ML20216F487

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests Review Re Changes to SRM on SECY-94-179 & COMKR-94-002 (Decommissioning) Provided by De Planque Ofc
ML20216F487
Person / Time
Issue date: 09/26/1994
From: Hart K
NRC
To: Winsberg K
NRC
Shared Package
ML20216F445 List:
References
FRN-60FR37374, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-51 AE96-1-005, AE96-1-5, NUDOCS 9803180411
Download: ML20216F487 (20)
v • d • e


Text

v N., -

l 'PDPu  :

From: Kenneth R. Hart To:

(KRH)

KLW,MRF,ENJ,PLB,KDC

[- fbd ,

w Date: Monday, September 26, 1994 12:04 pm Mg subject: SRM on SECY-94-179/COMKR-94-002 Please review the changes to the SRM on SECY-94-179 and COMKR-94-002 (decommissioning) in the attached file (94-179.SRM). The changes were provided by the de Planque office. The changes of the suspense dates from 12/16/94 to 10/27/94 were suggested by the de Planque and Rogers offices.

Please let me know by COB Tuesday (9/27) if there are any objections to the proposed changes. Otherwise, we are planning to issue the SRM at that time.

In order to observe the line-outs, tab to view the attached file. Then select Shift-F7 (print) and select option 5 (launch program to print). To avoid the need to print out the file, simply save the file. Then exit E-Mail, go into Wordperfect and retrieve the file. Once converted back into Wordperfect, the line-outs and additions are clearly marked..

Thanks, Ken l

l l

l 9803180411 980311 g, ,v, F 7374 PDR COf j

m i

+

UNITED STATES

[? [ S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E E WASHINGTON, D.C. EMIs4001

\. ...

/ ,

l MEMORANDUM T0: James M. Taylor j Executive Lirector for Operations l Karen D. Cyr General Counsel FROM: John C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary g/ -

SUBJECT:

SECY-94-179 - NOTICE OF PROPOSE RULEMAKING ON ^

DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS M2 and COMKR-94-002 - DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR-Y / d-l @

POWER REACTORS AND COMMENTS ON SECY-94-179 f t The Comnission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has agreed that ,l' the staff should review and rework the rule proposed in SECY-94-179basedonthecommentsprovidedintheattachment.j<gf Q The staff should notify the Commission once the kKsistsfC Faid 6

BecididKUjsdrQs . framework for the g new proposal TE"EEEdy~l~n~5rder to provide an opportunity for commissioner briefings before beginning to develop a new proposed rule package. /6 8 jW (EDO/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 12/1 @ p@ /94)

The staff should-feel free to sugg'est alternative methods 6f decomunissibn@iniMppond sH6~iH61111f pi^691de views on~s6e~scosay11ist f 611aViHg Ydintisi~^~~~"

(1) If ttsis C .-10:i : r ";;; :' cugg::t:d approach were to be implssinted, is there a need or a benefit to revising NRC's draft policy statement on the "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Decommissioning Plan Approval"? Is there any problem in the NRC approving use of decommissioning funds for Phase I decommissioning activities through a " negative consent" procedure?

SECY NOTE: SECY-94-179 WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ON JULY 12, 1994. THIS SRM, COMKR-94-002 AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

O (2) What are the policy and legal implications of linking commencement of Phase I deconsiasioning activities to a set time frame after the public meeting? Would it make a difference if submittal of the report, rather than the public meeting, set the clock running? Would there be an advantage to putting the time frame in guidance documents rather than the rule?

(3) Phase III of the approach contemplates a public notification process and a Subpart L hearing. Are there alternatives that might combine both, perhaps modeled after the Oregon proceeding for the decommissioning of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant? .g f t; { [ q (EDO/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 12/1'((((f/94) fv.-< 4 Pt" The revised-paper should include a discussion of the specific Federal requirements from NEPA, AEA, CERCLA, etc.'with which the ,

NRC is required to be in compliance regarding the decommissioning )

of nuclear power plants.

(EDOr60} (SECY Suspense: ~Q/3/95) itly /4" l

l

Attachment:

1. Comments on the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors by Commissioner Rogers dated September 20, 1994 cc: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner de Planque OGC OCA OIG ,

Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) i

DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS AND COMMENTS ON SECY-94-179 K.C. Rogers September 20, 1994 It is very likely that most licensees of nuclear power plants will be forced to develop a decommissioning strategy that includes a period of SAFSTOR prior to completing decommissioning to a final state suitable for termination of the license e.g.

greenfield, permanent entombment or restricted use. There appear to be three distinct phases of decommissioning that must be addressed in NRC's rules for the decommissioning and termination of licenses for nuclear power reactors.

Phsse I This phase would cover permanent cessation of power production operations, granting of a POLA, public notification, early plant modifications, and on-site rearrangement, packaging and removal of components and waste prior to entering SAFSTOR status. This phase includes the licensee's early component removal program during which plant structures, systems, and components may be removed from the facility and shipped off site as allowed by 550.59 and other regulations. The duration of this j phase is probably in months to a few years.

At the beginning of this phase there should be public notification of the licensee's decommissioning strategy that would involve a preliminary report and public meeting to discuss the report. This public notification process is described in SECY-94-179 in the proposed $50.82 (a) (4) (1) and involves docketing of the report, placement of copies into NRC and local public document rooms, publishing of a meeting notice in the Federal Register and readily accessible communications media, and ,

the holding of the informal public meeting. The licensee should  !

not conduct any decommissioning activities, other than those activities that would ordinarily be considered routine maintenance, until 30 days after the public meeting.

The basic mode of decommissioning (DECON, SAFSTOR, etc.) l should be disclosed in the report and any other possible options the licensee might wish to consider at a.later stage (and of Phase II ). The licensee should address issues of interest to the local community with a particular emphasis on public health and ATTACHMENT 1 j

2 safety and the environment. Along with the proposed mode of total decommissioning.(completion of Phase III) the licensee should present an outline of the contemplated decommissioning activities and a preliminary schedule for carrying them out. The report should be detailed enough to allow a bounding analysis of costs i so that it is possible for the licensee to demonstrate reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to complete Phase III decommissioning in whatever manner is most sensible to the licensee in the future. The report should satisfy the documentation guidance described in the NRC policy statement on the "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds-Before Decommissioning Plan Approval." Assuming the proposal meets the guidance, the licensee could execute the decommissioning activities unless the NRC interposes an objection. However, a period of approximately 30 days following the public meeting should elapse before decommissioning activities commence.

