ML20196C684
| ML20196C684 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/17/1988 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-10FR5600, FRN-50FR5600, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-30-MISC, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-40-MISC, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-50-MISC, RULE-PR-51, RULE-PR-51-MISC, RULE-PR-70, RULE-PR-70-MISC, RULE-PR-72, RULE-PR-72-MISC NUDOCS 8807010192 | |
| Download: ML20196C684 (161) | |
Text
_
s
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72 General Requirements for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
The Nucle'ar Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations' to set forth technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear facilities.
The amended regulations address decomissioning plan-ning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements.
The intent of the amendments is to assure that decomissioning 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 e 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:
[30 days from date of publication)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
K. Steyer, C. Feldman, or F. Cardile, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-3824.
88070101'72 880617 MI[
....... -...... - -... -.. -. -. - ~ _
[7590-01]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
i Introduction j
l The NRC is amending its regulations to provic'e specific requirements for the decomissioning of nuclear facilities.
Specifically the regula-tions establish criteria in the following areas:
acceptable decomission-ing alternatives; planning '* decommissioning; assurance of the avail-ability of funds for decommissioning; and environmental review require-ments related to decomissioning.
Decomissioning 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 termi-nation of the license.
Decomissioning activities are initiated when a licensee decides to terminate licensed activities.
Decomissioning 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 ager,cies having responsibility over these wastes.
If nuclear facilities are to be reused for nuclear purposes, 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 reactors, nonpower reactors, fuel reprocessing plants, fuel fabrication plants, uranium hexafluoride production plants, independent spent fuel storage 2
[7590-01]
installations, and nonfuel-cycle nuclear facilities.
The decomission-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 decomissionings will be carried out with minimal impact on public and occupational health and safety and the environment.
The Comission's objective is that 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 ihat nuclear facilities have been operating for a number of years, and the number and complexity of ixilities that will require decomissioning 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 and environmental impacts.
These impacts could lead to increased occupa-tional and public doses, increased amounts of radibactive 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 decomissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety.
Current regulations cover the requirements and criteria for decommissioning in a limited way and are not fully adequate to deal with licensee decommissioning requirements effectively.
Many 3
[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 Commission published an 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 decomis.sioning of nuclear facilities.
The plan for the 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 decommissionin'g various kinds of nuclear facilities.
These reports were prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL).1 In addition, preliminary staff positions on the major decommis-sioning issues have been presented in staff (NUREG) reports.
On February 10, 1981, the Comission announced the availability of the draf t GEIS for public comment [46 FR 11666).
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 information.
These documents are available for inspection and copying for a fee in the Commission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20555.
4
i
[7590-01) contains certain policy recomendations.
These recomendations, as modif'ed by coments received on the draf t GEIS and other sources, pro-vided the basis for the proposed amendments to the Comission's regulations.
On February 11, 1985, the Comission published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Decomissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 FR 5600).
Th proposed amendments covered a number of topics related to decomission-ing that would be applicable to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72 appli-cants and licensees.
The original comment period was due to expire May 13, 1985, 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 coments on the proposed rule.
Public comments recefved on the proposed rule were docketed and may be examined at the Comission'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.
Comission staff is participating in an interager,:y working group, organ-ized by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), developing Federal guidance on this subject.
Proposed Federel 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 interim guidance with respect to residual contamination criteria.
Overview of Comments on Proposed Rule A total o. 143 different organizations and individuals submitted comments on the proposed rule.
The commenters represented a variety of interests.
Coments were received from Federal government agencies, 5
[7590-01)
State agencies (including State public utility comissions), local governments, universities, individuals, electric utilities, material licensees, public groups, utility and industry groups, and financial, legal, and engineering firra.
The commenters offered from one,to over 50 coments each and presented a diversity of views. The topics addressed by the commenters addressed a wide t'nge of issues and all parts of the rule.
The general response to the rule was varied.
A number of comenters specifically expressed support for the rule in general (or that no coment was needed), although some of these made' suggestions for improvements.
.One comenter indicated that the proposed amendments will provide a foundation from which acceptable decomissioning planning and implementa-tion programs can be developed, and another indicated that the Commis-sion's assumptions underlying the proposed rule are reasonable and fair.
Many specifically comented on the need for rulemaking. For example, one comenter stated that although some states have begun developing regula-tions, their efforts are harpered by the lack of Federal guidelines and another comenter urged the Commission to quickly promulgate a com-prehensive set of regulations governing the planning, safety, and financing of decomissioning. Others implied the need for rulemaking but felt that the proposed rule was inadequate to satisfy its intent and generally recommended stricter, more detailed regulations.
A few of these suggested the rule be redrafted and republished for c m ent.
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 power reactors that there would be any adverse impacts in the absence of 6
i
[7590-01]
this rule and that this rule represented an unfair burden to nuclear power facilities compared to other public risks; and another pointed out that decommissioning methods are regulated by public utility commissions and that NRC should only step in to ensure safety.
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.
I'.ased 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 devefop plans sufficient to carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety.
Major issues contained in the public comments and resulting changes in the rule are discussed below.
The detailed responses to individual coments are documented in NUREG-1221 entitled "Summary, Analysis and Response to Public Comments 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 20013-7082.
Copies may also be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 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.
The discussion of comments in this Supplementary Infomation 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 limits, environmental review requirements, and other general comments.
7
-~-
....... ~.... -.....
[7590-01)
Sumary and Discussion of Comments on Proposed Rule A.
Decomissioning Alternatives and Timing.
Coments received on the subject of decomissioning 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 decommissioning 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 decomissioning methods which provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety without releasing the site for unrestricted uJe.
In contrast four comenters stated that decomissioning should clearly result in safe unrestricted use of the site.
In response, it is the Comission's belief that there is nothing in the definition which would inhibit future use of the site once the license is terminated.
According to amended S 50.2 (and related sections in the other parts) decomissioning is defined as resulting in release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license.
Unre-stricted use refers to the fact that from a radiological standpoint, no 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 as being "any area access to which is not controlled by the licensee for purposes of protection of individuals from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials and any area used for residential quarters." The 8
[7590-01) alternatives for decommissioning provide different ways to accomplish decomissioning 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,tner 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 of 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-n;ission the facility.
With regaro 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 decomissioning.
Therefore, a licensee would not be required to submit a decomissioning plan or apply for termination of license.
l l
As noted in Sections A.2 through A.4 of this Supplementary l
l Information, the rule considers the use of alternative decossaissioning methods which delay the completion of decomissioning thereby not releas-ing the site for unrestricted use during a period of radioactive decay.
The definit. ion of decomissioning as well as the definitions of the alter-I natives contained in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicate that, if permanent cessation of 'uc'
' cetivity occurs at the facility, the licensee is to propose tt
<C no rtthod that it intenc's to use in decomissioning the facility in a manner ultimately leading to l
9 l
[7590-01) the return of the site to an "unrestricted area" according to the defini-tion of 10 CFR 20.3 and the termination of the facility license.
In determining whether a particular site is free from radiological hazards, the Comission 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,.includingiremoval of such waste offsite, are appropriate before the site can be released for unrestricted use and the license terminated.
Six comenters indicated that the rule needed to provide clarifica-tion as to what facilities are covered by the decomissioning rule.
These
.comenters indicated that there appeared to be a discrepancy between the proposed S 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 Supplementary Information which indicates that decom-missioning 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 the rule should clarify that it does not apply to tile nonradioactive portion of the facility.
In response to this coment, the definition of decommissioning in j
$ 50.2 clearly defines what is intended by this rulemaking, namely that decomissioning involves those activities necessary to remove a facility safely from service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that termits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license.
Section 50.82 indicates that a licensee must provide NRC with a plan indicating how these activities will be carried out and that this 10
[7590-01) plan will be approved if it demonstrates that the decommissioning will be performed in a safe manner.
Section 50.82(f) indicates that the NRC will terminate the facility license if the terminal radiation survey demonstrates that residual radioactivity has been reduced such that the facility and site are suitable for release for unrestricted use. The definition of decommissioning in S 50.2 is genpral and its application in any given case will depend on specific circumstances.
The decommissioning rule applies to the site, buildings and contents, j
and equipment associated with a nuclear facility that are or become j
contaminated during the time the facility is licensed, and to activities related to the definition of "decommission" in the amended regulations.
l The decommissioning rule will not apply to the disposal of nonradioactive j
structures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the NRC license.
l l
Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste not necessary for NRC license l
termination is not covered by these regulations but would be treated by other appropriate agencies having responsibility over these wastes.
2.
Criteria used for choice of alternative.
A number of commenters indicated that the rule does not contain sufficient criteria that a utility l
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 to be made 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 benefits should be included in the
(
11
.mm
)
[7590-01) rule, specifically the degree of reducticn in occupational radiation expo-sure, generation and disposal of waste, assurance that decommissioning will take place, radiation doses to the public, and quality of decommis-sioning operations.
Other commenters mentioned that economic,vr_other factors should also be ir.cluded as sting sufficient benefit, including
)
l comparative cost of alternatives, presence of other facilities at the site, 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 rule is to provide the necessary guidelines with regard to use of decommissioning 1
alternatives in a manner which protects the public health and safety.
Specifically, the rule includes requirements that, at the time of termi-nation of operations, licensees submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC which contains an indication of the decommissioning alternative to be used and a description of the activities involved and the controls and
]
limits on procedures to protect occupational and public health and safety j
l for that alternative.
Discussion of how the decommissioning plan and the chosen alternative are evaluated in terms of protecting health and safety is contained below in Section B.2.
In addition, S 50.82 of the proposed rule stipulated that alter-natives which significantly delay completion of decommissioning, such as use of a storage period, will be acceptable if sufficient benefit results.
This section of proposed rule has been modified in two ways.
The first i
12
[7590-01) is to be more definitive in terms of acceptable decomissioning alterna-tives t,y permitting power teactors 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 Supplementt.cy Information,.it was indicated that DECON or SAFST0R for up to 50 years a reasonable options for decoesissioning 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 a manner which protects public herith and safety.
In selecting 60 years as an acceptable period of time for decommissioning of a nuclear power reactor, the Comission 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 dismantle the facility (Refs. 2 and 3).
In addition to this change, the modified rule also states that consideration will be given to a decomissioning alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years for power reactors only when necessary to protect public health and safety.
Factors, set out in the modified rule, which would be considered in evaluating an alternative which provides for completion of decomis-sioning beyond 60 years include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site specific factors affecting capability to carry out decomissioning safely, including presence of other nuclear facili-ties at the site.
Section 50.82(b)(1) of the proposed rule has also been modified for nonpower reactors.
Because of the variety of type of these reactors, i
13
[7590-01]
specific criteria on time periods for completing decommissioning, such as indicated above for power reactors, are not included for nonpower 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 alternatiyes and other site-specific factors affecting capability to carry out decommissioning operations safely, such as presence 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 consideration of alternatives in the modified rule.
In addition, Regulatory Guide 1.86 will be revised to provide additional guiaance on the aecommissioning alternatives, specifically guidance on the factors affecting delay in completion of decomissioning.
Usa of the modified rule in conjunction with the rsgu-latory guidance will provide for an expeditious licensing procedure.
A licensee's proposed decommissioning alternative will be reviewed based on the criteria and guidance dis:ussed here and in Section B.2 for accept-ability in terms of completing decommissioning 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 14 r..,__-,
,,,..m
.,_~_,_m,..m..._-.m.____,,,
m,-,.,...,.,,.-<__...,,,,,,m...,y,
,-p c.
,.,.,,m-
..+mi, 9a,,
[7590-01) the workers were being exposed to radiation levels six times higher than expected.
Thus, it is likely the decommissioning 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 5tatement on Decommissioning (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 Battelle 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 decommissioning and radiation levels expected at the end of reactor life.
While it is true that no large, aged reactors have been decomis-sioned, the PNL reports represent a reasonable analysis of the occupa-tional dose which would be incurred at decommissioning. They provide sufficient information on which assessment of diff'erent 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]
in particular, licensees should maintain exposures to workers to 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 o,n exposure should be raised or lowered are outside the scope of this rulemaking and i
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 decomissioning 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 6acommissioning 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 determined that the health impact of decommissioning did not add significantly to the operating plant impact.
In summary, the information currently available provides NRC with a reasonable understanding of the safety aspects involved in decommission-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 estimates at THI-2 to decommissioning since the TMI-2 estimates were for a post-accident situation where there was significant contamina-tion and the situation was initially uncertain with regard to contamination levels and cleanup procedures.
When licensees 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 reactor and will provide more up to date information about occupational 16
[7590-01]
expost res during decommissioning.
At that time NRC will be able to evalu-ate f.as 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 il that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use short.y after.essation 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 comenters expressed opinions on the rule with regard to allowing use of DECON and SAFSTOR.
