ML20204C495
| ML20204C495 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/05/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RULE-PRM-30-61 SECY-99-042, SECY-99-042-01, SECY-99-042-R, SECY-99-42, SECY-99-42-1, SECY-99-42-R, NUDOCS 9903230117 | |
| Download: ML20204C495 (19) | |
Text
- . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
\, je. ...ooooooooooooooooo 9
RELEASEDTOTHE PDR !
f' "*%. 5 3h9/M QU$
f4' 2 N. .$ . . . .dato initials
'+9 . . . . . ,o RULEMAKING ISSUE (Notation Vote)
Februarv 5.1999 SECY-99-042 FOR: The Commissioners FROM: William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR RULEMAKING: NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) (PRM-30-61)
PURPOSE:
To obtain Commission approval for denial of a petition for rulemaking (PRM-30-61) to amend 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70, submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).
BACKGROUND:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received the subject petition for rulemaking (PRM-30-61), from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), on May 24,1996. The petition requested that NRC amend the regulations in Parts 30,40, and 70 to provide for alternative schedule requests for decommissioning of a facility, separate building, or outside area that has been inactive for at least 24 months and is unsuitable for unrestricted release. Specifically, the petitioner requested that facilities that are inactive, in part, for economic reasons be allowed to go on " standby" status until economic conditions in its industry improve.
The petitioner believes the current ' Timeliness in DecommissiorJng of Materials Facilities" rule, (59 FR 36026) (hereafter Timeliness Rule) is restrictive and inv "s on a licensee's ability to make commercial decisions that allow it to compete in the open n urket place. In addition, the petitioner believes that requiring decommissioning after 24 montns of inactivity is no longer applicable given the current maturity of the nuclear industry. The petitioner contends that poorly financed companies no longer exist in the nuclear materials industry and fiscally sound companies are willing to assume the costs of keeping facilities in the standby mode. Further, NEl contends that elimination of the standby mode capability has the potential of significantly lf CONTACTS: Anthony DiPalo, NMSS/IMNS j (301) 415-6191 John Buckley, NMSS/DWM l -y -/ /e7&Nhv jgg WL (301) 415 6607 n3 f% C d TY 7 N d s h k(~
~'
R ()p h DW ii 9903230117 990205 PDR SECY 99-042 R PDR
lb i y '
l The Commissioners 2 I 1
impacting important components within the nuclear industry that may be needed in future years )
to support expansion.
NRC's Timeliness Rule became effective on August 15,1994. Before issuance of the Timeliness Rule, there were no requirements specifying acceptable time periods for decommissioning of nuclear material facilities after licensed activities had ceased. This resulted in instances where NRC had to issue orders to establish schedules for timely decommissioning. The Timeliness Rule established the requirements necessary to avoid problems resulting from delayed decommissioning of contaminated inactive facilities, separate buildings, and outdoor areas. These potential problems were reviewed daring development of the Timeliness Rule, and if decommissioning is delayed for a long period of time, safety practices could become lax, key personnct could leave, management interest could wane, or bankruptcy, corporate takeover, and other unforeseen changes could occur, all of which would ,
complicate or further delay decommissioning. Although many of the comments received on the l proposed rule focused on the timing of each aspect of decommissioning, the commenters did not provide adequate rationale for selecting an alternative to the proposed 24-month period.
On August 21,1996, (61 FR 43193) NRC noticed receipt and requested comment on the petition for rulemaking filed by NEl. The comment period ciosed on November 4,1996. Notice of receipt of the NEl petition for rulemaking reulted in NRC receiving comment letters from five organizations, all favoring the petition.
