ML20216F464
| ML20216F464 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1994 |
| From: | Weiss S Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Greeves J, Morris W, Treby S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS), NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20216F445 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-60FR37374, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 AE96-1-003, AE96-1-3, NUDOCS 9803180402 | |
| Download: ML20216F464 (7) | |
Text
.
o-9 f.if JUN 21 1994
~~~' %
TDE NOTE T0:
.Stuart A. Treby,.0GC John T. Greeves, NMSS William M. Morris, RES FROM:
Seymour H. Weiss, NRR/ DORS DATE:
June 21,-1994
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON THE RULEMAKING PACKAGE RELATIVE TO-DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Attached is a file containing Brian Grimes comments on the subject package.
I am sending you an advance copy of the comments to save time.
However, we have additional comments that we plan to send to you under separate memorandum.
/s Seymour H. Weiss cc:
F. Miraglia, NRR R. Zimmerman, NRR B. Grimes, NRR D. Futoma, OGC CP Feldman, RES 3
9803180402 900311 q
g 7374 PDR g
- b Comments on the June 17. 1994 Version of the Decommissionina Rulemakina Paper 1.
The paper still needs a couple days of work - it is not in as good a shape as I had hoped.
2.
General comments
)
a.
This is the first time I have had the "whole" package in my hands.
I didn't realize the draft R.G. 1.86 was going to be attached - this makes the job of conforming the whole package much more complex.
The " guidance" should be provided in the " Supplementary Information" in the F.R. package for now and a statement made that a consistent J
R.G.1.86 will be published for comment shortly after the rule is published for comment. Also, there is no point in putting out release tables until the participatory rulemaking is much farther along.
b.
It will be very difficult for anyone to review the rule changes without a comparative text. This should be added to the package (it is easy to do with our current computer capabilities).
c.
Suggest removing the CAN decision from the package - it puts too much weight on the views of a single judge in a court without responsibility for the issue.
d.
The first page of the Commission paper was missing in my package.
Make sure the NRR contact is an SES level (S.W.),
f
l
.. i e.
Since both NMSS and NRR agree that the preservation of the SAFSTOR option is not an issue, this should be removed from the Commission 1
paper (p. 9) and the F.R. notice under Option 2.
In addition, the Commission direction in the SRM that the decommissioning plan should
]
focus only on funding cleanup criteria and the final survey plan should be acknowledged.
(The option chosen is an economic decision with ALARA controlled by the $1000 per person-rem criterion.)
f.
The Commissic.. paper (p. 5) contemplates a public meeting where the licensee as well as the NRC would answer questions.
This is a l
significant change from our current practice of NRC taking responsibility for answering questions at NRC meetings. We will l
need to arrange for a neutral third party to chair the meeting if we intend to have the licensee as a major part of this informal meeting.
1 g.
The Commission paper notes that a license will need to be renewed to allow storage or dismantlement beyond the original term of the i
operating license.
The paper needs to explain how this is to be done without following Part 54, and a provision added to Part 50 or Part 54 to this effect.
(The previously was an applicable paragraph i
in Part 50 that was deleted when Part 54 was enacted.
Note that OGC recently agreed to extend the Dresden 1 license under current regulations.)
i f
b h.
There needs to be a placeholder in the Commission paper (p. 6) to note that fire protection requirements are a subject yet to be addressed.
The "Brookhaven studies" should be associated only with the Price-Anderson liability insurance question, i.
The resource discussion needs to address Option 1, where the increase in resources in NRR to review the 90 day reports will be balanced by the decrease in resources in NMSS resulting from the proportionally reduced scope of the decommissioning plan review.
J.
The Commission needs to be asked to decide what the interim policy will be while the proposed rule is out for comment.
Should the staff follow the provisions of the proposed rule as a matter of policy?
k.
The statement that activities to be precluded under Option 2 were never contemplated to be carried out under the operating license is clearly in error.
The reason we are short of fuel storage capacity is that the operating assumption was that DOE.would take spent fuel and greater than Class C waste during plant ~ operation.
In addition, we have clear processes to allow or approve modifications to all of the other facility attributes to which reference is made.
)
_4_
l.
I have reviewed only the Commission paper and the rule changes - the Supplementary Information in the F.R. notice will need to be conformed to whatever is agreed on.
3.
Specific comments a.
The Commission, in my quick reading of the SRM told the staff to issue " Guidance," not to issue an R.G. 1.86 revision as stated on
- p. 6 of the Commission paper.
In the earlier SRM, the staff was told to " continue working" on R.G. 1.86.
b.
Current practice is to have defueled technical specifications in place during decommissioning - contrary to the statement on p. 8 of the Commission paper that it is unlikely that there would be T.S. in place to limit the use of 50.59.
[T.S. are now required by 50.82 (b)(5).]
c.
The Option 2 discussion (p. 11 of the Commission paper refers to changes to Part 2 and Part 50 with respect to Subpart L hearings.
I found only Part 2 changes in the proposed Option 2 F.R. notice.
i d.
In 50.36a(a), insert the words " possess or operate" after each licensee, to avoid issuing effluent T.S. with Construction Permit.
I l
e.
It is not clear we need to change 50.63 as it already is restricted 1
to plants " licensed to operate."
)
i
s f.
The draft provisions of 50.82(a)(4)(e) are awkward,.but I can live with it as a straw man.
I suggest change " timetable" to
" preliminary plans including a timetable" and starting the last sentence with "If a meeting is to be held..."
9 In the third sentence of draft 50.82(a)(4)(ii)_ change "this timetable" to "these plans."
h.
50.82(b) is unclear now that 50.82(a) has been subdivided.
Suggest the first sentence-read "...the application to surrender the license and decommission the facility..."
- i. Making the decommissioning plan' a supplement to che FSAR was an elegant way to avoid many minor changes to 50.71(e) and 50.59 but we need to make clear in the Supplementary Information that we expect this supplement to meet 50.59 criteria and not require an amendment to supplement the FSAR.
j.
Is the FSAR supplemented with the proposed decommissioning plan or only when the plan is approved?
k.
In the draft Option 2 50.59(d)(2), it is not clear why the fourth c.
SRM criterion was left out.
s
,o 1.
It is not clear why any of 50.82 except (b) is in Option 2 as it appears to be the same as Option 1.
l
?
%2-1
&[
pn Raou g -
9A
,..y 2
2 a
- s.....J Julv 7, 1994 SECY-94-179 (Notation \\/ote)
EQE:
The Commissioners FROM:
William C.
Parler General Counsel James M.
Taylor Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS PURPOSE:
To provide the Commission with a notice of proposed rulemaking amending the NRC nuclear reactor decommissioning regulations in 10 CFR part 50, as requested in the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated June 30, 1993, (Option 1) and an option (Option 2) for supplementing Option 1 in two respects as described below.
The staff and OGC recommend Commission adoption of Option 1 as supplemented by provisions set out in Option 2.
SUMMARY
In SECY-92-382, " Decommissioning-Lessons Learned," dated November 10, 1992, the Office of the General Counsel (OGC)., in cooperation with the staff, provided the Commission with several recommendations for amending the decommissioning regulations in 10 CFR part 50.
The Commission issued a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) for SECY-92-382 on June 30, 1993 (Enclosure 1).
In the SRM, the Commission directed the staff and OGC to prepare a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the decommissioning regulations in part 50.
The Federal Register package contains the amendments requested by the Commission in the SRM (Option 1, ).
Subsequent to issuance of the SRM in June of 1993, events following the premature shutdown of the Yankee Rowe and Trojan reactors have prompted a reevaluation by staff and OGC of several of the issues discussed in SECY-92-382.
These issues are complex Contacts: Stuart A. Treby, OGC NOTE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 504-1644 AT THE COMMISSION MEETING NOW Anthony W. Markley, NRR SCHEDULED FOR JULY 21, 1994 504-1169 Carl Feldman, RES 415-6194 o
3,.
_ CO,f
4 4
The Commissioners 2
and have engendered public interest and litigation.
For instance, in the recent United States District Court opinion in Citizens Awareness Network (CAN) v.
NRC, C.A. No. 9(-30071-MAP (D. Mass. May 20, 1994), (Enclosure 3), the District Court judge despite dismissing the plaintiff's action for want of jurisdiction, opined that "this course of conduct suggests a concerted bureaucratic effort to thwart the efforts of local citizens to be heard about an event that vitally affects them and their children."
Id at p.8.
Consequently, the staff and OGC have set forth supplemental provisions (Option 2) for Commission review.
Option 2 would implement the Commission's June 30, 1993, SRM with a modification to S 50.59 to control the range of decommissioning activities which a licensee could undertake subsequent to permanent cessation of operations and prior to decommisnioning plan approval.
In addition, Option.2 would add provisions for a Subpart L (informal) hearing at the decommissioning plan approval stage, along with codifying in S 50.82 the availability of a S 2.206 petition at license termination.
BACKGROUND:
In an SRM dated June 10, 1992, the Commission requested that OGC prepare a paper on lessons-learned from the Shoreham decommissioning proceeding.
In cooperation with the staff, OGC prepared an analysis of the issues engendered by Shoreham and provided the Commission with several recommendations on how the regulatory process for decommissioning could be amended, (SECY-92-382).
In response to the public meeting held on SECY-92-382, the Commission issued an SRM on January 14, 1993 (Enclosure 4) directing that staff allow permanently shut down licensees to undertake, "any decommissioning activity (as the term
" decommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2) that does not (1) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (2) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (3) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (4) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license (e.g.,
OL,
POL, OL with confirmatory shutdown order etc.) or 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to the existing license."
On June 30, 1993, the Commission issued a second SRM on SECY 382 directing that OGC and the staff prepare a proposed rulemaking package and associated guidance addressing eight specific issues.
The Commission directed that (1) 10 CFR 50.59 be amended to make it expressly applicable to holders of licenses not authorizing operation, (2) guidance be provided for applying 10 CFR 50.59, after permanent shutdown, to the effect that one need not presume operation so long as there is a Possession-Only License (POL), confirmatory order or other legally binding instrument to remove the authorization to operate the facility in place, (3) guidance be provided on the activities permissible m
J
~
e The Commissioners 3
prior to approval of the decommissioning plan, namely activities consistent with the four criteria from the January 14, 1993 SRM, (4) licensees be required to inform the NRC, at an early stage, of their plans for post-shutdown activities at the facility, (5) a POL be defined in 10 CFR part 50, (6) the regulations in 10 CFR part 50 be clarified as to their applicability to POLS, (7) the staff prepare a recommended definition for " permanent cessation of operations," and (8) the regulations be amended to define and provide for (but not require) prompt issuance of a confirmatory shutdown order after the permanent cessation of operations.
The staff and OGC have prepared a Federal Register package addressing these issues for Commission review and approval.
However, subsequent to the June 30, 1993 SRM, the public interest in licensee activities at the prematurely shut down Yankee Rowe and Trojan reactors,2 and the judicial concern over whether the local public could participate in the decommissioning process, as epitomized by the C6H opinion, has led the staff and OGC to reevaluate some of the recommendations which were proffered in SECY-92-382.
Additional language is proposed in Option 2 as supplemental provisions to option 1 for addressing item (3) above that would clarify the Commission's position on what post-J shutdown activities would clearly require Commission approval.
The staff and OGC recommend that the Commission offer an opportunity for a Subpart L hearing on the Commission approval of the full decommissioning plan, or a partial decommissioning plan, and codify the right to file a S 2.206 petition at the license termination stage. (Enclosure 5).
DISCUSSION:
The staff and OGC briefly address the proposed rulemaking package (Option 1) in the order in which amendments are considered in the Federal Register notice.
Following this discussion, Option 2 is set forth for Commission consideration.
2 The licensee of the Trojan Nuclear Plant has had discussions with the NRC staff regarding possible early component removal activities.
In April 1994, the NRC staff and OGC l
testified before the State of Oregon Energy Facilities Siting l
Council on two occasions stating that the current NRC policy on
~
component removal was represented by the regulatory process implemented at Yankee Rowe.
It is the staff's understanding that the Trojan licensee has begun to implement large component removal assuming an NRC regulatory process similar to the process utilized for Yankee Rowe.
l j
~
The Commissioners 4
OPTION 1:
I 1.
Definition of " Permanent Cessation of Onerations":
In crafting a definition for " permanent cessation of operations" l
in 10 CFR 50.2, the staff and OGC recognize that the decision to permanently cease operations, other than for license expiration or revocation, is generally discretionary with the licensee.
Thus, the staff and OGC recommend that the definition embody a 1
i simple statement of the licensee's intent to cease reactor operations permanently or that reactor operations have already j
ceased.
The staff and OGC recommend that the term " permanent 1
cessation of operations" be defined in S 50.2 as a " certification by a licensee to the NRC that it has ceased or will permanently cease reactor operation."
The licensee would be required to make this certification pursuant to an amended 10 CFR 50.82 (a).
The filing requirements would be codified in amended 10 CFR 50.4 (b) (8).
In addition, the staff and OGC recognize that there may be circumstances in which the licensee may be ordered to permanently cease operations, e.g., by the NRC, or a State agency such as a Public Utilities Commission.
The staff and OGC's recommended amendments to S 50.82 address this situation by extending the requirement to certify to permanent cessation of operations when a legally effective order to permanently cease operations has taken effect against the nuclear power reactor licensee.
The staff and OGC believe that filing of the certification is essential as a starting point for the decommissioning process envisioned by the regulatory framework in S 50.82 and other part 50 requirements.
Permanent cessation of operations and issuance of a possession-only license amendment (POLA) would be a prerequisite to a licensee gaining relief from certain operating requirements.
2.
Early Notification of Post-Shutdown Plans and Activities:
Pursuant to the January 14, 1993, guidance contained in the SRM and the Commission's draft policy statement on the use of decommissioning trust funds before decommissioning plan approval, (59 FR 5216, February 3, 1994), licensees are authorized to carry out numerous decommissioning activities.
Upon permanent shutdown, licensees are authorized to proceed with a wide range of decommissioning activities before decommissioning plan approval and wichoat significant public input.
The staff and OGC believe that these licensee actions should be the subject of notice to the NRC.
)
The Commissioners 5
q 1
The notification provisions would be divided into two phases.
In the first phase, licensees would be required to submit a preliminary report following permanent cessation of operations which sets forth a schedule for any planned decommissioning activities prior to approval of the decommissioning plan.
The level of detail will be guided by that for a preliminary.
decommissioning plan under S 50.75.
This submittal would inform i
the NRC and the public of the nature of such planned decommissioning activities as well as facilitate the allocation of staff resources to provide timely review and inspection.
The proposed regulation would indicate that the NRC shall convene a public meeting to discuss matters contained within this preliminary report.
The staff and oGC recommend that there be a second phase of the notification provision which would be structured in a negative consent format.
As licensees become ready to conduct planned significant decommissioning activities at the facility, they would be required to submit a report detailing such activities including a schedule for implementation of such activities and an
(
evaluation which demonstrates that the conduct of the planned l
decommissioning activities will not violate the criteria set out in the January 14, 1993 SRM.
Licensees would then be required to wait 90 days before carrying out these activities.
Included within this submittal would be any activities the licensee plans to take pursuant to S 50.59.
The submitted information would be docketed and available for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room as well as the licensee's local public document room.
The NRC would also convene a public meeting upon receipt of a 90-day report.
The staff review of the licensee's submittal would focus on whether the activities are consistent with the Commission's four criteria and guidance on allowanle post-shutdown activities.
However, there would be no formal approval of the submittal or feedback to the licensee unless the staff had concerns that the plans and activities might run afoul of the criteria.
This review would dovetail with the staff review necessary to implement the Commission's draft policy on use of decommissioning trust funds before decommissioning plan approval.
As directed by the Commission, the staff is preparing a proposed Revision 1 to Regulatory Guide 1.86, (RG 1.86), " Termination of Nuclear Reactor Licenses," to provide guidance on the application of the four criteria, as well as guidance on licensee compliance with the early notification provision.
RG 1.86 will be issued separately for public comment, and will be provided shortly to the Commission under a separate paper.
In sum, to implement the Commission's approval in the June 30, 1993 SRM of the " staff proposal to provide an informal process for early public input in a manner such as soliciting comments, public meetings, or other means," the staff and OGC recommend that the regulations in S 50.82 be amended to (1) require a public meeting following submittal of a preliminary report
The Commissioners 6
including schedules for decommissioning activities prior to those approved in a decommissioning plan and, (2) require that the NRC convene an informal public meeting following submittal of a 9c-day report.
These meetings would allow the public to ask the licensee and the NRC questions and to submit written comments concerning the planned activities at the licensee's facility.
3.
Possession-Only License Amendment (POLA):
1 In response to the Commission's June 30, 1993, SRM, the staff and OGC have defined a " possession-only license amendment" (POLA) as "for a nuclear power reactor, an operating license amendment which permanently removes the authority to operate the reactor or maintain or place fuel in the reactor vessel."
This definition would preclude approving POLAs for those power reactor licensees that do not have the requisite spent fuel storage capacity to completely defuel the reactor vessel.
Consistent with past Commission adjudicatory decisions and SRMs, a licensee would not be required to apply for a POLA.
The
' incentive, however, to reduce operating requirements and to realize the curtailment of annual fees provided for in part 171 for plants in this status will likely be sufficient inducement.
Also in line with past Commission decisions, the staff and OGC have not identified substantial prerequisites such as detailed decommissioning information which must accompany the licensee's POLA application.
The "POLA" terminology is being utilized to make clear that a new license is not being issued and that the operating license is not being terminated.
The POLA terminology reflects current practice.
Since the POLA is an amendment to an existing operating license, an application for license renewal would be required if the storage and/or dismantlement period were to exceed the original term of the operating license.
The staff will address the criteria to be used for renewal of a POLA in a future paper to the Commission.
4.
ADolicability of 10 CFR Dart 50 to Permanently Shut Down Reactors The staff has also identified a subset of part 50 regulations which clearly applies only to operating reactors.