Some comer,ters favored the use of DECON, one in particular noting that it should be u!ed at a site of high potential for a seismic event.
Other comenters noted the problems asso-ciated with DECON including the higher occupational exposure involved and problems associated with inability to dispose of wastes.
Some comenters noted that site specific factors should come into play and that either DECON or SAFSTOR should be possible.
Some commenters noted that because of problems associated with DECON, that SAFSTOR was the best option.
Two commenters 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 1
advantages and disadvantages of the DECON and SAFSTOR options.
The I
studies done for NRC by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) con-sidered factors such as cost of the alternative and occupational exposure l
17 l
- - --..... -.~. _ ~-..-. -
o
[7590-01]
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) prep _ared by NRC also addressed the advantages and disadvantages of DECON versus SAFSTOR including the fact that DECON releases the site for unrestricted use in a much 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 decommissioning 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 demonstrated 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 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.
Four commenters 18
[7590-01) 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 rioted 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 decomissioning which provide for completion of decommissioning 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 disposal space offsite or presence of an adjacent reactor whose safety 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 facility 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 SAFSTOR to be impractical and unnecessary.
In addition, the expected revisions to Regulatory Guide 1.86 setting out guidance on the factors discussed above will provide the NRC the flexibility to consider specific cases while st.ill providing assurance that the health and safety of the public is protected.
19
. -. ~.
. -. _. _....~
[7590-01]
Although the final rule does not contain specific restrictions on the time period involved for delay ir 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 commenters refer to longer periods of storage,for waste disposal facili-ties there are some differences between these two situations which mtst be considered, including the fact that in the case of the waste disposal facility the NRC transfers the license for the facility to the Stete or Federal government agency that owns the ' disposal site following satisfac-tory site closure whereas the reactor facility would remain licensed t'y a private organization, and that there are only a small number of disposal facilities compared to poss 41y over 100 reactor facilities.
4.
The ENTOMB Alternative.
ENTOMB was defined in the Supplerantary Information to the preposed rule as the alternative in which radioactive contaminants are encaseri in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete; the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out urtil the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property.
A number of commenters indicated that the rule should expressly pro-i hibit the use of ENTOMB as a decommissioning alternative for reactors.
l l
Several reasons were advanced for this statement including the following:
l the ENTOMB alternative could cause environmental damage due to the pre-1 sence of long-lived radionuclides which would be radioactive beyond the life of any concrete structure; the Supplementary.Information to 1.he p'ro-posed rule indicates ENTOMB is not viable yet the rule does not explicitly prohibit it; ENTOMB is inconsistent with the definition of decommissioning 20
[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 Information 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 prehibiting 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 lifetimes, or other situations where long-lived isotopes do not buld 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 ENTOMB option where, for example, some decontamination has already been performed, thereby naking 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]
As noted above, concerns were expressed by the comenters 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 arecs.
In addition, the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicated, in general, that there may be difficulties with the use of ENTOMS, 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 decomissioning to the NRC for approval and that consideration will be given to an alternative which provides for completion of decomissioning beyond 60 years only when necessary to protect health and safety.
This provides t5e Comission 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-tions where it is reasonable and consistent with the definition of decomissioning 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 comenters, use of ENTOMB by a licensee would.be carefully evaluated by NRC according to the requirements of the rule before its use is 22
I.
[7590-01]
permitted.
Regulatory Guides currently in preparation will provide more guidance in this area.
B.
Planning for Decomissioning.
Comments received on the subject of decomissioning planning covered several areas.
These included the licensing scheme for the decommissioning proce,ss; 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 decommissioning, 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 commenter 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-cants and result in a more cost and time effective licensing process.
In response, it should be noted that application for termination 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 amended license in accordance with the terms of a decommissioning order, r.nd that the license is terminated 23
(7590-01]
l 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 nonoperating status of the plant and to reduce some requiremen,ts which are important only for operation prior to finalization of decomissioning 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 amendments 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 decomissioning 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 "decommissioning order" is used in lieu of the term "dismantling order" because, according to the amendments, the overall approach to decommis-sioning must now be approved shortly after the end of operation rather than an amended "pessession-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 health and safety and promote the common defense and security continues until the Commission terminates the license.
Section 50.82(f) clearly indicates 24
[7590-01]
the license is terminated by a determination of the Comission af ter the
]
decomissioning has been performed and it has been adequately demonstrated that the facility and site are suitable for release for unrestricted use.
Because etcommissioning, 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 commenters 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 decomissioning plans and activities and termi-nating licenses are necessary to protect public, occupational, and envir-orimental 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 concerned with clsrifying 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 commenters indicated that without more specific criteria for acceptability of decommissioning plans, the.
Comission would exercise little authority over licensee actions during decommissioning and one comenter indicated that the licensees could 25
(7590-01]
conduct decommissioning with
...i.ually complete independence." Two commenters indicated that the rule "assumed" that utilities would follow basic safety criteria.
In response, it should be noted that continuing authorityo possess a reactor in a decommissioned stctus 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 protects the public health and safety.
To this end, the rule conthins requirements that a decommissioning plan contain a description of the following:
the choice of the alternative for decomissioning 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.
Msed on this requirement the licensee submits the necessary information to the NRC in the decommissioning plan.
The NRC's evaluation of the 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 decommissioning. These 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 26
[7590-01]
restricted and unrestricted areas.
In addition to the general limita-tions on exposure contained in Part 20, 10 CFR 20.1(c) indicates that radiation exposures, and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, should b9 as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Part 20 also contains, among other things, requirements on radiation monitoring, personnel monitoring, precautionary procedures, and reporting.
Part 50, Appendix B contains broad requirements on quality assurance provisions which can be used, as appropriate, to the extent commensurate with the safety functions to be performed by facility structures, systems, and components during decommissioning ac'tivities.
Part 50 also contains guidelines on radioactive waste system design.
Part 61 contains require-ments on land disposal of radioactive waste including criteria for classi-l fication and characteristics of waste acceptable for disposal.
Part 71 containt, requirements for the packaging and transportation of radioactive l
material.
Parts 70 and 73 contain requirements for physic 1 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 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 regu1'ations.
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 systems.
Also, as noted below in Sections B.4 and l
B.5, guidance is being considered on safeguards and on quality assurance provisions during decommissioning and on procedures to be considered for 27 1
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 and workers during decommissioning is through implementation of 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 arproval.
Amenyaents to the license are' needed because many of the pres-
.:riptive 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 and enforcement staff will monitor 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 information which should be submitted to conform to the rule.
In addition, Regulatory Guide 1.86 l
28
[7590-01) 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.
Regulatory Guides have been used successfully to provide uniform application of requirements while affording Commission staff flexibility to consider unique factors ip 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 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 regul,ations be clarified in order to delineate those activities related to decomissioning that could proceed without approval of the decomissioning plan if those activities are allowed by the oper-l ating license and S 50.59.
l In response it should be noted that S 50.59 permits a holder of an operating license to carry out certain activities without prior Commission approval unless these activities involve a change in the t6chnical l
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 j
application for amendment to the license pursuant to i 50.90.
Section 50.59(a)(2) contains criteria as to what is deemed to be an unreviewed safety issue.
The amendments contained in this rulemaking do not.alte.r a f
licensee's capability to conduct activities under i 50.59. Although the l
l l
29 l
t
[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 S 50.59. These matters will be further discussed in a revision to Regulatory Guide 1.86 under consideration.
3.
Occupational exposure during decom.nissioning.
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 THI rnd Shippip; port would indicate that total occupational exposures are apt to be substantially higher than estimated.
Another believed that exposures during decommissioning will be substantially higher than from operations.
One commenter suggested specific requirements such as training of workers prior to work in highly radioactive areas.
In response, 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 rulemaking.
Detailed plans for decossission-ing are the primary means of air.inizing worker exposure.
Procedures for carrying out decommissioning will be evaluated by NRC staff for adequacy l
of occupational exposure control; plans for appropriate training are an area of review.
Basic radiation protection, monitoring, and reporting l
requirements need not be developed specifically for decoenissioning l
l 30 l
[7590-01) because generally applicable criteria are already contained in 10 CFR Part 20.
The radiation levels to which workers will be exposed will be 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 recordkeeping requirements of this rule. Other aspects of facilitation of decomissioning 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 decommissioning 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 decommissioning plan.
In aduition, appropriate guidance documents will be issued identifying which of the current operating requirements on safeguards are to apply during decommissioning.
5.
Quality assurance during decommissioning.
Many commenters were concerr.ad 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.
31
[7590-01)
The Commission agrees that quality assurance is important for decom-missioning.
The intent to include QA in decommissioning plans was men-tioned 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 decommissioning 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 bat a se 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 comp 1y with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B to the extent cossen-surate with the safety functions to be performed by facility structures, systems and components during decommissioning activities.
Guidance is being considered to assist in the development and review of the quality l
assurance provisions of decommissioning plans.
6.
Recordkeeping and facilitation.
Commenter opinions concerning the recorakeeping requirements proposed was mixed.
Several thought it was important enough to include specific support for the requirements as proposed indicating why such records were important.
Other 4:ommenters indicated that existing recordkeeping requirements are sufficient.
One commenter suggested 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 l
32
[7590-01) 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, that 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 coments were submitted concer'ning facilitation of decommission-ing.
The comenters favored consideration of facilitation except for one who indicated that additional plant design requirements and operating procedures to facilitate decommissioning are not necessary.
One comenter 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 recommended l
that specific requirements for facilitation of decomissioning in design I
and operating procedures be included in the regulations.
In preparing the proposed rule, the Commission did not concl:
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 required specifically for all licensees at this time.
As noted in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, although no specific requirements are being imposed at this time, the effects of facilitation l
on design of facilities and operational procedures can be considered under l
1 33 l
[7590-01]
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 decommissioning, the Commission staff may consider these factors in reviewing applications for constru: tion permits or operating licenses under the more general criteria contained in the regulations.
The Commission 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 the exemption of reactors permanently shut down prior to issuance of the
. rule from the requirement to submit decommissioning plans.
Some thought that this would mean a lower level of protection for the public living near such a plant.
One.commenter suggested that those licensees be reo.uired to review their plans within a set time after the effective date of the rule and submit any revisions necessary to make their plans 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 comment, it should be noted'that reactors which are permanently shut down prior to the effective date of this rule, have had their status. reviewed by applying for a possession-only license (a few had obtained a materials license only). These plants are being ade-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 l
expiration of the possession-only license.
Detailed plans for ultimate l
34
[7590o01) dismantlement of reactors currently in safe storage would be deferred 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 licensees with no N.**
significant impact on health and safety.
Funding and recordkeeping requirements in the amendments 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 comments on funding for material licensees, funding for Federal 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 decommissioning.
A number of commenters questioned the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) estimates of the cost of decommissioning as discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule.
A variety of alternative estimates and reasons for questioning the estimates were given.
A susunary of these are as follows:
(a) Commenters indicated that other estimates have been made which make the PNL studies appear to be too low.
Commenters from the nuclear industry indicated costs are more likely in the range of $126 to $178 35
[7590-01) million. 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 estimates. 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 studias 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 MWe reactor, has been estimated to cost $98 million to decommission.
Larger reactors would likely cost significantly more than this, perhaps more than three times as such.
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
[7590-01)
(d) Estimates of costs of other activities such as reactor construc-tion, THI-2 cleanup, and Saxton decommissioning have been greatly under-estimated.
Costs of decomissioning will likely escalate much higher than estimated today.
(e) The cost of decomissioning 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 Paciff.: Noithwest Labs (PNL) to develop an analysis of estimated costs of decommissioning va'rious nuclear facilities, includ-ing PWRs and BWRs, on a generic basis, based on an engineering evaluation of activities 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 and reference BWR are detailed engineering studies of the conceptual decommissioning of a l
l large PWR (the 1175 MWe Trojan Nuclear Plant is used as the reference plant) and a large BWR (the 1150 MWe WNP-2 plant is used as reference).
-The PNL reports consider:
(1) the detailed plant design and layout of the reference plant; (2) estimated conditions in the plant at the time of shutdown (just prior to decomissioning) including estimates of radio-nuclide inventory and radiation dose rates; (3) techniques for decontam-ination and dismantling which are current and proven; and (4) radiation protection requirements for workers and the public.
Based on these con-siderations, the PNL reports present detailed work plans and time.
schedules to accomplish decomissioning, including those for planning and preparation, decontamination, and component disassembly and transport.
37 l
--w
[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 reactor decommissioning studies were performed during the period 1976-1979 and PNL has since prepared updates of the original PWR and BWR studies (NUREG/CR-0130 (Ref. 2) and NUREG/CR-0672 (Ref. 3),
respectively) in which the earlier estimates were adjusted for inflation due to increases in labor costs, waste disposal charges, and othkr general cost increases since the original studies.