The decommissioning activities that would then be allowed after the comment period are any activities allowed under $50.59.

However, $50.59 should be revised to include the four criteria, described in the January 14, 1993 ERM, for determining which activities are permissible prior to approval of a decommissioning plan. Namely, that the licensees may undertake any decommissioning activities that do 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 NRC will develop and conduct inspections appropriate to the activities carried out during this phase. The staff would continue to inspect the licensees' 550.59 safety analyses, as it currently does, and stop any activities that it believes involve unreviewed safety questions. It should be noted that the public would still have the opportunity for a limited hearing whenever the operating license is amended, as would be the case when the POLA is issued or when the technical specifications are revised.

The licensee should be able to receive an extension to the license for the predicted period of decommissioning up to the ,

maximum allowable extension period of 40 years. This would i require a revision of NRC regulations to readily permit plants that are permanently shut down to be granted a license extension.

Phase II This phase would be SAFSTOR with little on-site or off-site activities other than monitoring of systems required to maintain SAFSTOR e.g. Spent Fuel Pool cooling systems. This phase will probably last for years or even decades and will depend upon the

f 3

availability of LLW sites to accept waste materials from plant dismantlement at a feasible price. If the licensee chooses to proceed to DECON shortly after completion of Phase I, Phase II could be compressed but would probably still be dependent on the availability of suitable radioactive waste sites.

There is no need for any special public notification for entering or during most of the SAFSTOR phase. The requirements on licensees would be the usual ones under a POLA, including the availability of $50.59.

Phase III This phase would cover public potification, complete dismantlement of the plant, and termination of the license including cleanup of the site or permanent entombment of the plant and reassignment of the remainder of the site for other purposes. This phase is probably measured in months or years.

This phase should require a decommissioning and termination plan somewhat different than currently envisioned and described in 10 CFR 550.82, however, prior to the start of Phase III there should be an additional public notification of the type used for Phase I. Furthermora, as suggested in SECY-94-179 under Option 2, there should be a provision for the opportunity for a Subpart L hearing on the plan. These additional requirements appear justified in view of the significant time delay that may conceivably occur between the time that the licensee completes major component removal activities and enters a SAFSTOR phase and the time when final decommissioning activities resume. In addition, there is the likelihood, because of this time delay, that the licensee will have many new operating and engineering personnel, if not an entirely new organization, and new engineering and decommissioning techniques may have become available.

Licensees should be permitted to modify or revise the activities described in the decommissioning and termination plan via a $50.59 type process. Large changes in the economics of and use of the site may take place during the course of a decommissioning project that could substantially change the mode of decommissioning. Therefore, licensees should be afforded flexibility in the development of a total decommissioning and termination plan consistent with the protection of public health and safety and the environment.

In the light of the above discussion, I offer the following detailed comments on the proposed rule in the format of the SECY paper:

4 OPTION 1

1. Definition of " Permanent Cassation of Onerations":

I agree with the staff recommendation, in particular, the revisions to 550.2, 550.4 (b) (a) , and 550.s2 (a) .

2. Early Notification of Post-Shutdown Plans and Activities:

i I agree with some aspects of this proposed regulation including submission of the preliminary report and the public notice and meeting on the report ($50. 82 (4) (i) ) .

However, the description of the contents of the report should be expanded to cover the information needed to satisfy the guidance given in.the NRC policy statement on l the "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Decommissioning Plan Approval." Furthermore, the regulation should stipulate that no decommissioning activities should take place until 30 days following the public meeting.

I disagree with the requirement (550.82(a) (4) (ii)) for the submittal of the so-called 90-day reports and the holding of I public meetings before any significant decommissioning activities are performed. I suggest that only 30-day notices of plans for significant decommissioning activities be given to the NRC, for information only, and publicly noted. Since these activities supposedly do not involve unreviewed safety questions, the reports should be docketed and made public, but I do not feel it is necessary to convene public meetings since the members of the public would have already had the opportunity to provide comments at the preliminary report stage where they could have greater effect. Section 50.82(a) (4) (ii) should be revised accordingly.

I

3. Possession-Oniv License Amendment (POLA1: ]

l I agree with the staff recommendations regarding POLAs.

I also believe that the regulations should be expanded to include language that would extend the license for the predicted period of decommissioning up to the maximum j allowable extension period of 40 years. The regulations l should be revised to readily permit permanently shut down l plants to be granted a licenr3 Txtension.,

5

4. Anolicability of 10 CPR Part 50 to Permanentiv Shut Down Reactors:

I agree with the staff recommendations regarding the regulations that should be changed to accommodate their applicability to permanently shut down reactors.

5. Anolicability of 10 CFR 50.59 to Permanently Shut Down Reactors:

I agree with the suggested change to 10 CFR 50.59.

I agree with the new $50.71(a) and the suggested changes to new $50.82(b) to make the decommissioning and termination plan part of the FSAR.

In accord with my previous discussion, that the decommissioning and termination plan should only have to be submitted before the start of Phase III operations, I believe that the new $50.E2(b) should be revised accordingly. A possible solution might be to make the first sentence of $50.82(b) into a separate paragraph

$50. 82 (b) (1) . The remainder of $50.82(b) could be placed in a new paragraph labeled $50.82(b)(2) and titled

" Decommissioning and Termination Plan." It would stipulate that before initiation of final decommissioning activities could commence, such as dismantlement and cleanup of the site or permanent entombment of the plant, but no later than two years before the site is ultimately released for either unrestricted or restricted use, the licensee must submit a proposed decommissioning and termination plan which shall be a supplement to the FSAR. This could be followed by the rest of $50.82(b) with appropriate inclusion of the words "and termination" whenever " decommissioning plan" appears.

The regulations should be reviewed for consistency in terminology and usage regarding this point. A requirement for the scheduling of public notice and meetings should also be added, as in $50.82 (a) (4) (i) . Furthermore, as suggested in the paper under Option 2, there should be a provision for the opportunity for a Subpart L hearing on the decommissioning and termination plan.

I agree with the change to add the new $50.82 (c) (6) .

6. Confirmatory Shutdown Order:

I agree with the staff recommendation.

6 OPTION 2:

As may be inferred from my previous comments, I believe the staff has generally gone too far in option 2. The public will have sufficient opportunity for comment when the preliminary report is submitted to the Commission. This would be before any decommissioning activities are undertaken and the comments would be more meaningful and effective.