DISCUSSION:
In a publicly noticed meeting held at the NRC on September 2,1998, the staff met with NEl to discuss the concerns of the petitioner and to explore options for bringing the petition to closure. NRC staff and NEl agreed that the Timeliness Rule currently contains provisions for granting licensees alternative time schedules for initiation of decommissioning. However, NEl remained concerned that the current rule does not specify the criteria NRC uses to review and approve alternate schedule requests. NRC and NEl agreed that there is a need to clarify review criteria. This could be achieved either through rulemaking, or, through implementing guidance to the staff and licensees. NEl agreed that staff guidance may sufficiently address their concerns and volunteered to work with NRC to develop this guidance. In a letter dated September 30,1998 (Attachment 1), NEl provided their response to the September 2,1998 meeting acknowledging the NRC was developing guidance documents to provide clear directions and uniformity for staff review for licensee request submittals. However, NEl also requested that the petition for rulemaking be placed in abeyance until these guidance documents are finalized and accepted by NEl. The staff does not agree with this request.
The staff believes that the amendments proposed by the petitioner conflict with the primary purpose of the Timeliness Rule, which is the effective and timely cleanup of contaminated sites.
The Timeliness Rule was promulgated to avoid situations where decommissioning of these i
sites might be unreasonably delayed. It requires licensees to either begin decommissioning i' within 24 months of nctification that operations have ceased or, in certain non-routine decommissioning circumstances, submit for NRC approval a decommissioning plan within l 12 months of notification that operations have ceased. These requirements provide greater
! assurance than the earlier regulations promulgated in 1988 that licensees would be able to terminate their licenses while they are still finaccially solvent. Since the Timeliness Rule became effective in August 1994, approximately 25 materia! licensees have filed for
[
I . _
1 l
l\
t.
1 s The Commissioners 3 i
l bankruptcy, which confirms that financial stability is an appropriate concern.
Furthermore, the GEIS (NUREG-0586) prepared in connection with the 1988 modifications to the decommissioning regulation recommended the prompt dismantlement of material facilities once they have permanently ceased operations. The staff believes that the Timeliness Rule imposes certain " action forcing" requirements to ensure that this recommendation is met. The l GEIS also concluded there was no health and safety benefit in delaying decommissioning for the generic material facility cases considered. The staff also believes the petitioner is incorrect in concluding that the Timeliness Rule is so restrictive that it has the potential to eliminate important components from the nuclear infrastructure. The Timeliness Rule does include provisions for licensees to request extensions to the 24-month period of inactivity allowed before beginning decommissioning. To date, fewer than 30 licensees out of several thousand have asked to delay decommissioning activities and only three of these requests were initially denied. Each denial resulted from a lack of adequate justification. After discussions with the licensees, two of these three requests were withdraw.i and one request was approved. Based on the relatively few requests received to date, the NRC concludes that the Timeliness Rule, as written, is not overly restrictive. Further, since NRC has not denied any request to delay I decommissioning that was supported with adequate justification, it appears that the rule is not having an adverse impact on licensees' commercial decisions, as ruggested by the petitioner.
In this regard, the staff considered two options: 1) to grant the petition and proceed to initiate rulemaking to revise the Timeliness Rule; or 2) deny the petition, but proceed to develop guidance for licensees and the NRC staff. The staff believes that the current language of the Timeliness Rule is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the petitioner's concerns through additional guidance. This is corroborated by the NRC's having granted a number of requests submitted by material licensees to continue with monitoring and maintenance, rather than having to commence decommissioning on the schedule set forth in the regulations. This significant change in circumstances is acknowledged by NEl in Attachment 1. NEl also noted in that letter that the staff is developing guidance so that the flexibility the staff has demonstrated in its actions on particular requests can be uniformly applied.
in light of this demonstrated staff flexibility under the existing Timeliness Rule and the development of uniformity through guidance, the staff does not believe that it is necessary to undertake the rulemaking requested by NEl in 1996. The staff intends to giu careful consideration in its guidance development to the concerns expressed in the petition and, in this less resource-intensive way, to obviate the need for rulemaking, in this regard, the staff does not have within current budget or rulemaking priorities sufficient resuurces to complete a new rulemaking this fiscal year, whereas it has already commenced uevelopment of the guidance document and anticipates issuance by June 30,1999. If NEI should conclude that a problem remains after the issuance of the guidance, it could file a new petition or resubmit the current petition without prejudice. Therefore, the staff recommends denial of the petition for the reasons outlined in this paper and more fully set fctth in the Federal Reaister notice (Attachment 2).