In addition to inflation, several aspects not considered in the original studies were examined:
the use of a general decommissioning contractor in place of the utility acting as its own contractor; the use of an external engineering firm to develop the detailed plans and procedures for accomplishing decommission-ing; and the addition of suffittent staff to assure that radiation doses to decommissioning workers do not exceed 5 rem per year.
Based on the above factors and adjustments, PNL estimates of power reactor decommissioning in January 1986 dollars are in the range of
$105 - $135 million.
A breakdown of these costs is contained in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Ref. 20). The PNL costs do not include the cost of demoli-tion and removal of noncontaminated structures, storage and shipment of spent fuel, or restoration of the site.
Although it may be difficult to make simple comparisons between different cost estimates for different platits because of site-specific considerations, it can be said that the PNL estimates represent a reason-able approximation of the range of decommissioning costs, in particular because they use engineering assumptions and are based on decommissioning 38
[7590-01]
experience.
Other estimates made independently from PNL and made using engineering assumptions ara 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 anG is in year 2015 dollars and hence includes the assumed effects of price escalation between 1984 and 2015 which could be 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 costs.
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 with site-specific differences and partly with differing assumptions regarding labor necessary to complete certain decommissicning 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 l
l Shippingport reactor.
The rule amendments provide for these differences by allowing the use of site-specific 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, the primary use of information from earlier decommissionings of small reactors like Elk 39 t
. ~..
(7590-01)
River was to gain a perspective on the types of operations neces the types of tooling appropriate to accomplish dismantlement The fact that the activation levels experienced in Elk River were lower than those anticipated in a reactor after a full lifetime of oper tion has little effect on the PNL analyses, because components that a highly activated are generally disassembled under water.
With water shielding, still higher activation levels will not influence the approach and methods of disassembly and packaging in any signifkant way.
With respect to the lack of data on contamination and activation levels throughout the plants at the end of life, the activation 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 estimates of end-of-conditions because current operating practice is to perform system and surface decontaminations periodically as required to keep occupational radiation doses to operations personnel within reasonable bounds.
The quotation from the FNL report to t5e effect that "extrapolations of these experiences to large commercial reactors are considered to be unreasonable" needs to consider the remainder of the discuss in the PNL report for the proper context.
The statement in the PNL report was not intanded to imply that reasonable analyses could not be made for the large reactors.
The statement was intended instead to discourage persons from performing linear extrapolations 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 1.n Section 4.3 of NUREG/CR-0672 that "the primary value of past decommissioning exper is in identification of the methods and technologies of decommission 40
[7590-01)
In Section 4.3.3, NUREG/CR-0672 describes some of the lessons learned from past decomissionings, 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 decomissionings, gathered from various sources, is used in considering which technic,.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 decomissioning 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 deco mis-sioning methods 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 seasures more appro-priate for large reactors.
Based on these considerations, the PNL studies developed detailed work plans and time schedules to accomplish decomis-sioning which are described in more detail in Sections 4.2 and 9 and Appendices F and G of NUPEG/CR-0130 and Sections 3 and 9 and Appendices G, H, and I of NUREG/CR-0672.
41 l
(7590-01]
The commenters in (c) questioned the PNL estimates due to the costs of the Shippingport decommissioning.
In response, first, it should be noted that the Shippingport reactor has all of the components of a large commercial reactor and, in addition, the ratio of the physical size of components at Shippingport compared to the physical size of components at a large commercial reactor is much larger than the ratio of power levels.
Thus, the kinds and numbers of operations required to accomplish dismantlement are very similar.
The cost of assembling and paying a crew for the decommissioning is high and makes up a large fraction of the cost of decommissioning.
Even for smaller facilities, a crew must still be 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 for these activities is significant in each case.
Second, the specific situation at Shippingport must be considered.
In particular, the Shippingport dismantlement is being conducted as a let.rning exercise and an information/ technology transfer opportunity for the nuclear industry.
More time and effort are being devoted to planning, executing, and documenting each task than would otherwise he necessary during a commercial reactor decommissioning project.
Thus, the costs should be greater than expected for a plant of that size.
In addition, the Shippingport cost estimate is escalated to real doilars spent during the active decommissioning period up to 1990 which is a reasonable 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 which was to use constant 1984 dollars in the proposed rule.
To make a valid comparison, both estimates would have to be in the same 42
a 1
[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.
Inpdition to these factors, DOE indicated the existence of certain unique items in 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 response, while there is no doubt that decommissioning costs will continue to escalate in step with general price increases, it does not follow that because reactor construction costs exceeded original estimates, decommissioning cost estimates will also be greatly exceeded.
Cost overruns in the construction of nuclear plants reflected the regulatory requirements necessary to licence a reactor for construction 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.
Decommissioning cost estimates do not include a number of the factors involvvo in obtaining an operating license and should not necessarily be subject to such increases.
The cleanup at THI-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 condit'ons to be overcome, and in addition, there were delays in the program caused by technical and regulatory problems.
43
...__.m
l j
f a
[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 nonnal decomissioning 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 not first-of-a-kind, but reflect direct applications of developed tech-niques and equipment.
Thus, cost increases of the magnitude experienced by the THI-2 cleanup effort are unlikely to occur for a normal decom-missioning effort.
The commenters in (e) indicated that the cost of decommissioning would likely equal the cost of construction of the plant, i.e., with costs of construction running at $3 billion, the cost of decommissioning would be $3 billion.
First, there have been no detailed analyses pre-sented to indicate that decommissioning costs will equal construction costs and, in fact, there is not a specifically defined or fixed rela-tionship between these two costs.
The PNL studies on decommissioning (NUREG/CR-0672 and NUREG/CR-0130) have not identified a specific rela-tionship between construction costs and decommissioning costs.
As can 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, niscellaneous 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
[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 relationship between them in the Battelle-PNL reports.
Secondly, in any comparison of costs it is necessary to place the costs in the same year's dollars in order to have a meaningful basis for comparison.
Certainly in about 30-40 years when the reactors are decom-missioned, inflation may well drive the decomissioning 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 cpplicant or licensee may submit a certification that financial assurance for decom-missioning will be provided in a prescribed amount stipulated in the regula-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 comenters objected to the use of certification for the following general reasons:
(1) The use of site specific estimates is preferable to a prescribed amount because they will be more realistic and accurate and able to account for site-specific factors.
45
~
[7590-01]
(2) Commenters 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,million was too low while a few argued that it was too high.
(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.
Commenters noted that the use of the $100 million figure or other similar prescribed amount will be viewed by state and Federal 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 commenters as setting a revenue rtquirement which is a function for state and Federal rate regulators.
(5) The inflation factor contained in the proposed rule was con-sidered to be inaccurate because there was no basis to expect the decom-missioning cost to increase at twice the CPI in the future, and the factor could be subject to misuse as noted above in (c).
(b) Some commenters 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-missioning, that it is not fixed but is for reference purposes only, that 46
[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 rite 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-THI 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 f
structures, whether it includes contingencies, whether it is per unit.
(6) The use of the inflation factor should be clarified, in partic-f l
ular that it is not intended to reflect the actual rate of increase of decommissioning costs, and the inflation factor should be codified using other escalators, for example, Handy-Whitman indexes for labor and materials and separate data sources for waste disposal.
(c) With regard to funding plans, several commenters indicated that there needed to be more specific or quantitative description of HRC's criteria for approval of cost estimates in power reactor funding plans and that lack of criteria could result in confusion.
In responding to these comments it should be noted that, as discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, the intent of the 47
i e
(7590-01) i i
i 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 e 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 decommissioning.
The certification is also in-tended to minimize NRC involvement in the rate regulatory process, which is an area outside of NRC's jurisdiction.
The fact that site specific cost estimates may still have to be prepared for rate regulators is out-side the scope of this rulemaking.
Second, the connents that a site specific cost estimate is preferable as noted in (a)(1) above, that the prescribed amount in the certification is not rapresentative of most plants as noted in (a)(2) above, and that the use of the prescribed amount will ie viewed as a limiting upper value by rate regulators as noted in (a)(3) above, indicates the certification method in the proposed rule has been misunderstood., The proposed rule stated that a utility could submit a certification that financial assur-ance for decommissioning will be provided in an amount at least equal to I
48
[7590-01) 5100,000,000 (Emphasis 'dded).
Accordingly, the proposed rule did not a
intend 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 the 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 prepared, it can form the basis for the l
certification and the licensee may indicate that provisions are being made for an amount greater than the prescribed amount.
Use of the certification approach is a first step in providing reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning from the Commission's perspective.
The second step is that the amendments require the licensee, five years prior to the expected end of operations, to submit a cost estimate for decommissioning based on an up-to-date assessment of the actions necessary for decommissioning and plans for adjusting levels of funds assured for decommissioning.
As noted in the Supplementary Informa-tion to the proposed rule, this estimate would be based on a then current 49
[7590-01) assessment of major factors that could affect decommissioning costs and would include relevant, up-to-date information.
These tactors could include site specific factors as well as then current information on such issues as disposal of waste, residual radioactivity criteria.,etc., and would present a realistic appraisal of the decommissioning of the specific reactor, taking into account actual factors and details specific to the reactor and the time period.
Combination of these steps, first establishing a general level of adequate financial responsibility for decommissioning early in life, followedbyperiodicadjustment,andthenevaluationofspecific
. provisions close to the time of decommissioning, will provide reasonable assurance that the Commission's objective lc met, namely that at the time of pennanent end of operations sufficient funds are available to decommis-sion the facility in a manner which protects public health and safety.
More detailed consideration by NRC early in life beyond the certification is not considered necessary because of the steps discussed above.
In addition, because public utility commissions 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 suggested by the commenters.
Based on the above discussion, the level of review contained in this decommissioning 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 or quantitative, the certification process provides clear requirements 50
[7590-01]
and will achieve the objective of reasonable 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 detailed review 5 years prior to end of life is consistent with the requirements for non-reactor facilities who are required to submit updated plans 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 equitable should be considered by utilities and their ratemaking bodies.
For example, te be more equitable to ratepayers, the utilities and ratemaking bodies may want to consider d ether 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 f
i 51 l
1
[7590-01]
cost estimate to indicate that provisions are being made for an amount i
greater than the prescribed amount and to delineate the correct usage of the certification.
(2) As indicated in 5 50.75(c), the amount h:
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 1
estimate of the range of decommissioning costs.
In preparation of the final rule, the original PNL estimates were reevaluated and compared with other estimates and updated estimates were oeveloped based on recent information.
t (3) In response to the public comments, the rule text has been revised to clarify what would be covered by the prescribed amount and provisions have been included in the rule to aajust the amount for such l
factors as plant size and reactor type.
This adjustment for plant size I
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 estimates.
An indication of the bases for the prescribed amounts and for
)
the adjustment is contained in addenda to NUREG/CR-0130 and NUREG/CR-0672.
(4) The final rule text also indicates that amounts are based on i
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 t
the NRC license.
Costs of disposal of nonradioactive hazardous wastes not necessary for NRC license termination are not included in the i
prescribed amounts.
4 1
l 52
[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 decomissioning cost.
The / actors for labor, energy, and waste burial are indicated separately and are based on the addenda to NUREG/CR-0130 and NUREG/CR-0672 and on NUREG-1307 (Ref. 27).
3.
Acceptable fonding 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 coments 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 the internal reserve if the acquired assets and investments do not preserve value over time and there may be problems in issuing bonds against these 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 froe customers will be available in the future for decomissioning. This could cause serious cash flow problems at the time of decommissioning, especially if utilities are replacing old plants with new ones at i.he same time decosaissioning takes place.
I (2) The future financial viability of utilities cannot be assured I
and the potential exists for utility instability and insolvency.
The commenters expressed concern that the utilities could not raise funds for 53
[7590-01) decommissioning if they were having severe financial problems 'or were facing insolvency.
Comenters cited examples of potential situations.
(3) The level of assurance provided is inadequate and the genera-tion of insufficient funds could compromise safety, cause delays, 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 Ga0's concern that decommissioning costs be paid by current beneficiaries, not future generations.
One commenter's analysis indicated that internal reserve costs exceed external reserve costs 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 external financing needs.
In addition, utilities have investments, cash flow, and annual earnings which are large compared to decommissioning costs.
(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 decommissioning.
Commenters also noted that in times of financial difficulty, an internal reserve is sufficient beause it is unlikely that electric generation service would not be provi.ded and, even in the case of insolvency, there will be a successer to the insolvent utility who would retain the obligation to decommission.
54
1
[7590-01]
(3) Several comenters supported internal reserve because it can earn a higher rate of return, reduces revenue requirements, and provides a reasonable balance between cost and assurance.
Also, cossenters noted that there are financial risks associated with external reserve, mp. *
- In developing the Proposed Rule, the Commission considered the question of the use of internal reserve in several documents.