1. E 50.59 Restrictions:

I' agree with the staff recommendation that the four criteria from the January 14, 1993 SRM be codified as suggested in S 50.59(d) (2) . This will explicitly indicate to the licensees the Commission's intent as to allowable activities prior to approval of the decomkissioning and termination plan. This feature should be added to the requirements discussed under option 1.

I do not agree with any of the other recommendations regarding $50.59 restrictions. In particular, I do not agree that the requirement for NRC review and approval of the decommissioning and termination plan should be deleted (Page 11). While many activities can be done prior to decommissioning and termination plan approval, the decommissioning and termination plan itself, as sugger.ted above, may be submitted long after the decommissioning activities were begun under Phase I. It should be

, thoroughly reviewed and approved by the Commission. The l Commission should do more than only approve activities not allowed under $50.59.

2. Subnart L Hearinas at Decommissionina Plan or Partial Decommissionina Anoroval:

I agree with the staff recommendation to provide the I opportunity for a Subpart L hearing at the decommissioning and termination plan approval stage, however, the reference

'to a partial decommissioning plan should be deleted. This hearing, if held, should be just before the final Phase III i

decommissioning activities start. I do not agree that there should be the opportunity for a whole series of hearings and, as noted previously, do not agree with having 90-day reports and hearings. A single meeting and hearing prior to approval of the decommissioning and termination plan should .

be sufficient.

I agree with the suggestion to codify the right to a 10 CFR 2.206 petition at the license termination step (new

$50.82(h)). This feature should be added to the requirements.

l

7 CRIMINAL ENFORcmHELERQYLi10HE:

I agree with the staff recommendation regarding the criminal enforcement provisions with the appropriate revision to 550.111(b).

+

9 4

pua uq 4 t UNITED STATES 8 ') ( 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ 4E WASHING 10N, D.C. 20EIH001 DUM TO: Commissioner Rogers FROM: John C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary

SUBJECT:

COMKR-94-002 - DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS AND COMMENTS ON SECY-94-179 l

This memorandum is to inform you that all Commissioners have concurred in your proposal to have the staff review and resubmit the decommissioning rule package based on the comments provided by the Commission. The attached SRM provides staff direction on this issue. .

I This completes action on COMKR-94-002.

Attachment:

As stated cc: Commissioner Rogers Commissioner de Planque EDO OGC

, jk 3 880 0g fs  % UNITED STATES

  1. B NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U I WASHINGTON, D.C. 20M64001

%.....)

MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Karen D. Cyr General Counsel FROM: John C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary

SUBJECT:

SECY-94-179 - NOTICE OF PROPOSE RULEMAKING ON DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS and COMKR-94-002 - DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS AND COMMENTS ON SECY-94-179 The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has agreed that the staff should review and rework the rule proposed in SECY-94-179 based on the comments provided in the attachment.

The staff should notify the Commission once the framework for the new proposal is ready in order to provide an opportunity for commissioner briefings before beginning to develop a new proposed rule package.

(EDO/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 12/16/94)

The staff should feel free to suggest alternative methods and should provide views on the following points:

(1) If Commissioner Rogers' suggested approach were to be implemented, is there a need or a benefit to revising NRC's draft policy statement on the "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Decommissioning Plan Approval"? Is there any problem in the NRC approving use of decommissioning funds for Phase I decommissioning activities through a " negative consent" procedure?

(2) What are the policy and legal implications of linking commencement of Phase I decommissioning activities to a set SECY NOTE: SECY-94-179 WAS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC ON JULY 12, 1994. THIS SRM, COMKR-94-002 AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING D8LYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

time frame after the public meeting? Would it make a difference if submittal of the report, rather than the public meeting, set the clock running? Would there be an advantage to putting the time frame in guidance documents rather than the rule?

(3) Phase III of the approach contemplates a public notification process and a Subpart L hearing. Are there alternatives that might combine both, perhaps modeled after the Oregon 1 proceeding for the decommissioning of the Trojan Nuclear l Power Plant?

(EDO/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 12/16/94) i The revised paper should include a discussion of the specific Federal requirements from NEPA, AEA, CERCLA, etc. with which the NRC is required to be in compliance regarding the decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

(EDO) (SECY Suspense: 3/3/95)

Attachment:

1. Comments on the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors by Commissioner Rogers dated September 20, 1994 cc: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner de Planque OGC OCA 01G Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

s  !

)

1 1

DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS AND COMMENTS ON SECY-94-179 K.C. Rogers September 20, 1994 It is very likely that most licensees of nuclear power plants will be forced to develop a decommissioning strategy that includes a period of SAFSTOR prior to completing decommissioning to a final state suitable for termination of the license e.g.

greenfield, permanent entombment or restricted use. There appear to be three distinct phases of decommissioning that must be addressed in NRC's rules for the decommissioning and termination of licenses for nuclear power reactors.

Phase I This phase would cover permanent cessation of power production operations, granting of a POLA, public notification, early plant modifications, and on-site rearrangement, packaging and removal of components and waste prior to entering SAFSTOR status. This phase includes the licensee's early component removal program during which plant structures, systems, and components may be removed from the facility and shipped off site as allowed by 550.59 and other regulations. The duration of this phase is probably in months to a few years.

At the beginning of this phase there should be public notification of the licensee's decommissioning strategy that would involve a preliminary report and public meeting to discuss the report. This public notification process is described in SECY-94-179 in the proposed $50.82 (a) (4) (i) and involves docketing of the report, placement of copies into NRC and local public document rooms, publishing of a meeting notica in the Federal Register and readily accessible communications media, and the holding of the informal public. meeting. The licensee should not conduct any decommissioning activities, other than those activities that would ordinarily be considered routine maintenance, until 30 days after the public meeting.

The basic mode of decommissioning (DECON, SAFSTOR, etc.)

should be disclosed in the report and any other possible options the licensee might wish to consider at a.later stage (and of Phase II ). The licensee should address issues of interest to the local community with a particular emphasis on public health and ATTACHMENT 1 i

~-

I 2

safety and the environment. Along with the proposed mode of total decommissioning (completion of Phase III) the licensee should present an outline of the contemplated decommissioning activities j and.a preliminary schedule for carrying them out. The report should be detailed enough to allow a bounding analysis of costs so that it is possible for the licensee to demonstrate reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to complete Phase III decommissioning in whatever manner is most sensible to the licensee in the future. The report should satisfy the documentation guidance described in the NRC policy statement on the "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Decommissioning Plan Approval." Assuming the proposal meets the guidance, the licensee could execute tha decommissioning activities unless the '

NRC interposes an objection. However, a period of approximately 30 days following the public meeting should elapse before decommissioning activities commence.

