ML20202B763
| ML20202B763 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/09/1998 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202B668 | List: |
| References | |
| SECY-97-251-C, NUDOCS 9802120088 | |
| Download: ML20202B763 (2) | |
Text
- - -
= _ - -
NOT ATIO N VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-97-251 - PROPOSED RULE ON NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING COSTS Approved Disapproved V Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:
g
~,
+
SIGNATURE (UU U Release Vote / //
7 8
DATE' Withhold Vote /
/
Entered on "AS" Yes y No 388"2!88Rs'N!8!*
CORRESPONDENCE PDR
Comissioner McGaffican's Comraents on SECY-97-?S1 I disapprove the staff's proposal to publish in the Eederal Reaister a proposed rule on nuclear power reactor decomissioning cost requirements I recog,nize that this reflects a change in position from that which I expressed on COMSECY-97-014 in June 1997.
data from Trojan was available. proposed to " lay rulemak After considering this paper and studying WUREG/CR-5884. ' have come to agree with the staff's original recomen My decision not to support going forward with this proposed rulemaking time is based primarily on the following two considerations.
current rules, licensees have the option of seeking an exemption toFirst, under tha 10 CFR 50.75 if they believe that the site specific decomissioning cost estimate is lower than that required by the generic formula.
date, with one exception where the exemption req It is my withdrawn by the licensee.
licensees have not been able to come up with actual site-specif decomissioning cost estimates that are substantially lower than the estima in our current rules.
available provides much of the a me flexibility as the pr would provide.
data at Trojan will support the benign cost estimate in NU waiting for the actual data of Trojan, we are likely also to obtain at least By better defined estimates for decomissioning costs at Big Rock Point Yankee and Haddam Neck.
. Maine decomissioning large power reactors and the large uncerta with assumptions upon which NUREG/CR-5884'.s cost estimates are based, publishing the proposed rule with its implied endorsement of NdREG/C?.-5 estimate could lead to a situation where federal and State rate-setting officials disallow recovery of the full amount of needed decommissioning funds.
When we have more information based on actual experience, the staff shou advise the Comission on the need for changes in 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c).
Cgynissioner McGaffiaan's Comments on SECY-97-251 I disapprove the staff's proposal to publish in the Federal Reaister a proposed rule on nuclear power reactor decomissioning cost requirements.
I recog,nize that this reflects a change in position from that which I expressed on_COMSECY-97-014 in June 1997.
In that paper the staff originally proposed to delay rulemaking in this area until actual decomissioning cost data from Trojan was available.
After considering this paper and studying NUREG/CR-5884. I have come to agree with the staff's original recommendation, My decision not to support going forward with this proposed rulemaking at this time is based primarily on the following two considerations.
First, under the-current rules, licensees have the option of seeking an exemption to 10 CFR 50.75 if they believe that the site specific decomissioning cost estimate is lower than that required by the generic formula.
It is my understanding that no licensees have submitted such an exemption request to date, with one exception where the exemption request was subsequently withdrawn by the licensee.
That would seem to indicate that, in fact, licensees have not been able to come up with actual site-specific decomissioning cost estimates that are substantially lower than the estimates in our current rules.
In any event, the exemption option which is currently available provides much of the same flexibility as the proposed rulemaking would provide. Second I have strong doubts that actual decomissioning cost data at Trojan will support the benign cost: estimate in NUREG/CR-5884.
By waiting for the actual data of Trojan, we are likely also to obtain at least better (afined estimates for decommissioning costs at Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee and Haddam Neck, Moreover, despite the absence of actual experience in decomissioning large power reactors and the large uncertainties associated with assumptions upon which NUREG/CR-5884'.s cost-estimates are based, publishing the proposed rule with its implied endorsement of NUREG/CR-5884's estimate could lead to a situation where federal and State rate-setting officials disallow recovery of the full amount of needed decomissioning funds.
When we have more information based on actual experience, the staff should advise the Comission on the need.for changes in 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c).
((
1Mo
- 8+.
no#
UNITED STATES
,b
' f., -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
WASHINGTON D C 205 % -0001 o
igg February 5, 1998 OFFICE OF THE
$ECRETARY MEMORANDUM TO:
L Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations John C. Hoyle, Secretary &1 w,Tt[M v,,d 4
FROM:
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS: SECY-97 251 - PROPOSED RULE ON NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING COSTS The Commission disapproved revision of NRC's financial assurance requirements for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors. Although the Commission has encouraged the staff to explore allowing site-specific decommissioning funding, the Commission does not support this rulemaking at this time. As stated in SECY 97-251, the staff recogn;zes that there is a " lack of decommissioning cost data from larger BWRs and PWRs," and the Commission is not convinced that recent generic estimates are accurate or suppertable. Therefore, the issues addressed in SECY- 07-251 should be incorporated in the' staff's consideration of the generic formula for calculating decommissioning costs contained in 10 CFR 50.75 when the Pacific Northwest Laboratory's study of actual decommissioning cost experience at the Trojan site and data from other plants being decommissioned are available. In formulating its recommendations on this issue, the staff should also evaluate attematives to the prescriptive formulas for calculating the minimum required decommissioning funding, as requested in the June 30,1997 SRM, and should consider incorporating language to facilitate the use of site-specdic data within the development of the comprehensive rulemaking. In the interim, licensees have the s ption of seeking an exemption to 10 CFR 50.75 if they believe that the site specific decommissioning cost estimate is lower than that required by the generic formula.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
6/30/99)
M 9k7
/
SECY NOTE:
This SRM, SECY 97-251, and the Commission Voting Record will be made publicly available 5 working days from the date of this SRM.
--9 5'OW2DfSF 2fp
cc:
- Chairman Jackson :
Commissioner Dicus.
. Commissioner Diaz.
Commissioner McGaffigan-
=
. OGC -
CIO --
CFO OCA OlG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (by E mail)
_