These include NUREG-0584, Revs.1-3, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities," (Ref.14), NUREG/CR-1481, "Financing Strategies for Nuclear Power Plant Decomissioning," (Ref.15) and NUREG/CR-3899, "Utility Financial Stability and the Availability of Funds for Decomissioning" (Ref.18).
In addition, the Commission held a necting soliciting public and industry views or, decommissioning on September 19, 1984 and the NRC staff reviewed comments in the trea of financial assurance submitted on NUREG-0586 "Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decomissioning Nuclear Facilities" (Ref. 20).
These reports and meetings considered severai 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) to set requirements to establish onsite property damage insurance for use after an accident. Although these insurance proceeds would net be used directly for decommissioning, they would reduce the risk of a utility being hit by a large demand for funds after an accident.
Most utilities are now carrying insurance well in 55
[7590-01]
excess of $1 billion.
Other factors considered are the long time period before decomissioning takes place during which time reasonable assurance of funds for decomissioning must be maintained, as well as concerns regarding utility solvency and potential problems regarding availability of funds which may occur as a result of bankruptcy.
Before publication of the proposed rule, f.he NRC evaluated the adequacy of various funding methods in light of financial problems encountered by some utilities which, faced with lower growth in electricity demand than they projected and rapidly increasing costs of construccion, had been forced to cancel nuclear plants in advanced stages of construction an'd
.the ramifications these conditions, as well as issues related to bankruptcy, could have on a utility's ultimate ability to pay for decomissioning.
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 decomissioning rule permitted a range of options, including l
internal reserve, for providing assurance that sufficient funds are available for decomissioning.
However, the Supplementary Information to l
the proposed rule noted that the regulatory approach for assuring funds l
for decomissioning had been particularly difficult to r6 solve and l
l specifically requested additional information and comments in this area.
In particular, the Supplementary Information stated that:
"More specifically, Comissioners Asselstine and Bernthal continue
(
to be concerned about the vulnerability of the internal funding l
56 l
[7590-01) mechanism for decomissioning funds, particularly where the funds are used to purchase assets or reduce existing debt."
Based on this concern, Comissioners Asselstine and Bernthal em.**
requested "public coments on the need to consider the possibility of insolvency and its impact on the continued ava,ilability of decommission-ing funds."
Although comenters did not generally refer specifically to the separate r equest for coment by Comissioners 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 decomissioning funds, and stated that the level of assurance is inadequate.
In contrast, other comenters agreed with the use of internal reserve citing the fact that the likelihood of instability and insolvency is remote, that utilities have investmer's, cash flow, and annual earnings which are large in comparison to decommissioning cost, and that the internal reserve does provide reasonable assurance.
As part of the review of the comments, NRC has haJ 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 nuclear utilities has improved, with the exception of Public Service of 57
,. m,- m
t i
[7590-01]
New Hampshire (PSNH), and that from a financial standpoint, use of internal teserve 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 costs; that it is not necessarily true that bankruptcy of a utility is tantamount to default on decommission-ing obligaticns; and the potential that the costs of decommissioning would be recognized as a prier obligation with regard to creditors.
Despite these 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 p'etition 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 1 concludes that internal reserve should not be allowed for Seabrook until the financial prospects of the utility are clarified I
and the viability of the corporation insured.
l In addition, NUREG/CR-2899, Supp. 1, noted that it is imperative that, in the case of the sale or other disposition of utility assets, no monies are distributed to any security holders until a fund is established to assure payment for decommissioning.
Supplement 1 also recommended 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 s5ould 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 that internal reserve does not provide reasonable assurance of funds for decom-missioning, then additional rulemaking or other steps should be taken to insure availability of these funds.
The Commission has considered the conclusions in NUREG/CR-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 acts, 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 safety problems.
Although the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act do not 59
.. c
[7590-01) permit the P.RC 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 promulgat_ ion of rules prescribing allowable funding methods 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 (D.R.I. 1982) and cases cited therein.)
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission continues to be concerned with the use of an internal reserve.
The Commission notes the concerns expressed in NUREG/CR-3899, Supp. 1 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 provide that decommissioning funds be provided on a more assured basis.
In addition, to the extent that a utility is having severe financial difficulties at the time of decommissioning, it may 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 decommissioning 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 credGors and therefore internal reserves cannot be made legally secure.
In addition, because of the nature of the internal reserve, the 60
[7590-01) funds collected are not isolated for use for decommissioning.
Instead the utility mcy 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-M': vbon needed to pay the costs of decommissioning and hence does not prc.ide 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 possible method of providing funds for decomissioning.
In reaching its conclusion not to permit use of internal reserve for decommissioning, the Commission believes it important not to impose inordinate financial burdens on licensees.
The modification to the pro-posed rule is not expected tc impose such a burden for several reasons.
First, licensees have 2 years from the effective date of the final rule before they have to submit information regarding financial assurance.
Second, the external reserve is a sinking fund accumulated over a period 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 iaws allowing current deductions for external reserves may reduce the cost differential between internal reserve and external reserve.
Finally, the rule does not require funds accumulated to date 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).
1 61 u
[7590-01)
In a related coment, several comenters 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 Lea, sons 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 t
accident or problems with reactor aging or obsolescence.
Consequently, sufficient funds for decomissioning might not have been collected by a method which accumulates funds over projected reactor life.
Conversely, several comenters 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 decommissioning, the utility will still have sufficient resources available after the decontamination process to carry out decomissioning.
Some of the comenters recognized the possible difficulties in obtaining non-accident premature decomissioning insurance.
One commenter stated that surety bonds or insurance are not viable alter-natives for normal decommissioning or premature decommissioning not asso-ciated with an accident.
The commenter noted that nuclear property insurance would be available only if an insured event necessitated premature decommissioning 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 that surety bonds in the amount of $100 million are not generally available.
62
[7590-01]
The Commission notes that these comments 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 Comission has implemented its proposed requirement in 10 CFR 50.54(w) for slightly over $1 billion of insurance.
An important consideration in selecting an acceptable method for providing funds for decomissioning 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 generally has a cost too high for the benefit that would be realized.
Use of insurance for non-accident related decommissioning was found in an earlier study performed for the NRC, NUREG/CR-2370 (Ref. 16), to have potentially serious problems of insurability and moral hazard and is not currently available.
(Moral hazard is a term used in the insurance industry to indicate a situation of laxity.with respect to loss prevention or loss control where those insured have access to risk prevention.) Finally, earlier studies in NUREG-0584 found that surety bonds were not generally available in the amounts necessary for decomissioning power re9 tors.
In light of the factors considered, including the assurance provided by the various methods, the unlikely nature of the various events and the cost and practicality of providing more absolute assJrance by certain methods, the Commission has concluded that the funding methods listed in the rule as modified by the exclusion of internal reserve are adequate.
63
-n_
[7590-01]
Two comenters stated that well capitaliit1, firmly 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,nment enti-ties.
In response to this coment, it is noted that certain government licensees are permitted in the amendments to meet the funding require-ments of the rule by submitting a statement of intent that the appropriate government entity will be guarantor of decomissioning 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, which has the power of taxation, will pro-vide adequate funding in the future to decomission the facility in a manner which protects public health whereas this is not necessarily the case with private organizations even it they are currently adequately capitalized.
If they have no funds for decomissioning there can be problems with completion of decomissioning.
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 comenters indicated agreement with proposed S 50.82(c)(1) which would require a. licensee planning to delay completion of decommissioning by including a period of safe storage or long-term surveillance to place funds into an external fund or use a surety or certification method, while four commenters disagreed with the proposal indicating that utilities should not be required to shift to external funding.
In response, as noted in the response to a previous coment, the proposed rule has been modified to delete internal reserve as an acceptable funding method, t
(
64
[7590-01]
Because there is as great or greater need for assurance of "unds over the extended timeframe involved with a facility in SAFSTOR when the facility is no longer a revenue producing asset, the proposed requirement in S 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 oyer the operating life of the facility because there would be increases 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 regulations with most saying frequencies of 5 years and some indicating it should be more frequent.
In response, the Commission 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 adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels over the life of the facility" and which also requires each reactor licensee to update his cost estimate "at or about 5 years prior to the projected end of opera-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 i
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.
l 65 l
~....
[7590-01)
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 commenters argued th6 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 coments' in light of the need to pro-vide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decomissioning 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 S 50.75 instead of a license concition.
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 decomissioning will be provided in a prescribed amount stipulated in proposed 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70.
The amount is dependent on the quantity of licensed material which the licensee possesses.
Two commenters indicated that the cost amounts prescribed in the regulations for 10 CFR Parts 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 comente'r did not think 66
[7590-01]
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 by the U.S. Army cost $300,000 to $1,000,000; i:leanup 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 commenters 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 amour,ts is to provide an approach which minimizes the burden on the majority of licensees and un the NRC while providing assurance 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 l
plan with a facility specific cost estimate.
In response to the commenters who felt the estimates were too low, I
certain poin 5 must be considered in assessing the comments and the examples cited.
Some of the examples appear to be cases where there was 67 l
[7590-01) 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 funding cleanup of accidental releases of radioactive material _were 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., SS 30.35, 40.36, and 70.25) permitting use of a prescribed funding amount.
Licensees of these facilities would be
. required to submit a decommissioning funding plan containing 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 temporary 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 facility decommissioning cost estimate) at the time of application for license renewal.
PNL has provided updated decommissioning cost estimates to NRC for use in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement.
Appropriate information has been taken from those updates 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.isted in 68
t
[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 associeted with requiring all material licensees to set aside in their funding method the added costs of assuming,use of a contractor is not justified coapared to the small number of licensees expe-ted to have to use contractors.
The estimated cost. of decomissioning 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 I
l licensees may 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 methorfs i
for materials licensees.
These commenters argued that use of financial l
tests on a case-by-case basis would improve the degree of financial l
assurance and eliminate unnecessary cost burdens for many non-utility, l
non government entities.
As precedents and examples of tests which could be used by NRC, the commenters generally referred to the financial tests i
contained in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 for hazardous waste facilities regulated by EPA.
The commenters indicated that these tests could be l
69 l
l
1
[7590-01) 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 facilities 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 decommis-sioning would take place that the financial test would not provide sufficient assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning.
Also, additional staff time could be necessary to raonitor the financial status of a number of licensees.
This position and the funding methods listed in the proposed decommissioning rule were consis nt 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 decommission'.ng 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 recommended 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 i
70
DS90-01]
parent company guarantee and financial test is taken from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's regulations 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265.
Use of the parent company guarantee and financial test provides assurance in that the company will provide an inaependent commitment beyond that of the licer,see to expend funds.
This requirement is consistent 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 prepayment 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 instrument to pay for decomissioning of the facility, while wi'.h the second approach, a financial instrument is used as backup to pay for decomissioning 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 decomissioning, the licensee is still fully responsible for all of its decomissioning requirements.
NRC intends to periodically review the overall financial status of licensees to assess tne effectiveness of the funding methods permitted in the regulations.
One commenter was concerned that, in the case of licensees having materials licensed under more than one part of 10 CFR and used within 71
[7590-01) comon facilities, the rule would require a separate decomissioning plan for each license and recomended that a consolidated plan be allowed.
In response to this coment, in some cases where byproduct, source', and/or special nucle:r material are used in the same facilities, it wo'uld be very o
difficult to develop separate decommissioning or funding plans for termin-ating each license, in particular where there is interdependence of facili-ties, operations, or projected decomissioning activities.
Consolidated plans based on a combined analysis of the facility decomissioning would be permitted.
If a licensee operates multiple independent facilities and/or sites under a single license, a consolidated decomissioning or funding plan would have to delineate procedures and cost estimates for each facility / site.
The regulatory guides currently under consideration would include further details concerning these situations.
The rule is broad enough to encompass these situations.
Two comenters expressed concern regarding the licensee's respons-ibility for decommissioning.
One comenter indicated that it was not clear in the preposed rule whether financial assurance requirements apply to each license, each licensee, or each facility and recommended that the licensee be specified as the responsible unit.
The other commenter expressed the concern that there exists the potential for reducing ccm-panies' liability for decontamination activities should the NRC approved funding plan be inadequate.
In response to these coments, it should be noted that amended 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 require that each holder of a specific license provide financial assurance for decomissioning thus specifically indicating that the licensee is the responsible party for financial assurance.
Funding and decomissioning plans submitted by a holder of 72
. ~
i
[7590-01]
multiple materials licenses may be consolidated.
It is expected that the requirements contained in amended 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 will provide reasonable assurance that funds are available for decommissioning 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 decommissioning or use of a certification of an amount prescribed in 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 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 fecility decommissionings.
Section 30.35 also provides that the licensee include provisions in the fundingplanforadjustingdecommissioningcostestimatesandassociated funding levels over the life of the facility to take into account changing economic and technical conditions.
