ML20204C595
| ML20204C595 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/23/1999 |
| From: | Mcgaffigan E NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Vietticook A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20204C546 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 SECY-99-042-C, SECY-99-42-C, NUDOCS 9903230159 | |
| Download: ML20204C595 (7) | |
Text
.. ~
NOTATION VOTE RESPONSE SHEET TO:
Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary FROM:
COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN
SUBJECT:
SECY-99-042 - DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR RULEMAKING:
NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (NEI) (PRM-30-61)
Approved X
Disapproved Abstain Not Participating COMMENTS:
Please see attached conenents, and edits.
l
'lh,,f SIGNATURE C" ' U
( < I.
7,Ws O, NL DATE Entered on "AS" Yes No CORRESPONDENCE PDR j
l l
Commissioner McGaffiaan's comments on SECY-99-042:
1 1 do not object to the denial of the petition for rulemaking. Obviously. NEI may resubmit its petition in its original or modified form if NEI is dissatisfied with the guidance NRC issues on the criteria for review and I
approval of alternate decommissioning schedules. The staff should work closely with stakeholders in open meetings (and via the Internet Home Page, if appropriate) to develop the review criteria.
The review criteria may also want to address the case of federal facilities undergoing decommissioning, a subject which has come up in discussions of external regulation of DOE nuclear facilities.
It is my understanding that alternate schedule requests would be granted for a federal facility if the licensee established, inter alia. that an alternate schedule involving some of the federal licensee's other facilities would better take into account the federal licensee's overall decommissioning needs.
In other words, the NRC decommissioning timeliness rule would not disrupt the health, safety, and environmental priorities established for the massive overall clean-up of DOE's nuclear facilities.
Specific edits to the Federal Reaister notice, letter to NEI. and Congressional letters are attached.
t f'o d 5 Icn De m u & w ien k Cs^ kas hguebeq L<erser e b m 6$ e. be a
W Auj,3 4 in% k-Reasons for Denial I
NRC is denying the petition for the following reasons:
d w ist E I
i i
-1. NRC believes the current langua 4he Timeliness Rule is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the petitioner's concemst that clarification of the specific acceptance criteria F' could be achieved through the development of guidance'.
A Ll' n o
C (R,ule n RMules
- 2. NRC believes that the amendments requested by the petitioner would conflict with the primary purpose of the Timeliness Rule to effec +ively 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 situations where decommissioning of contaminated sites was unreasonably delayed. The 24-month inactivity criteri6n related to decontamination of unused sites, separate buildings, or outdoor areas provides assurance that the licensee will undertake timely cleanup of inaciive 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 NRC regulations provide adequate decommissioning funding assurance and transfer of ownership rquirements, the NRC's experience with inactive materiais licensees indicates the need for the timeliness provisions. In fact, since the Timeliness Rule became effective in 1994, approximately 25 materiallicensees have filed for bankruptcy. Past history with NRC materials facility decommissioning indicates that the approach taken through the Timeliness Rule is the appropriate one.
- 4. NRC believes that the petitioner is incorrect in asserting that the Timeliness Rule, as 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 l
In conclusion, no new significant in.'ormation has been provided by the petitioner that calls into question the basis for the requirements of the Timeliness Rule. The intent of the petition will be achieved by developing guidance on the specific criteria for reviewing licensee request submittals for attemate 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.
\\
\\\\
William D. Travers Executive Director
-s' for Operations.
Okmsl, d be p%mo I: f.,v,3 he th hm.l y, s a., soc - es na 4.F, p e M e el. tor a 7 a,q
,u., ss w aa Jwp%,
$ p,hu 6 b, q+ - Je ce. s J.4y h.
pwm.
t l
6
1 fa arroy g
UNITED STATES l
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066-c001
'49*****
l Mr. Felix M. Killar, Jr.
Director, Material Licensees Programs Nuclear Energy institute 1776 i Street, NW., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 l
Dear Mr. Killar.
l I am responding tc the petitie for rulemaking (PRM-30-61) that you submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The petition requestea that NRC amend 10 CFR Parts 30,40, and 70 to provide an attemative 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 notice, your petition is denied. Despite this denial, as discussed in our meeting with NEl on September 2,1998, we have initiated the development of guidance to our staffANeh ;;;;::!:0 be prepded te meted!"renseedon the criteria to be applied to X
requests for approval of attemate decommis sioning schedules under the Commission's regulations. W 4A b sot,u+ iyo f<=m tJs I. e4 oN < s M e k01Jeic ihrw f X
gm ce6 s u tac 4 de Wi+v + delo 4e redea e,nes, -th W
- incerely, also b prw.J. A -b
% m, r,.fe e, It bemse c 5 -
William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Federal Reaister Notice Denying Petition
us:
lc p
h UNITED STATES 3
S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666 4 001
\\...../
The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman l_
Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety l
Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 i
i
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy of a Federal Reaister notice denying I
a petition for rulemaking (PRM-30-61) filed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).
The petition requests that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend 10 CFR l
Parts 30,40, and 70, goveming provisions for the timeliness of the decommissioning process at fac;;.as of nuclear materials licensees. The petitioner's suggested amendments would have l
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 l
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.
NRC is denying NEl's PRM for the following reasons: (1) the petition conflicts with the primary purpose of the " Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities" rule (hereafter Timeliness 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 ?icensee will be able to terminate its license while financially solvent; and (3) for those instancas where delay of decommissioning is warranted, the Timeliness 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 den
, the NRC haginitiated the development of guidance to its staff, which will be made availabt also to materiMicensees, on the criteria to be applied to Y
requests for approval of attemate ecommissioning schedules under the NRC's regulations.
NElis aware of,mfhas express d its encouragement offthis guidance approachmA wM y
be p,d,A<- ecq d The Commission will publish the d niaIin the Federal Reaister.
49
,.,g y,,
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs b "f, **" b b
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice l
Lle ' A, m Is, t 9 9 ' bu (w 30 L us"i ow4 I
cc: Senator Bob Graham abdq g
a g,_mq *a,.m w a 2 m,e,a.u3 wa 2
g..~ - 1 y,\\,
pus p
4 UNITED STATES j
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20e66-0001
% c6)M htb e.
cgcle.Wd
- .o L b4-on9-4 p, M The Honorable Cen Ochaefe,, Chairman
)(
Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
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 (NEI).
The petition requests that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend 10 CFR j
Parts 30,40, and 70, governing provisions for the timeliness of the decommissioning process at i
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 outside storage areas that have not been used for 24 months, rather than requiring licensees to begin the decommissioning process after 24 months of inectivity.
NRC is denying NEl's PRM for the following reasons: (1) the petition conflicts with the primary purpose of the " Timeliness in Decommissioning of Materials Facilities" rule (hereafter Timeliness 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 licensee will be able to terminate its license while financially solvent; and (3) for those instances where delay of decommissioning is warranted, the Timeliness 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 denied, the NRC has initiated the development of guidance to its staff, which will be made available also to material licensees, on the criteria to be applied to requests for approval of altemate 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 denialin the Federal Reoister.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Representative Ralph Hall
.