ML20198J360
| ML20198J360 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/08/1997 |
| From: | Heavey T NRC |
| To: | Richter B NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20008B465 | List:
|
| References | |
| FRN-62FR47588, RULE-PR-50 AF41-1-039, AF41-1-39, NUDOCS 9710160127 | |
| Download: ML20198J360 (3) | |
Text
. - .
/
L From: Thomas Heavey To t . TWP9(BJR)
Date 9/8/97 9:30am' subjects .. PROPOSED RULE ON NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING COSTS Reply -Reply Brian-- '
The OCFO concurs in the above Commission Paper, as revised.
- .. Tom
- q. --
i c " "
. A sani 47ses eon-
% s,
k}< f l
I i
MEMORANDUM TO: David L. Morrison. Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research fROM: Samuel J. Collins, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
NRR REVIEW AND NON CONCURRENCE ON A PROPOSED RULE - FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR 70% ' REACTORS This responds to your memorandum dated March 10. 1997, in which you requested our review and concurrence of the subject proposed rulemaking package. We have two recommended changes, which have been discussed previously by Robert Wood of my staff with members of your staff:
- 1. NRR disagrees that licensee use of a statement of intent as a method of decomissioning funding assurance under current NRC regulations should continue to be allowed. As discussed in an inspector General report (OlG/95A 20) cited in the proposed rule, the basis for the NRC's continued allowance of a Federal government statement of intent may no longer be valid. We disagree with RES's conclusion that the elimination of the statement of intent "would result in an undue burden without any commensurate improvement in public health and safety." The decomissioning rule has always been, and should continue to be considered an " adequate protection
- rule.
Thus, any perceived public benefit in protection of public health and safety should be justifiable under the specific provisions for adequate protet: tion rules in the NRC's backfit require m ts in $ 50.109. We also do not agree that rescinding the statement of intent would impose an undue burden on TVA. In its comments on the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking leading to this proposed rule package. TVA indicated that it has voluntarily est6blished and is contributing to external trust funds for its decommissioning liabilities. Finally, we disagree that the rule cannot be changed to " level the playing field." Once the NRC has determined that regulations such as the one being propcsed are required for adequate protection of public health and safety, it is incumbent to apply these rules fairly and equally to all its licensees of the same type unless compelling safety reasons suggest otherwise.
- 2. We believe that it is necessary to require licensees to submit changes to their external decommissioning trust agreements (or other assurance mechanisms being used).
This requirement could be added to the proposed reporting requirement to report on
.the status of decomissioning funds triennially. We believe this addition is necessary because (1) we do not have current trust information (In 1990, all power reactor licensees
Contact:
R. Wood 415 1255
_ 1
D. Morrison 2 were required to submit copies of their trust agreements, with no requirement to provide updates.): and (2) with the advent of deregulation and decreased scrutiny of our licensees by rate regulators (likely even for those that continue to have rates partially or fully regulated), there is increased potential for changes to trust agreements that could jeopardize their effectiveness when needed.
We have other, marginal coments that are provided in the attached proposed rule mark up that we believe should be incorporated to improve clarity or otherwise f,trengthen the
,iustification for the proposed actions. We are prepared to meet with RES at your earlier convenience to discuss these concerns.
Attachment:
As stated
. . . . ..