Amending specific part 50 regulations to indicate their non-applicability or limited applicability to permanently shut down reactors will free licensees from the need to seek multiple exemptions from operating requirements once the authorization to operate the reactor has been permanently removed.
Licensees may still be
The Commissioners 7
required, however, to have their licenses amended.
The proposed amendments to this subset of part 50 reguiations have been presented in this rulemaking package.
Because of the technical issues involved in clarifying some of the regulations in 10 CFR part 50, the staff and Brookhaven National Laboratory are currently engaged in additional evaluation activities.
A suitable basis for promulgating additional regulatory revisions to part 50 to clarify their applicability or limited applicability to permanently shut down and decommissioning reactors is expected.
Accordingly, the staff and OGC anticipate that additional rulemaking efforts will be necessary to address issues associated with permanently shut down and decomw.issioning reactors.
5.
Acolicability of 10 CFR 50.59 to Permanently Shut Down Reactors:
l In response to the Commission's June 30, 1993, SRM, the staff and OGC have drafted an amended S 50.59 to make it expressly applicable to holders of licenses not authorizing operation.
This has been accomplished by adding a new paragraph (d) which would state: "The provisions of this section shall apply to each applicant for and each holder of a license to possess a nuclear power reactor."
Accordingly, the S 50.59 provision would continue to apply after decommissioning plan approval.
Upon approval of the decommissioning plan and issuance of the order authorizing decommissioning, the decommissioning plan becomes a licensing basis document, supplementing the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR).
The steff and OGC are therefore recommending that S 50.82 be amended to indicate that the decommissioning plan shall be a supplement to the FSAR.
The revision to S 50.71 would extend the updating, reporting, and written communication requirements to decommissioning plans.
Power reactor licensees who have approved decommissioning plans shall maintain and update applicable portions of the FSAR.
This is consistent with the existing requirement for FSAR maintenance.
As with other proposed requirements in Options 1 and 2, the staff and OGC propose not to apply the backfit rule, because the focus of the backfit provision in S 50.109 is on operating reactors, and these proposed requirements would apply to reactors which l
have permanently ceased operations.
As directed by the Commission, the proposed decommissioning plan j
shall describe the licensee's decommissioning activities as required by revised 10 CFR 50.82 (c), (d), and (e), including those activities carried out under S 50.59.
Thus, the staff and I
OGC have drafted a revision to 10 CFR 50.82 which would require a description of licensee activities performed and contemplated under S 50.59, prior to decommissioning plan approval, as part of i
~
The Commissioners B
the proposed decommissiccing plan submittal by the licensee.
As directed by the Commission, the staff has also prepared proposed guidance on the application of the amended S 50.59.
When the authority in 10 CFR 50.59 is extended to licensees of permanently shut down and decommissioning nuclear power reactors, it becomes incumbent upon these licensees to maintain appropriate staffing' levels, qualifications, and capabilities to ensure that safety evaluations performed under the auspices of S 50.59 are properly performed and the effectiveness of the decommissioning plan and other licensee programs is not diminished.
6.
Confirmatory shutdown order:
The final rulemaking item which the Commission directed staff and OGC to address is the confirmatory shutdown order.
The staff and OGC have defined a " confirmatory shutdown order" in 10 CFR 50.2 to mean "an order prohibiting resumed operation of the reactor without prior NRC approval."
The Commission would have the option to issue this order under a revised 10 CFR 50.82, but would not be required to do so following permanent cessation of operations.
In all likelihood, the incentive for licensees to seek annual fee reductions will lead to the prompt and routine application for POLA issuance obviating the need for the order.
OPTION 2:
Subsequent to OGC's analysis of decommissioning issues in SECY-92-382, certain actions taken by the licensee at Yankee Rowe and contemplated by the licensee at Trojan have amplified the complexity of the legal and policy issues which had been presented to the Commission.
In particular, the present policy allows licensees of permanently shut down facilities to undertake substantial early dismantlement and decommissioning activities without the public having a legal right for comment and response or a hearing.
This has had an effect on nearly all the issues that were initially discussed in SECY-92-382 and are addressed in the proposed rulemaking package.
In an attempt to address some of these effects, the staff and OGC are presenting the Commission with additional provisions which would be integrated into the proposed rulemaking package called for by the Commission to clarify post-shutdown decommissioning activities which require prior Commission approval as part of the decommissioning plan review process.
Existing 10 CFR 50.82 does not provide explicit guidance on permissible activities which licensees can undertake prior to decommissioning plan approval.
Likewise, S 50.59 does not
\\
The Commissioners 9
provide explicit guidance to licensee's undergoing decommissioning on those activities that would require NRC review.
Accordingly, the staff and OGC believe that codification of the Commission's four criteria proposed as guidance in Option 1 is necessary to ensure that licensees follow proper procedures during this time of decommissioning.
Further,-the. staff and OGC propose that S 50.59 be amended to control the range of decommissioning activities which a licensee could undertake subsequent to permanent cessation of operations and prior to decommissioning plan approval.
In addition, option 2 would add provisions for a Subpart L hearing at decommissioning plan approval by the Commission, along with codifying in 5 50.82 the availability of S 2.206 at license termination.
1.
E 50.59 Restrictions The staff and OGC considered a broad range of options before settling on the proposed S 50.59 (d) (1) and (2) restrictions on performing certain structural modifications set out in Option 2.
For example, after permanent cessation of operations, the licensee could be prohibited from carrying out any dismantlement or decommissioning activities prior to decommissioning plan approval.
This alternative would be unnecessarily restrictive.
The Option 2 presented to the Commission represents an intermediate position between Option 1 (allow any decommissioning activity under S 50.59 prior to decommissioning plan approval),
and the rejected alternative of disallowing all activities prior to decommissioning plan approval.
To begin with, the staff and OGC have codified the four criteria from the January 14, 1993 SRM in S 50.59 (d) (2).
The proposed revision to S 50.59 (d) (2) allows a licensee to undertake, "any decommissioning activity (as the term adecommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2) that does not (1) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (2) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (3) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (4) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license ( e. g., OL, POL, OL with confirmatory shutdown order etc.)."
In option 1 the four criteria exist as guidance in RG 1.86.
In addition, although the licensee would under Option 2 be allowed to undertake some minor dismantlement and decommissioning activities, the proposed amendment to S 50.59 (d) (1) would codify that certain structural modifications are prohibited prior to approval of the decommissioning plan.
No changes could be made pursuant to the amended S 50.59 if the change could or would: 1) modify the structure of the containment; 2) modify the structure of the spent fuel storage system and/or support systems; or 3)
The Commissioners 10 lead to the dismantlement for immediate or future shipment of components (with the exception of equipment that normally contains special nuclear material) conthining greater than class C waste.
Finally, the staff's and OGC's recommended S 50.59(d) would place another broad restriction on decommissioning activities, based upon a separate and distinct rationale.
Any changes contemplated under S 50.59 after permanent cessation would be disallowed if the change would or could lead to " major structural changes to major radioactive components of the facility."
This language appeared in the Statement of Considerations to the final decommissioning rule in 1988, 53 FR at 24025, and would thus be in keeping with the final decommissioning rule that contemplated Commission approval of major decommissioning activities.
Major redioactive components would encompass reactor coolant system piping and components, including: steam generators, large bore piping, pressurizers, pumps, valves, reactor vessel and internals.
Under Option 1 (and currently) a licensee can conceivably disassemble and remove all radioactive material from the facility prior to decommissioning plan submittal or approval.
The cumulative effect of these resulting actions could lead to the effective foreclosure of a specific decommissioning alternative--
- SAFSTOR, the only viable decommissioning alternative would then be DECON.
Section 50. 82 (b) (1), as now written, states that "the proposed decommissioning plan must include the choice of the alternative for decommissioning."
Although the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) accompanying the decommissioning rule in 1988, NUREG-0586, concluded that both DECON and SAFSTOR were acceptable decommissioning alternatives, the GEIS did note that occupational exposures and waste volumes for SAFSTOR were less than for DECON.
For a heavily contaminated reactor, use of the SAFSTOR alternative may significantly reduce the occupational dose, radioactively contaminated waste volume, and decommissioning costs.
The Supplementary Information to the decommissioning rule noted that occupat'ional safety was an important factor in the decommissioning plan review process.
Egg 53 FR at 24026.
Thus, there are valid reasons for prohibiting the licensee from undertaking certain decommissioning actions prior to decommi;3ioning plan approval when reviewed from the standpoint of total risk to individuals and the environment.
In addition, preserving the SAFSTOR alternative to the fullest extent practicable until the decommissioning plan approval stage
L The Commissioners 11 allows the public at large, as well as the workers at the facility, to comment on the licensee's choice of decommissioning alternative.'
on the other hand, the dilemma from the public's standpoint is that under Option 1 an argument could be made that NRC approval of the decommissioning plan is unnecessary because all, or nearly all, decommissioning and dismantlement activities at the facility may have been completed.
Another difficulty staff and OGC perceive under Option 1 is that the public may have what is perceived as only a limited opportunity for comment and response on the methods and procedures used to carry out activities prior to decommissioning plan approval.
Nor is the public allowed to express their views on the-suitability of SAFSTOR versus DECON.
Thus, under Option 1, the public is not guaranteed an opportunity for comment and response on proposed licensee actions until the decommissioning plan approval stage.
But by that time, there'may be little left for review or comment.
Consequently, the staff and OGC recommend that if the Commission decides to solely adopt Option 1, the Commission direct the staff to amend the regulations in S 50.82 to delete the requirement for NRC review and approval of the decommissioning plan.
The only necessary Commission approval would be confirmation of the final radiation survey resulting in termination of the license.
The staff and OGC recommend that.if the Commission approves Option 1, two proposed amendments be considered.
First, S 50.82(b) as written could be revised to read: "The proposed decommissioning plan must include --- (1) A description of the decomudssioning activities to be conducted under the decommissioning plan."
Second, S 50.82 (e) as currently written could be amended to read:
If the decommissioning plan demonstrates that the decommissioning will be performed in accordance with j
the regulations in this chapter and will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, and after notice to interested persons, the Commission will approve the i
plan subject to such conditions and limitations as it deems appropriate and necessary and issue an order i
authorizing the decommissioning activities described in 8
If the Commission adopts option 1 as supplemented by the provisions set out in Option 2, the staff and OGC recommend that it elaborate in the Supplementary Information accompanying Option 2 the Commission's intent that DECON and SAFSTOR were not necessarily entirely distinct, stand-alone alternatives.
The staff and OGC believe that it was the intent of the Commission as reflected in the GEIS and Supplementary Information that some decommissioning activities could be performed prior to implementation of the SAFSTOR alternative.
e The Commissioners 12 the decommissionina clan which are not otherwise allowed under 10 CFR 50.59.
(amended language underlined).
In conjunction with the S 50.59 restrictions discussed above, the staff and OGC have set forth recommended revisions to 10 CFR part 2 Subpart L, and S 50.82 to provide NRC hearing and review opportunities for the public at the decommissioning plan approval and license termination stage.
N: drafted, option 2 preserves for public comment, at the decommissioning plan approval stage, a significant number of decommissioning activities including the licensee's choice of decommissioning alternative.
The staff and OGC have drafted a recommended amendment to 10 CFR 2.1201 to include Commission approval of the decommissioning plan within the scope of Subpart L.'
In addition, the staff and OGC have prepared a recommended amendment to S 50.82 to the effect that the 5 2.206 petition process is the public's vehicle at the license termination stage to contest whether decommissioning has been carried out in accordance with the decommissioning plan.
2.
Subcart L Hearinos at Decommissionino Plan or Partial Decommissionina Acoroval.
The' staff and OGC recommend that the Commission approve the amendments to parts 2 and 50 to provide for a Subpart L hearing at the decommissioning plan approval stage, and codification of the right to a 10 CFR 2.206 petition at the license termination step.
Although the Commission disapproved OGC's recommendation in SECY-92-382 that a hearing be offered in conjunction with the decommissioning plan approval, the events at Yankee Rowe and the judicial opinion in C6H indicate that the earlier OGC recommendation may be even more appropriate today than when originally issued.
Based on our experience to date, the staff and OGC believe that the Commission should provide the public additional opportunity to be heard in the decommissioning process With the restrictions on licensee activitiec in option 2, the public will be able to comment on prorcsed licensee activities under the plan, including the selection of decommissioning alternative.
The licensee may request an approva} of a partial decommissioning plan for specific activities that would be restricted under S 50.59 (d) (1) (iv).
However, the public will be afforded an opportunity for a Subpart L hearing in conjunction with Commission approval of the partial 2
In accordance with Subpart L, where staff has approved the decommissioning plan, but a request by a petitioner for a Subpart L hearing has been made, the licensee could proceed with all activities identified in the decommissioning plan unless a stay has been requested and granted by the Commission.
i
The Commissioners 13 decommissioning plan.
If the Commission agrees with the Subpart L hearing option, the staff and OGC propose making the 90-day report meetings discretionary rather than required as provided in Option 1 above.
CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS:
Under the present regulations, the provisions of S 50.82 are treated as nonsubstantive and are not subject to criminal enforcement.
Therefore, that section is not listed in
.5 50.111(b).
The proposed revision of S 50.82 requires a licensee to take specific actions under certain conditions.
These actions are important to initiating the decommissioning process.
Thus, the staff and OGC believe that the proposed rule should treat these provisions as substantive and thereiore to be issued under SS 161b, i, or o of the Atomic Energy Act.
- Thus, staff and OGC recommend that S 50.111(b) be amended showing that the exemption for S 50.82 would be removed.
RESOURCES:
The staff anticipates that there may be a need for a few additional FTEs to implement the staff review of the licensee's submittals under S 50.82 as well as staff involvement in Subpart L hearings at the decommissioning plan approval stage.
RELATED ACTION:
The staff and OGC have reviewed the proposed Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning rule which is being prepared for publication, and will coordinate the amended rule language and concepts in the Decommissioning Procedures rulemaking consistently with proposed language from the former rule.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the Commission:
1.
Acorove publication of Option 1 as supplemented by the provisions set out in Option 2.
2.
Certify that the proposed rule will not have a negative economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, in order to satisfy requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
3.
Acerove the recommendation to amend the Criminal Enforcement requirements in S 50.111.
4.
In the alternative, if Option 1 is approved by the Commission, adoot the amendments to S 50.82 discussed in this paper which relate to Commission approval of the decommissioning plan.
The Commissioners 14-3.
Note:
a.
The proposed rule would be_ published in the Federal Reaister for a,90-day public comment period; b.
'The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has advised the staff and OGC by memorandum dated May 17, 1994 of-their decision not,to review the draft rulemaking package and proposed. Revision 1 to R.G.
1.86; c.
The appropriata congressional committees will be informed (Enclosure 6);
d.
A public announcement'will be issued (Enclosure 7) ;
e.
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification of no negative economic impact on small entities and the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory' Flexibility Act; f.
The proposed rule contains.new information collection requirements and, therefore, is suoject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
The staff and OGC are preparing a draft Federal Register notice for OMB submittal before publication of the proposed rule; g.
A Regulatory Analysis has been prepared and will be made available for public comment (Encloeure 8); and h.
An Environmental Assessment and Finding of No significant Impact has been prepared and will be made available for public comment (Enclosure 9)
_z b w1 liam C..Parle'r ~ 7//
General Counsel
/
J mes M. T lor xecutive Director for Operations I
~
The Commissioners 15
Enclosures:
1.
June 30, 1993 SRM.
2.
Federal Register Package for Option 1.
3.
.CAN decision'.
4.
January 14, 1993 SRM.
5.
Federal Register Insert for Option 2 Addition.
6.
_ Draft Congressionsl Letters.
7.
Draft Public Announcement.
8.
Draft Regulatory Analysis.
9.
Draft Environmental Assessment / Finding of No Significant Impact.
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by COB Friday, July 22, 1994 Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT WednOsday, July 20, 1894, 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.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for discussien at an Open Meeting on Thursday, July 21, 1994.
Please refer to the appropriate Weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific time.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners-OGC OCAA OIG OPA OCA OPP REGIONAL OFFICES Eno ACRS' ACNW ASLBP SECY
)
J
9 9
9 ENCLOSURE 1
4
/
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
{
wasumofow.ocesses June 30, 1993 eFFICE oF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM To:
William C. Parler General Counsel
{
James M. Taylor Executive Director for raQions
{
FRON:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta b
SUBJECT:
SECY-92-382 - DECOMMISSIONING - LESSONS LEARNED V
The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the staff recommendation to amend 10 CFR 5 50.59 to make it expressly applicable to holders of licenses not authorizing operation and to provide guidance for applying 10 CFR 5 50.59, after permanent shutdown, to the offact that one need not presume operation so long as there is a POL, confirmatory order or other legally binding instrument to remove the authorization to operate the facility in place.
The commission (with Commissioners Curtiss, Remick and de Planque agreeing) approves OGC's recommer.dation that tne staff provide guidance on the activities permissible prior to approval of the i
decommissioning plan.
The guidance should be consistent with the criteria that the activities must not (1) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (2) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (3) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (4) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license (e.g., OL, POL, OL with confirmatory shutdown order, etc.) or 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to the existing license.
The Chairman would have preferred not to permit major structural changes to a facility or major radioactive components of the facility (e.g. disassembly of the pressure vs.asel or the steam generators) until the decommissioning plan is approved even if such activities would be permitted under the above criteria.
Commissioner Rogers would
~
SECY NOTE:
THIS SRM AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAIIABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.
SECY-92-382 WAS PREVIOUSLY RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ON MARCH 8,1993.
Y
have preferred to await the staff's development of guidance before deciding this issue.
The staff should forward the proposed rule and guidance to the commission for review and approval prior to publication for formal public comment.
(OGC/EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
12/17/93)
The Commission has determined that the NRC will not review or approve, in the context of a decommissioning plan review, any decommissioning activities which can be undertaken without prior NRC approval pursuant to the criteria in the preceding paragraph.