Even in the event that these efforts result in a shortfall of funds at decommissioning, a matter which concerns the commenter, the regulations specifically state that it is the licensee's responsibility to fund and carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety.
Accordingly, the licensee would be under a continuing obligation to find the means for completing decommis-sioning.
6.
Funding requirements for Federal licensees.
One commenter, the Department of the Army, indicated that the proposed requirements for Federal agencies, specifically proposed sections in Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, requiring a certification that the appropriate government entity will be guarantor of decommissioning funds, appear inconsistent with 73
[7590-01]
Federal statute.
The commenter suggested either NRC should spearhead 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,it 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 excess of appropriations unless the contract or obligation is authorized by law.
The purpose of the Act is to "keep all departments of the Government, in the matter of incurring obligations fer 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 government agencies as well as transac-tions between 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 from 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
[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 intention of the proposed rule is that these State and Federal licensees should, early in their facilities' lifetime, be aware of the evpntual decomissioning of the facility, specifically its cost, 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 licen-
. 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 l
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 l
by the commenters for the disagreement 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 i
recover decomissioning costs in rates; utilities recognize that those who benefit from the plant should pay for decomissioning; and that the proposed rule will impose a financial penalty on utilities and will com-plicate the existing process.
75 l
l l
m
(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 decommissioning and that utilities should not be able to evade liability for funding of decommission.ing costs.
In particular one comenter indicated that a utility could avoid liability for decom-missioning by foruing "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 commenters addressed the issue of the proper roles of NRC and State and Federal ratemaking agencies in estabitshing funding methods.
Some commenters 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 commenters 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 by the rule but should be determined by the ratemaking authorities because 76 1
[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 comenter 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 decomissioning is carried out in a safe manner and that ratemaking bodies should have responsibility for choosing cost-effective funding methods.
One comenter expressed concern that there may be serious jurisdictional problems and disputes with NRC's rule in that NRC 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 decommissioning 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 decomissioning fund.
In response to these coments it should be noted that the Comission's statutory mandate to protact the radiological health and safety of the public and promote the comon defense and security 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 acts, the NRC has determined that this regulation is needed because there is a significant radiation hazard associated with nondecomissioned 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 may 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 decommissioning costs.
(See Pacific Gas & Electric v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Develop-ment Commission, 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 Commission has considered the roles of the state Publi: Utility Commissions (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 sale (wholesale) of electricity by investor-owned util-ities in interstate commerce and authorizes the conditions, rates, and charges for interconnections among electric utilities. The sales of electricity for which FERC would set rates are small, comprising about 78
[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 st.aff of the Federal Energy Regulatory 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 citernatives based on their specific respon-sibilities 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 the other agencies do not.
NRC's rule amendments permit a State or Federal rate regulatory agency to choose from among the funding alter-natives listed in the final rule and to choose levels of funding based on specific considerations related to their ratemaking responsibilities, as for example cost and equitability for early ratepayers versus later ratepayers.
l In response to comments that there should not be funding requirements
(
for decommissioning 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-l viding reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning. When the rule l
on elimination of financial qualifications was proposed, the Commission stated that decommissioning was more properly dealt with in the separate I
79 l
[7590-01]
rulemaking then underway.
In promulgating the proposed rule on'decommis-sioning, Commissioner Bernthal drew a distinction between decommissioning j
assurance and the rule on eliminating the financial qualification review at the licensing stage.
Factors cited by the commenters, such,as 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 that health and safety will 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 ruic bas 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 comment in Sec-tion C.3, the proposed rule has been modified to delete internal reserve as an acceptable funding method, however, this is not ext.ected to add significantly to licensee's burden for the reasons discussed in Sec-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 is included as a means for minimizing licensee burden in complying with the amended regulations.
The rule, and the NRC's implementation of it, does not deal with financial ratemaking issues such as rate of fund collection, procedures for fund collection, cost to ratepayers, taxation effects, equitability between early and later ratepayers, accounting procedures, ratepayer versus stockholder considerations, responsiveness to change and other similar concerns.
Ir, addition, the rule does not 80
[7590-01) 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, considering the distinct roles that the NRC and the ratemaking agencies have, NRC will not become involved in the rate regulation process as it, relates to decommissioning.
Based on the above discussion, the Commission 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 holding companies, the NRC could condition the approval of the decommissioning plan by requiring the licensee to include sufficient funds in the estab-lishment of the holding company.
In other words, the NRC would not approve the decommissioning plan unless tne holding company had suffi-cient assets to meet its obligations pursuant to the decommissioning 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 authority 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 impac ts'.
The commenters 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 for completing decommissioning in a manner that protects health and safety."
In addition, the Supplementary Information and the text of the rule make 81
Linu-01) clear that the licensee must take responsibility for planning for decom-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 decommissioning plan which sddresses the choice of decommissioning alternatives, methods to control occupational and public health and safety, the planned fina,1 radiation survey, and funding for decommissioning.
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.
Comenters expressed concerns 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, difficulty of decommissioning planning, and comonality of objectives concerning waste burial and decommissioning n quiring a de-minimis level.
Several commenters made specific comments en the numeric value of the residual limi' and how it should be chosen.
Commenters also expressed concern that this rule should not be isww until the rule on residual radioactivity level is issued because without it one cannot plan or estimate cost and entirely satisfy financial assurance requirements.
Comenters also indicated that the value of residual radioactivity limits will impact cost for non power reactors.
The Commission is psrticipating in an EPA organized interagency working group which is developing Federal guidance.on acceptable residual radioactivity levels which would permit property to be released for 82
Leavv v4; unrestricted use.
Proposed Federal guida6ce 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 contamination levels doexistandresearchandtestreactorsarebeingdecommissione[using present guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86 for surface con-tamination 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 3rding residual radioactivity levels for unrestricted use.
The information in the studies by Battelle Northwest Laboratory (Refs. 2 thru 13) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Refs.17 and 19) on decommissioning have indicated that in any reason-able range of residual radioactivity limits, the cost of decommissioning is relatively insensitive to the radioactivity level and use of cost data 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 that the decommissioning fund available at the end of facility life will approximate closely the actual cost of decommissioning.
It is imperative that decommissioning regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72 be issued at this time because it is important to l
establish financial assurance provisions, as well as other decommissioning l
83
thsv-01) planning provisions, as soon as possible so that funds will be available to carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety.
Based on the need for the decommissioning rule to supplement provisions currently exis*,ing with those contained in the rule amendments, the Commission believes that the rule can and should be issued now.
E.
Environmental Review Requirements.
A number of comenters were concerned that the proposed rule would not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) in connection with each decomis-sioning of a reactor but would require only an environmental assessment
.(EA) unless the assessment showed that an EIS should be prepared in a particular case while other commenters made specific coments supporting 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 needed to be c e successful experience at decommissioning various types of reactors before it could be decided that an EA was sufficient, another suggested that an EIS should be pre-pared for major facilities such as power reactors and fuel fabrication facilities but an EA would be appropriate for smaller facilities, and one comenter 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 facility showed that the generic approach was adequate.
A number of comenters who opposed the elimination of the requirement for a site-specific EIS argued that the EIS at licensing could not i
adequately estimate impacts in detail because much could change in the 30 l
l to 40 years before decomissioning.
Although the proposed rule discussed 84
i L o v ulj i
the fact that EIS's at licensing should address the impacts of decommis-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 decommissioning, a large quantity of waste must be handled 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 can be systematically assessed.
The Commission's primary reason for eliminating a mandatory EIS for decommissioning is that the impacts have been considered generically in a GEIS.
The Commission determined that e'. amination of these impacts and their cumulative effect on the environment and their integration into the waste disposal process could best be examined generically.
A final, updated GEIS has been issued (Ref. 20).
The GEIS shows that the differ-ence in impacts among the basic alternatives for decommissioning is small, and the dnse impact of decommissioning 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 decommissioning.
Although some commenters correctly point out that an EA is much less detailed in its 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 i
l 85
[7590-01) those and lay the foundation 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-nent concerning violation of NEPA, the Commission's rules concernino EA's and EIS's comply with case law and Council on Environmental Quality regulations.
In response to the concern that decisions on decommission-ing will be made without public input, decommissioning involves smendment of the operating license and the NRC rules provide an avenue for public input with respect to license amendment.
F.
Ot M r General Comments.
A number of coments of a general nature, some of which were outside the scope of the regulation, were received.
Detailed responses to individual comments are contained in NUREG-1221.
General comments discussed below include questions regarding applicability of the regulations to different licensees and those regarding waste disposal.
1.
Applicability of regulation to different licensees.
Some commenters were concerned that the regulations may have been drafted with power reactors in mind and applied to non power reactors without adequate realization or consideration of the differences in the level of difficulty in decommissioning between these classes of facilities.
They suggested 1
that the rule should distinguish between reactor types and make.'equire-1 ments appropriate for non power reactors.
One commenter pointed out that I
the costs of decommissioning research reactors are considerably less than those for power reactors and also that there was considerable experience in decommissioning research reactors and that there were no real uncer-tainties.
Another commenter indicated that adequate budgets were difficult 86 L
[7590-01]
o to obtain, that the "existence of research reactors at universities hangs on a thin thread," and that the burden of additional requirements could cause these threads to be cut.
One comenter suggested that the health and safety of the public is better ).otected if research reactors are
~
operatingandeffectiveratherthantohavethemshutdownormabeineffec-tive and that additional rules which result in "nonproductive" work and costs take resources needed for effective research centers.
In response, it should be noted that the Comission has not drafted the rule amendments for power reactors and then applied it to non power reactors without taking into consideration the dif ferences.
The data base included a contractor study addressing the technology, 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 facto i have 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 materials licensees and require commitment or guarantee at startup of the total amount of funds needed for decommissioning, whereas power reactor licensees.have the option of building up the fund over facility life.
As a means of minimizing the burden, Federal or State government licensees may provide a statemer.t of intent indicatin' that funds for decommissioning will be obtained when g
necessary.
The burden of providing financial assurance in the case of private non power reactors is unavoidably greater, but will be in line uit.* the projected costs for the particular reactor.
The remarks of the comenter concerned about existence of research reactors hanging on a 87
[7590-01) thin thread, in fact, support the conclusion that financial assurance is needed in the case of research reactors.
In regard to decommissioning plans, non power reactors were never exempted from submitting "dismantlement plans." The rule sets out the contentsofdecommissioningplanswithnodistinctionforclasse$of reactors.
However, the level of effort in dev, eloping plans and in the amount of material submitted will vary in practice comensurate with the level of effort required for the decomissioning.
The Commission has attempted to minimize the burden of complying with these rules to the extent possible.
2.
Waste disposal considerations related to decomissioning.
A number of comenters indicated that NRC must carefully study wastes resulting from decommissioning and provide proper classification of these wastes.
Comenters stated that decomissioning standards should include clear definitions of high-level (including spent fuel), low-level, and "intermediate level" wastes and consideration should be given to means of transport and proper disposal for different t,' pes of decomissioning 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 decomissioning wastes.
In particular. long lived activation products, such as Ni-59 or Nb-94, should not be classified as low-level waste nor buried at LLW disposal sites.
Comenters 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 low-level waste disposal sites.
Concern was expressed by four comenters that without availability of disposal capacity there could be problems 88
with carrying out decommissioning, in particular lack of high-level waste sites could cause problems.
In response to these comments it should be noted that criteria for 1
wastes needing to be disposed of at the time of decommissioning are con-tained in existing regulations and are beyond the scope of thfi 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 wastes cover a wide range in radionuclide types and activities, 10 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 essentially 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 wartes exceeding Cit.ss C concentrations is the responsibility 89
[7590-01]
of the Federal government.
These wastes may be considered to basically correspond to the "intermediate-waste" designation suggested by comenters.
As far as decommissioning wastes are concerned, technical studies coupled with practical experience from decommissioning of small reactor units indicate that wastes from future decomissionings of large power reactors will have 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 westes from decommissioning large pressurized water reactor (PWR)
_and large boiling water reactor (BWR) nuclear power stations. These studies indicate that th classification of low-level decommissioning 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 decommissioning will be classified as Class A waste.
Only a small fraction of the wastes will exceed Class C limits.
Transportation of decommissioning wastes will involve no additional techaical considerations beyond those for transportation of existing radi.' active 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
(7590-01]
0 Disposal capacity for Class A, Class B, and Class C wastes currently exists.
Development of new disposal capacity under the State compacting process is covered under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act referenced above.
This Act provides for incentives for development
~
of such capacity, as well as penalties for failure to develop su'c'h capacity.
NRC ctaff 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 decommissioning 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 decommissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up.-to-date assessment of the actions necessary for decommissioning.
The Supplementary Information of the proposed rule indicated that this requirement would assure that conside ation be given to relevant, up-to-date information which could be important to adequate planning and funding for decommissioning well before decommissioning actually begins.
These considerations include an assessment of the current waste disposal condi-tions.