The petitioner will be notified of this finding by transmittal of a letter of denial (Attachment 3) as l will the appropriate Congressional committees (Attachment 4).
l l
l
4 4
l The Commissioners 4 BECOMMENDATION:
l That the Commission:
- 1. Approve publication in the Federal Reaister of the attached notice of denial of the I PRM (Attachment 2).
- 2. Approve development of guidance to address the concerns in the NEl petition regarding implementation of the Timeliness Rule.
l
- 3. Note:
I
- a. A denial letter wili be sent to the petitioner (Attachment 3); !
- b. The Office of Public Affairs recommends that a press release not be issued because of )
relatively little public interest in this matter; l
- c. The appropriate Congressional Committees will be informed (Attachment 4).
l COORDINATION: {
The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to the denial of the petition. I i
11 William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
- 1. NEl Letter dated 9/30/98
- 2. Federal Reaister Notice
- 3. Letter of Denial to Petitioner
- 4. Congressional Letters Commissioners' completed vote sheets / comments should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Wednesday, February 24, 1999.
Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, February 17, 1999, with an information copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
l DISTRIBUTION:
! Commissioners OCA REGIONS OGC ACNW SECY f OCAA CIO OIG CFO OPA EDO
O l
i l
1 i
1 l
i 4
I l
ATTACHMENT 1 NEl Letter to NRC 1
s 4
1
-- - - + - - , ,m .
4 C6{6 NUCLEAR ENERGY IN51lTUTE N'ei SW 1
ganer,ar.
E75Eo!7Ei7e~
fntemet fmk@re org September 30,1998 l
Mr. John C. Hoyle Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 0001 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch REFBRENCE: Petition for Rulemaking - Docket No. 3001
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
In May 1996, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),2 on behalf of the material i licensc .3 submitted a Petition for Rulemaking pursuant to 10 CFR 2.800 et seq.
NEI's petition requested that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend 10 CFR 30.36,10 CFR 40.42, and 10 CFR 70.38, to include a new section which would -
allow, within a predetermined time period, licensees to continue monitoring and maintaining facilities or parts of facilities which have been inactive for 24 months, rather than begin the decommissioning process.
Since we filed this petition, the NRC staff has acted on a number of requests submitted by our members for this type of monitoring and maintenanen program instead of decommissioning. As a result of these requests, we understand the staff is in the process of developing ctidanc'e documents to provide clear directions and uniformity for staff review, and uniformity for licensee request submittals. If this activity is successful it may negate the need for further rulemaking and recognizing the resource constraints of the NRC, we request that our Petition for Rulemaking be placed in abeyance until these guidance documents are completed.
l 2 NEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technicalissues. NEI's members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect / engineering firms, fuel faorication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations and individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry.
1770 i Sittti. vv surtf 400 W ASHINGTON. DC ? % C6-3700 PMONE 202 739 8000 fas 2C2 7P5 4010 g.. .
Mr. John Hoyle ,
September 30,1998 After our review of the final guidance documents, we will reconsider our Petition for Rulemaking. If we believe the g'.adance documents, and NRC's use of the guidance documents meets the need identhd in the petition, we will withdraw the petition.
However, if we find the guidance documents do not adequately address the intent of our petition, we will request the petition to be acted upon and the timelin .a regulation appropriately revised. l The industry is open to working with the NRC in the development of the guidance documents to avoid the second alternative. If you have any questions or require additional information, please let us know.
Sincerely, ;
1 J
Felix M. Killar, r.
c: John Greeves I Donald Cool Carl Paperiello l
i I I i 1
? l l
l l- 1 I
l l
4
A ATTACHMENT 2 Federal Register Notice
L s
[7590-01-P] i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1
10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 l
[ Docket No. PRM-30-61] l Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.