1 Consistent with this approach, the focus of the NRC's review of j
proposed decommissioning plans should be on the assurance provided by the plans that a return to an unrestricted use condition will be achieved (e.g., decomnissioning funding amount and method, final cleanup criteria and final survey plan).
However, so that the NRC can fully evaluate the proposed activities which it must approve, the proposed decommissioning plan should describe the licensee's decommissioning activities as required by 10 CFR 50.82(b), (c) and (d).
These' activities include those carried out under 10 CFR 50.59.
The description of these latter activities need not have any greater detail than the reports required by 10 CFR 50.59(b) (2).
As the licensee's personnel and organization make the transition from operating to decommissioning, much care must be taken to assure that the decommissioning personnel learn what they need to know from the operating personnel.
Licensees must be alert to steps that may be taken under a revised 10 CFR 5 50.59 which may present unreviewed safety questions in an unexpected form.
Such considerations will require careful review and analysis by the staff in formulating the guidance discussed above.
The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the staff recommendation to require 2icensees of shutdown plants to inform the NRC, at an early stage, of their plans for post-shutdown activities at the facility.
The staff should define more precisely how such information will be utilized in the overall decommissioning process.
(OGC/EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
12/17/93)
The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the staff recommendation to amend the regulations and provide for (1) defining a POL and (2) clarifying which regulations in Part 50 apply to POLS.
The staff should also prepara a recommended definition of the term " permanent cessation of operation" and include it in the proposed rule change discussed above.
The Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Rogers, Curtiss and de Planque agreeing) also has approved the istaff recommendation to amend the regulations to define and provide for (but not require) prompt issuance of a confirmatory shutdown order after the permanent cessation of operations.
Commissioner i
- Remick believes that this practice will be unnecessary once the proposed rule changes have been put in place.
(OGC/EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
12/17/93)
The commission believes that the approval of a decommissioning plan should not be construed as an action governed by Section 189a. of the Atomic Energy Act, and that'the question of whether to offer a hearing and, if so, what type of hearing to offer, is wholly a matter of commission discretion.
At the same time, the commission (with the chairman and commissioners Rogers, curtiss and de Planque agreeing) believes that, if the Commission chooses to offer the opportunity for a hearing on the decommissioning plan, any such hearing should be conducted e d completed before the decommissioning plan is finally approved.
Accordingly, the commission has disapproved the staff's recommendation to offer a post-effectiveness hearing on the de:ommissioning plan.
Commissioner Remick would have approved the staff's proposal for offering a post-effectiveness hearing absent case-specific considerations warranting a stay.
The commission (with all commissioners agreeing) has approved the staff proposal to provide an informal process for early public input in a manner such as soliciting comments, public meetings or other means.
Commissioner de Planque suggested that this early public participation be sought following the permanent cesartion of operations but prior to implementation of any decommiss' sing activities.
The commission (with the chairman and commissioners Rogers, curtiss and Remick agreeing) would not object to the staff proposal to formulate an informal hearing process -- including simple notice and comment procedures -- for decommissioning plan approval.
The chairman, however, would have preferred that the commission go further and commit to additional options toward providing meaningful public participation in the process of commission review and action on decommissioning plans.
commissioner d6 Planque would have preferred that the Commission retain a variety of options as to how to afford public participation in consideration of a decommissioning plan and not define a specific informal hearing process for consideration of decommissioning orders.
cc:
The Chairman commissioner Rogers commissioner curtiss Commissioner Remick commissioner de Planque OlG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)
ASLBP (via FAX)
i G
h se o ENCLOSURE 2
[7590-01-P]
-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AE96 Decommissioning ~of Nuclear Power Reactors AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is' proposing to amend' its regulatigns on the decommissioning procedures that lead to the termination of an operating license for nuclear power reactors and release of the property for restricted or unrestricted use.
The proposed amendments would clarify ambiguities that have arisen in the past and codify practices which have_been utilized for other. licensees on a case-by-case basis.
DATES:
The comment period expires-(90 days after publication in the Federal. Register).
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is i
able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before-this date.
ADDRESSES:
Submit comments to:
The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
Copies of comments J
e 2
received may.be examined'at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower' Level) Washington, DC.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stuart A. Treby, Office of-the-General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1644, Anthony W. Markley, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,<DC 20555, telephone (301)-504-1169, or Dr. Carl Feldman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,-DC 20555, telephone (301)-415-6194.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
Background.
II.
Existing regulatory framework and need for the amendments.
III. Permanent cessation of operations.
IV.
Early notification of post-shutdown activities.
V.
Possession-only license a'mendment.
VI.
Applicability of 10 CFR 50.59 to shut down plants.
VII. clarification of the applicability of 10 CFR part 50 to permanently shut down and decommissioning nuclear power plants.
VIII. Confirmatory shutdown order.
IX.
Criminal penalties provisions.
l
=
i i
3 i
I. Background When the decommissioning regulations were published on June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018) and adopted, it was assumed that the majority of nuclear power reactor licensees would-decommission at the end of the operating license.
Since that time a number of licensees have shut down prematurely without having submitted a decommissioning plan.
In-addition, these licensees have requested exemptions from operating requirements to address their 1
status of no longer'having fuel present in the reactor.
Each of these cases has been handled individually without clearly defined generic requirements.
The Commission is proposing to amend the decommissioning regulations in 10 CFR part 50 to clarify ambiguities in the current regulations, and to codify procedures and terminology-that have been used in a number of specific cases.
The Commission believes that the proposed amendments would enhance the uniformity in the process for decommissioning nuclear power reactors as set forth by the existing regulations.
The-proposed amendments would furnish the licensed community and the public a i
better understanding of the process involved in decommissioning j
i as the operating personnel at a nuclear reactor facility undergo i
the transition from an operating organization to a decommissioning. organization.
In particular, this rulemaking would address the process which begins with a licensee's decision
4 to permanently cease operations at the facility and concludes with Commission approval of the licensee's decommissioning plan.
This rulemaking would codify definitions for possession-only license amendment (POLA), confirmatory shutdown order, and permanent cessation of operations to clarify terminology which already exists within the part 50 regulations and the Commission decisions involving decommissioning issues.
Section 50.59 would be clarified to make it expressly applicable to holders of POLAs or licenses not authorizing reactor operation.
Licensees would be permitted, upon receipt of a POLA or confirmatcry shutdown order, to carry out certain prescribed activities.
After permanent cessation of operations, licensees would be required to provide the NRC with inf.ormation including a schedule documenting their proposed decommitsioning activities at the facility.
In addition, licensees would be required to inform the NRC of their plans for significant decommissioning activities 00 days prior to the commencement of the planned activities at the facility.
Finally, the Commission is proposing to amend sections of 10 CFR part 50 to clarify the applicability or limited applicability of certain regulations to permanently shut down or decommissioning nuclear power reactors, which in come cases may result in reducing the regulatory burden facing _ licensees in the decommissioning phase.
5 II.
Existing Regulatory Framework and Need for the Amendments The present regulatory framework for decommissioning is largely contained within 10 CFR 50.82, with additional requirements in 10 CFR 50.75, 51.53 and 51.95.
The formal process comm'ences with the filing of an application by the licensee, typically after the plant has permanently ceased operations, for authority to surrender its license and to decommission the facility.
The 3icensee must submit this application within two years following " permanent cessation of operations," but no later than one year prior to expiration of its license.
However, the regulations do not define permanent cessation of operations.
The Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.2 to define " permanent cessation of operations" and to delineate its role in the decommissioning process.
Although not stated in the current regulations, after
" permanent cessation of operations" but before receiving an order j
authorizing decommissioning, the holder of an operating license may seek to obtain a " possession-only license amendment" (POLA).
This step in the process does not ensue from the regulations but from a practice which was initially set forth in Regulatory Guide 1.86, (RG 1.86), " Termination of Nuclear Reactor Licenses."
RG 1.86 contains a description of the information the licensee must include in the application for a possession-only license (POL).
The Statement of Considerations to the final decommissioning rule (53 FR 24018; June 27, 1988) indicates that decommissioning will
6 be conducted under a POL, and the Commission's annual fee regulations in 10 CFR 171.5 indicate that fee requirements for a l
4 holder of an " operating license" do not apply to licenses authorizing " possession of special nuclear material after the Commicsion has received a request from the~ licensee to amend its licensee [ sic) to permanently withdraw its authority to operate or the Commission has permanently revoked such authority."
The current requirements in 10 CFR 50.59 do not expressly address holders of POLAs.
Thus, the Commission is also proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.59 to make it expressly applicable to holders of POLAs, and proposing to provide guidance for the application of this provision.
Finally, the Commission has undertaken an analysis to determine the applicability of certain 10 ch'. part 50 requirements to licensees whose authorization to operate has been permanently removed.
The results of a portion of that study will be presented in this rulemaking package, with the possibility of future amendments to part 50.
In the shoreham decommissioning, the NRC issued an immediately effective Confirmatory order modifying the Shoreham license to prohibit the reloading of fuel into the reactor without prior NRC approval.
Although such orders were issued to the Shoreham, Rancho Seco and Fort St. Vrain licensees, they were not contemplated by the final decommissioning rule issued in 1988, and therefore are not currently defined in part 50.
The Commission is proposing to amend the regulations in part 50 to
7
-define;" confirmatory shutdown order," and to provide for its discretionary issuance.
- Finally, between permanent shut down and NRC approval of a decommissioning plan under existing regulations in part 50, a licensee may take actions consistent with its license, so long as it satisfies applicable licensing and. regulatory requirements.
The current commission position embodied in the draft policy
{
statement'"Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Decommissioning Plan Approval" (59 FR 5216; February 3, 1994) is that the licensee should be allowed to undertake any decommissioning activity under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 (as the term " decommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2) that does not:
(a) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (b) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (c) cause any significant environmental impact'not previously reviewed, or (d). violate the terms of the licensee's existing license or 10 CFR 50.59 as' applied to_the existing license.
This guidance was also referred to in Yankee. Atomic Electric.C2, CsI-94-3, 39 NRC 95 (1994).
The Commission is proposing guidance on application of these criteria in Draft Revision 1 to-Regulatory Guide 1.86 (RG 1.86), " Termination of Nuclear Reactor Licenses," which is being issued separately for public comment.
In sum, this preposed rule would clarify and reiterate the
-role of the POLA, permanent cessation of operations, and confirmatory shutdown order within the entire decommissioning process.
The Commission believes that licensees will benefit
8 from uniformity in the decommissioning process, and that the public will benefit from being better able to comprehend the restrictions and requirements imposed on licensees upon permanent cessation of operations at a facility.
A discussion of each proposed amendment is set out below.
III. Permanent Cessation of Operations Although 10 CFR 50.82 uses the language " permanent cessation of operations," the terminology is not defined within the regulations.
The Commission views the decision to cease operations permanently, other than for reasons of license expiration or revocation, as within the discretion of the licensee.
Moreover, the Commission has no authority to overturn the determination to cease operation.
Egg Sacramento Municipal Utility District, (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-93-3, 37 NRC 135, 144 n.23 (1993).
The formal declaration by a licensee of a permanent cessation of operations will provide a starting point for application of the decommissioning requirements in 10 CFR 50.82.
For example, the timing requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a) are triggered by the " permanent cessation of operations."
Hence, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.2 to add a definition of " permanent cessation of operations," for a nuclear power reactor as a certification tc the NRC that it has ceased or will permanently cease reactor operation.
The Commission's propoer
9 amendments to 10 CFR 50.82 would require licensees to make a written certification of the licensee's intent to permanently cease operations or that reactor operations have already permanently ceased and file it with the Commission, pursuant to the Commission's proposed amendments to the written communication requirements in 10 CFR 50.4 (b) (8).
Filing of the certification will mark a starting point for further licensee and NRC actions leading to eventual termination of the operating license.
The certification of permanent cessation of operations will be a prerequisite for a licensee's submittal of an application for a POLA.
The Commission recognizes that there may be certain circumstances where the licensee is ordered to permanently cease operations, e.g.,
by the NRC or a State Public Utilities Commission.
The Commission's proposed requirements in S 50.82 address this situation by extending the requirement to certify to permanent cessation of operations when a legally effective order i
to permanently cease operations has taken effect against the nuclear power reactor licensee.
Licensee decommissioning activities taken subsequent to this certification should not: (a) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (b) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (c) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (d) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license or 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to the existing license.
The Commission is interested in public comment
]
4 10 1
on whether the four criteria should be codified in 10 CFR part 50' as requirements or remain as guidance.
i IV. Ekrly Notification of Post-Shutdown Activities The Commission is proposing to require that licensees inform the NRC of any significant decommissioning activities after permanent cessation of operations.
The Commission believes that i
the licensee should initially be required to submit a preliminary report including a schedule for decommissioning activities contemplated at the facility.
The Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.82 to codify this requirement.
This submittal would inform the NRC of the nature of decommissioning I
activities planned as well as facilitate the allocation of staff resources to provide timely evaluation and inspection of planned decommissioning activities.
This preliminary report would also J
serve to inform the public about the general nature and order of significant decommissioning activities which are being planned for the facility.
The level of detail for the 10 CFR
- 50. 82 (a) (4) (i) preliminary report required need not be any greater than required for information contained in a preliminary decommissioning plan under S 50.75.
To further inform the public, an informal public meeting shall be convened by the NRC
- staff upon receipt of the preliminary report.
Following licensee submittal of the preliminary report, more detailed information would follow at least 90 days in advance of i)
,1 11 planned significant decommissioning activities for the facility.
The Commission believes that this detailed information is necessary for the NRC staff to maintain proper oversight of licensee activities prior to decommissioning plan approval and to ensure that these activities are consistent with the four-criteria which the Commission is proposing to provide guidance on in RG 1.86,-viz., that the licensee should be allowed to undertake any decommissioning activity in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59 (as the term " decommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2) that does not: (a) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (b) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (c) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (d) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license or 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to the existing license.
1 This early information should serve another important I
function, that of informing the public with respect to post-shutdown decommissioning plant activities.
The Commission i
approved the staff's proposal in SECY-92-382 (November 10, 1992, available for photocopy in NRC Public Document Room) to provide an informal process for early public input into the decommissioning phase.
The Commission is proposing to codify in 10 CFR 50.82 the requirement that the NRC staff convene an informal public meeting in the vicinity of the licensee's facility following licensee submittal of the 90-day report.
For example, an informal public meeting would be convened by NRC
12 staff in conjunction with a 90-day report in the vicinity of the licensee's facility to allow for public questions and comments to be directed to the licensee and NRC staff.
Such meetings would serve to better inform the public as to anticipated activities at the licensee's facility.
The proposed revision in 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (4) (ii) also clarifies that the 90-day reports are intended to be specific to the planned activity schedule to be accomplished in 90 days, and not a cumulative report on all planned activities.
The licensee wil] have filed a report pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (4) (i) which desc21 bed the series of planned activities.
Once an activitf has been included in a 90-day report filed pursuant to 10 CFR
- 50. 82 (a) (4) (ii), the activity need not be addressed in any subsequent reports made pursuant to that paragraph.
V. Possession-Only License Amendment After permanent cessation of reactor operations, but before approval of the decommissioning plan, a licensee may seek to amend its operating license to obtain a possession-only license amendment (POLA).
The POLA can be viewed as an initial step in the process by which a plant is relieved of the requirements of a full power license once it is permanently removed from service.
When a POLA is issued, the operating license is amended to delete references to operation or power generation to reflect that the licensee may "use, possess, but-not-operate the i
i
)
'13 reactor." For example, the licensee is not permitted to receive special nuclear or source material, except as needed to conduct monitoring, instrument calibrations, and laboratory analyses activities.
As the Commission stated in the June 27, 1988 final-rule on decommissioning:
Normally, an amended Part 50 license authorizing-
. possession only will be issued prior to the decommissioning order to confirm the nonoperating.
status of the plant and to reduce some requirements which are important only for operation prior to finalization of decommissioning plans.
The Commission further noted that under past practices before the issuance of the 1988 decommissioning regulations, a POLA had usually been' issued before approval'of decommissioning,.and part 50 licenses so amended had covered periods of safe storage and entombment as well as initial decommissioning, with a
" dismantlement order" issued to cover only the actual dismantlement and disposal of the facility.
(53 FR 20424).
The Commission is proposing to define a POLA in 10 CFR 50.2 as " for a nuclear power reactor, an operating license amendment which permanently removes the authority to operate the reactor or
. maintain or place fuel in the reactor vessel."- Since the POLA is an amendment to an existing operating license, an application for license renewal would be required if the storage and/or dismantling period were to exceed the original term of the operating license.
c
t 14 POLA applications are noticed and issued in due course after the determination that'a plantLwill'be decommissioned and the facility shut down thus removing the authorization to operate.
The POLA confirms the nonoperating~ status of the facility and prevents a licensee from unilaterally resuming' operation, an operation that would require NRC approval, without notice to the public of the proposed licensing action.
The Commission envisions that after issuance of a POLA, a licensee'would be able to seek a reduction in requirements which are important'only for operation prior to approval of a decommissioning plan.
Where revisions to Technical Specifications (TS) are requested and approved, the licensee would be permitted to revise the baseline on which analyses under 10 CFR 50.59 are performed, (see the discussion of the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.59 making it expressly applicable to holders of POLAs).
In conjunction with the amendment to 10 CFR 50.59, the Commission is proposing to amend various regulations in part 50 to clarify which requirements in part 50 continue to have applicability to permanently shut down and decommissioning nuclear power reactor facilities.
The Commission notes that the current regulato;y scheme envisions a licensee submittal of a preliminary decommissioning plan at or about five years prior to the projected end of operation, see 10 CFR 50.75.
However, the Commission recognizes that when a licensee prematurely shuts down,.no preliminary decommissioning plan is likely to have been submitted and shortly
15 after permanent cessation of operations, the licensee may apply for a POLA.
