAFFIRMED USE IT MINIMIZES ADMINISTRATIVE EFFORT OF LICENSEES AND NRC WHILE STILL MAINTAINING REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUNDING
'IT IS BASED ON A LARGE DATA BASE DEVELOPED BY PNL WHICH HAS BEEN UPDATED AND REPRESENTS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE RANGE OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS o
TO IMPROVE THE RULE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS, RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT HAS BEEN MODIFIED AS FOLLOWS TO INDICATE CLEARLY THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RULE ARE IN ADDITION TO AND NOT SUBSTITUTION FOR REQUIRE-MENTS OF AGENCIES WHO ESTABLISH RATES AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED, BY THEMSELVES, TO SET RATES INDICATE CLEARLY THAT A LICENSEE MAY CERTIFY AN AMOUNT LARGER THAN THE PRESCRIBED AMOUNT AND BASE THE CERTI-FICATION ON A SITE-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATE.
RULE NO LONGER REQUIRES SUBMITTAL OF THE DETAILS OF THE ESTIMATE EARLY IN REACTOR LIFE INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE CERTIFICATION (Continued) 9 p
O
7 4
ADJUST THE CERTIFICATION AMOUNT TO ALLOW FOR DIFFERENCES IN REACTOR SIZE AND TYPE AND CLARIFY THAT PRESCRIBED AMOUNTS 00 NOT INCLUDE COST OF REMOVAL OR DISPOSAL OF NONRADIACT!YE STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS REVISE THE ESCALATION FACTOR TO BETTER ACCOUNT FOR FACTORS AFFECTING INCREASES IN DECOMMISSION!NG COSTS.
1
\\
4 O
e 10
MAJOR COMMENTS EUNDING AS A LICENSE CONDITION COMMENT OBJECTED TO RULE REQUIREMENT THAT SUBMITTALS OF TURUTRE PROVISIONS BE A CONDITION OF LICENSE MSPONSE o
AGREE WITH THIS COPMENT o
RULE ISSUED FOR COMMENT HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO REMOVE TUNDTRU REQUTRERERTI XI A CUTiUTTTUR 5T ETCENSE AND INCLUDE THEM RATHER IN OTHER SPECIFIC RULE SECTIONS (E,G., 50.74 FOR REACTORS) h
-11
g
~
FUf(DING METHODS MAJOR COMMENTS COMMENT COMMENTERS WERE DIVIDED ON ALLOWING USE OF
~ ~ ~ ~
INTERNAL RESERVE AS AN ACCEPTABLE FUNDING METHOD MSPONSE o
USING A STANDARD OF PROVIDING REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING. INTERNAL RESERVE HAS BEEN RETAINED IN THE FINAL RULE FOR MULTI-ASSET UTILITIES o
STUDIES BY EXPERT CONSULTANT DR. J. SIEGEL OF WHARTON SCHOOL, U. OF PENNA. DONE FOR NRC (NUREG/CR-3899 AND a
UPDATED IN SUPPL. 1) INDICATE THAT EVEN FOR UTILITIES INVOLVED IN EXTREME FINANCIAL CRISES, INTERNAL RESERVE PROVIDES EXCELLENT ASSURANCE OF THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS a
p i
e
?
9 e
j 12 4
ait C
- i.
.