ML20202B686
| ML20202B686 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/05/1998 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202B668 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-251-C, NUDOCS 9802120073 | |
| Download: ML20202B686 (2) | |
Text
.
NOT ATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-251 - PROPOSED RULE ON NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING COSTS Approved Disapproved XX Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
i See attached comments.
4 jgeg Shirl y Ann Jackson SIGNATURE Release Vote /__/
January 5,'.1998,.
DATE Withhold Vote / XX /
Entered on "AS" Yes xx No
- R 2!8842 7e!
- CORRESPONDENCE PDR
s l
Chairman's comrnents on SECY 97 251.
'P_rpposed Rule on Nuclear Power Decommissionino Costs
- Although I continue to encouraoe the staff to explore allowing site specific decommissioning fund;ng, I disapprove noticing this particular proposed rulemaking for publication. This paper should be withdrawn and the issues addressed in the paper should be factored into the staff's evaluation of the generic formu!a for calculating decommissloriing funding. I offer the following
. :mments:
1)
The June 30,1997 SRM also directed the staff to evaluate altematives to having the prescriptive formulas for calculating the minimum required decommissioring funding. This information should be included in a unified rulemaking decision.
2)
As stated in the paper, there is a *la::k of decommissioning cost data from larger BWRs and PWRs." Since the staff states that data from the Trojan decommissioning effort will be available in Augu',1998, it may be prudent, as the staff suggests, to wait on this additional data and propose a comprehensive rulemaking package, as appropriate. Additionally, there has been some conflicting data reported recently regarding actual decommissioning cost estimates.
3)
A process exists whereby lower site-specific estimates may be submitted to the NRC (the exemption process). Although I am not a proponent of using exemptions in lieu of rulemaking, data indicates that no exemption has been granted in response to a proposal for a site-specific decommissioning estimate. Since the exemption process would require a similar review to that necessary under this proposed rule (to approve a site-specific proposal) - the Commission can, and should, save the resources to be spent on this minor rule change, and defer modifying this rule until additional data is obtained.
4)
Based on limited information, the paper states that decommissioning costs may be 40%
lower than the values specified in 50.75. With electric utility deregulation occurring, it may not be prudent to prematurely advertise what could be incorrectly assumed to be a large excess cf available decommissioning funds. In fact, recent information about decommissioning costs and funding status at the Haddam Neck plant support just the opposite. In addition, LLW disposal costs are in a state of flux at this time. Therefore, I do not supped use of this lim led data to be used as justification for changing the agency's posture relating to accruing decommissioning costs, especially in light of the ongoing electric utiiity deregulation.
5)
Finally, this paper appears to approve the use of an NRC-approved PC-based code to incorporate site-specific conditions into their cost estimate for decommissioning. This aspect points to a related issue that the staffis currently reviewing-the adequacy of the formula in 50.75 for calculating the minimum funds required for decommissioning. The staff should consider modifying the rule language to facilitate the use of site-specific data within the development of this more comprehensive rulemaking
- _ - - - - -