If for any reason disposal capacity for decommissioning wastes were unavailable, there are provisions in S 50.82 to allow delay in completion of decommissioning which would permit temporary safe storage of decommissioning waste.
In addition, S 50.82 contains requirements to 91
[7590-01) i ensure that adequate fuading is available for completion of delayed decommissioning.
The Supplementary Informatinn to the proposed rule indicated that the DECON decomissioning alternative assumes availability of capacity to dispose of waste.
Alternative methods of decomissioning are avail-able including delay in completion of decomissioning during which time there can be storage of wastes.
Delay in decomissioning can result in a reduction of occupational dose and waste volume due to radioactive decay.
PIRG, et al., Petition for Rulemaking, D.ocket No. PRM-50-22.
On July 5,1977, as supplemented October 't,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 Resea*ch 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 avai,lable for proper and adequate isolation of radioactive material upon each plant's decomissioning.
On June 22, 1979, the Comission published in the Federal Register (44 FR 36523) a partici denial of the petitioners' request.
In this notice the Comission specifically denied the peti.tioners' request to imediately initiate rulemaking to implement a specific decommissioning funding plan that would require nuclear power plant operators to post 92 f
[7590-01]
i surety bonds to cover decommissioning costs.
The Comission granted the petitioners' request to reconsider the adequacy of its regulations on decommissioning.
The Commission indicated that other issues and funding alternatives raised by the petitioners would be considered within the context of the NRC decommissioning 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 decommissioning would be set aside in an escrow account before commencing 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 notice (44 FR 36523, June 22, 1979).
These coments were received on November 21, 1979.
The coments discussed NRC's jurisdiction to promul-gate rules mandating specific requirements covering decommissioning 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 comments were considered in the development of this rule. The Commission agrees that its regulations should be amended to require that licensees plan for decommissioning and provide reasonable assurance that funds will be 93
[7590-01) 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-lecting 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, July 1980, and Supplement 2, March 1981.
2.
R. I. Smith, G. J. Konzek, and W. E. Kennedy, Jr., Technology, Saf ety, and Costs of Decemmissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0130, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1978, Addendum 1 August 1979, Addendum 2, July 1983, Addendum 3, September 1984, and Addendum 4, (To Be Published).
3.
H. D. Oak et al., Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0672, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for.the U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Connission, June 1980, Addendum 1, July 1983, Addendum 2, September 1984, and Addendum 3, (To Be Published).
94
L /nu-uu 4.
G. J. Konzek, Technology, Safety, and Costs of_ Decommissioning Refer-ence Nuclear Research and Test Reactors, NUREb/CR-1756, prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1982, and Addendum, Jul) 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.S.4iuclear 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 1979.
7.
E. S. Murphy, Technol;gy, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning Refer-ente Light Water React 6rs 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, Technolegy, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning 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, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plant, NUREG/
CR-1266, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1980.
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 Mixed 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 Oecommissioning Refer-ence Non-Fuel-Cycle Nuclear Facilities, NUREG/CR-1754, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Labcratory 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 Spent Fuel Storage Installations, l
NUREG/CR-2210, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 1984.
14.
Robert S. Wood, Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommission-ing Nuclear Facilities Draft Report, NUREG-0584, Revision 3, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1983.
95 l
t
[7590-01) 15.
Financing Strategies For Nuclear Power Plant Decomissioning, HUREG/
CR-1481, Prepared by Temple, Barker, ana Sloan, Inc., for the New England Conference of Public Utilities Comissioners, Inc., for U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, July 1980.
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, Prepaced by Analysis and Inference, Inc., for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comis-sion, December 1981.
17.
C. F. Holoway and J. 'Jitherspoon, Monitoring for Compliance with Decommissioning Termination Survey Criteria, NUREG/CR-2082, 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 and Economics Research, Inc., for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, September 1984 and Supplement 1, (To 8e Published).
'19.
J. P. Witherspoon, Technology and Cost of Termination Surveys Asso-ciated With Decomissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG/CR-2241, Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Comission, Jan,ary 1982.
20.
Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, NUREG-0586, January 1981, and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nu'elear 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 Commis-sion, May 1986.
23.
J. C. Evans et al., Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Mate-rials, NUREG/CR-3474, Prepared by Pacific Northwest 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
g, ;,3.
. o 25.
T. 5. LaGuardia and J. F. Risley, Identification and Evaluation of Facilitation Techniques for Decomissioning Light Water Power Reat-tors, NUREG/CR-3587, Prepared by TLG Engineering, Inc. for the U.S.
RJcTear Regulatory Comission, June 1986.
26.
Sumary, Analysis, and Response to Public Comments 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 Comission, (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.,
Washington, DC 20555.
These items are to be published in the near future as NUREGs.
After publication, these items will alsc 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, U.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 decommis-sioning of nuclear facilities.
A draft of the final generic environmental impact statement (FGEIS) is available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC 20555. TheFGb5isto be published in the near future as a NUREG.
After 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.
Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subjet.t 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 alter-natives considered by the Commission.
The analysis 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
[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 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 developing 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 Commission 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 licenses, which include about 5,200 byproduct material 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 (including approximately 50 applications in various stages of review) under Part 50, 700 special nuclear material licenses under Part 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 Commission estimates that approximately 40 percent of its licensees are considered small entities under the recently adopted NRC size standards (51 FR ?0241; DecemN; 9,1985).
The NRC size standards for entities to b. considered as small businesses are as follows:
99
[7590-01)
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 institution is supported by a jurisdiction with a population of 50,000 or less For other educstional 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 licensees, such recordkeeping is "good practice" and should not constitute 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 savings in doses or costs during operation.
Costs of recordkeeping would tend to be recouped either in operation or at decommissioning.
The changes contained in this rule at the time of termination of license affect few small entities.
These changes consist primarily of specifying in more detail contents of decommiss'oning plans, presently called "decontamination 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.
100
[7590-01)
The most significant impact of this rule on licensees is likely to result from the financial assurance requirements.
A cost estimate for decommissioning 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 licen-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 Agreemenc 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 are 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 impact.
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 or insurance method is likely to be used by small entities; it is esti-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 developing a cost estimate and reporting on the funding methods to NRC or of raking 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 default.
101
[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 the 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 nor application of the backfit rule's cost-benefit standards is required for this rule.
The regulatory analysis of these amendments constitutes the documented evaluation required by section (a)(4) 5' 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 publir health and safety.
List of Subjects 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
102 e
[7590-01) plants and reactves, 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 materials, Packaging and containers, Penalty, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment, Security measures, Special nuclear material.
Part 72 - Manpower training program, 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 Enargy 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 amended (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, t
103 l
m
(7590-01]
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 SS 30.6, 30.9, 30.36, 30.51, 30.52, 30.55, and 30.56(b) and (c) are issued under sec. 161o, 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:*
S 30.4 Definitions.
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 use and tern.ination of license.
3.
Section 30.32 is amended by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as follows:
S 30.32 Application for specific licenses.
x A
=
(h) As provided by S 30.35, certain applications for specific licenses filed under this part and Parts 32 through 35 of this chapter must contain a proposed decommissioning funding plan or a certification of financial assurance for decommissioning.
In the case of renewal
[2 years af ter applications submitted before effectiva date] this submittal may follow the renewal application but must be submitted on or before [two years af ter effective date).
104 l
[7590-01) 4.
A new $ 30.35 is added to read at follows:
S 30.35 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning.
(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 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 $.o the applicable value in Appendix 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-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 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 instrument obtained i
l to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (f) of this section is to be submitted to NRC.
105 I
[7590-01)
(c)(1) Each holder of a specific license issued 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 [2 years af ter effectivt date]
and of a type described in paragraph (a) of this section shall submit, on
[2 years after 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 1
(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 (2 years after or before effectivedatelacertificationoffinancialassurancefor 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 less than or
$750,000 equal to 105 times the applicable quantities of Appendix C of Part 20 1
in unsealed form.
(For a combination of isotopes, if R, as defined in S 30.35(a), divided by 104 is greater than 1 but R divided by 105 is less than or equal to 1.)
106 i
i
[7590-01]
greater than 108 but less than or equal
$150,000 to 104 times the applicable quantities of Appendix C of Part 20 in unsealed form.
(For a combination of isotopes, if R, as defined in 5 30.35(a), divided by 103 is greater than 1 but !! 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 S 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 decomissioning 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 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 r..thod.
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 finaccial test may be used if the guarantee and test are as contained in Appendix A to this part.
A parent 107
(7590 01) company guarantee may not be used in combination with other financial methods to satisfy the requirements of this section.
Any surety method or insurance used to provide financial assurance for decomissioning must contain the following conditions:
(i) The surety me+. hod 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 Comission, the beneficiary, and the licensee of its intention 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 Commission 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 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 l
may decrease by the amount being accumulated in the sinking fund,.
An external sinking fund is a fund established and maintained by setting l
aside funds periodically in an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control in which the total amount 108 l
[7590-0Q 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 dn 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 location 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.
Informetion 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 any cleanup procedures or when there is reasonable likelihood that con-taminants may have sprc&d to inaccessible areas as in the a:ase of possible l
seepage into porous materials such as concrete.
These records must include l
any known information on identification of involved nuclides, quantities, l
i forms, and concentrations.
(2) As-built drawings and modifications of stc% tures and equipment in restricted areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored, and of locations of possible inaccessible contamination such as buried 109
[7590-01]
pipes which may be subject to contamination.
If required drawings are referenced, each rele. 'nt document need not be indexed individually.
If drawings are not avate_
v 3e licensee shall substitute appropriate records of available infor.c
.n concerning these areas and Iq;ations.
(3) Records of the mt estimate performed for the decommissioning l
funding plan or of the amount certified for decommissioning, and records of the funding method used for assuring ~ funds if either t. funding plan or certification is used.
5.
Section il 36 is revised to re~ad as follows:
6 30.36 Expiration and termination of licenses.
(a) Except as provided in S 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 Comission promptly, in writing under S 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 ir.clude the reports and infomation 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 S 30.37, the licensee shall on or before the expiration date specified in the license -
110
[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 une 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) per 100 square 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.
l (2)(i) In addition to the information required under pLragrapns (c)(1)(iv) and (v) of this section, the licensee shall submit a plan for l
l 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:
111 l
L
(7590-01]
(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,ntly 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 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 decomissioning plan.
(iii) The proposed decomissioning plan, if required by paragraph (c)
(2)(i) of this section 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 decomissioning; (C) A description of the planned final radiation survey; and (D) An updated detailed cost estimate for decomissioning, 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 Comission if the information therein demonstrates-that the decoir. mission-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
4
[7590-01) i (3) Upon approval of the decomissioning plan by the Commission, the licensee shall complete decomissioning 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 p,aragraphs (c)(1)(v) or (c)(3) of this section does not adequately demonstrate that the premises are suitaole for release for unrestricted use, the Comission will inforr.i the licensee of the appropriate further actions required for termination of license.
(e) Each specific license continues in effect, beyor.d the expiration date if necessary, with respect to possession of residual byproduct mate-rial present as contamination until the Comission 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 decomissioning; and (2) Continue to control entry to restricted areas until they are suitable for release for unrestricted use and the Comission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated.
(f) Specific licenses will be terminated by written notice to the licensee when the Comission 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 turvey has been performed which demonstrates that the premises are suitable for relea;* for unrestricted use; or 113
I
[7590-01) j (ii) Other information submitted by the licensee ir sufficient to demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release it.r unrestricted use.
6.
A new Appendix A is added to Part 30 +o read as folbws:
APPENDIX A CRITERIA RELATING TO USE OF FINANCIAL TESTS AND PARENT COMPANY GUARANTEES FOR PROVIDING REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING
.I.
Introduction.
An applicant or licensee may 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 apperdix 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 section:
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.' the sum of net income plus deprecia-tion, depletion, and amortization to total liabilities greater than 0.1; and a ratio of current assets to current liabilities greater than 1.5; and 114
[7590-01]
(ii) Net working capital and tangible net worth each at least six times the current decommissioning ccst estimates (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 percer.t of total assets or at least six times the current decommissioning cost estimates (or pre v.ribed 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 '.ndependent 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 s.uch financial statement.
In connection with that procedure the licensee shall inform l
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
-L
i
[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 a.,surance 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 licensee atust 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 or licensee obtains must provide that:
A.
The parent company guarantee will remain in force unless the guarantor sends notice of cancellation by 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 Commission 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
i
[7590-01)
C.
The parent company guarantee and financial test provisions must remain in effect until the Commission has terminated the license.
D.
If a trust is established for decommissioning costs, the trustee and trust must be acceptable to the Commission.
An a(ceptable 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 Federal or State agency.
PART 40 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF SOURCE MATERIAL 7.
The authority citation for Part 40 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 161, 182, 183, 186, 68 Stat.