Consequently, the information on decommissioning activities available for public comment will necessarily be limitc' at this juncture.
Thus, the Commission reemphasizes that the early notification provision of the proposed 10 CFR
- 50. 82 (a) (4) assumes an important role in the case of the prematurely shut down licensee.
Since the existing and proposed regulatory structure allows for substantial decommissioning activities prior to decommissioning plan approval, licensees which have not received Commission approval of decommissioning plans must, in addition to submission of a preliminary report under 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (4) (i), submit plans for significant decommissioning activities 90 days in advance of such activities under 10 CFR 50. 82 (a) (4) (ii).
Both the NRC and public understanding of licensee activities subsequent to permanent cessation of operations is highly dependent on the m;ality of the licensee's information regarding decommissioning plans and activities in these reports.
VI. Applicability of 10 CFR 50.59 to Shutdown Plants Upon permanent cessation of operations, the licensee has two years to submit a proposed decommissioning plan which describes the processes that will be utilized to either begin dismantlement or place the facility in storage for a specified period of time.
After the specified storage period, the facility would then be
16 dismantled.
The NRC practice has been to evaluate the licensee decommissioning plan, evaluate the potential environmental impact and prepare a safety evaluation for decommissioning of the facility..
As noted in the current 10 CFR 50.82 (e), the decommissioning plan must demonstrate that decommissioning activities will be performed in accordance with Commission regulations and will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the public health and safety.
Upon approval of the decommissioning plan and issuance of the order authorizing decommissioning, the decommissioning plan becomes a licensing basis document, supplementing the final safety analysis report (FSAR).
The Commission is proposing to amend the regulations in 10 CFR 50.82 to clarify that the decommissioning plan is a supplement to the FSAR, and as such is a licensing basis document.
As a result of the proposed amendment to 10 CFR 50.71(e) and 50.82, the requirements for updating and reporting would apply to the decommissioning plan.
The regulations in 10 CFR 50.59 permit licensees to make changes to their facilities and procedures and to conduct tests and experiments without obtaining prior Commission approval, provided that these activities do not involve an unreviewed safety question or require a change in technical specifications.
The. applicability of 10 CFR 50.59 to the operational phase of a nuclear power reactor is understood.
The current regulation does not expressly address the applicability to the permanently
17 shut down phase of a nuclear power reactor.
The Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.59 to indicate that this process of evaluating changes to facilities and procedures and the conduct of tests and experiments can be used during the permanently shut down and decommissioning phases of a nuclear power-reactors.
Licensees of permanently shut down nuclear power reactors can use I
the process established in 10 CFR 50.59 to evaluate whether l
proposed changes to facilities and procedures or the conduct of tests and experiments involve an unreviewed safety question or require a change in a Technical Specification.
When the authority in 10 CFR 50.59 is extended to licensees of permanently shut down nuclear power reactors, it becomes incumbent upon these licensees to maintain appropriate staffing levels, qualifications, and capabilities to ensure that safety evaluations performed under the auspices of 10 CFR 50.59 are properly performed and the effectiveness of the decommissioning plan and'ther licensee programs are not diminished.
o
+
VII. Clarification of the Applicability of 10 CFR part 50 to Permanently Shut Down and Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants.
Once a decision has been made to permanently cease operation of a nuclear power reactor, the licensee may apply for a POLA which removes the authority to operate the reactor or to maintain or place fuel in the reactor vessel.
The issuance of the POLA by the Commission then provides a basis to remove regulatory 1
l 1
18 requirements that are no-longer necessary to protect the public health and safety.
The licensee has historically pursued relief from these requirements by means of obtaining license amendments and exemptions.
This process has placed significant burdens upon both licensees and the Commission.
After a nuclear power reactor is permanently shut down, awaiting or undergoing decommissioning, certain regulations, which are based on full power operation, are no longer applicable.
Other regulations may have limited applicability but would require modification to appropriately address the concerns associated with the permanently shut down condition.
The Commission proposes to amend a number of the regulations contained in 10 CFR part 50 to clarify their applicability to permanently shut down nuclear power reactors.
The following provides a discussion of numerous technical regulations which have been determined to have limited or no applicability, or require clarification of their applicability to permanently shut down nuclear power reactors.
In all the examples below, the Commission is proposing to amend each specific regulation to clarify its applicability, nonapplicability, or limited applicability to permanently shut down nuclear reactors.
f
19 A. Technical Specifications The applicability of 10 CFR 50.36 to the operational phase of a nuclear power. reactor is clearly understood.
However, the existing regulation has caused uncertainty as to its applicability to the permanently shut down and decommissioning phase of a. nuclear power reactor.
The Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.36 to clearly indicate that the controls, limits, and requirements established by the technical specifications are a continuing part of the license in the permanently shut down and decommissioning phase of a nuclear power reactor.
The Commission recognizes that technical specifications pertinent to the operational phase will be revised and amended to reflect plant conditions and safety concerns associated with permanent cessation of operations and issuance of a POLA.
B. Technical Specifications for Effluents i
The applicability of 10 CFR 50.36a and Appendix I to the operational phase of a nuclear power plant is clearly understood.
However, the existing regulation has caused uncertainty as to its applicability to the permanently shut down and decommissioning 1
i phase of a nuclear power plant.
The Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.36a and Appendix I to clearly indicate that the centrols, limits, and requirements for controlling radiological
\\
20 effluents are required during the permanently shut down and decommissioning phase of a nuclear power plant.
C. Combustible Gas Control The combustible gas control requirements are found in 10 CFR 50.44.
These requirements were instituted to improve hydrogen manageme.it in light water reactor (LWR) facilities and to provide specific design and other requirements to mitigate the consequences of accidents resulting in a degraded core.
The requirements focus on the capability for measuring hydrogen concentration, ensuring a mixed atmosphere, and controlling combustible gas mixtures following a loss of coolant accident (LOCA).
The concern for hydrogen generation during a LOCA does not exist with the permanently shut down power reactor.
A nuclear power plant with a POLA stores all of its fuel outside of j
primary containment, and challenges to the reactor pressure vessel and primary containment from accident-generated combustible gases are no longer an issue.
Therefore, the Commission is proposing to amend the requirements in 10 CFR 50.44 to indicate its nonapplicability to a nuclear power reactor facility that has permanently ceased operations and has a POLA.
i t
i j
21 D. Emergency Core Cooling Systems (ECCS) Acceptance Criteria The acceptance criteria for ECCS for LWRs are found in 10 CFR 50.46 and in Appendix K.
These regulations require that the:
ECCS be designed to limit post LOCA peak cladding temperatura, clad oxidation, and hydrogen generation to specified values and provide for long term cooling.
Without fuel in the vessel, ECCS systems are not required since a design basis LOCA could not occur.
Therefore, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to indicate their nonapplicability to a nuclear power reactor facility that has permanently ceased operations and has a POLA.
E. Environmental Qualification (EQ)
)
The regulations for equipment qualification are found in 10 CFR 50.49.
The regulation covers that portion of equipment important to safety commonly referred to as " safety related."
Safety related structures, systems, and components (SSCs) are those that are relied upon to remain functional during and following design basis events to ensure (i) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, (ii) the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe condition, and (iii) the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite exposures comparable to the guidelines of 10 CFR part 100.
Design basis
)
4 22 events are defined ~as conditions of normal operation'of.the reactor, including anticipated operational occurrences; design basis accidents; externi.1 events; _ and natural phenomena for which q
the plant must be designed to ensure-the functions (i) through (iii) above.
The EQ rule is clearly limited to electrical equipment that
)
must function during design basis events.
In response to j
comments on the. final rule,- (48 FR 2729, Januar" 21, 1983), the Commission noted that the EQ rule does not cover the electric.
1 equipment located in a mild environment.
With permanent-cessation of operations, the harsh environment associated with LOCA accidents can no longer occur.
Therefore, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.49 to indicate its nonapplicability to a nuclear power reactor facility that has permanently ceased i
operations and.has a POLA.
F.
Containment Leakage Testing I
l In 10 CFR 50.54, paragraph (o) requires that primary containments for water cooled reactors shall be' subject to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix J.
This appendix l
requires periodic testing to verify the leak-tight integrity of the' primary containment and those systems and components that penetrate the' containment.
The primary containment of an operating reactor is one of several fission product barriers
l 23 designed to protect the public health and safety in the event of a design baais accident such as a LOCA.
Once a nuclear power reactor permanently ceases operation, the. fuel is removed frc.n i
the reactor vessel in the containment and placed in the spent fuel pool or an f.ndependent spent fuel storage installation l
(ISFSI).
Afs.rr the fuel has been removed from the containment, i
the LOCA can no longer occur.
Leakage testing of the containment is no longer necessary.
Therefore, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 5'..5/. to) to indicate its nonapplicability to a nuclear power reactor facility that has permanently ceased operations and has a POLA.
G. Emergency Actions In 10 CFR 50.54 (x) a licensee is allowed to take reasonable actions that may depart from a license condition or technical specification in an emergency.
This is permitted when action is immediately needed to protect the public health and safety and no actions consistent with license conditions e.nd technical
]
specifications that can provide adequate or equivalent protection are immediately apparent.
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54 (y),
emergency actions specified in 10 CFR 50.5 (x) chall be approved by a licensed senior operator prior to taking the action.
These regulations serve to ensure that emergency action decisions necessary to protect the public health and safety are made by an individual who has both the requisite knowledge and
4 l
24 plant experience.
The licensed senior operator at an operating nuclear' power reactor has the requisite knowledge and experience to evaluate plant conditions and make these judgments.
A nuclear power reactor that has permanently ceased
-operations no longer has fuel in the reactor vessel nor requires a licensed individual to monitor core conditions.
A certified fuel handler at a permanenriy shut down or decommissioning.
nuclear power reactor has the requisite knowledge and experience to. evaluate plant conditions and make these judgements.
The Commission is proposing to. amend 10. CFR 50.54 (y) to permit a certified fuel handler at nuclear power reactore that have permanently ceased operations and have a POLA to make these evaluations and judgments.
H. Fracture Prevention Measures The regulations in 10 CFR 50.60, 50.61, and Appendices G and H specify the requirements for fracture toughness and material surveillance programs for the reactor coolant pressure boundary of LWRs.
The intent of these regulations is to maintain reactor coolant pressure boundary integrity by assuring adequate margins of safety during any condition of normal operation, including anticipated abnormal operational occurrences.
Once a-nuclear power reactor permanently ceases operation, the fuel is removed from the reactor vessel in the containment and placed in the spent fuel pool or an ISFSI.
After the fuel j
l l
o
)
25 has been-removed from the containment, accidents and transients which affect the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary can no' longer occur.
The measures required by these-regulations are no longer necessary.
Therefore, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.60, 50.61, and Appendices G and H to indicate their nonapplicability to a nuclear power reactor facility that has permanently ceased operations and has a POLA.
I. Anticipated Transient Without Scram (ATWS) Requirements The purpose of 10 CFR 50.62 is to require improvements in the design and operation of LWRs to reduce the likelihood of reactor protection system (RPS) failure following anticipated operational occurrences.
This regulation also requires improvements in the capability to mitigate the consequences of an ATWS event.
Although the ATWS event can be a significant contributor to operating plant risk, it is not relevant to nuclear power plants that have permanently ceased operations since fuel has been removed from the reactor and the RPS is no longer used.
Therefore, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.62 to
. indicate its nonapplicability to a nuclear power reactor facility that has permanently ceased operations and has a POLA.
)
' I 26 1
i
(. C) Power Requirements J.. Loss of A*1 Alternating Current A
I The requirements for loss of all AC power (Station Blackout Rule, SBO), are found in 10 CFR 50.63.
The regulation requires that all light-water-cooled. nuclear power plants be capable of withstanding a complete loss of AC power for a specified duration and maintain reactor core cooling during that period.
The intent is to provide further assurance that a loss of both the offsite and onsite emergency AC power systems will not adversely affect public health and safety.
The purpose of this regulation is to explicitly require that nuclear power plants be designed to ensure that core cooling can be maintained for a specific duration (coping period) without onsite or offsite AC power.
The coping period can range from two to sixteen hours depending on the plant specific design and the site characteristics.
The objective of the rule is to reduce the risk of severe accidents resulting from station blackout by maintaining highly reliable AC electric power systems and, as an additional defense 3
)
in depth, assuring that plants can cope with a loss of all AC power for some period of time.
Although the rule is oriented toward core damage, the risk objective of reducing severe accident risk due to SBO can be applied to a reactor facility that has permanently ceased operations and has a POLA.
Based on the analysis in NUREG-1353, a total loss of spent fuel cooling would require over 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of spent fuel pool boil J
27 off before any spent fuel would be exposed.
This time is well in excess of the maximum coping period required by the rule.
The long period before fuel damage occurs allows ample time for offsite power recovery or fuel pool makeup.
Therefore, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.63 to indicate its nonapplicability to a nuclear power reactor facility that has permanently ceased operations and has a POLA.
l K.
Monitoring the Effectiveness of Maintenance The applicability of 10 CFR 50.65 to the operational phase of a nuclear power plant is well understood.
However, to eliminate any uncertainty as to its applicability to the permanently shut down and decommissioning phase of a nuclear power plant, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.65 to clearly indicate that the controls, limits, and requirements for monitoring the effectiveness of maintenance is required during the permanently shut down and decommissioning phase of a nuclear power plant facility that has permanently ceased operations and has a POLA.
L. Maintenance of Records and the Making of Reports The requirements for licensees to periodically update the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) are contained in 10 CFR 50.71.
The regulation requires that " persons licensed to operate
28 a nuclear. power reactor" update the facility FSAR annually or after each refueling outage with intervals not to exceed 24 months.
In order to ensure that applicable sections of facility FSARs continue to be updated for facilities with POLAs, the Commission is proposing to amend this regulation to make it applicable to holders of a POLA.
VIII. Confirmatory Shutdown Order Although the Commission is proposing amendments to part 50 that would define a POLA, amend 10 CFR 50.59 to make-it expressly applicable to a POLA holder, and modify other regulations to clarify the applicability of a POLA, the Commission reiterates that it has no basis upon which to require licensees to obtain a POLA.
Although it might be very beneficial for a licensee to apply for and obtain a POLA, the licensee may for whatever reason choose not to make such a request.
Thus, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.2 and 50.82 to provide for (but not require) prompt issuance of a confirmatory shutdown order after the permanent cessation of operations.
Once a confirmatory shutdown order has been issued, 10 CFR 50.59 evaluations could proceed on the basis of a permanently shut down plant.
- However, license amendments and other relief requests would have to be evaluated on a case-specific basis since the regulatory reliefs proposed in this rulemaking are intrinsic to the certification of permanent cessation of operations and receipt of a POLA.
29 IX. Criminal Penalties Provisions The existing provisions of 10 CFR 50.82 are treated as nonsubstantive and are not subject to. criminal enforcement.
lnder the Commission's proposed amendments to 10 CFR 50.82, licensees would be required to take certain actions which the i
commission believes are essential in initiating the decommissioning process; e.g.,
certifying to p2rmanent cessation of operations and submitting reports of planned decommissioning activities.
Thus, the Commission believes that the amended provisions of 10 CFR 50.82 should be considered as substantive and issued under the SS 161b, 1611, or 161o of the Atomic Energy i
Act of 1954, as amended.
Accordingly, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.111(b) to remove the exemption for S 50.82 from the criminal penalty provisions.
i Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact Availability The Commission has determined that under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required.
The
~
proposed rule would clarify current decommissioning requirements for nuclear power reactors in 10 CFR part 50, and set forth a J
30 more uniform and understandable process.
The Commission has already analyzed the major environmental impacts associated with decommissioning in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), NUREG-0586, August 1988 published.in conjunction with the Commission's final decommissioning rule (53 FR 24018, June 27, 1988).
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection and photocopying for a fee'at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC.
Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from Stuart A.
Treby, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1644.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.)
This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the information collection requirements.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average (number will be sucolied before oublication in the Federal Reaister) hours Ier response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and s
31 completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Regulatory Analysis The NRC has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation.
The analysis qualitatively examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the NRC.
The draft regulatory analysis is available for inspect. ion in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),
Washington, DC 20555.
Single copies of the analysis may be i
obtained from Stuart A. Treby, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1644.
j The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.
Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.
o 32 Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the-Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5
.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not,
~
if promulgated, have a significant economic impact en a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would impose requirements for timely decommissioning of nuclear power plants.
The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of small entities as given in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards promulgated in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration (13 U.S.C.
Part 121).
Backfit Analysis The Commission is proposing not to apply the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, to these proposed amendments, and therefore, a backfit analysis has not been prepared for this rule.
The focus of the backfit provision in 10 CFR 50.109 is on operating reactors, and these proposed amendments would only apply to reactors wh[ch have permanently ceased operations.
List of Subjects Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernuental
l 33 1
relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping I
requirements.
For reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C.
553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILTIIES 1.
The authority citation for part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C.
- 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L.
102-486, sec. 2902, 106 Stat.
3123, (42 U.S.C. 5851).
Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 936, 955, as amended (42' U.S.C.
2131, 2235);
sec. 102 Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Sections 50.13, 50.54 (dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat.
939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50 55,
34 and 50.56.also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.
2235).
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub.
L.92-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).
Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat.
1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).
Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C.
2152).
Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat.
954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Appendix F also issued under-sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
2.
In S 50.2, the terms " Confirmatory shutdown order,"
" Permanent cessation of operations," and " Possession-only license-amendment" are added to read as follows:
5 50.2 Definitions.
Confirmatory thpidtwn order means an order prohibiting I
resumed operation of the reactor without prior NRC approval.
j j
+,
35 Permanent' cessation of ooerations means, for a nuclear power reactor, a certification by a licensee to the NRC that it has ceased or will permanently cease reactor operation.
Possession-only license amendment means, for a nuclear power reactor, an operating license amendment which permanently removes the authority to operate the reactor or maintain cnr place fuel in
.the reactor vessel.