The decommissioning activities that would then be allowed after the comment period are any activities allowed under $50.59.

However, 550.59 should be revised to include the four criteria, described in the January 14, 1993 SRM, for determining which activities are permissible prior to approval of a decommissioning plan. Namely, that the licensees may undertake any decommissioning activities that do 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 NRC will develop and conduct inspections appropriate to the activities carried out during this phase. The staff would continue to inspect the licensees' 550.59 safety analyses, as it currently does, and stop any activities that it believes involve unreviewed safety  !

questions. It should be noted that the public would still have the opportunity for a limited hearing whenever the operating l license is amended, as would be the case when the POLA is issued I or when the technical specifications are revised.

j The licensee should be able to receive an extension to the license for the predicted period of decommissioning up to the maximum allowable extension period of 40 years. This would require a revision of NRC regulations to readily permit plants that are permanently shut down to be granted a license extension.

1 Phase II This phase would be SAFSTOR with little on-site or off-site activities other than monitoring of systems required to maintain SAFSTOR e.g. Spent Fuel Pool cooling systems. This phase will probably last for years or even decades and will depend upon the

~

I .

3 availability of LLW sites to accept wasta materials from plant dismantlement at a feasible price. If the licensee chooses to proceed to DECON shortly after completion of Phase I, Phase II could be compressed but would probably still be dependent on the availability of suitable radioactive waste sites.

There is no need for any special public notification for entering or during most of the SAFSTOR phase. The requirements on licensees would be the usual ones under a POLA, including the availability of $50.59.

Phase III This phase would cover public notification, completo dismantlement of the plant, and ter*ination m of the license including cleanup of the site or permanent entombment of the plant and reassignment of the remainder of the site for other purposes. This phase is probably measured in months or years.

This phase should require a decommissioning and termination plan somewhat different than currently envisioned and described in 10 CFR 550.82, however, prior to the start of Phase III there should be an additional public notification of the type used for Phase I. Furthermore, as suggested in SECY-94-179 under Option 2, there should be a provision for the opportunity for a Subyart L hearing on the plan. These additional requirements appear justified in view of the significant time delay that may conceivably occur between the time that the licensee completes major component removal activities and enters a SAFSTOR phase and J 4

the time when final decommissioning activities resume. In addition, there is the likelihood, because of this time delay, that the licensee will have many new operating and engineering personnel, if not an entirely new organization, and new engineering and decommissioning techniques may have become available.

Licensees should be permitted to modify or revise the activities described in the decommissioning and termination plan via a $50.59 type process. Large changes in the economics of and use of the site may take place during the course of a .

decommissioning project that could substantially change the mode of decommissioning. Therefore, licensees should be afforded <

flexibility in the development of a total decommissioning and termination plan consistent with the protection of public health .

and safety and the environment.

f In the light of the above discussion, I offer the following l detailed comments on the proposed rule in the format of the SECY paper:

i 4

OPTION 1s

1. Definition of " Permanent Cassation of Onerations":

I agree with the staff recommendation, in particular, the revisions to $50.2, 550.4 (b) (a) , and 550.82 (a) .

2. Early Notification of Post-Shutdown Plans and Activities:

I agree with some aspects of this proposed regulation including submission of the preliminary report and-the public notice and meeting on the report (550.s2 (4) (i)) .

However, the description of the_ contents of the report should be expanded to cover the information needed to satisfy the guidance given~in the NRC policy statement on the "Use of Decommissioning Tfust Funds Before Decommissioning Plan Approval." Furthermore, the=

regulation should stipulate that no decommissioning activities should take place until 30 days following the public meeting.

I disagree with the requirement ($50.82(a) (4) (ii)) for the submittal of the so-called 90-day reports and the holding of public weetings before any significant decommissioning activ .es are performed. I suggest that only 30-day notieve of plans for significant decommissioning activities be given to the NRC, for information only, and publicly noted. Since these activities supposedly do not involve -

unreviewed safety questions, the reports should be docketed -

and made public, but I do not feel it is necessary to convene public meetings since the members of tha public would have already had the opportunity to provide comments at the preliminary report stage where they could have greater effect. Section 50.82 (a) (4) (ii) should be revised accordingly.

3. Possession-Only License Amendment (POLA): 1 I agree with the staff recommendations regarding POLAs.

I also believe that the regulations should be expanded to include language that would extend the license for the predicted period of decommissioning up to the maximum allowable extension period of 40 years. The regulations should be revised to readily permit permanently shut down plants to be. granted a license extension.

?

9 i

5

4. Annlicability of 10 CFR Part 50 to Permanently Shut Down Reactors: I I agree with the staff recommendations regarding the regulations that should be changed to accommodate their applicability to permanently shut down reactors.

)

5. Anolicability of 10 CFR 50.59 to Permanently Shut Down I i

Reactors:

I agree with the suggested change to 10 CFR 50.59.

I agree with the new 550.71(e) and the suggested changes to new $50.82(b) to make the decommissioning and termination plan part of the FSAR.

In accord with my previous dis'cussion, that the decommissioning and termination plan should only have to be submitted before the start of Phase III operations, I believe that the new 550.82 (b) should be revised accordingly. A possible solution might be to make the first sentence of'550.82(b) into a separate paragraph

$50. 82 (b) (1) . The remainder of $50.82(b) could be placed in l a new paragraph labeled $50.82(b) (2) and titled

" Decommissioning and Termination Plan." It would stipulate that before initiation of final decommissioning activities could commence, such as dismantlement and cleanup of the site or permanent entombment of the plant, but no later than two years before the site is ultimately released for either unrestricted or restricted use, the licensee must submit a proposed decommissioning and termination plan which shall be .

a supplement to the FSAR. This could be followed by the i rest of $50.82(b) with appropriate inclusion of the words "and termination" whenever " decommissioning plan" appears.

The regulations should be reviewed for consistency in terminology and usage regarding this point. A requirement for the scheduling of public notice and meetings should also be added, as in $50.82 (a) (4) (i) . Furthermore, as suggested in the paper under Option 2, there should be a provision for the opportunity for a subpart L hearing on the decommissioning and termination plan.