932, 933, 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, 2111, 2113, 2114, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat.
688 (4? U.S.C. 2021); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, *.246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846);'sec. 275, 92 Stat.
3021, as 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.
2273); SS a0.3, 40.25(d)(1)-(3), 40.35(a)-(d), 40.41(b) and (c), 40.46, 117
e c
[7590-01]
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 SS 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. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as an ended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
8.
Section 40.4 is amended by adding a new paragraph (s) to read as follows:
S 40.4 Definitions.
(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 (i) to read as follows:
S 40.31 Applications for specific licenses.
A A
A A
A (i) As provided by S 40.36, ce-tain applications for specific licenses filed under this part must cor.tain a proposed decommissioning fur. ding plan or a certification of financial assurance for decommission-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 [2yearsafter.effectivedate]
113
[7590-01) 10.
A new $ 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 requirements are set forth in Appendix A of this part, criteria for pro-vioing 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 decommissioning 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 ceadily 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 has been approved and the license issued but prict 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 issued on or after [2yearsafter effective date]
which is covered by paragraph (a) or (b) of 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 [2yearsaftereffectivt date]
and covered by paragraph (a) of this section shall submit, on or
[2yearsafter 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 firiancial assurance rather than a decommissioning funding plan at this time, the licensee shall include a decommissioning funding plan in any application for license renewal.
(3) Each holder of a specific license issued before ef c ve e]
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 met' hod of assuring funds for decommissioning from paragraph (e) of this section, including means of adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the facility.
(e) Financial assurance for decommissioning must be provided by one or more of the following methods:
(1) Prepaymer.t.
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 120
o
[7590-01]
amount of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs.
Pre-payme't 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 methodsguaranteethatdecommissioningcostswillbepaidshouldthe 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 decommission-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 five years, must be renewed auto-I matically unless 90 days or more prior to the renewal d3te, the issuer notifies the Commission, the beneficiary, and the lice.1see of its inten-l tion not to renew.
The surety method or insurance must also provide l
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 Commission 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-l priate State or Federal government agency or an entity which has the 121
[7590-01) authority to act as a trustee and whose trus'; 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.
As*. "
(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 6 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 of funds would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs at the time termination of operation is expected.
An external sinking fund may be in th 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 (e)(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 obtained when necessary.
(f) Each person licensed under this part shall keep records of information important to the safe and effective decommissioning of the fac:lity 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--
12.':
[7590-01]
o (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 any cleanup procedures o, wc.3n 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 nuciides, 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 poscible 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 formation concerning these areas and 13 cations.
(3) Records of tne 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.
11.
Section 40.42 is revised to read as follows:
S 40.42 Expiration and termination of licenses.
(a) Except as provided in S 40.43(b) and paragraph (e) of this sec-tion, each specific license expires at the end of the day, in the month 1
I and year stated in the license.
(b) Each licensee shall notify the Commission promptly, in writing under S 40.5, and request termination of the license when the licensee l
l 123
[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)().)(iv) and (v) of this section and a plan for completion of decommis-sioning,ifrequiredbyparagraph(c)(2)ofthissectionorby'lfcense condition.
(c)(1) If a licensee does not submit an application for license renewal under S 40.43, the licensee shall on or before the expiration date specified in the license--
(i) Terminate use of source material; (ii) Remove radicactive contamination to the extent practicable except for those procedures covereo 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 L radiation survey of the premises where the licensed activities were carried out and suomit 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 le'.els of radiation in units of microrads per hour of beta and gamma radiation at one centimeter and gamma radiation at one meter from surfaces, ard report levels of radioactivity, including alpha, in units of disintegrations per minute (or microcuries) per 100 square 124
[7590-01) centimeters removable and fixed for surfaces, mi:rocuries 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 required 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 decommissioning plan.
l (iii) The proposed decommissioning plan, if required by paragraph (c)
(2)(i) of this section or by license condition, must include--
l 125
[7590-01)
(A) Des:ription of planned decomissioning activities; (B) Description of methods used to assure protection of workers and the en/ironment against radiation hazards during decomissioning; (C) A description of the planned final radiation survey; and (D) An updated detailed cost estimate for decomissioning, compar-ison of that estimate with present funds set aside fcr decommissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds for completion of decommissioning.
(iv) The proposed decommissioning plan will be approved by the Commis-sion if the information therein demonstrates that the decommissioning will be completed as soon as is reasonable and that the health and safety of workers and the public will be adequately protected.
(3) Upon approval of the decommissioning plan by the Commission, 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 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 Commission 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 source material present as contamination until the Comission noti.fies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated.
During this time, the licensee shall--
126
[7590-01]
o (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 perfomed which demonstrates that the premises are suitable for release for !1nrestricted use; or (ii) Other information submitted by the lice mee 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 Part 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 amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
127
[7590-01)
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. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).
Sec-I tions 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. oS3 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5B44).
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 alto 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); SS 50.10(a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and 50.80(a) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b));
SS 50.10(b) and (c), and 50.54 are issued under sec. 161i, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and SS 50.9,50.55(e),50.59(b),50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, and 50.78 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
13.
A new definition is added to S 50.2 in appropriate alphabetical order to read as follows:
S 50.2 Definitions.
128
+
[7590-01]
"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.
A A
A A
A 14.
Section50.33isamendedbyrepublishingtheintroduct$rytext of paragraph (f), revising paragraphs (f)(2) and (4), and adding para-graph (k) to read as follows:
S 50.33 Contents of applications; general information.
Each application shall state:
A A
A (f) Except for an electric utility applicant for a license to oper-ate a utilization facility of the type described in S 50.21(b) or S 50.22, information sufficient to demonstrate to the Commission the financial qualification of the applicant to carry out, in accordance with regula-tions in this chapter, the activities for which the permit or license is sought.
As applicable, the following should be provided:
A A
A A
A (2)
If the application is for an operating license, the applicant shall submit information that demonstrates the applic. ant possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover esti-mated operation costs for the period of the license.
The applicant shall l
submit estimates for total annual operating 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 te 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 A
A A
129 l
t
[7590-01]
(4) The Commission may request an established entity or newly-formed entity to submit additional or more detailed information respect-ing its financial arrangements and status of funds if the Commission 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.
(k)(1) For an application for an operating license for a produc-tion or utilization facility, information in the form of a ieport, as described in S 50.75 of this part, indicating how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility.
[2 years minus 1 day (2) On or before after effective, each holder of an operating date]
license for a production or utilization facility in eff ect on [2yearsafter effective date] shall submit information in the form of a report ts described in 6 50.75 of this part, indicating how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility.
15.
Section 50.51 is revised to read as follows:
S 50.51 Duration of license, renewal.
Each license will be issued for a fixed period of time to be speci-fied in the license but in no case to exceed 40 years from 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 l
the estimated useful life of the facility if the Commission determines i
that the estimated useful life is less than the term requested.
Where construction of a facility is involved, the Commission may specify in the e.onstruction permit the period for which the license will be issued 130
[7590-01) i if approved pursuant to S 50.56.
Licenses may be renewed by the Commis-sion upon the expiration of the period.
Application for termination of license is to be made pursuant to S 50.82.
16.
A new S 50.75 is added to read as follows:
S 50.75 Reporting and recordkeeping for decommissioning planning.
(a) This section establishes requirements for indicating to NRC how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available for decommissioning.
For electric utilities it consists of a step-wise procedure as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), (e), and (f) of this section.
Funding for decommissioning of electric utilities is also subject to the regulation of agencies (e.g., Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and State Public Utility Commissions) having jurisdic-tion over rate 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 specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall submit a decom-missioning report, as required by 6 50.33(k) of this part containing a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be pro-vided in an amount which may be more but not less than the amourt 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, by one or more of the methods described in paragraph (e) of this section as acceptable to the Commission.
The amount stated in the applicant's or 131
i
[7590-01) i l
i licensee's certification may be based on a cost estimate for decommission-ing the facility.
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.
(c) Tableofminimumamounts(January 1986 dollars)requYedto 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 Wt 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 Wt and 3400 MWt
$(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 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. DeparUnent of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics and B is an escalation factor for waste burial and is to be taken from NRC report NUREG-1307, "Report on Waste Burial Charges."
2 Amounts are based on activities related to the definition of "Decommis-sion" in S 50.2 of this part and do not include the cost of removal and disposal of spent fuel or of nonradioactive struc'tures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the license.
132
1 e
(7590-01]
(d) Each non-electric utility applicant for or holder of an operat-ing license for a production or utilization facility shall submit a decom-missioning report as required by 6 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 s,ection as accept-able to the Commission will be used to provide, funds for decommission-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 decommissioning costs.
Prepayment may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities.
(ii) External sinking fund.
An external sinking fund is a fund established 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, external sinking fund may be in the form of a trust, escrow account, government fund, certificate of deposit, or deposit of government securities.
(iii) A surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method.
These methods guarantee that decommissioning costs will be paid should the licen-see default.
A surety method may be in the form of a surety bond, letter 133
[7590-01) of credit, or line of credit.
Any surety method or insurance used to provide financial insurance for decommissioning must contain the following conditions:
(A) The surety method or insurance mut. 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 ieceipt of notification of cancellation.
(B) The surety 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 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.
(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 decommissioning are--
(i) Prepayment; I
(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 amount being accumulated in the sinking fund, 134
[7590-01]
(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 CFR Part 30.
A parent company guarantee may not be used in combina-tion with cthar financial methods to satisfy the requirements of this section.
(iv) In the case of Federal, State, or local government licensees, a statement of intent containing a cost estimate for decomissioning, 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 decomissioning or an amount based on paragraph (c) of this section, and indicating that funds for decom-missioning will be obtained wnen necessary.
(f) Each licensee shall at or about 5 years prior to the projected i
end of operation submit a preliminary decomissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decomissioning and an up-to-date assessment of the major technical factors that could affect planning for decomissioning.
Factors to be considered in submitting this information include--
(1) The decomissioning alternative anticipated to be used.
The
(
requirements of 5 50.82(b)(1) must be considered at this time; l
l 135 t
(7590-01]
(2) Major technical actions necessary to carry out decomissioning safely; i
(3) The current situation with regard to disposal of high-level and low-level radioactive waste; (4) Residual radioactivity criteria; (5) Other site specific factors which could affect decomissioning 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 decomissioning.
(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 Comission.
If records of relevant infccmation are kept for other purposes, reference to these re-cords and their locations may be used.
Information the Comission con-siders important to decomissioning 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 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 involved nuclides, quantities, forms, and concentrations.
(2) As-built drawings and modifications of structures and equipment in restricted areas where radioactive materials are ised and/or stored 136
o
[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 subst:tute 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 f.ertified for decommissioning, and records of the funding method used for assuring funds if either a funding plan or certification is used.
17.
Section 50.81 is revised to read as follows:
S 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 f acility that permanently ceases operation af ter [ effective date) this application must be made within two years following permanent 'ssation of operations, 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 [effectivedatel requirements for contentc 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 involved.
137
[7590-01)
(i) For an electric utility licensee, an alternative is acceptable if it provides for completion of decomissioning within 60 years.
Consid-sideration will be given to ra alternative which prc.' ides for completion of decommis:ioning beyond 60 years only when necessary to protect the public health and safety.
Factors to be considered in evaluating an alternative which proviles for co.T.pletion of decommissioning beyond 60 years are set out in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
(ii) For a licensee cther 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 consid2 red in evaluating an alternative which provides for delayed completion of decom-missioning are set out in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section.
(iii) Cactors to be considered in making the evaluations required by paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (b)(1)(li) of this section include unavail-ability of waste disposal capacity and other site specific factors af fecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning saf aly, including presence of other nuclear facilities at the site.
(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; (4) An updated cost estimat: ?c-the c,., son alter...cive for decom-missioning, comparison of that estims.te with present funds set asidt for decommissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds vor completion of decommissioning.
138
[7590-01]
(5) A description of technical specifications, quality assurance provisions and physical security plan provisions in place during decom-missioning, (c) Decommissioning 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 decomissioning 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 method or fund statement of intent be maintained in accordance with the criteria of S 50.75 (e), and (2) Heans be included for adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels over the storage or surveillance period.
(d) For decommissioning plans in which the major dismantlement 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 decomissioning plan demonstrates that the decomission-ing will be performed in accordance with the regulations in this chapter and will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health ar.d safety of tha public, and af ts.r notice to interested persons, the Comission 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 detennires that--
139
[7590-01)
(1) The decommissioning has been performed in accordance with the approved decommissioning plan end the order authorizing decommissioning; and (2) The terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstratesthatthefacilityandsitearesuitableforrelea$e~for unrestricted use.
PART 51 - ENVIRONMEHTAL PROT CTION REGULATIONS FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING AND RELATED REGULATORY FUNCTIONS 18.