SUMMARY
- The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)is denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-30-61) submitted by the Nuclear Energy institute (NEI). The petitioner requested that the NPC amend its regulations governing timeliness of decommissioning of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas. Because the petitioner has provided no new significant information that would cau into question the basis for the requirements in these regulations, the NRC denies the petition. To achieve the intent of the petition, NRC will develop guidance to clarify specific criteria to review licensee requests for altemate schedules for initiation of decommissioning of inactive contaminated sites.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the PRM, the public comments received, and the NRC's letter to the petitioner are available for public inspection or copying in the NRC Public Document Room, :
2120 L Street NW, (lower level), Washington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Anthony DiPalo, telephone (301) 415-6191, e-mail, ajd@nrc. gov, of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, g y .-9 ae w -"w- '
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Petition On August 21,1996 (61 FR 43193), the NRC peolished a notice of receipt of a PRM filed by the NEl The petitioner requested that NRC amend its regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 to provide for an attemative which could result in the delay of decommissioning ef a site, separate building, or outdoor area where principal activities have not been conducted for at least 24 months, and the site, separate building, or outdoor area is unsuitable for unrestricted release in accordance with NRC requirements. Specifically,.the petitioner requested that inactin facilities be allowed to go on " standby" status until economic conditions in its industry improved.
The petitioner believes the requested changes are necessary because the rule, as written, has l
the potential to ... " eliminate important components from the nuclear industry infrastructure."
]
The petitioner also asserted as a basis for its petition that NRC's regulations were not intended to give it jurisdiction over the commercial aspects of a licensee's activities and, therefore, NRC regulatiors should not impose restrictions on facilities or sites that have the potential to impact commercial decisions. Further, the petitioner believes that NRC's current regulation is not necessary given the cohesiveness and maturity of the industry today.
Public Comments on the Petition The notice of receipt of the PRM invited interested persons to submit comments. The comment period closed on November 4,1996. NRC received comment letters from the following five organizations: (1) Kennecott Energy; (2) Siemens Powec Corporation; (3)
Wyoming Mining Association; (4) National Mining Association; and (5) Babcock & Wilcox, Naval Nuclear Fuel Division. All five commenters supported the PRM. They supported amending the Time!! ness Rule to oermit facilities to postpone decommissioning and enter a " standby" inode in which facilities would be monitored and maintained for a predetermined time period, pending future operation.
1 f
2
a l
l The comments are summarized as follows:
l i
! l
- 1. All five commenters argued that the Timeliness Rule, as currently written, impacts on a
. licensee's ability to make commercial decisions that allow it to compete in the open market. The commenters believe that any company that has a valid NRC license and operates within the conditions of the license should have the right to decide when to start and stop operations, and
- when to place buildings or facilities in standby mode, rather than being forced to begin decommissioning.
- 2. Three commenters expressed the opinion that NRC's rationale requiring decommissioning after 24 months of inactivity is no longer practical, given the cohesiveness and maturity of today's nuclear industry. The commenters stated that NRC previously rejected a proposal for a standby mode because of the potential for site abandonment as a result of I i
changes in a company's financial status, corporate takeover, or bankruptcy. The commenters !
believe that the nuclear industry has now matured and that poorly financed and poorly managed companies are no longer in business. The remaining companies are said to be stable and willing and able to assume the costs associated with keeping facilities in standby mode.
- 3. Two commenters argued that the Timeliness Rule is regulation by exception. These .
commenterc believe that it would be better to include generic provisions in the regulations for maintaining a licensed facility in standby mode, rather tnan approving individual requests for !
postponement of the initiation of decommissioning.
- 4. One commenter argued the petitioner's case that the lack of a standby provision in the Timeliness Rule has the potential to eliminate impor%nt components from the nuclear industry, it is believed that these components and facilities may be needed in future years to support continuing operation and potential industry expansion. The commenter indicated that fuel cycle l
facilities operate in a constantly changing economic environment. Mines and mills that have been inactive for years are now beginning to start up because of improved economic conditions.
The operating status of conversion facdities and enrichment plants has fluctuated in response to j international policy and the influx of low- enriched products from countries of the former Soviet j Union. Commercial facilities that support the armed forces must be prepared to respond if called on.
4 3
y
- l l
l Reasons for Denial NRC is denying the petition for the following reasons:
l
- 1. NRC believes the current language of the Timeliness Rule is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the petitioner's concerns, and that clarification of the specific acceptance criteria could be achieved through the development of guidance.