I agree with the change to add the new $50.82 (c) (6) .

6. Confirmatory Shutdown order:

I agree with the staff recommendation.

4

t 6

OPTION 2:

As may be inferred from my previous comments, I believe the staff has generally gone too far in Option 2. The public will have sufficient opportunity for comment when the preliminary report is submitted to the commission. This would be before any decommissioning activities are undertaken _and the comments would be more meaningful and effective.

1. E 50.59 Restrictions:

I agree with the staff recommendation that the four criteria l from the January 14, 1993 SRM be codified as suggested in  !

5 50.59(d)(2). This will explicitly indicate to the licensees the commission's intent as to allowable activities prior to approval of the decommissioning and termination  !

plan. This feature should be added to the requirements discussed under Option 1.

I do not agree with any of the other recommendations regarding 550.59 restrictions. In particular, I do not agree that the requirement for NRC review and approval of the decommissioning and termination plan should be deleted (Page 11). While many activities can be done prior to decommissioning and termination plan approval, the decommissioning and termination plan itself, as suggested above, may be submitted long after the decommissioning activities were begun under Phase I. It should be thoroughly reviewed and approved by the commission. The Commission should do more than only approve activities not allowed under $50.59.

2. Subcart L Hearinas at Decommissionina Plan or Partial Decommissionina Anoroval:

I agree with the staff recommendation to provide the opportunity for a Subpart L hearing at the decommissioning and termination plan approval stage, however, the reference to a partial decommissioning plan should be delated. This hearing, if held, should be just before the final Phase III decommissioning activities start. I do not agree that there should be the opportunity for a whole series of hearings and, as noted previously, do not agree with having 90-day reports and hearings. A single meeting and hearing prior to approval of the decommissioning and termination plan should be sufficient. .

I agree with the suggestion to codify the right to a 10 CFR 2.206 petition at the license termination step (new

$50.82(h)). This feature should be added to the requirements.

7 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS:

I agree with the staff recommendation regarding the criminal enforcement provisions with the appropriate revision to

$50.111(b).

1 l

8

l c'

e, r a . : _ ;- , y . g y G,,i- , ,

/ 'I ff+""%ey% ,

tJkiTED STATES ..

y e( 'g NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION /

E j W ASHINGTON. D.C. 20555 7h. .-

g, j Septenber 20, 1994 jf j ,, , _, , ..

/- -

OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONE R M ,g (

COMKR-94-002 / d ta.

MEMORANDUM FOR: John Hoyle l I

Acting Secretary FROM: Kenneth C. Rogers .

Commissioner  ;

i

SUBJECT:

DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS AND l COMMENTS ON SECY-94-179 l l

Before voting on SECY-94-179 I would like the staff to have an opportunity to consider my general comments on power reactor decommissioning and my specific comments on Options 1 and 2 identified by the st.sff in SECY-94-179. I i

OGC has had an opportunity to review these comments, and I l understand that they have not found any substantive legal impediments to a decommissioning rule based upon them.

I also understand that Chairm'an Selin and Commissioner de Planque ,

I have considered these comments and see them as useful guidance to the staff in refining their earlier recommendations in SECY-94-179.

Therefore, I propose that the attached comments (dated September 20, 1994) be given to the EDO and the OGC, together with any additional comments from the Commissioners prompted by this memorandum, as guidance for the staff.

l The staf f should review and rework the draft rule proposed in SECY-94-le and prepare an amended SECY-94-179 on which the.

Commissioners could formally vote. In accord with comments made during the Commission briefing on July 21, 1994, the paper shou 3d  ;

include a discussion of the specific Federal requirements from NEPA, AEA, CERCLA, etc. with which the NRC is required to be in compliance regarding the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. I l

secy please-track.

Attachment a/s cc: Chairman Selin Commissioner de Planque EDO OGC YON.M -

iu - g

2 present an outline of the contemplated decaer.issioning activities and a preliminary schedule for carrying them out. The report should be detailed enough to allow a bounding analysis of costs so that it is possible for the licensee to demonstrate reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to complete Phase III decommissioning in whatever manner is most sensible to the licensee in the future. The report should satisfy the documentation guidance described in the NRC policy statement on the "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funde Refere Decommissioning Plan Approval." Assuming the proposal 4so:o %e guidance, the licensee could execute the decommiss$coint activities unless the NRC interposes an objection. However, a ptficQ of approximately 30 days following the public meeting shvald elapse before decommissioning activities commence.

The decommissioning activitids that would then be allowed after the comment period are any activities allowed under 550.59.

However, 550.59 should be revised to include the four criteria, described in the January 14, 1993 SRM, for datermining which activities are permissible prior to approval of a decommissioning i plan. Namely, that the licensees may undertake any f decommissioning activities that do 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 i applied to the existing license. The NRC will develop and conduct inspections appropriate to the activities carried out ,

during this phase. The staff we<.Jd continue to inspect the licensees' 550.59 safety analyses, as it currently does, and stop any activities that it believes involve unreviewed safety questions. It should be noted that the public would still have the opportunity for a lLaited hearing whenever the operating license is amended, as would be the case when the POLA is issued or when the technical specifications are revised.

te licensee should be able to receive an extension to the lic aa for the predicted period of decommissioning up to the maxim.m allowable extensian period of 40 years. This would require a revision of NRC regulations to readily permit plants that are permanently shut down to be granted a license extension.

i Phase II l This phase would be SAFSTOR with little on-site or off-site activities other than monitering of systems required to maintain  ;

SAFSTOR e.g. Spent Fuel Pool cooling systems. This phase will probably last for years or even decades and will depend upon the availability of LLW sites to accept waste materials from planc dismantlement at a feasible price. If the licensee chooses to i

J

4 OPTION 1:

1. Definition of "Per==nent Cassation of Operations":

I agree with the staff recommendation, in particular, the revisions to 550.2, 550.4 (b) (8) , and 550.82(a).

2. Early Notification of Post-Shutdown Plana and Activities:

I agree with some aspects of this proposed regulation including submission of the preliminary. report and the public notice and meeting on the report (550.82 (4) (i)) .

However, the description of the contents of the report should be expanded to cover the information needed to satisfy the guidance given in the NRC policy statement on the "Use of Decomunissioning Trust Funds Before Deconunissioning Plan Approval.* Furtharmore, the regulation should stipulate that no decommissioning activities should take place until 30 days following the public meeting.

I disagree with the requirement ( 550. 42 (a) (4) (ii) ) for the i submittal of the so-called 90-day reports and the holding of public meetings before any sige.ficant decommissioning activities are performed. I suggest that only 30-day notices of plans for significant decommissioning activities '

be given to the NRC, for information only, and publicly noted. Since these activities supposedly do not involve unreviewed safety questions, the reports should be docketed and made public, but I do not feel it is necessary to convene public meetings since the members of the public would have already had the opportunity to provide comments at the preliminary report stage where they could have greater effect. Section 50.82 (a) (4) (ii) should be revised accordingly.

3. Possession-Only License Amendment (POLA):

I agree with the staff recommendations regarding POLAs.

' I also believe that the regulations should be expended to include language that would extend the license for the predicted period of decommissioning vp to the maxinram allowable extension period of 40 years. The regulations should be revised to readily permit permanently shut down plants to be granted a license extension.

i 1

l J

b

l e

6 OPTION 2:

As may be inferred fram my previous comments, I believe the staff has generally gone too far in option 2. The public will have sufficient opportunity for comment when the preliminary report is submitted to the commission. This would be before any decommissioning activities ara undertaken and the comments would be more meaningful and effective.

1. E 50.59 Restrictions:

I agree with the staff reen==andation that the four criteria from the January 14, 1993 SRM be codified as suggested in 5 50.59 (d) (2) . This will explicitly indicate to the licensees the Commission's intent as to allowsble activities prior to approval of the decommissioning and termination plan. This feature should be added to the requirements discussed under option 1.

I do not agree with any of the other recammendations regarding 550.59 restrictions. In particular, I do not

. agree that the requirement for NRC review and approval of the decommissioning and termination plan should be deleted (Page 11). While many activities can be done prior to decommissioning and termination plan approval, the decommissioning and termination plan itself, as suggested above, may be submitted long after the decommissioning activities were begun under Phase I. It should be thoroughly reviewed and approved by the Commission. The Commission should do more than only approve activities not allowed under 550.59,

2. Submart L Hearinas at Decommissionina Plan or Partial Dece--4ssionina Anoroval:

I agree with the staff recommendation to provide the opportunity for a Subpart L hearing at the decommissioning and termination plan approval stage, however, the reference to a partial decommissioning plan should be deleted. This hearing, if held, should be just before the final Phase III

' decommissioning activities start. I do not agree that there should be the opportunity for a whole series of hearings and, as noted previously, do not agree with having 90-day reports and hearings. A single meeting and hearing prior to approval of the decommissioning and termination plan should be sufficient. -

I agree with the suggestion to codify the right to a 10 CFR 2.206 petition at the license termination step (new 550.82 (h)) . This feature should be added to the requirements.

%)

M '!

8 s\ o UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A_

"F

.a 4 . waswmotow.om.aones be &

\*****' September 22, 1994 f~ ~L..,g F

ornce or THE commissionen 4 I

i MEMORANDUM FOR: John C. Boyle

. Acting Secretary FRON:

E.GaildePlanqueh J

SUBJECT:

CONKR-94-002: DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR I POWER REACTORS AND COMMENTS ON SECY-94-179 l

. i 1

I agree with Comerissioner Rogers' Troposal to provide Co:mnissioner comuments on the decomunissioning of nuclear power plante to the Staff and to OGC so that a new version of SECY 175 can be prepared. However, I request that staff and OGC, after refleeting on these comuments and deciding upon a frenework for a new proposal, motify the Comunission and provide an opportunity for connaissioner briefings before they begin to ,

develop a new proposed rule package.

I generally support Comunissioner Rogers' approach to l decomunissioning as described in pages 1-3 of the attachment to the COMKR. I believe that this approach sakes sense in that it focuses on the full process that begins with permkcant cessation of operations and ends with termination of the license and allows for adequate opportunity for public input and for NRC 4 intervention at appropriate points in that process. However, the staff should feel free to suggest alternative methods of accomplishing the goals of this approach. In particular, I would be interested in learning the views of staff and OGC (at a briefing on staff's plans for implesmenting Commissioner comunents) on the following points:

(1) If Comunissionpr Rogers' suggested approach were to be implemented, is there a need or a benefit to revising NRC's draf t policy statessent on the "Use of. Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Decomunissioning Plan Approval *? Is there any problem in the NRC approving use of decomunissioning funds for Phase I deccennissioning activities through a " negative consenta procedure?

(2) What are the policy and legal implications of linking comunencement of Phase I decomunissioning activities to a set time frame after the public meeting? Would it make a ,

difference if submittal of the report, rather than the l public meeting, set the clock running? Would there be an 1 g

A f*

C\ H @ W l C j

O ,

  • /

s '

4 2 advantage to putting the time frame in guidance documents ratner than the rule?

(3) Phase III of the approach contemplates a public notification process and a subpart L hearing. Are there alternatives that might combine both, perhaps modeled after the Oregon proceeding for th deconnaissioning of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant?

While I generally agree with Cossaissioner Rogers' views on the specific proposals made in SECY-94-179, I prefer to reserve judgment because I do not want the staff and OGC to feel constrained by the language of either the existing rule or the proposals made in SECY-94-179. This is an opportunit'J to revisit the decommissioning and termination process as a whole and staff and OGC should present their ideas on how NRC should regulate the process before expending significant effort preparing a new proposed rulemaking package.

cc: The Chairman l Commissioner Rogers EDO OGC

]

1 i

r e

, . )

  • - ACTION - B:ckjord, RES/

! 'o UNITED STATES

[ 'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cys: Taylor

.. g- a wass Novon.o.c.nosss S

Milhoan

/ October 5, 1994 g/hk Thompson Blaha AMarkley, NRR Nc'acNay"

/3b6/d'-/ CFeldman, RES / -

DMeyer, ADM i

MEMORANDUM TO: James M. Taylor  !

Executive Director for Operations i Karen D. Cyr General Counsel FROM: ohn C. Hoyle, Acting Secretary h.

SUBJECT:

SECY-94-179 - NOTICE OF PROPOSE RULEMAKING ON DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS and COMKR-94-002 - DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS AND COMMENTS ON SECY-94-179 The Commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has agreed that the staff should review and rework the rule proposed in SECY-94-179 based on the comments provided in the attachment.