The authority citation for Part 51 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Sec. 161, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201);
secs. 201, as e. mended, 202, 88 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 II, 92 Stat. 3033-3041.
Section 51.22 also issued under sec. 274, 73 Stat. 688, as amended by 92 Stat. 3036-3038 (42 U.S.C. 2021).
S 51.20 [ Amended) 13.
Section 51.20 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (b)(5) and (10).
140
[7590-01]
20.
In S 51.53, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
6 51.53 Supplement to Environmental Report.
=
=
(b) Post operating license stage.
Each applicant for a license amendment authorizing the decommissioning of a production or utililation 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-tion 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 dccument, entitled "Supplement.to Applicant's Environmental Report--Post Operating 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-c' int's proposed activities with respect to the planned storage of spent fuel.
Unless otherwise rcquired by the Commission, in accordance with the generic determination in S 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 tarm of the license applied for.
The "Supplement to Applictat's Environmental Report--Post Operating License Stage" may incorporate by reference any information contained in "Applicant's Ervironmental Report--Construction Permit Stage," "Supplement to Appli-cant's Eavironmental 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 constructien permit or operating license.
141
[76u-ulj 21.
In S 51.55, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
S 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 S 51.20 and each applicant for a license amendment authoriz-ing the decommissioning of a production or uti,11zation 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 expiration of the operating license for the nuclear power reactor shall submit to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguard;, as appropriate, forty-one (41) copies of an environmental report, or any supplement to an environmental report.
The applicant shall retain an additional 109 copies of the environmental report or any supplement to the environmental report fer distribution to parties and Boards in the NRC proceeding, Federal, State, and local officials and any affected Indian tribes, in accordance with written instructions issued by the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate.
r A
A x
A 22.
Section 51.60 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
S 51.60 Environmental Report - Materials licenses.
(a) Each applicant for a license or other form of permission, or an amendment to or renewal of a license or other form of permission issued 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 submit with its application to the Director of Nuclear Material Se,fety 142
o
[7590-01) and Safeguards the number of copies, as specified in S 51.66, of a sepa-rate document, entitled "Applicant's Environmental Report" or "Supplement to Applicant's Environmental Report," as appropriate.
The "Applics.nt's Environmental Report" shall contain the information specified in S 51.45.
If the application is for an amendment to or a renewal of a license or other form of permission for which the applicant has previously submitted an environmental report, the supplement to applicant's environmental report may be limited to incorporating by reference, updating or sup;;:e-menting the information previously submitted to reflect any significant environmental change, including any signific et environmental change resulting from operational experience or a change in operations or pro-posed decommissioning activities.
x a
23.
In S 51.95, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
S 51.95 Supplement to final environmental impact statement.
x n
n 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
[
reactor 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 l
review. The supplement or assessment may incorporate by reference any 1
l information contained in the final environment 31 impact statement, the l
supplement to the final environmental impact statement - operating
{
143
[7590-01) 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 comments as provided in S 51.73.
Unless otherwise required by the Commission, in accordance with the genericdeterminationinS51.23(a)andtheprovisionsof$Si.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 NUCLEAR MATERIAL 24.
The authority section for Part 70 is revised to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
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. 9F {01, 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. 2138).
144
[7590-01) a 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)areissuedundersec.161b,38 Stat.948,asamendedf42U.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)); snd 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
a m
(bb) "Decommission" r.eans 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.
l 26.
Section 70.22 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(9) to read as follows:
5 70.22 Contents of applications.
(a) Each applicaticr. for a license shall contain the following inf ormation:
a n
n a
s l
145
[7590-01]
(9) As provided by 6 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 effectivedcte]
this submittal may follow the renewal application but must be submitted on or before A
A A
A A
27.
A new $ 70.25 is added to read as follows:
S 70.25 Financial assurance and recordkeeping for decommissioning.
(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 is greater than 1 (unity rule), where R is defined here as the sum of 105 the ratios of tiie 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 material 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) Suomit 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
I O
[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 instrument obt;ined to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e) of this section is to be submitted to NRC.
(c)(1) Each holder of a specific license issued on or ffea r
c ve te]
fyfetve te] which is of a type described in paragraph (a) after or (b) of this section, shall provide financial assurance for decom-missioning in accordance with the criter'ia set forth in this section.
Y*ar a (2) Each holder of a specific license issued before ff,e ye e]
and of a type described in paragraph (a) of this section shall submit, on fffetve te} a decommissioning funding plan or certifica-Y or before tion of financial assurance for decommissioning in an amount at least equal tn $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 deconaissioning funding plan in any application for license renewal.
- ea a
(3) Each holder of a specific license issued before ff e ye e']
j and of a type described in paragraph (b) of this section shall submit, on fjectye t e']
- r W ore decommissioning or a decommissioning funding plan in accordance with the criteric set forth in this section.
(d) Table of required amounts of financial assurance for decommis-sioning by quantity of material, i
l 147 l
[7590-01]
greater than 104 but less than or equal
$750,000 to 105 times the applicable quantities of Appendix C of Part 20.
(Tar a com-bination of isotopes, if R, as defined in S 70.25(a), divided by 104 is greater than 1 but R divided by 105 is less than or equal to 1.)
greater than 103 but less than or equal
$150,000 to 104 times the applicable quantities of Appendix C of Part 20.
(For a com-bination of isotopes, if R, as defined in S 70.25(a), divided by 103 is greater than 1 but R divided by 104 is less than or equal to 1.)
(e) Each decommissianing 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 the liter.see'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.
l (2) A surety method, insurance, or other guarantee method.
These methods guarantee that decommissioning costs will be paid should the li-censee 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 deconcissioning costs based on a financial test may be used if the 1
l l
148
[7590-01) 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-ial methods to satisfy the requirements of this section.
Any surety method or insurance used to provide financial assurance for decomissioning must contain the following conditions:
(i) The suraty method or insurance must be open-ended or, if written for a specified term, such as five years, must be renewed auto-matically unless 90 days or more prior to the renewal date, the issuer notifies the Commission, the benefichry, 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 Commission 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 l
authority to act as a trustee and whose trust operations are regulated l
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 being accumulated in the sinking fund.
An external sinking fund is a fund established and maintained by setting l
aside funds periodically in an account segregated from licensee assets 149
[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 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 shall keep records of information important to the safe and effective decommissioning of the facility in an identified locat h n 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.
Inf or-mation the Commission considers important to decommissioning consists of--
(1) Ref.ords of spills or other unusual occurrences involving the spread of contamination in and around the facility, equipment, or sita.
These rec vds may be limited to instances when contamination remains after any cleaaup procedures or when there is reasonable likelihood that conta-minants say 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 involved nuclides, quantities, forms, and concentrations.
(2) As-built drawings and modifications of stru:.tures and equipment in restricted areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored 150
[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 decomissioning funding plan or of the amount certified for decomissioning, 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-tion, each specific license expires at the end of the day, in the month and year stated in tne license.
(b) Each licensee shall notify the Comission promptly, in writing under S 70.5, and request termination of the license when the licensee decides to terminate all activitifs involving material; authorized under the license.
This notification v.d 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 compittion of decomissioning if j
required by paragraph (c)(2) of thic section or by license condition.
(c)(1)
If a licensee does not submit an applicatien for license renewal under S 70.33, the licensee shall on or before the expiration
{
date specified in the license--
i i
151 o
[7590-01)
(i) Terminate use of special nuclear 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 special nuclear 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 resu'ts 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) per 100 square centimeters removable and fixed for surfaces, microcuries per milliliter for water, and picocuries 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 required under para-graphs (c)(1)(iv) and (v) of this section, the licensee shall submit a plan for completion of decommissioning if the proceuures necessary to carry out decommissioning have not been previously approved by the NRC ano could increase potential health and hafety impacts to workers of to the p blic such as in any of the following cases:
152
[7590-01)
(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 airuorne 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 may not be carried out prior to approval of the decommissioning plan.
(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 decommissioning activities; (B) Description of methods used to assure protection uf 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, compari-son of that estimate with present funds set aside for decommissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds for completion of decommissioning.
(E) A description of the physical security plan and material
.ontrol and accounting plan provisions in place during derossnissioning.
153
[7590-01]
(iv) The proposed decomissioning plan will be approved by the Comission 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) Upon approval of the decomissioning plan by the Comission, the licensee shall complete decomissioning in,accordance with the approved plan.
As a final step 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 decommissioning.
(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 Cemission 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 respect to possession of residual special nuclear material present as contamination until the Commission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated.
During this time, the licensee shall--
(1) 'imit actions involving special nuclear material to those related to decomissioning; and (2) Continue to control entry to restricted areas until they are suitable for release for unrestricted use and the Comission notifies the licensee in writing that the license is terminated.
(f) Specific licenses will be terminated by written notice to the licensee when the Comission determines that--
l 154
o
- s. ;....
(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 radit. tion survey has been perfi,rmed wh4:h demonstrates thatthepremisesaresuitableforreleaseforunrestricteduskor (ii) Other information submitted by the, licensee is sufficient to demonstrate that the premises are suitable for release for unrestricted 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, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, P92, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L.86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, I?46 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, f
92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 l
l (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).
i For the purposes of sac. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amendeo (42 U.S.C.
l 2273); SS 72.6, 72.14, 72.15, 72.17(d), 72.19, 72.33(b)(1), (4), (5), (e),
155 t
~_ _-
[7590-01)
(f), and 72.36(a) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended j
(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. 161o, 69 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.
m a
a (y) "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.
31.
Section 72.14 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as folle.s:
$ 72.14 contents of application:
General and financial information.
A A
A A
(e)
(3) Estimated decommissioning costs, and the necessary financia'.
arrancements to provide reasonable assurance prior to licensing that decommissioning will be carried out after the removal of spent fuel from storage.
156
r
~
[7590-01]
i 32.
Section 72.18 is revised by revising the section heading and paragraph (t,) and by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:
6 72.18 Decommissioning planning, including financing and recordkeeping.
A A
A A
(b) The decommissioning funding plan must contain information on 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 method 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 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 licensee default.
A surety method may be in the form of a surety bond, letter of credit, or line of credit.
A parent company gearantee 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 financial methods to satisfy the requirements of this section.
Any surety methoo 157 1
[7590-01) or insurance used to provide fintncial assurance for decommissioning must contain the following conditions:
(i) The surety method or insurance must be open-ended or, if written for a specified tertr, such as five years, must be renewed auto-matica11y unless 90 days or more prior to the renewal date, the issuer notifies the Commission, the beneficiary, and the licensee of its intention 1
not to renew.
The sur 'v metLod or insurance must also provide that the I
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 Commission 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 authority to act as a trustee and whose trust operations are regulated and examined by a Federal or State agency.
(iii) The surety or insurance must remain in effect until the Commis-sion has terminated the license.
(3) An external sinking fund in which deposits are made at least annually, coupled with a surety method or insuranc.e, 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 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 158
f
~
[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 funos for decommissioning will,be obtained when necessary.
(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 derommissioning consists of--
(i) 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 centamination remains after any cleanup procedures or when there is reasonable likelihood that conta-minants 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 informatf oa on identification of involved nuclides, quantities, forms, and concentrations.
(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 buried pipes which may be subject to contamination.
If required drawings 159
[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 amouat certified for decommissioning, and records of the funding method used for assuring funds if either a fund-ing plan or certificatien is used.
33.
Section 72.38 is revised to read as follows:
6 72.38 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 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 accompanied, or preceded, by a proposed final decommissioning plan.
(b) The proposed final decommissioning plan must include--
(1) The choice of the alternative for decommissioning with a description of activities involved.
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 deconunissioning only when necessary to protect the public 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.
160
g
~
[7590-01]
(2) A description of controls and limits on procedures and equip-ment to protect occupational sud 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 decommissioning, comparison of that estimate with present funds set aside for decomissioning, and plan for assuring the availability of adequate funds for completion of decomissioning 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
, rovisions in place during decomissioning, p
(c) For final decomissioning plans in which the major dismantlement activities are delayed by first placing the ISFSI in storage, planning for these delayed activities may be less 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 will be performed in accordance with the regulations in this chapter and will not be inimical to the comon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, and af ter notice to interested per-sons, the Commission will approve the plan subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate and ne:essary and issue an order authorizing the deccamissioning.
(e) The Comission will terminate the license if it determines that--
(1) The decomissioning has been performed in accordance with the approved final decomissioning plan and the order authorizing decomis-sioning; and 161 1
{
l
g
. m (7590-01]
(2) The terminal radiation s'urvey and associated c.umentation demonstrates that the ISFSI and site are suitable for release for unrestricted use.
k, d
{
day of RieG_
1988.
Dated at Rockville, MD, this g
r the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
f r7Tt_itb
(
- C Tamuel J. Thi1K w 3
Secretary of the Comission.
162 l
_ _ _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ _