ML20211M579

Submits Comments on Rulemaking Plans Re Reactor Decommissioning Financial Assurance

ML20211M579
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/25/1995
From:	Treby S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Morrison D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20008B465	List: ML20198J334 ML20198J340 ML20198J347 ML20198J355 ML20198J360 ML20198J366 ML20198J374 ML20198J385 ML20198J394 ML20211M567 ML20211M575 ML20211M579 ML20211M592 ML20211M623 ML20211M634 ML20211M641 ML20211M681 ML20211M710 ML20211M735 ML20211M752 ML20211M766 ML20211M822 ML20211M864 ML20211M888 ML20211M927 ML20211M936 ML20211M980 ML20211N064 ML20211N070 ML20211N076 ML20211N087 ML20211N101 ML20211N135 ML20211N145 ML20211N152 ML20211N207 ML20211N264 ML20211N280 ML20211N326
References
FRN-62FR47588, RULE-PR-50 AF41-1-003, AF41-1-3, NUDOCS 9710150036
Download: ML20211M579 (4)

Text

_ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ . _ - _ _ - - _ _ - _ _ - .

, [LL /.

e pa#8c oq'o, UNITED STATES 'j',-

d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j' ,,,

'g - wAsHINoTON. O C. 20566-0001 I 5

k....,e!8 July-25, 1995 ofriCE of THE GENE % CoVNSEL MEMORANDUM T0: David L. Morrison, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM: Stuart A. Treby Assistant General Counsel fo s Rulemaking and fuel Cycle

/

Is 4 o

SUBJECT:

RULEMAKING PLANS RELATING TO REACT 0h DECOMMISSIONING FINANCIAL AS3URANCE' l- OGC has reviewed the referenced package and has the following comments:

L

1. While'the package currently indicates that no " steering group" is intended to be used, it is OGC's expectation that this rulemaking will be complex to the extent that preparation may require outside support at some level, whether or not it is coordinated through a " steering group".

The areas of corporate organization and financing are sufficiently specialized that, at a minimum, we would expect a need to consult with

~

outside experts to determine possible corporate configurations that must be addressed. While we are not objecting to the package as written with regard to the steering group issue, we wanted to bring this to your attention.

2. 0GC has prepared a more detailed and complete analysis of _ the legal suffi:icncy cf the proposed action. That analysis is attached to this tremorandum. Subject to incorporation of the attached analysis, 0GC has no legal objection to the proposed rulemaking plan.

Attachment:

As stated above cc: B- Richter, DRA 9710150036 971003 PDR PR ,

, ,, 50 62FR47588 PDR $

_ _ --- j

9. 4 (Insert for: legal analysis portion of, regulatory' pla~n for ' development of

' regulations; addressing financial' assurance for reactor licensees]- )

1 OGC's LEGALL SUFFICIENCY - ANALYSIS-DEMONSTRATING-.THAT: N0'KNOW BASIS EXISTS FOR-LEGAL OBJECTION

)

As discussed below, several issues must be kept in mind as.the. alternatives suggested!in this rulemakingl plan 1are pursued. ' Subject to-addressing the-ice.iujie,..ewd-below as the rule is developed, the alternatives. for the rulemakings' delineated in this-plan are within~ the authority of the Commission, granted to the agency to protect the publir health and safety l- through licensing of commercial production and' utilization 1 facilities under L

the Atomic-Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

-Of primary concern in developing the_. proposed-rule is the question of the L. backfit justification fcr the proposed ruir. Since the primary impetus for  :

the rulemaking appears to be the newly developed corporate organizations and l

newly developed cost estimates associated with' decommissioning reactor i

facilities', the proposal seems.to be a prime candidate for justification as '

changes necessary to maintain " adequate safety". For the alternatives acdressing new corporate organizations.and new cost estimates, the staff should: plan to explicitly ~ address the question of " adequate protection of-public heal.th and safety"-in discussing the appl.icability of backfit rule, k

The- staff should also be aware that, should:the alternative to include " green fields" restoration-(not currently recommended) develop _into an option to be

_ pursued,ca backfit analysis will have to' justify that rulemaking option. 111

_ is not obvious at this time what significant improvement in public health-and-

-safety._will justify the costs associated with " green fields" goals,-so.such a:

justification may not be a routine backfit question.

The' staff will need to consider and get appropriate OMB approvals related to phm ..c. L i sht a.. htti,ities as the ' financial reporting alternatives are .

- pursued; As the staff oursues the options related to various corporate organizations, L

c it<will be necessary to develop strong justifications for why vcrious reactor ouners and operators are being treated differently. These justifications will' provide input for.the backfit discussions to the extent the justifications are used to explain the basis for concluding that. " adequate public health and__

. safety" considerations satisfy backfit questions associated with this

rulemaking.

While the above issues must be-addressed as-the alternatives in this plan are -

pursued.:there is nothing evident at'this-time to indicate that these legal Lissues will prevent successful pursuit of_the course of action recommended in this rulemaking plan.

-Attachment-4

i

~ DOCUMENT: COMMISSION PAPER-

~

SUBJECT:

RULEMAKING PLAN FOR AMENDING NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AUTHOR: Brian Richter l G:\ RICHTER \0ECOM\COMPAP Revised.

Initials: JSW Date: 6/21/95 W W

i. ..

-)

i Attachment 1 Memorandum from James M. Taylor i :to the Commission l dated April- 17, 1995

. -