- 2. NRC believes that the amendments requested by the petitioner would conflict with the primary purpose of the Timeliness Rule to effectively and efficiently clean up contaminated sites that pose a potential threat to public health and safety. The Timeliness Rule was promulgated in July 1994 to address those sittntions where decommissioning of contaminated sites was unreasonably delayed. The 24-month Inactivity criterion related to decontamination of unused sites, separate buildings, or outdoor areas provides assurance that the licensee will undertake timely cleanup of inactive portions of its site while it is financially solvent.
- 3. Although the petitioner argues that the nuclear industry has matured and recognizes its responsibilities, that troubled licensees are no longer in business, and that NF.C regulatione provide adequate decommissioning funding assurance and transfer of ownership requirements, the NRC's experience with inactive materials licensees indicates the need for the timeliness provisions, in fact, since the Timeliness Rule became effective in 1994, approximately 25 material licensees have filed for bankruptcy. Past history with NRC materials facility decommissioning indicates that the approach taken through the Timeliness Rule is the rappropriate one.
- 4. NRC believes that the petitioner is incorrect in asserting that the Timeliness Rule, as l currently written, has the potential to eliminate important components from the nuclear industry infrastructure. For case-specific situations, delay of decommissioning is permitted by the current rule if the Commission 'determines that this relief would not be detrimental to the public health 4
l.
and safety and would otherwise be in the public interest. Licensees must describe why their request to delay decommissioning is in the public interest. Therefore, if the licensee can satisfactorily demonstrate that a proposed delay in decommissioning is not detrimental to public health and safety and is in the public interest, the delay would be granted and there should be no adverse impact on the nuclear industry infrastructure.
I Since the effective date of the Timeliness Rule, August 15,1994, fewer than '
30 licensees out of several thousand have asked to delay decommissioning activities and only three of these requests were initially denied. Each denial resulted from a lack of adequate justification. After discussions with the licensees, two of these three requests were withdrawn and one request was approved. Based on the relatively few requests received to date, the NRC concludes that the Timeliness Rule, as written, is not overly restrictive. Further, since NRC has not denied any request to delay decommissioning that was supported with adequate justification, it appears that the rule is not having an adverse impact on licensees' commercial decisions, as suggested by the petitioner.
- 5. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), entitled " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities" (NUREG-0586),
prepared in connection with the 1988 modifications to the decornmissioning regulations recommended prompt dismantlement of material facilities once they had permanently ceased !
operation. The GEIS concluded that decommissioning can be accomplished safely and at a l reasonable cost shortly after cessation of activities. Further, the GEIS concluded that immediate decommissioning following cessation of activitien eliminates the potential problems that may l result from an increasing number of contaminated sites, and the potential health, safety, regulatory, and economic problems associated with maintaining an inactive nuclear facility. The J
Timeliness Rule imposed certain " action-forcing" requirements to ensure that the l recommendations in the GEIS were met.
1
! 5 i
In t onclusion, no new significant information has been provided by the petitioner that calls into question the basis for the requirements of the Timeliness Rule. The intent of the peution will be achieved by developing guidance on the specific criteria for reviewing licensee request submittals for alternate schedules for the initiation of decommissioning of inactive contaminated sites. For the reasons cited in this document, NRC denies the petition.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of ,1998.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
1 William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations.
l 6
1 4
4 i
1 ATT CHMENT 3
. Letter of Denial to the Petitioner ,
l l
l 1
l l
4
4 p e"%
, 8 k UNITED STATES f
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666 4 001 4
9 . . . . . ,d Mr. Felix M. K!!1ar, Jr.
Director, Material Licensees Programs Nuclear Energy Institute 1776 i Street, NW., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708
Dear Mr. Killar:
I am responding to the petition for rulemaking (PRM-30-61) that you submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The petition requested that NRC amend 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 to provide an alternative to the current provisions required for decommissioning any facility, separate building, or outside area after it has been inactive for at least 24 months.
On August 21,1996 (61 FR 43193), NRC published a notice of receipt of the PRM and requested comments by November 4,1996. Five comment letters were received.
NRC has considered both the petition and public comments on it. For the reasons specified in the enclosed Federal Reaister not'ce, your petition is denied. Despite this den lal, as discussed in our meeting with NEl on September 2,1998, we have initiated the development of guidance to our staff, which will also be provided to material licensees, on the criteria to be applied to
. requests for approval of alternate decommissioning schedules under the Commission's regulations.
Sincerely, Williarn D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Federal Reaistag Notice Denying Petition f
i l
\'
4 4
ATTACHMENT 4 Congressional Letters
}
I
,pM%g g k. UNITED STATES s* j 2
NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4 001
- + 1 t
Tbc Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman Su'ucommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private .
Property and Nuclear Safety 1 Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the sut, committee is a copy of a Federal Rec 3 ster notice denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-30-61) finad by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).
The petition requests that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70, gover,1ing provisions for the timeliness of the decommissioning process at )
facilities of nuclear materials licensees. The petitioner's suggested amendments would have ;
modified the NRC's decommissioning regulations in Parts 30,40, and 70 to expressly permit !
materiallicensees to continue monitoring and maintaining facilities, separate buildings, or I outside storage areas that have not been used for 24 months, rather than requiring licensees to i begin the decommissioning process after 24 months of inactivity. ll NRC is denying NEl's PRM for the following reasons: (1) the pstition conflicts with the primary purpose of the " Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities" rule (hereafter Timeihess Rule) to effectively and efficiently conduct decommissioning at contaminated sites that pose a potential threat to public health and safety; (2) the 24-month inactivity criterion in the Timeliness Rule provides assurance that a licenses will be able to terminate its licence while financially solvent; and (3) for those instances where delay of decommissioning is warranted, l the TimeUness Rule allows licensees to seek relief on a case-specific basis, provided that the licensee demonstrates the request for delay is not detrimental to public health and safety and is otherwise in the public interest.
Although the PRM has been d nied, the NRC has initiated the development of guidance to its staif, which will be made available also to materia licensees, on the criteria to be applied to requests for approval of alternate decommissioning schedules under the NRC's regulations.
NEl is aware of, and has expressed its encouragement of, this guidance approach.
The Commission will publish the denial in the Federal Reaister.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Senator Bob Graham
nov g 1 UNITED STATES g j 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 0001
+4 . . . . . ,o The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20$15
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a Federal Reaister notice denying a petition for rulemaking (PRM-30-61) filed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEl).
The polition requests that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend 10 CFR <
Parts 30,40, and 70, governing provisions for the timelinecs of the decommissioning process at facilities of nuclear materitis licensees. The petitioner's suggested amendments would have modified the NRC's decommissioning r6gulations in Parts 30,40, anc 70 to expressly permit material licensees to continue monitoring and maintaining facilities, separate buildings, or outside storage areas that have not been used for 24 months, rather than requiring licensees to begin the decommissioning process after 24 months of inactivity. l NRC is denying NEl's PRM for the following reasons: (1) the petition conflicts with the primary purpose of the " Timeliness in Decommissioning of Mater als Facilities" rule (hereafter l Timeliness Rule) to effectively and efficiently conduct decommissioning at contaminated sites l
that pose a potential threat to public health and safety; (2)'the 24-month inactivity criterion in the i Timeliness Rule provides assurance that a licensee will be able to terminate its license while J financially stAvent; and (3) for those instances where delay of decommissioning is warranted, the Timeliness Rule aliows licensees to seek relief on a case-specific basis, provided that the ;
licensco demonstrates the request for delay is not detrimental to public health and safety and is l otherwise in the public interest.
1 Although the PRM has been denied, the NRC has initia%d the development of guidance to its i staff, which will be made available also to material licensees, on the criteria to be applied to requests for approval of alternate decommissioning schedules under the NRC's regulations.
NEl is aware of, and has expressed its encouragement of, this guidance approach The Commission will ptiolish the denim in the Federal Reaister.
1 Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs l
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice i 1 cc: Representative Ralph Hall l
!