3.
In 5 50.4, paragraphs (b) (8) and (b) (9) are added to read as follows:
5 50.4 Written Communications.
(b)
(8)
Certification of Permanent Cessation of ODerations.
The licensee's certification of permanent cessation of operations, pursuant to S 50.82 must be ?"bmitted as follows:
(i) the signed and notart:cd uriginal and one copy to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555, j
l
I 36 (ii) one copy to the appropriate. Regional Office, and
~(iii) one copy to'the appropriate NRC Resident Inspector if one has been assigned to the site of the facility.
4.
In S 50.36, new paragraphs (c) (6) and (e) are added, and paragraphs (c) -( 6 ) and (c) (7) are redesignated as (c) (7) and (c) (8) to read as follows:
5 50.36 Technical soecifications.
(c)
(6)
For nuclear power reactors that have permanently ceased operation and have a possession-only license amendment, safety limits, limiting safety system settings, and limiting control system settings; limiting conditions for operation; surveillance requirements; design features; and administrative controls will be developed on a case-by-case basis.
5
37-
. (e)
The provisions of this section shall apply to each.
applicant for and each holder of a possession-only-license-amendment ~.
l 5.-
In S 50.36a, paragraphs (a) and (b)' are revised to read as follows:
5.50.36a-Technical soecifications on effluents from nuclear power reactors.
j (a) In order to keep releases of radioactive materials to unrestricted areas during normal conditions, including expected operational occurrences, as low as reasonably achievable, each-licensee of a nuclear < power reactor will include technical specifications that, in addition to requiring compliance with-applicable provisions of 5 20.1301 of this chapter, require:
- (a) (1) That operating procedures developed pursuant to S 50.34a(c) for-the control of effluents be established and followed and that equipment installed in the radioactive waste-j
. system, pursuant to S 50.34 (a), be maintained and used.
The 2 licensee shall' retain the operating procedures in effect as a record unt'1 the Commission terminates the license and shall
I 38 retain each' superseded revision of the procedures for three years-from the date it-was superseded.
(a )' ( 2 ) Each licensee shall submit a report to.the Commission annually.that' specifies the quantity of each of the principal radionuclides released to unrestricted areas.in liquid and in gaseous effluents during the previous 12 months, including any other information as may be required by the Commission to estimate maximum potential annual radiation _ doses to the public
.resulting from~ effluent releases.
The report must be submitted as specified in 5H50.4, and the time between submission of the reports.must be no longer than 12 months.
If quantities of radioactive materials released during the reporting period are g
significantly above design objectives,'the. report must cover this specifically..On the basis of these reports and any additional information the-Commission may obtain from the licensee or others, the Commission may require the licensee to take action as the Commission deems appropriate.
(b) In establishing and implementing the operating procedures described in paragraph (a) of this section, the licensee shall be. guided by the following considerations:
Experience with the design, construction, and operation of nuclear power reactors indicates that compliance with the technical specifications described in this section will keep average annual releases of radioactive material in effluents and
i 39 their resultant committed effective dose equivalents at small I
J percentages of the dose limits specified in S 20.1301 and in the license.
At the same time, the licensee is permitted the flexibility of operation, compatible with considerations of health and safety, to assure that the public is provided a dependable source of power even under unusual operating.
conditions which may temporarily result in releases higher than such small percentages, but still within the limits specified in 5 20.1301 of this chapter and in the license.
It is expected that in using this operational flexibility under unusual operating conditions, the licensee will exert its best efforts to I
keep levels of radioactive material in effluents as low as is i
reasonable achievable.
The guides set out in appendix I provide numerical guidance on limiting conditions for operation for j
light-water cooled nuclear power reactors to meet the requirement that radioactive materials in effluents released to unrestricted I
areas be kept as low as is reasonable achievable.
6.
In S 50.44, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
S 50.44 Standards for combustible cas control system in licht-water-cooled oower reactors.
(a) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor, other than reactor facilities that have permanently ceased operations and have a possession-only license amendment,
e 40 fueled-with oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding, must, as provided in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section, include-means for control of hydrogen gas that may be generated, following a postulated loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) by----
7.
In S 50.46, paragraph (a) (1) (i) is revised to read as follows:
5 50.46 Accentance criteria for emeroency core coolina systems for licht water nuclear oower reactors.
(a) (1) (i) Each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor, other than reactor facilities that have permanently ceased operations and have a possession-only lice.nse amendment, J
fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be provided with an emergency core cooling system (ECCS) that must be designed so that its calculated
-cooling performance following postulated loss-of-coolant accidents conforms to the c.iteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
ECCS cooling performance must be calculated in accordance with an acceptable evaluation model and must be calculated for a number of postulated loss-of-coolant accidents
e 41 of different sizes, locations, and other properties sufficient to provide assurance that the most severe-postulated loss-of-coolant accidents are calculated.
Except as provided in paragraph (a) (1) (ii) of this section, the evaluation model must include sufficient supporting justification to shew that the analytical-technique realistically describes the behavior of the reactor system during a loss-of-coolant accident.
Comparisons to applicable experimental data must be made and uncertainties in the analysis method and inputs must'be identified and assessed so that the uncertainty in the calculated results can be estimated.
This uncertainty must be accounted for, so that, when the calculated ECCS cooling performance is compared to the criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, there is a high level of probability that the criteria would not be exceeded.
Appendix K, part II Required. Documentation, sets forth the documentation requirements for each evaluation model.
8.
In S 50.49, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
)
i S 50.49 Environmental cualification of electric ecuipment imoortant to safety for nuclear Dower olants.
(a) Each holder of or an applicant for a license for a nuclear power plant, other than reactor facilities that have
42 permanently ceased operations and have a possession-only license amendment, shall establish a program for qualifying the electric equipment defined in paragraph (b) of this section.
9.
In S 50.54, paragraphs (o) and (y) are revised to read as follows:
5 50.54 conditions of licenses.
(o)
Primary reactor containments for water cooled power reactors, other than reactor facilities that have permanently ceased operations and have a possession-only license < amendment.,
shall be subject to the requirements set forth in appendix J to this part.
(y)
Licensee action permitted by paragraph (x) of this section shall be approved, as a minimum, by a licensed senior operator, or, at a nuclear power reactor that has permanently ceased operation and has a possession-only license amendment, by
43 either a licensed senior operator or a certified fuel handler, prior to taking the action.
10.
In S 50.59, paragraph (d) is added to read as follows:
S 50.59 Chances, tests and eroeriments.
(d)
The provisions of this section shall apply to each applicant for and each holder of a possession-only license amendment.
11.
In S 50.60, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
S 50.60 Accentance criteria for fracture prevention measures for licht-water nuclear nower reactors for normal oneration.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all lightwater nuclear power reactors, other than reactor facilities that have permanently ceased operations and have a possession-only license amendment, must meet the fracture toughness snd material surveillance program requirements for the reactor
44 coolant pressure boundary set forth in Appendices G and H to this part.
12.
In S 50.61, paragraph (b) (1) is revised to read'as follows:
S 50.61 Fracture touchness recuirements for orotection aaainst oressurized thermal shock events.
(b) nequirements.
(1) For each pressurized water nuclear power reactor, other than reactor facilities that have permanently ceased operations and have a possession-only license amendment, for which an operating license has been issued, the licensee shall submit projected values of RTns for reactor vessel beltline materials by giving values for the time of submittal, the expiration date of the operating license, the projected expiration date if a change in the operating license has been requested, and the projected expiration date of a renewal term if a request for license renewal has been submitted.
The assessment must use the calculative procedures given in paragraph (b) (2) of this section.
The assessment must specify the bases for the projection, including the assumptions regarding core loading patterns.
The
p.
~
45 subinittal cust list the copper and nickel contents, and the fluenco. values used in the calculation for each beltline j
material.
If these quantities differ.from those submitted in rasponse to the original PTS rule and accepted by_the NRC, justification must be provided.
If ~ the value of RTns for any_
material in the beltline is projected to exceed the PTS screening criteria before the expiration date of'the operating license or the proposed expiration date if a change in the license has been requested, or the end of a renewal term if a request for license renewal has been submitted, this assessment must be submitted by December'16, 1991.
Otherwise, this assessment must be submitted with the next update of the pressure-temperature limits, or the next reactor vesse.1 material surveillance report, or 5 years from the effective date of this rule, whichever comes first.
These submittals must be updated whenever there is a significant change in projected values of RTns, or upon a request for a change in the expiration date for operation of the facility.
13.
In S 50.62, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
S 50.62 Recuirements for reduction of risk from anticioated transients without scram (ATWS) events for licht-water-cooled nuclear oower olants.
i i
46
. (a) Applicability.
The requirements of this section apply to all commercial light-water-cooled nuclear power plants, other than reactor facilities that have permanently ceased operations and have a possession-only license amendment.
14.
In S 50.63, paragraph (a) (1) is revised to read as follows:
S 50.63 Loss of all alternatino current oower.
(a) Requirements.
(1) Each light-water-cooled nuclear power plant, other than reactor facilities that have permanently ceased operations and have a possession-only license amendment, licensed to operate must be able to withstand for a specified duration and recover from a station blackout as defined in S 50.2.
The specified station blackout duration shall be based on the following factors:
15.
In S 50.65, paragraph (a) (1) is revised to read as follows:
5 50.65.
Recuirements for monitorina the effectiveness of maintenance at nuclear oower olants.
1
47 (a) (1) Each holder of a license to operate a nuclear power plant under SS 50.21(b) or 50.22, or applicant for or holder of a possession-only license amendment, shall monitor the performance or condition of structures, systems, or components, against licensee-established goals, in a manner sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that such structures, systems, and components, as defined in paragraph (b), are capable of fulfilling their intended functions.
Such goals shall be established commensurate with safety and, where practical, take into account industry-wide operating experience.
When the performance or condition of a structure, system, or component does not meet established goals, appropriate corrective action shall be taken.
16.
In S 50.71, paragraph (f) is added to read as follows:
(f)
The provisions of this section shall apply to each applicant for and each holder of a possession-only license amendment.
'w
^^'
48 17.
In S.50.82, paragraphs (a) isfrevised, paragraphs-(b)
.through: (f) 'are redesignated asT (c) _through-(g) and new-
. paragraphs'(b) and (c) (6) are added to read as follows:
LS 50.82~
Anolication for' termination of license.
(a) (1)
Any licenseo may'. apply to the Commission for authority'to surrender a license voluntarilyTand to decommission:
its facility'in accordance with the procedures in this sectien.
When a nuclear power reactor. licensee has' determined to
. permanently cease operations,..or' when a final legally effective.
order to permanently cease operations has come into'effect, the licensee'shall, within 30 days, submit.a written certification to the'NRC, pursuant.to S 50.4 (b) (8).
(2)
Upon certification of permanent cessation of-operations, a nuclear power reactor licensee may apply'for a possession-only l'icense amendment.
(3)
The' Commission may issue a confirmatory shutdown order
'following.the receipt of the nuclear power reactor licensee's certification under S 50' 82 (a) (1).
I (4 ) (i)
Following permanent cessation of operations, the j
licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall submit a preliminary report including a schedule for any planned decommissioning activities prior to approval of the decommissioning plan at the facility.
The preliminary report shall be docketed and copies placed in the NRC Public Document Room and the licensee's local 4
49 Public Document Room.
The NRC shall schedule and hold an informal public meeting in the vicinity of.the licensee's facility upon receipt of this preliminary report.
The NRC shall publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such as local newspapers, which is readily accessible to individuals in the vicinity of the site, announcing the date, time and location of the meeting along with a brief description of the proposed purpose of the meeting.
(4) (ii)
In addition, the. licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall, pursuant to S 50.4 (b) (1), inform the NRC of its plans for significant decommissioning activities 90 days prior to the commencement of'the planned activities at the facility.
The-licensee' will have filed a report pursuant to paragraph. (4) (i)
,which described the series of planned activities, and once an activity has been included in a report filed pursuant to 4
paragraph (4) (11), the activity need not be addressed in any subsequent reports made pursuant to paragraph (4) (ii).
These 90-day reports shall be docketed and copies placed in the NRC Public Document Room and the licensee's local Public Document Room.
The NRC shall schedule and hold an informal public meeting in the vicinity of the licensee's facility upon receipt of this 90-day report.
The NRC shall publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such as local newspapera, which'is readily accessible to individuals in the vicinity of the site, announcing the date, time and Jocation of the meeting along with a brief description of the proposed purpose of the meeting.
i
50 (b)
For a facility that permanently ceases operation after July 27, 1988,-this application must be made within two years following permanent cessatien of operations, and in no case later than one year prior-to expiration of the operating license.
Each.
application for termination of license must be accompanied, or preceded, by a proposed decommissioning plan, which shall be a supplement to the FSAR.
For a facility which has permanently ceased operation prior to July 27, 1988, requirements for contents of the decommissioning plan as specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section may be modified with approval of the Commission to reflect the fact that the decommissioning process has been initiated previously.
For a facility which has permanently ceased operation before the expiration of its operating license, the collection period for any shortfall of funds will be determined, upon application by the licensee, on a case-by-case basis taking into account the specific financial situation of each licensee.
)
-(c)
(6)
For nuc] ear power reactors, a description of licensee activities that were performed and are planned after permanent cessation of operations and prior to approval of *.he decommissioning plan under the auspices of S 50.59.
The j
I i
i
51 description of these activities need not have greater detail than the reports required ' by 5 50.59 (b) (2).
18.
In S 50.11:>, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
(b)
The regulations in part 50 that are not issued under sections 161b, 1611, or 161o for the purposes of section 223 are as follows:
55 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, 50.4,~50.8, 50.11, 50.12, 50.13,.50.20, 50.21, 50.22, 50.23, 50.30, 50.31, 50.32, 50.33, 50.34a, 50.35, 50.36b, 50.37, 50.39, 50.39, 50.40, 50.41, 50.42, 50.43, 50.45, 50.50, 50.51, 50.52, 50.53, 50.56, 50.57, 50.58, 50.81,'50.90, 50.91, 50.92, 50.100, 50.101, 50.102, 50.103, 50.109, 50.110, 50.111.
j 19.
Appendix I of Part 50 is amended by revising Section (I),
the introductory text of Section (IV), (IV) (C), Section (V) (B),
and (V) (:B) (2) to read as'follows:
i Appendix I -
Numerical Guides for Desian Obiectives and Limitina Conditions of Ooeration to Meet the criterion "As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable" for Radioactive Material in Licht-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents.
r 52 SECTION I.
Introduction.
Section 50.34a provides that an application for a permit to construct a nuclear power reactor shall include a description of the preliminary design of
' equipment to be installed to mainta!.n control over radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents produced during normal conditions,. including expected operational occurrences.
In the case of an application filed on or after January 2, 1971, the-application must also identify the design objectives, and the means to be employed, for keeping levels of radioactive material in effluents to unrestricted areas as 1cw as practicable.
Section 50.36a contains provisions designed to assure that releases of radioactive material from nuclear power reactors to unrestricted areas during normal conditions, including expected operational occurrences, are kept as low as practicable.
SEC. IV. Guides on technical epecifications for limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part 50.
The guides on limiting conditions for operation for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors set forth below may be used by an applicant for a possession-only license amendment or license to operate a light-
' water-cooled nuclear power reactor as guidance in developing technical specifications under S 50.36a(a) to keep levels of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonable achievable.
^
53 l
a C. If the data developed in the surveillance and monitoring program described in paragraph B of Section III or from other monitoring programs show that the relat.snship between the quantities of radioactive material released in liquid and gaseous effluents and the dose to individuals in unrestricted areas is significantly different from that assumed in the calculations used to determine design objectives pursuant to Sections II and III, the Commission may modify the quantities in the technical specifications defining the limiting conditions for operation in i
a possession-only license amendment or license to operate a light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor.
SEC. V.
B.
For each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor constructed pursuant to a permit for which application was filed prior to January 2, 1971, the holder of a permit, license to operate the reactor, or possession-only license amendment, shall within a period of twelve months from Jr.ne 4, 1975, file with the Commission:
2.
Plans and proposed technical specifications developed for the purpose of keeping releases of radioactive materials to
54 unrestricte'd areas during normal operations, including expected operational occurrences, as low as is reasonably achievable.
Dated at Rockville,' Maryland, this day of 1994.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission.
o
N-B 8
ENCLOSURE 3 i
l i
I
SETnf SY:USTttorney's Office i 5-20-94 3 4:24PN I 4137850394*
3015043725is 2 REcEwro UNITED STATES DIS bY FOR titt DISTRICT,0F MM I
kr la 3 ss N 'N CITISENS AWARENESS NETWORK, IMO.,
)
Plaintiff -
)
)
v.
}
c R. No. 34-soo71-map
)
)
U. s. NUCLEAR REGUZATORY
)
CONNISSION
)
Defendant
)
3 1
2RD23 May 20, 1994 PONSOR, D.J.
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Menorandum, plaintiff's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED.
The plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
%3G.kn MICHAEL A. P0550R U. 8. District Judge
~
4 0
0 O
SENT SY:US Attorney's Office i 5-20-04 i 4:24PM i 4137850394*
301504372588 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACNUSETTS CITZ2 ENS AWARENESS NETWORK, INC.,
)
Plaintiff
)
)
v.
) C. A. NO. 94-3sO71-StAP
)
)
U. 8. NUCI. EAR REGUIATORY
)
CONNISSION
)
Defendant
)
NEMORANDUM REGARDING PIATNTIFF8S ETTON FOR A PRELTNTMany TM.TUNCTION (Docket No. 06)
May 20, 1994 70HSOR, D.J.
T.
INTRODUCTION.
This complaint arises from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's t
oversight of the decommissioning of the Yankee Rows Nuclear Power 1
Plant, one of the first nucisar facilities to be shut down in the United States.
Plaintiff, Citisans Awareness Network ("CAN"),
alleges that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") violated the National Environnantal Policy Act ("NEPA"), 42 U.S.C.
Il 4321 at 3334, and related federal regulations, by failing to conduct an environmental impact study ("EIS") prior to NRC approval of Yankee Rowe's early component removal plan.
Impleme.ntation of this plan, CAN maintains, will result in the removal of approximately 90% of the nuclear waste from Yankee Rowe's facility without any independent assessment of the risks to the environment, particularly the local community.
CAW has requested issuance of a preliminary injunction against
m, e m m i. win.60
.ran..
,, wu.
oio swoouw av amoa vm.tru the NRC, which would stop further implementation of Yankee Rowe's early component removat plan and enjoin the disassmably and shipment of nuclear waste to a treatment facility in Barnwell, south carolina.
The NRC denies that it violated NEPA and, more importantly, asserts that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear this claim.
Defendant clains'that the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. Il 2341 at ang, requires that plaintiff's claims be heard by the court of appeals.
f II.
FACTS.
The relevant facts are as follows.
In February of 1992, Yankee Rows Nuclear Power Station
(" Yankee Rowe"), located in Rowe, Massachusetts, notified the NRC of its decision permanently to close down its facility.
By August 1992, NRC amended Yankee Rowe's operating license to a possession only license (" POL *). Federal regulat.'ons require Yankee,to submit I
a decommissioning plan within two years of cessation of its opera-tions.
Prior to January of 1993, the NRC held the position that the decommissic.ning of a nuclear plant could not begin before the NRC 3
formally approved the decommissioning plan.
It is undisputed that this approval process would include NEPA review and preparation of an EIS.
In January of 1993, the NRC changed its position regarding the permitted scope of a licensee's decommissioning activities prior to NRC's final approval of a decommissioning plan. According to the NRC's crurrant interpretation of its regulations, Yankee is entitled under the terms of its POL and without further NRC 2
l
LNtMARDO*
8 #c1 M dB10 B approval, to undertake any decommissioning activity that does not (a) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (b) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (c) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (d) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license or 10 CFR S 50.59.
In February of 1993, Yankee Rowe requested NRC approval of early removal of nuclear plant components from its facility.
RRC met with Yankee Rowe and members of CAN in June of 1993 to discuss various aspects of the early decommissioning plan.
In July of 1993, NRC informed Yankee Rowe that its possession only license permitted the early component removal plan and that Yankee's license did not need to be amended to carry out tha plan.
The upshot of this change in policy was that Yankee Rowa, through its early component removal plan, would be permitted to carry out a large part of the physical work of decommissioning hafore the final decommissioning plan was formally approved by the NRC.
On three separate occasions, members of CAN requested formal hearings to discuss its safety and environmenta) concerns regarding Yankee's early component removal plan.
On March 31, 1994, NRC issued an order denying CAN's request for an adjudicatory hearing, reasoning that CAN was not entitled to an adjudicatory hearing.
According to the commission, Yankee's early component removal plan was being performed pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.59, which permits a licensee to make changes in its facility as long as the changes do not present aan unreviewed safety question."
The Commission 3
1 SENT 87:05 Attorney's W a ce i R bM E T UYtB C i 093V8WDDea 11M1RMMILrt
% sauded that, in removing the nuclear waste from its facility, Yankee Rows was properly acting under its possession only license which permitted transportation of certain hasardous materials without prior NRC approval. As such, the NRC reasoned, CAN was not entitled to an adjudicatory hearing.
On the same day that CAN received the letter from the NRC denying their request for a hearing, it filed suit in this court seeking to stop Yankee's early component removal plan until NRC complies with NEPA and performs an appropriate plan EIS.
l III.
DISCURRION.
The Hobbs Act provides, in part, that the court of appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to set aside, suspend, (in whole or in part), or determine the validity of, all final orders of the NRC
}
l under 42 U.S.C. 5 2239.
as U.S.C. I 2343(4).
Section 2239, in turn, makes reviewable athe granting, suspending, revo' king, or amending of any license."
42 U.S.C. I 2239.
In Florida Power &
ilaht v.
Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 (1985), the Supreme Court broadly interpreted this jurisdictional grant, holding that decisions that are ancillary to licensing decisions may be challenged only in the court of appeals.
In this case, CAN is, in essence, challenging a final order by the NRC in a licensing or related proceeding.
Ao such, the court of appeale, not the district court, is the appropriate forum to address the merits of plaintiff's claims.
On March 31, 1994, the NRC sent CAN representative Frederick Ratt a letter informing him that CAN was not entitled to receive an 4
] ~ SENT BY:US At8erney's Offlee i 5-20-84 8 4:28PN i 4137850384#
301504372518 7 adjudicatory hearing regarding the activities at Yankee Rowe.
San Defendant's Exhibit 3.
In this letter, the NRC explained that the commission had : issued F. decision denying a request by a similar
- group, Er.vironmentalist,
'Inc.,
for an adjudicatory hearing regarding ongoing component removal activities at Yankee Rows.
The letter continued The commission has now issued a decision in response to that petition.
As you can see from that decision, a oopy of which is enclosed for your review, the commission has ruled that the Component Removal Program ("CRP")
at Yankee NPs does not involve any activity that requires the offer of an adjudicatory hearing.
Therefore, the commission has denied your renewed request for an adjudicatory hearing regarding the CRP for the reasons stated in the attached order and in the commission's letters to you dated November 18, 1993 and.7mnuary 4, 1994.
This latter constitutan the commiam3en's final rennensa to veur letter of Daesaber 13, 1s93
)
~
i Defendant's Exhibit 3 (emphasis added).
Despite its citation of NEPA, CAN's complaint essentially f
attacks NRC's decision that Yankee's possession only license I
permits it to perform early component removal of nuclear waste without requiring amendment to Yankee's license and without formal environmental review.
In other words, NRC's alleged failure to prepara an environmental analysis of the early component removal plan (which forms the basis of the NEPA violation) cannot be separated from NRC's decision that Yankee Rowe's pousession only license entitled Yankaa to engage in early decommissioning activities.
CAN maintains that its NEPA claim is based simply on NRC's failure to prepara an environmental analysis of Yankee's early t
5 1
SDT SY:US A89erney's office i 5-20-00 i O*23%J i 4137850394*
3015043725 # 5 e
component removal plan.
According to CAN, the oonplaint is not challenging Yankee Rowe's scope of authority to undertake decommissioning activities.
NEPA requires the NRC to prepare en environmental analysis whenever there is e 'aajor Federal motion significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."
42 U.S.C.
5 4332(C).
However, in order to determine whether NRC engaged in #aajor Federal action," the court must determine first whether Yankee Rowe's pol authorised them to engage in decommis-sioning activities prior to NRC final approval of a decommissioning plan or whether an amendment was required to Yankee Rowe's POL.
Under the Hobbs Act, the court of appeals has sole jurisdiction to hear such challenges to final agency orders.
In short, plaintiff
-- for perhaps understandable reasons, as will be seen below -- is attempting to stick a NEPA label on a Hobbs Act claim.
The WC has providad the court with severn can'es, both published an unpublished, which persuasively hold that a district
%cks subject matter jurisdiction in these circumstances.
court 3.33 3,ag,,, stata of Michieran v. U.E, 994 F.2d 1197 (6th Cir. 1993);
canter for Nuclear Rannonsibility v. Nuclear Raoulatory Csamission, 781 F.2d 935, 937-38 (D.C.
Cir. 1986) unne chiemero,
111 v.
Nuclear Raoulatory ea==iamien, 701 F.3d 632 (7th Cir.1983); gantag for rallav v. Nuelaar Raoulaterv e=-immien, at-al.e No. 4893-CV-7, (W.D. Mich. May 10, 1993); Maciaa v. Karr-w Mea. at. al,
No. 92-C-3389 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 1993).
To conclude, although plaintiff claims that its NEPA claim is not based on a challenge to NRC's decision regarding the scope of 6
j
umv~ m decommissioning activity allowable under Yan'cee Rowe's PCL, in order to reach the NEPA violation the court must address NRC's decision that Yankee Rowe did not have to amend its license in order to engage in extensive early component removal prior to NRC's approval of a decommissioning plan.
Judicial review of this decision must rest with the court of appeals.
The court makes this decision with a heavy heart.
The plaintiffs have been diligently attempting for months to get a hearing on the appropriateness and competence of the NRC's actions.
Many of them live near the site of the decommissioned nuclear plant.
They and their families are the most directly at risk if the job of removing conta.minated materials is bungled.
- Moreover, if they do suffer harm, its full extent may not be known for years or decades.
Not only have the plaintiffs been denied the opportunity to present their concerns and to hear the response of the NRC at a fornal hearing, they have not as yet even been afforded a forum in which to argue their antitlement to a hearing.
They had no in-centive to seek a hearing when the NRC originally issued the POL, because at that time it Man the policy of the NRC to require final approval and NEPA compliance before authorising early component removal.
Months later, the NRC now concedes, this policy changed and the NRC decided to view the POL as itself authorising early component removal without more. Requests for hearing at this point were denied.
It was only on the day this lawsuit was filed that the NRC issued what it now characterites as a " final decision" i
7
- ,....,0a om ovvia.6rdeTor antitling the plaintiffs to review before the First Circuit Court of Appeals, and not before the district ocurt.
It was only a few days prior to the hearing on plaintiffs' action for preliminary l
injunction that the defendant finally submitted a report by an agency expert purporting to rebut the opinion offered by plaintiffs of risk to the community.
This course of conduct suggests a concerted bureaucratic effort to thwart the efforts of local citisone to be heard about an event that vitally affacts them and their children.
It calls to mind the activities of charles Dickens' fictional office of ciroualocution in nimak House.
The prospect that this tactic may be used nationally, as more nuclear plants shut down, and more local citizens groups express concern about the impact of the process on their lives, is, to put it mildly, disquieting.
It would seen no more than simple fairness -- as a matter of policy, f
1 if not of strict law -- to give local people the opportunity to be heard when something of this magnitude occurs in their connunity.
If they are agg to be given any voice, community members at least have a right to be told why, promptly and clearly, by some disinterested adjudicatory body.
Having said this, the court must nevertheless conclude that this district court is not the proper forum for such proceedings.
All the courts since Iggien that have addressed the issue have concluded that this kind of NRC decision-making falls under the Nobbs Act and may be reviewed only by the court of appeals.
NEPA may not be used to avoid this well established review procedure.
8
0 0 0.
o0='
- m ** uoiall Plaintiffs have the right to seek prompt review of this court's decision and, if they feel it appropriate, to request expedited action by the court of appeals.
If this court is incorrect in its estimate of its power, the case may be remanded for further proceedings.. Alternatively, or in addition, plaintiffs have the right to seek rGview by the court of appeals of the IERC's March 31, 1994 decision.
In that event at laast, the defendant will be unable to hold up a jurisdictional bar, and the plaintiffs will get an opportunity for the hearing they have sought in vain for so long.
~
i IV.
fMMcLURTON.
For the reasons stated above, the motion for preliminary injunctions is denied and plaintiff's complaint is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A separate order will issue.
O AM MICHAEL A. PONSCR U.S. District Judge l
.\\
9
- - ~ _
.g
)
i j
ENCLOSURE 4 1
l
- ,ag
'EL.cTARIAT RECORD CDPV f
4,,
UNITED STATES l
~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
I w AsHWGTON, D.C. 20596
%,*...*./
IN RESPONSE, PLEASE January 14, 1993 REFER TO:
M921124 I
OFFEE OF THE MCMETARY MEMORANDUM FOR:
William C.
Parler General Counsel i
James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secreta
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - BRIyr IG BY OGC ON i
REGULATORY ISSUES AND OP,rICqiS FOR j
DECOMMISSIONING PROCEEDINGS (SECY-92-382),
{
10:00 A.M.,
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 1992, t
COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE)
The Commission was briefed by the Office of the General Counsel on the lessons learned from the Shoreham decommissioning effort and on the issues and options for handling the decommissioning of power reactors.
Based on this Commission briefing, the commission has concluded that the staff should continue work on updating Regulatory Guide 1.86.
The guidance should address what activities should be permitted prior to approval of a decommissioning plan and address, as well, the availability and use of money from the licensee's decommissioning fund for activities normally associated with decommissioning before approval of the decommissioning plan.
Before any generic decisions on the use of decommissioning funds are made, the staff and OGC should provide an analysis and recommendations to the Commission on permitting licensees to use their decommissioning funds for decommissioning
]
activities prior to approval of the decommissioning plans.
Pending final action by the Commission on SECY-92-382, on a case-by-case basis, the staff may implement the following approach with regard to evaluating what activities should be allowed prior j
i to approval of a decommissioning plan:
1.
After permanent shutdown of a facility, 10 CFR 50.59
{
should be applied on the basis of an assumption that the facility will not resume operation, provided that a possession-only-license (POL), a confirmatory shutdown l
. order, or other legally binding instrument to remove the authorization to operate has been issued by the agency for such facility.
2.
Notwithstanding the Commission's statements in footnote 3 of CLI-90-08 and the Statements of Consideration for the decommissioning rules at 53 Federal Register 24025-26, licensees should be allowed to undertake any decommissioning activity (as the term " decommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2) that does not -- (a) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (b) significantly increase decommissioning costs, (c) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (d) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license (e.g., OL, POL, OL with confirmatory shutdown order etc.) or 10 CFR 50.59 as applied to the existing license.
3.
The staff may permit licensees to use their decommissioning funds for the decommissioning activities permitted above (as the term " decommission" is defined in 10 CFR 50.2), notwithstanding the fact that their decommissioning plans have not yet been approved by the NRC.
These and the remaining items associated with SECY-92-382 will be addressed by the Commissioners in their vote sheets on the SECY paper and in the subsequent staff requirements memorandum.
cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW (via E-Mail)
OP, SDBU/CR, ASLBP (via FAX)
)
I l
l l
ENCLOSURE 5
)
f J
OPTION 2 Proposed Supplementary Information and Rule Changes for Option 2 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATQN:
VI. Applicability of 10 CFR 50.59_to Shutdown Plants Upan permanent cessation of operations, the licensee has two years to submit a proposed decommissioning plan which describes the processes that will be utilized to either.begin dismantlement or place the facility in storage for a specified period of time.
After the specified storage period, the facility would then be dismantled.
The NRC practice has been to evaluate the licensee decommissioning plan, evaluate the potential environmental impact and prepare a safety evaluation for decommissioning of the facility.
As noted in the current 10 CFR 50. 82 (e), the decommissioning plan must demonstrate that decommissioning activities will be performed in accordance with Commission regulations and will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the public health and safety.
Upon approval of the decommissioning plan and issuance of the order authorizing decommissioning, the decommissioning plan becomes a licensing basis document, supplementing the final safety analysis report (FSAR).
The Commission is proposing to amend the regulations in 10 CFR 50.82 to clarify that the decommissioning plan is a supplement to the FSAR, and as such is a licensing basis document.
As a result of
)
2 the proposed amendment.to 10 CFR 50.71(e) and 50.82, the requirements for updating and reporting would apply to the 1
decommissioning plan.
The regulations in 10 CFR 50.59 permit licensees to make i
changes to their facilities and-procedures and to conduct tests and experiments without obtaining prior Commission approval, provided that these activities do not involve an unreviewed safety question or require a change in technical specifications.
The applic: ability of 10 CFR 50.59 to'the operational phase of a nuclear power plant is clearly understood.
However, the existing regulation does not explicitly address its applicability to the permanently shut down nuclear power plant.
By its terms, 10 CFR 50.59 applies only to holders of licenses " authorizing operation."
The Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.59 to clearly indicate that this process of evaluating changes to facilities and procedures and the conduct of tests and experiments is required during the permanently shut down and decommissioning phase of a nuclear power reactor.
In addition, licensees of permanently shut down nuclear power reactors would be required to comply with the requirements of the proposed 10 CFR 50.59(d) to evaluate whether proposed changes to facilities and procedures would be permitted without commission approval.
The Commission is proposing to codify specific licensee activities which would require NRC approval in this new paragraph.
3 To-begin with, the Commission is proposing to codify in 10 CFR 50.59 (d) (2) that a nuclear power reactor licensee who has permanently ceased operation pursuant to 10 CFR 50.53 but who does not possess an approved decommissioning plan may not make changes to the facility as described in the safety analysis report, if the proposed change could or would: (1) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, (2) i significantly increase decommissioning costs, (3) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (4) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license (e. g., HOL, POL, OL with confirmatory shutdown order).
4 In addition, activities not normally carried out under a part 50 operating license and therefore beyond existing procedures, training and qualifications, i.e.,
those actions which could or would modify the structure of the containment or affect the integrity of the spent fuel pool, or require the dismantlement for.immediate or future shipment of components (with the exception of equipment that normally contains special nuclear material)2 containing greater than class C waste would be disallowed prior to decommissioning plan approval.
Such activities present issues requiring public participation and Commission consideration.
Finally, the Commission is concerned that under the present policy the public may be precluded from providing comment on the 2
The exception being made here is for components routinely removed and replaced during operation such as neutron power-level indicators which contain enriched uranium-235.
)
w 4
choice of the decommissioning alternative selected in the decommissioning plan.
For this reason, activities which could or would lead to major structural changes to major radioactive components of the facility would not be allowed without prior NRC approval.
This restriction would be consistent with the preamble to the final decommissioning rule in 1988 which stated that'"the Commission must approve the decommissioning alternative and major structural changes to radioactive-components of the facility or-other major changes."
Thic restriction would also be consistent with the Commission's statement in the preamble that a
" decommissioning alternative" must be approved, effectively preserving the SAFSTOR alternative for public comment and consideration at the decommissioning plan approval stage.
However, while major structural changes will not be allowed without prior NRC approval, the Commission recognizes that in certain cases, major structural changes may be warranted before approval of the decommissioning plan.
To accommodate such circumstances, the Commission is proposing to permit-licensees to apply for approval of partial decommissioning plans.
The licensee may request an approval of a partial decommissioning plan for specific activities restricted under 10 CFR 50.59 (d) (1) (iv).
The public would be afforded the opportunity for a Subpart L hearing on the approval of the partial decommissioning plan.
The existing regulations in 10 CFR 50.82 refer to
" decommissioning alternatives."
The Generic Environmental Impact
i 5
Statement, (NUREG-0586), and Statement of Considerations to the
' decommissioning rule in 1988 defined each alternative: DECON,
(
SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB.
The Commission concluded that both DECON and SAFSTOR would be acceptable in terms of radiation exposure.
However, the 1988 rule did not codify the alternatives in the I
part 50 regulations.
The Commission never intended that i
licensees be required to choose one alternative to the total exclusion of the other.
In the case of SAFSTOR, certain dismantling and decommissioning activities were contemplated as reflected by the Commission's discussion in the Statement of i
considerations: "although the Commission must approve the decommissioning alternative... the licensee may proceed with i
some activities such as decontamination and minor component disassembly."
53 FR at 24026.
Nevertheless, the Commission believes that if licensees are allowed to remove all radioactive components prior to decommissioning plan approval, SAFSTOR would not be an alternative left for Commission approval under 10 CFR 50.82.
i 1
X.
Public Particioation in the Decommissionino Process i
Under the Commission's proposed amendments to part 50, the degree of public participation in the decommissioning process would be enhanced.
Shortly after a licensee's certification to
" permanent cessation of operations," and submittal of a preliminary report pursuant to the proposed amended 10 CFR
6 5'.82 (a) (4) (i), the Commission is proposing to codify in-10 CFR 0
50.82 that the NRC shall schedule and hold a public meeting in' the vicinity of the licensee's facility.
The Commission is also proposing to codify in 10 CFR 50.82 that a public meeting may be held following the submittal of the 90-day report pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (4) (ii).
Upon application ~for a POLA, the public has the right to request a Subpart G hearing in connection with the issuance of the amendment to the operating license.
Likewise, if any future amendments to the operating license are required, hearing rights are available.
At the decommissioning plan, or partial decommissioning plan, approval stage, the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 2.1201 to afford the right to a Subpart L hearing in connection with Commission approval of the decommissioning plan.
Since the
. Commission is also proposing to restrict certain licensee activities prior to decommissioning plan approval via an amended 10 CFR 50.59td), the Commission. believes that the public should have an opportunity to air their views on issues associated'with the licensee's choice of decommissioning alternative, and
_ proposed procedures for implencenting that choice in the decommissioning plan.
Subpart L hearings were designed with materials licensing actions.in mind.
However, the nattre of the activities to be conducted at the reactor facility subsequent ~to decommissioning plan approval are akin to materials licensing issues.
The. reactor is in a non-operational mode and the range
i' 7
and degree of safety issues is reduced' compared to;those
. associated with the operational ~ mode, with perhaps the predominant safety issue occupational exposure to,the workers at the site.
Thus, the' informal procedures of Subpart L'seem more appropriate to the Commiscion under these circumstances.
Finally,.the Commission is proposing to amend 10 CFR 50.82' to codify that the public's vehicle for contesting issues at the license termination stage lies with the 10LCFR 2.206 petition process.
Amendment to S 50.59 under Ootion 2 In S 50.59, paragraphs (d) _and (e) are added to read as follows:
5 50.59 Chances, tests and exoeriments.
l (d)
In addition to the restrictions in paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c), a nuclear power reactor licensee who has permanently ceased operation pursuant to S 50.82 but who does not possess an approved decommissioning plan may not:
(1) make changes to the facility as described in the safety analysis report, if the proposed change could or would:
8 (i)
- modify the structure of the containment; (ii) modify the spent fuel storage system and/or support system; (iii) require the-dismantlement for~immediate or future i
shipment of-components (with the exception of equipment that normally contains special nuclear material) containing greater than Class 1C waste; or (iv). result in major structural changes to major-radioactive components of the facility, or (2) conduct activities with regard to the facility which would or could:
(i) foreclose the release of the site for possible unrestricted use, or (ii) significantly increase decommissioning costs, or (iii) cause any significant environmental impact not previously reviewed, or (iv) violate the terms of the licensee's existing license (i.e., operating license, operating license with a possession-only license amendment, or operating license with a confirmatory shutdown order).
(e)
The provisions of this section shall apply to each applicant for and each holder of a possession-only license amendment.
Proposed Amendment to 5 50.82 under Option 2:
e 9
In S 50.82, paragraph (a) is revised, new paragraphs (b) and (c) (6) are added, existing paragraphs (b) - (f) are redesignated j
(c) - (g), and new paragraph (h) is added:
a S 50.82 'Apolication for termination of license.
4 f a) (1)
Any licensee may apply to the Commission for authority to surrender a license voluntarily and to decommission i
its facility in accordance with the procedures in this section.
When a nuclear power reactor licensee has determined to permanently cease operations, or when a final legally effective l
order to permanently cease operations has come into effect, the licensee shall, within 30 days, submit a written certification to the NkC, pursuant to S 50.4 (b) (8).
(2)
Upon certification of permanent cessation of operations, a nuclear power reactor licensee may apply for a possession-only license amendment.
f.3 )
The Commission may issue a confirmatory shutdown order following the receipt of the nuclear power reactor licensee's certification under S 50.82 (a) (1).
(t) (i)
Following permanent cessation of operations, the licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall submit a preliminary report including a schedule for any planned decommissioning activities prior to approval of the decommissioning plan at the facility.
The preliminary report shall be docketed and copies 1
i placed in the NRC Public Document Room and the licensee's local a
c
10
~1 l
Public Document Room.
The NRC shall schedule and hold an informal public meeting in the vicinity of the licensee's facility upon receipt of this preliminary report.
The NRC shall publish a notice in the Federal Register and in a forum, such as local newspapere, which is readily accessible to individuals in the vicinity of the site, announcing the date, time and location of the meeting along with a brief description of the proposed purpose of the meeting.
(4) (ii)
In addition, the licensee of a nuclear power reactor shall, pursuant to S 50.4 (b) (1), inform the NRC of its plans for significant decommissioning activities 90 days prior to the commencement of the plannm --tivities at the facility.
The licensee will have filed a
.s ce u suant to paragraph (4) (i) which described the serie
,ed activities, and once an activity has been included in - report filed pursuant to paragraph (4 ) (11), the activity need not be addressed in any subsequent reports made pursuant to paragraph (4) (ii).
These 90-day reports shall be docketed and copies placed in the NRC Public Document Room and the licensee's local Public Document Room.
The NRC may schedule and hold an informal public meeting in the vicinity of the licensee's facility upon receipt of a 90-day report.
The NRC shall publish a not.tce in the Federal Register and in a forum, such as local newspapers, which is readily accessible to individuals in the vicinity of the site, announcing the date, time and location of the meeting r.long with a brief description of the proposed purpose of the meeting.
11 (b)
For a facility that permanently ceases operation after July 27, 1988, this application must be made within two years following permanent cessation of operations, and in no case later than one year prior to expiration of the operating license.
Each application for termination of license must be accompanied, or preceded, by.a proposed decommissioning plan which shall be a supplement to the FSAR.
For a facility which has permanently ceased operation prior to July 27, 1909, requirements for contents of the decommissioning plan as specified in paragraphs (c) through (e) of this section may be modified with approval of the Commission to reflect the fact that the decommissioning process has been initiated previously.
For a facility which has permanently ceased operation before the expiration of its operating license, the collection period for any shortfall of funds will be determined, upon application by the licensee, on a case-by-case basis taking into account the specific financial situation of each licensee.
(c)
The proposed decommissioning plan must include---
(1)
(6)
A description of licensee activities that were
. performed and are planned after permanent cessation of operations and prior to approval of the decommissioning plan under the auspices of 10 CFR 50.59.
The description of these activities
12 need not-have greater detail than the reports required by 10 CFR 50.59 (b) (2).
(h)
Any person who has reason to believe that the license should not be terminated by the Commission pursuant to 10 CFR
- 50. 82 (g), may file a petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2,206.
Proposed Amendment to Part 2 under Option 2 PART 2-RULES OF PRACTICE FOR DOMESTIC LICENSING PROC 3EDINGS AND ISSUANCE OF ORDERS 1.
The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
Secs. 161, 181, 68 Stat. 948, 953, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201, 2231); sec. 191, as amended, Pub, L.87-615, 76 Stat. 409 (42 U.S.C.
2241); sec. 201, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended (42 U.S.C.
5841); 5 U.S.C.
552.
Section 2.101 also issued under secs. 53, 62, 63, 81, 103, 104, 105, 68 Stat. 930, 932, 933, 935, 936, 937, 938, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2135); sec. 114 ( f), Pub. L.97-425'96 Stat. 2213, as amended (42 U.S.C.
10134 (f) ) ; sec 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat 853, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4332); sec. 301, 88 Stat. 1248 (42 U.S.C. 5871).
Sections e
1
13 2.102, 2.103, 2.104, 2.105, 2.721 also issued under secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 183, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 954, 955, as amended (42 U.S. C.
2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2233, 2239).
Section 2.105 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C.
2239).
Sections 2.200-2.206 also issued under secs. 161n, i, o,
182, 186, 234, 68 Stat. 948-951, 955, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2236, 2282); sec. 206, 88 Stat. 1246 (4 2 U.S.C.
5846).
St :tions 2.600-2.606 also issued under sec. 102, Pub.
L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4332). Sections 2.700a, 2.719 also issued under 5 U.S.C.
554.
Sections 2.754, 2.760, 2.770, 2.780 also issued under 5 U.S.C.
557.
Section 2.764 and Table 1A of Appendix C also issued under secs. 135, 141, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2232, 2241 (42 U.S.C.
10155, 10161).
Section 2,790 also issued under sec. 103, 68 Stat. 936, as amended (42 U.S. C.
2133) and 5 U.S.C.
553.
Section 2.809 also issued under 5 U.S.C 553 and sec. 29, Pub. L.85-256, 71 Stat. 579, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2039).
Subpart K also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.
2239); sec. 134, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S. C.
10154).
Subpart L also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239).
Appendix A also issued under sec.
6, Pub.
L.91-560, 84 Stat. 1473 (42 U.S.C. 2135).
2.
In S 2.1201, paragraph (c) is added:
S 2.1201 Scone of suboart.
14 (a)
(c)
The Commission approval of a decommissioning plan, or partial decommissioning plan pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82, or amendment to a Commission-approved decommissioning plan pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82.
For purposes of Subpart L, Commission approval of part or all of a decommissioning plan is deemed to be a license.
V T
0 0
0 ENCLOSURE 6 1
i 1
l 1
I i
I
pa%y p
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR HEGULATORY COMMISS!ON E
E WASHINGTON, D.C. 3000H001
- s...../
DRAFT The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In the near future, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission intends to publish in the Federal Recister the enclosed proposed amendments to the regulations in 10 CFR parts 2 and 50.
The proposed rule
- would, if adopted, define terminology contained in Commission adjudicatory decisions, impose requirements on licensees to certify to permanent cessation of operations, and require licensees to provide NRC with early notification of planned decommissioning activities at the facility.
In addition, the amendments would explicitly set forth the applicability, or limited applicability of certain part 50 requirements to permanently shutdown reactors.
Finally, the amendments would provide for an opportunity for a 1
hearing at the decommissioning plan approval stage. The Commission is issuing the proposed rule for a 90-day public comment period.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Recister Notice cc:
Senator Alan K. Simpson
p nat:0 y
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E
WASHINGTOM, D.C. 20065 4 001 S
%,.....,o The Honorable Richard H. Lehman, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Committee on Natural Resources United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In the near future, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission intends to publish in the Federal Reaister the enclosed proposed amendments to the regulations in 10 CFR parts 2 and 50.
The proposed rule
- would, if adopted, define terminology contained in Commission adjudicatory decisions, impose requirements on licensees to certify to permanent cessation of operations, and require licensees to provide NRC with early notification of planned decommissioning activities at the facility.
In ad/ition, the amendments would explicitly set forth the applicability, or limited applicability of certain part 50 requirements to permanently shutdown reactors.
Finally, the amendments would provide for an opportunity for a hearing at the decommissioning plan approval stage. The Commission is issuing the proposed rule for a 90-day public comment period.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs j
Enclosure:
Federal Reaister Notice i
cc:
Representative Barbara Vucanovich
~
pn neau y
S UNITED STATES s
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. enema m
,s.,...../
The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman l
Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In the near future, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission intends to publish in the Federal Recister the enclosed proposed amendments to the regulations in 10 CFR parts 2 and 50.
The proposed rule
- would, if adopted, define terminology contained in Commission adjudicatory decisions, impose requirements on licensees to certify to permanent cessation of operations, and require licensees to provide Imc with early notification of planned decommissioning activities at the facility.
In addition, the amendments would explicitly set forth the applicability, or limited applicability of certain part 50 requirements to permanently shutdown reactors.
Finally, the amendments would provide for an opportunity for a I
hearing at the decommissioning plan approval stage. The Commission is issuing the proposed rule for a 90-day public comment period.
l Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Reaister Notice cc:
Representative Michael Bilirakis i
d F
e ENCLOSURE 7 l
l
Draft Public Announcement j
NRC Proposes to Amend Decommissioning Requirements for 1
Nuclear Power Reactors I
1 The~ Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend the 1
decommissioning regulations in 10 CFR part 50 to clarify ambiguities in the current regulations, and to codify procedures and terminology that have been used in a number of specific The Commission believes that the proposed amendments cases.
would enhance the uniformity in the process for decommissioning nuclear power plants as set forth by the existing regulations.
The proposed amendments would furnish the licensed community and the public a better understanding of the process involved in decommissioning.as the operating personnel at a nuclear power
_ plant facility undergo the transition from an operating organization to a decommissioning organization.
In particular, this rulemaking would address the process which begins with a 1
licensee's decision to permanently cease operations at the facility and concludes with Commission approval of the licensee's decommissioning plan.
When the decommissioning regulations were published on June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018) and adopted, it was assumed that the majority of nuclear power reactor licensees would decommission at the end of the operating license.
Since that time a number of
' licensees have shut down prematurely without having submitted a
o
.j decommissioning plan.
In addition, these licensees have requested exemptions from operating requirements to address their status of no longer having fuel present in the reactor.
Each of these cases has been handled individually without clearly defined generic requirements.
This rulemaking would codify definitions for possession-only liccn::E amendment (POLA), confirmatory cahutdown order, and permanent cessation of operations to clarify terminology which already exists within the part 50 regulations and the Comtaission decisions involving decommissioning issues.
Section 50.59 would be clarified to make it expressly applicable to holders of POLAs.
Licensees would be permitted, upon receipt of a POLA or confirmatory shutdown order, to carry out certain prescribed activities prior to approval of the decommissioning plan.
After permanent' cessation of operations, licensees would be required to provide the NRC with information including a schedule and timetable documenting their proposed decommissioning acti 2 'ies at the facility.
In addition, 90 days prior to commencement of 3
such activities, licensees would be required to submit a report detailing these activities, including those performed under S
]
50.59, for NRC negative consent.
In addition, the Commission is proposing to amend a Section of 10 CFR part 50 to clarify the applicability or limited applicability of ::ertain regulations to permanently shut down or decommissioning reactors, thereby reducing the regulatory burden facing licensees in the decommissioning phase, i
)
o Finally, the Commission is codifying ~in 10 CFR part 2 the l
public's opportunity for a subpart L hearing at the decommissioning plan approval stage'.
Written comments on the proposed amendments to parts 2 and 50 of the. Commission's regulations should be received by (date).
They should be' addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC'20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
v 4
O ENCLOSURE 8 i
l i
I
Reculatory Analysis 1
Amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 Specifying Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors l
1.
Statement of Problem When the decommissioning regulations were published on June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018) and adopted, it was assumed that the majority of nuclear power reactor licensees would decommission at the end of the operating license.
Since that time a number of licensees have shut down prematurely without having submitted a i
decommissioning plan.
In addition, these licensees have requested exemptions from operating requirements to address their status of no longer having fuel present in the reactor.
Each of I
these cases has been handled individually without clearly defined generic requirements.
The Commission is proposing to amend the decommissiosiag regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 tc clarify ambiguities in the current regulations, and to codify procedures and terminology that have been used on a case-by-case basis.
The Commission l
believes that the proposed amendments would enhance the uniformity in the regulatory process of decommissioning nuclear power plants.
The proposed amendments would furnish the licensed community and the public a better understanding of the process
2 involved in decommissioning as the operating personne1~at a nuclear' power plant facility undergo the transition from an operatingLorganization to a decommissioning organization.
In particular, this rulemaking would address the process which
.begins with a licensee's' decision to permanently cease operations at'the facility and concludes with Commission approval of the' s
' licensee's decommissioning plan.
2.
Obiectives Based on' Commission direction in the NRC Staff Requirements Memorandum from S.
Chilk, Secretary to the Commission, to the Office of.the General Counsel (OGC) dated June 30, 1993, and on current OGC and staff experience with the part 50 decommissioning regulations, the proposed' revision of the existing regulations focuses on the following objectives.
1.
Define terminology within part 50 and clarify its role within the decommissioning process: Possession-only license amendment, (POLA), confirmatory shutdown order, and Permanent cessation of operations.
2.
Clarify the applicability of part 50 requirements to permanently shut down nuclear power reactors.
3 3.
Amend S 50.59 to make it expressly applicable to holders of licenses to possess or operate a nuclear power reactor, and extend the updating requirements of S 50.71 to holders of a Commission-approved decommissioning plan.
4.
Require permanently shut down nuclear power reactor licensees to provide advance notification to the NRC of f
planned decommissioning activities.
l
.5.
Provide regulatory guidance on permissible licensee activities after permanent cessation of operations and i
l prior to decommissioning plan approval.
)
J 6.
Provide for greater public participation in the decommissioning process by codifying the NRC commitment to hold a public meeting subsequent to the licensee's submittal of a preliminary and 90-day report under 10 CFR 50.82, codifying the right to a Subpart L hearing at decommissioning plan approval, and codifying the right to file a S 2.206 petition at license termination.
3.
Alternatives i
The following are the alternatives considered in this regulatory analysis for each of the objectives described above.
a 0
4 3.1 Define POLA, confirmatory shutdown order and permanent cessation of operations.
I 3.1.1 Alternative-Take No Action
{
This alternative was rejected because it would not clarify important decommissioning terminology in the existing part 50 regulations, e.g.,
POLA, confirmatory shutdown order and permanent cessation of operations.
This alternative would not be responsive to Commission direction.
3.1.2 Alternative-Reculatory Guidance This alternative _was rejected because it would not provide the necessary regulatory basis for the defined terms to mandate particular licensee actions.
For example, a licensee must certify to the permanent cessation of operations prior to submittal of an application for a POLA.
3.1.3 Alternative-Rulemakina This alternative was selected because it would codify definitions for terms which presently exist within 10 CFR part 50, and provide a firm regulatory basis for subsequent requirements based on these definitions.
5 3.2 Clarify the applicability of part 50 requirements to permanently shut down nuclear power reactors.
3.2.1 Alternative-Take no action This alternative would continue the status quo with respect to the current regulations and would leave intact the uncertainty as to the applicability of part 50 to the permanently shut down reactor.
Therefore, this alternative was rejected.
3.2.2 Alternative-Reculatorv Guidance This alternative could serve to explain and clarify the scope of part 50 regulations to permanently shut down reactors, but would not allow the NR'C the regulatory basis to grant licensees regulatory relief without resort to the exemption process.
Thus, this alternative was rejected.
3.2.3 Alternative-Rulemakino The rulemaking alternative would clarify the applicability of certain part 50 requirements to permanently shut down nuclear power reactors.
Licensees in the permanently shut down mode would more readily comprehend their responsibilities under part 50, and would eliminate the need
I 6
for licensees to seek individual exemptions from inapplicable requirements.
This alternative was selected.
3.3 Amend 5 50.59 to make it expressly applicable to helders of licenses to possess or operate a nuclear power reactor, and extend the updating requirements of 5 50.71 to holders of a Commission-approved decommissioning plan.
l 3.3.1 Alternative-Take no action The alternative of taking no action would leave intact a regulation that does not expressly apply to holders of POLAs, confirmatory shutdown orders or licenses from which the authorization to operate has been permanently removed.
Thus, this alternative was rejected.
l l
l 3.3.2 Alternative-Reculatorv Guidance i
Although guidance would serve the purpose of clarifying the scope of 5 50.59, it would not provide a firm regulatory basis upon which the NRC could expressly extend the provisions of that section of part 50 to permanently shut 1
down reactors.
Thus, this alternative was rejected.
I 1
1
7 3.3.3 Alternative-Rulemakinu This alternative would best effectuate the Commission direction that S 50.59 be made expressly applicable to POLA holders.
Thus, this alternative was selected.
3.4, Require permanently shut down nuclear power reactor licensees to provide advance notification of planned significant deccanaissioning activities.
3.4.1 Alternative-Take No Action This alternative would not provide the NRC staff with the necessary information to ensure that licensee actions taken pursuant to S 50.59, subsequent to permanent cessation of-operations and prior to decommissioning plan approval, do not significantly increase decommissioning costs, violate terms of the existing license or foreclose the release of the site in accordance with applicable NRC requirements.
Thus, this alternative was not selected.
i 3.4.2 Alternative-Reculatorv Guidance i
The NRC would not have the regulatory basis with regulatory guidance for requiring licensees to submit an advance notice of planned significant decommissioning activities after l
i i
i
.8 permanent cessation of_ operations.
Thus, this alternative as rejected.
3.4.3 Alternative-Rulemakina
.The NRC believes that licensees should be required to submit a notice of planned significant decommissioning activities following the permanent cessation of operations'for the reasons discussed in the No Action alternative.
This can.
only be accomplished by rulemaking.
3.5 Provide regulatory guidance on permissible licensee activities after permanent cessation of operations and prior to decommissioning plan approval.
I1 3.5.1 Alternative-Take no action This alternative would not meet the objective of providing licensees and the public guidance on the types of activities that the NRC would deem acceptable following the permanent cessation of operations and prior to decommissioning plan approval.
This alternative was consequently rejected.
l
9 3.5.2 Alternative-Reaulatory Guidance This alternative would be responsive to the Commission SRM and provide licensees with the necessary direction to conduct decommissioning activities subsequent to permanent cessation of operations.and prior to decommissioning plan approval.
However, guidance would not provide an enforceable basis upon which the NRC could ensure that licensee activities do not foreclose the release of the site in accordance with NRC regulations.
Thus, this option was selected, but only in conjunction with the rulemaking option which codifies the four criteria in S 50.59 (d).
3.5.3 Alternative-Rulemakina This alternative would codify in S 50.59(d) the four criteria for which guidance is being proposed, and establish independent criteria in 5 50.59(d) for permanently shut down licensees to adhere to.
Licensee activities subsequent to permanent cessation of operations and prior to decommissioning plan approval would be subject to the criteria in S 50.59(d), and the NRC would have a firm basis for ensuring that. post shutdown activities are not inconsistent.
Thus, this alternative was selected in conjunction with the regulatory guidance alternative discussed above.
10 3.6 Provide for greater public participation in decommissioning through codification of mandatory and discretionary NRC public meetings and 10 CFR part 2 Subpart L hearings.
3.6.1.
Alternative-Take no action.
This alternau. 4e would not meet the objective of increasing the degree of public participation and was therefore rejected.
3.6.2.
A].ternative-Rulemakina This alternative would codify the NRC's objective to provide enhanced public participation in the decommissioning process and was therefore selected.
4.
Regulatory Impact-Qualitative Costs and Benefits The detailed analysis of the costs and benefits associated wit)- decommissioning were discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Analysis accompanying the final decommissioning rule in 1988.
The amendments being proposed in this rulemaking serve to replace a large degree of case-by-case decommissioning that has occurred under the present regulatory framework.
The costs and benefits discussed for the 1988 rule continue to be valid.
r 11 Several of the proposed amendments to 10 CFR part 50 would not impose new requirements on nuclear power reactor licensees.
For example, codification in S 50.82 of the Commission's discretionary authority to issue a confirmatory shutdown order, and codifying the definitions for this order and possession-only license amendment in S 50.2 do not impose new regulatory burdens.
The costs of these amendments fall on the NRC in terms of staff I
development of the rules, and the costs associated with publication in the Federal Register.
However, the costs associated with these amendments are minor when measured by the costs and benefits of the entire rulemaking package being proposed for comment.
Defining and clarifying the term permanent cessation of operations will present a minor one time regulatory burden on licensees, but this burden already exists within S 50.82.
Pursuant to the current S 50.82 (a), a licensee is required to submit a proposed decommissioning plan two years after permanent cessation of operations as part of its application to the Commission to surrender its license and decommission the facility.
Thus, codifying a definition for permanent cessation of operations in S 50.2 and requiring a certification to that effect in S 50.82(a) merely makes explicit what had heretofore been implicit.
The costs to the licensee of preparing and submitting a simple one-time certification should be minor.
The costs to the NRC are those associated with the development and publication of the rulemaking.
The benefit of codification is
l 12 the certainty as to what is meant by permanent cessation of operations.
The decommissioning process will be accelerated in that nuclear power reactors will not be allowed, under the proposed amendments, to fail to declare, or delay the acknowledgement of permanent shutdown.
The amendment of S 50.59'to make it expressly applicable to holders of a license to possess or operate a nuclear power reactor will clarify the applicability of S 50.59 after permanent cessation of operations and issuance of a POLA.
Licensees will not be required to seek NRC approval or exemptions after receiving a POLA to use the S 50.59 process for making changes or conducting tests or experiments.
Likewise, the NRC will have enforceable provisions in S 50.59(d) to prohibit permanently shut down licensees from potentially precluding decommissioning alternatives prior to decommissioning plan approval.
Since S 50.59 was not expressly applicable, and by its terms not explicitly available to licensees holding POLAs under the current regulations, the cost to licensees of this amendment is negligible, while the benefit is the licensee's capability to continue the S 50.59 process, allowing for changes without NRC approval, after permanent cessation of operations and up to decommissioning plan approval.
Licensees would be required under the proposed rulemaking to submit preliminary reports and 90-day advance reports of planned significant decommissioning activities.
Although this provision will impose a new regulatory burden on licensees, the Commission
13 believes that licensees of nuclear power reactors that decide to
. permanently shut down have much of this information.
Nuclear power reactor licensees are generally operated by large corporations, and are unlikely to be unaware of the types of-activities being planned and scheduled for commencement upon permanent cessation of operations.. Requiring the licensee to submit'this information, which need not be in greater detail than that already prepared by the licensee for the licensee's own purposes, does however enable the NRC to more fully evaluate the licensee's. ability to comply with the criteria codified in S 50.59.
With this information submitted in advance, the NRC can more efficiently marshall the necessary resources to monitor and inspect the licensee's activities at the facility.
This in turn means that the NRC is less likely to compel the licensee to
)
i submit similar or identical information under other provisions of j
i part 50, and squander staff and licensee time.
Thus, although j
there will be costs to the licensee in complying with this amendment if adopted, the cost involved should be minimal in that the information collected should already exist in some form, and the NRC will not be compelled to ask for it at some future point
)
in time.
The proposed rule changes amend part 50 to clarify the applicability of certain requirements to the permanently shut down nuclear power reactor.
These changes have associated costs to the NRC with respect to the development of the amendments and the publication of the rule.
There are no readily apparent costs j
4 j
14 to the licensee.
However,.the benefits to both the NRC and the licensees are substantial.
Under the present regulatory scheme,
-licensees must apply to the NRC for exemptions from various part 50 requirements after permanent cessation, and the NRC must i
review and approve-the exemptions, the cost of which are passed f
i I
on to the lice'see via 10 CFR part 170.
If adopted, the proposed l
n 1
amendments would clarify that which is being decided on a case-by-case basis-- that a particular regulation is or is not applicable in the permanently shut down phase of a nuclear power reactor.
Permanently shut down licensees would no longer be-required to apply for individual or multiple exemptions from various requirements clearly inapplicable to a licensee which has t
_ permanently removed fuel from the reactor.
The benefits are likely to be substantial when considered from the standpoint of 109 nuclear power reactors which will. ultimately face the i
decommissioning process multiplied by exemption requests from a number of part 50 requirements.
Finally, the codification of public meetings and part 2 hearings will carry costs to both the licensee and the NRC involving preparation for and participation in the hearings.
The benefits are intangible in terms of enhanced public understanding and acceptance of the decommissioning process and decreased risk of litigative challenges to the decommissioning plan approval.
4 15 5.
Decision Rationale The qualitative assessment of costs and benefits discussed above leads the Commission to the conclusion that the overall impact of the rulemaking will be a reduction in licensee costs, primarily due to the clarification of the nonapplicability or limited applicability of the part 50 regulations to permanently shut down nuclear power reactors.
Althcugh there are' costs associated with several of the proposed amendments, the Commission believes that many of those costs would have been incurred by licensees in other forms, and that the benefits associated with the entire set of regulatory amendments outweighs the costs.
6.
Implementation 6.1 Schedule No implementation problems are expected.
No effect on other schedules is anticipated.
n I
4 I
I ENCLOSURE 9
7 I
l ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF l
NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT 5
ON PROPOSED RULE ON " DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS" I.
THE ACTION The action is a proposed rule to amend 10 CFR parts 2 and 50 to codify definitions for possession-only license amendment (POLA),
confirmatory shutdown order, and permanent cessation of operations.
The proposed rule would clarify terminology which already exists within the part 50 regulations, and codify aspects of Commission adjudicatory decisions involving decommissioning issues.
The language of 10 CFP. 50.59 would be amended to make it expressly applicable to holders of POLAs or licenses not authorizing reactor operation.
Licensees would be permitted, upon receipt of a POLA or confirmatory shutdown order, to. carry out certain prescribed activities prior to approval of a decommissioning plan.
In accordance with this proposed change in the regulations, licensees would be required to provide the NRC with a preliminary report and 90-day advance notice of any planned decommissioning activities subsequent to permanent cessation of operations and prior to decommissioning plan approval.
These activities would be required to conform to the proposed change to 10 CFR 50.59.
In addition, the Commission is proposing to amend sections of 10 CFR part 50 to expressly indicate the applicability or limited applicability of
1 2
various requirements to permanently shut down or decommissioning nuclear power reactors.
Finally, the Commission is proposing to increase public involvement in decommissioning by codifying: 1) the NRC commitment to hold a public meeting following the licensee's submittal of a preliminary report; 2) the opportunity for a 10 CFR part 2 Subpart L hearing at decommissioning plan approval; and 3) the right to file a 10 CFR 2.206 petition at license termination.
II.
THE NEED FOR THE RULEMAKING ACTION The current regulations in 10 CFR part 50 set forth a process for decommissioning, but do not define important terms in the requirements nor clarify the applicability of the part 50 requirements to nuclear power plants that have been permanently shut down.
As a result, many of the issues which have confronted past licensees undergoing decommissioning have been handled on a case by case basis, i
This tends to result in an inefficient use of licensee and NRC resources.
In addition, the public is less able to understand the process and recognize the requirements and restraints.uaposed on licensees subsequent to permanent shutdown, up to decommissioning plan approval. Thus, clarification of terminology, codification of past commission adjudicatory decisions on decommissioning, and a reorganization of the decommissioning requirements is believed necessary.
6 3
III.' ALTERNATIVES Td THE RULEMAKING: ACTION
- The alternatives. to the rulemaking action are as -follows:
take no' action or.'. issue regulatory guidance.
Summaries of-the alternatives are~provided in.this section.
Alternative 1-No Action Alternative 1 maintains the status quo which involving case by case decisions with respect to decommissioning issues, and no clarification of ambiguities in the part ' 50 regulations.
The impacts would be continued inefficient use of licensee-'and NRC resources,. and lesser understanding by.the public of the
- requirements and restraints' imposed. on permanently shut down nuclear power plant licensees.
Alternative 2-Reaulatorv Guidance
-Under this alternative, the NRC would issue regulatory guidance.. to address the ambiguities and issues which are being.
concidered as a subject for rulemaking.
This action would not by:
definition. provide the mandatory regulatory basis necessary to clarify the part 50 requirements.
l
I
't Alternative 3-Rulemakina Under alternative 3, the NRC would amend the current parts 2 and 50 regulations to define existing terminology, clarify ambiguities in the requirements,.and codify elements of existing Commissi<>a adjudicatory decisions that deal with decommissioning issues.
Licensees,- the NRC, and the public will have a fuller understanding of the current decommissioning requiremente imposed on nuclear power plants in part 50.
IV.
ENVIRONMEKfAL IMPACTS OF THE ACTION The potential envircnmental impacts of the rulemaking can be better analyzed by examining individual amendments under consideration.
Three of the proposed rule changes involve the clarification of
- existing, or creation of new reporting requirements which the NRC has previously determined to meet the 1
criteria for a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22 (c) (3).
The two new amendments are the early notification prcW mions of 10 CFR
- 50. 82 (a) (4),
and the requirement for licensees to certify to permanent cessation of operations in S 50.82 (a). The clarification of an existing reporting requirement is the amendment to S 50.71 which extends the reporting requirements to include holders of'a Commission-approved decommissioning plan.
The amendment to 10 CFR part 2 to afford an opportunity for a subpart L hearing at decommissioning plan approval, and the amendment to 10 CFR 50.82 to
8 s
5 require.that NRC convene a public meeting fall within categorical exclusions 10 CFR 51.22 (c) (1) and (2).
The remaining amendments relate to clarification of ambiguous regulations, defining-terms already within part 50, and codifying aspects of.
Commission adjudicatory
-decisions involving decommissioning issues.
For example, a
section of part.50 regulations would. be amended to clarify their applicability or limited applicability to permanently shut down nuclear power reactors.
These amendments would not create new reqdirements, but.
would serve to clarify existing requirements and in many instances eliminate.the need for licensees to seek exemptions from these requirements to address their status of no longer having fuel in-the reactor.
Defining a possession-only license amendment ' and confirmatory shutdown order do not create new requirements on licensees beyond those currently imposed through part 50.
The environment.. impacts of these actions are those which were discussed in the Final Generic Environmental. Impact Statement (GEIS) on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586).
Licensees of permanently shut down nuclear power reactors should be able to conduct decommissioning activities in a more timely and efficient manner under the revised regulatory scheme.
In the Final
- GEIS, the NRC 'found that decommissioning has miny positive environmental impacts.
These include the return of valuable lands and. structures to the public domain and the elimination of 1
potential problems associated with an increasing inventory of radioactively. contaminated facilities.
The major adverse impacts j
1
'S m
6 associated with decommissioning are routine occupational exposures and.the commitment of small amounts of land to radioactive waste disposal.
Other impacts, including public radiation doses, were shown to be minor.
Since the regulatory revisions-do not fall outside the scope'of the GEIS or create new requirements beyond the reporting requirements discussed, it can be concluded that the rulemaking will-have no adverse impact on'the environment.
V.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in j
10 CFR part 51, that the amendments to 10 CFR part 50 revising and i
clarifying the regulatory process for decommissioning nuclear power reacters, will not have a significant impact on the quality of the humar, environment and that an environmental impact statement is not regiired.
This-determination is based on the foregoing environmental assessment performed in accordance with the procedures and criteria in part-51
" Environmental Protection Regulations-for Domestic Licensing and-Related Regulatory Function."
'VI.
MAJOR REFERENCE DOCUMENTS
'1.
Final Generic Environmental Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory i
.......