The staff should brief the Commissioners upon the framework for the revised rule before beginning to develop a new proposed rule '

package.

(EDO/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 11/8/94) 9400172 RES/NRR The staff should feel free to suggest alternative methods of accomplishing the goals of Conmissioner Rogers' suggested decommissioning approach and should provide views on the following points:

(1) If this approach were to be implemented, is there a need or a benefit to revising NRC's draft policy statement on the "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Decommissioning '

Plan Approval"? Is there any problem in the NRC approving use of decommissioning funds for Phase I decommissioning activities through a " negative consent" procedure?

(2) What are the policy and legal implications of linking comli.3 cement of Phase I decommissioning activities to a set SECY NOTE: SECY-94-179 WAS RELEASED ,TO THE PUBLIC ON JULY 12, 1994. THIS SRM, COMKR-94-002 AND THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 10 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

.-Cj g ZO d C ,

time frame after the public meeting? Would it make a difference if submittal of the report, rather than the public meeting, set the clock running? Would there be an advantage to putting the time frame in guidance documents rather than the rule?

(3) Phase III of the approach contemplates a public notification process and a Subpart L hearing. Are there alternatives that might combine both, perhaps modeled after the Oregon proceeding for the decommissioning of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant?

FBOO/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 11/8/94) 9400172 RES/NRR When the staff .; cusses the framework with the Commissioners, they should in<.ade a discussion of the specific Federal requirements fram NEPA, AEA, CERCLA, etc. with which the NRC is required to be in compliance regarding the decommissioning of nuclear power plants.

(iRBO/OGC) (SECY Suspense: 11/8/94) 9400172 RES/NRR Assuming Commission approval c2 the framework, the staff should submit the revised rule package for Commission review and approval.

tese) RES/NRR (SECY Suspense: 2/17/95) 9400172 1

Attachment:

1. Comments on the Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors by Commissioner Rogers dated September 20, 1994 cc: The Chairman Commissioner Rogers Commissioner de Planque OGC OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACAW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

-* -~

o' -

I DECOMMISSIONING OF NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS AND COMMENTS ON SECY-94-179 K.C. Rogers September 20, 1994 I It is very likely that most licensees of nuclear power plants will be forced to develop a decommissioning strategy that includes a period of SAFSTOR prior to completing decommissioning to a final state suitable for termination of the license e.g.

greenfield, permanent entombment or restricted use. There appear to be three distinct phases of decommissioning that must be addressed in NRC's rules for the decommissioning and termination of licenses for nuclear power reactors.

Phase I This phase would cover permanent cessation of power production operations, granting of a POLA, public notification, early plant modifications, and on-site rearrangement, packaging and removal of components and waste prior to entering SAFSTOR status. This phase includes the licensee's early component removal program during which plant structures, systems, and components may be removed from the facility and shipped off site as allowed by 550.59 and other regulations. The duration of this phase is probably in months to a few years.

At the beginning of this phase there should be public notification of the licensee's decommissioning strategy that would involve a preliminary report and public meeting to discuss the report. This public notification process is described in SECY-94-179 in the proposed 550.82 (a) (4) (i) and involves docketing of the report, placement of copies into NRC and local public document rooms, publishing of a meeting notice in the Federal Register and readily accessible communications media, and the holding of the informal public meeting. The licensee should not conduct any decommissioning activities, other than those activities that would ordinarily be considered routine maintenance, until 30 days after the public meeting.

The basic mode of decommissioning (DECON, SAFSTOR, etc.)

should be disclosed in the report and any other possible options the licensee might wish to consider at a later stage (end of Phase II ). The licensee should address issues of interest to the local community with a particular emphasis on public health and ATTACHMENT 1

2 l

l safety and the environment. Along with the proposed mode of total I decommissioning (completion of Phase III) the licensee should present an outline of the contemplated decommissioning activities and a preliminary schedule for carrying them out. The report 1 should be detailed enough to allow a bounding analysis of costs l so that it is possible for the licensee to demonstrate reasonable j assurance that adequate funds will be available to complete Phase III decommissioning in whatever manner is most sensible to the licensee in the future. The report should satisfy the documentation guidance described in the NRC policy statement on the "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before Detommissioning Plan Approval." Assuming the proposal meets the guidance, the licensee could execute the decommissioning activities unless the NRC interposes an objecticn. However, a period of approximately 30 days following the public meeting should elapse before decommissioning activities commence.

The decommissioning activities that would then be allowed after the comment period are any activitiea allowed under 550.59.

However, 550.59 should be revised to include the four criteria, described in the January 14, 1993 SRM, for determining which activities are permissible prior to approval of a decommissioning plan. Namely, that the licensees may undertake any decommissioning activities that do 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 NRC will develop and conduct inspections apprcpriate to the activities carried out during this phase. The staff would continue to inspect the licensees' 550.59 safety analyses, as it currently does, and stop any activities that it believes involve unreviewed safety questions. It should be noted that the public would still have the opportunity for a limited hearing whenever the operating license is amended, as would be the case when the POLA is issued or when the technical specifications are revised.

The licensee should be able to receive an extension to the license for the predicted period of decommissioning up to the maximum allowable extension period of 40 years. This would require a revision of NRC regulations to readily permit plants that are permanently shut down to be granted a license extension.

Phase II This phase would be SAFSTOR with little on-site or off-site activities other than monitoring of systems required to maintain SAFSTOR e.g. Spent Fuel Pool cooling systems. This phase will probably last for years or even decades and will depend upon the

o 3

availability of LLW sites to accept waste materials from plant dismantlement at a feasible price. If the licensee chooses to proceed to DECON shortly after completion of Phase I, Phase II could be compressed but would probably still be dependent on the availability of suitable radioactive waste sites.

There is no need for any special public notification for entering or during most of the SAFSTOR phase. The requirements on licensees would be the usval ones under a POLA, including the availability of $50.59.

Phase III  !

This phase would cover public notification, complete dismantlement of the plant, and termination of the license including cleanup of the site or permanent entombment of the plant and reassignment of the remainder of the site for other  ;

purposes. This phase is probably measured in months or years.

This phase should require a decommissioning and termination -

l plan somewhat different than currently envisioned and described in 10 CFR 550.82, however, prior to the start of Phase III there should be an additional public notification of the type used for Phase I. Furthermore, as suggested in SECY-94-179 under Option' 2, there should'be'a provision for the opportunity for.a Subpart L. hearing on the plan. These additional requirements appear justified in view of the significant time delay that may conceivably occur between the time that the licensee completes major component removal activities and enters a SAFSTOR phase and the time when final decommissioning activities resume. In addition, there is the likelihood, because of this time delay, that the licensee will have many new operating and engineering  !

personnel, if not an entirely new organization, and new engineering and decommissioning techniques may have become available. i Licensees should be permitted to modify or revise the activities descrsied in the decommissioning and termination plan via a 550.59 typn process. Large changes in the economics of end use of the site may take place during the course of a decommissioning project that could substantially change the mode of decommissioning. Therefore, licensees should be afforded flexibility in the development of a total decommissioning and termination plan consistent with the protection of public health and safety and the environment. .

In the light of the above discussion, I offer the following detailed comments on the proposed rule in the format of the SECY paper: .

i i

(. . ~

4 OPTION 1:

1 1.; Definition of " Permanent Cessation of Ooerations":

I agree-with the; staff recommendation, in particular, the revisions to 550.2, 550.4 (b) (8) , and 550.82 (a) . ,

)

2. Early Notification of Post-Shutdown Plana and~ Activities:

I agree with some aspects of this proposed regulation including submission of the preliminary report and the ,

public notice and meeting on the report (550.82 (4) (i) ) . '

However, the description of the contents of the report should be expanded to cover the information needed to  !

satisfy the guidance given in the NRC policy statement on  !

the "Use of Decommissioning Trust Funds Before  !

-Decommissioning Plan Approval." Furthermore, the j regulation should stipulate that no decommissioning activities.should take place until 30 days following the-i public meeting.

I disagree with the requirement (550. 82 (a) (4) (ii) ) for the '

submittal of the so-called 90-day reports and the holding of l public meetings before any significant decommissioning  !

activities are performed. -I suggest that only 30-day notices of plans.for significant decommissioning activities be given to the NRC, for information only, and publicly noted. Since these activities supposedly do not in'volve  ;

unreviewed safety questions, the reports should be docketed and made public, but I do not feel it is necessary to convene public meetings since the members of the public would have already had the opportunity to provide comments at the preliminary report stage where they could have greater effect. Section 50.82 (a) (4) (ii) should be revised accordingly.

3. Possession-Only License Amendmant (POLA):

I agree with the staff recommendations regarding POLAs.

I also believe that the regulations should be expanded to include language that would extend the. license for the predicted period of decommissioning up to the maximum allowable extension period of 40 years. The regulations should be revised to readily permit permanently shut down plants to be granted a' license extension.

1 5

4. Acolicability of 10 CFR Part 50 to Permanently Shut Down Reactors:

I agree with the staff recommendations regarding the  !

regulations that should be changed to accommodate their  !

applicability to permanently shut down reactors.

5. ADolicability of 10 CFR 50.59 to Permanent 1v Shut Down Reactors:

I' I agree with the suggested change to 10 CFR 50.59.

I agree with the new 550.71(e) and the suggested changes 'o new S50.82 (b) to make the decommissioning and termination plan part of the FSAR.

In accord with my previous discussion, that the decommissioning and termination plan should only have to be submitted before the start of Phase III operations, I believe that the new 550.82(b) should be revised accordingly. A possible solution might be to make the first sentence of 550.82 (b) into a separate paragraph 550.82 (b) (1) . The remainder of 550.82 (b) could be placed in a new paragraph labeled 550.82 (b) (2) and titled

" Decommissioning and Termination Plan." It would stipulate that before initiation of final decommissioning activities could commence, such as dismantlement and cleanup of the site or permanent entombment of the plant, but no later than two years before the site is ultimately released for either unrestricted or restricted use, the licensee must submit a proposed decommissioning and termination plan which shall be a supplement to the FSAR. This could be followed by the rest of S50.82 (b) with appropriate inclusion of the words "and termination" whenever " decommissioning plan" appears.

The regulations should be reviewed for consistency in terminology and usage regarding this point. A requirement for the scheduling of public notice and meetings should also be added, as in 550.82 (a) (4) (i) . Furthermore, as suggested in the paper under Option 2, there should be a provision for the opportunity for a Subpart L hearing on the decommissioning and termination plan.

I agree with the change to add the new S50.82 (c) (6) .

6. Confirmatory Shutdown Order:

I agree with the staff recommendation.

I 2 6 0FTIQR 2:

As may be inferred from my previous comments, I believe the staff has generally gone too,far in Option 2. The public will have sufficient opportunity for comment when the preliminary report is submitted to the Commission. This would be before any decommissioning activities are undertaken and the comments would be more meaningful and-effective.  ;

1. E'50.59 Restrictiggg:

I agree with the staff recommendation that the four criteria from the January 14,.1993 SRM be codified as suggested.in 5 50.59 (d) (2) . This will explicitly indicate to the licensees the Commission's intent as to allowable activities

-prior to approval of the decommissioning and termination plan. This feature should be added to the requirements discussed under Option 1. ,

I do not agree with any of the other recommendations regarding 550.59 restrictions. In particular, I do not agree that the requirement for NRC review and approval of the decommissioning and termination plan should be deleted (Page 11). While many activities can be done prior to decommissioning and termination plan approval, the decommissioning and termination plan itself, as suggested above, may be submitted long after the decommissioning activities were begun under Phase 1. It should be.

thoroughly reviewed and approved by the Commission. The Commission should do more than only approve activities not allowed under 550.59.

2. Subpart L Hearinas at Decommissionino Plan or Partial Decommissionina Anoroval:

I agree with the staff recommendation to provide the opportunity for a Subpart L hearing at the decommissioning and_ termination plan approval stage, however, the reference to a partial decommissioning plan should be deleted. This hearing, if held, should be just before the final Phase III decommissioning activities start. I do not agree that there should be the opportunity for a whole series of hearings and,-as noted previously, do not agree with having 90-day reports and hearings. A single meeting and hearing prior to approval of the decommissioning and termination plan should be sufficient. ,

1 I agree with the suggestion to codify the right to a i 10 CFR 2.206 petition at the license termination step (new 550.82(h)). This feature should be added to the requirements.

I i

4 A A

,s' .

7

- CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS:

i I agree with the staff recommendation regarding the criminal enforcement provisions with the appropriate revision to 550.111(b).

i i

l l

}

e

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20216F487&oldid=3206888"