ML20217F413
| ML20217F413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/03/1997 |
| From: | Jim Hickey NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Camper L, Piccone J, Weber M NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 9710080190 | |
| Download: ML20217F413 (3) | |
Text
,
October 3, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Josephina M, Piccon), Chi;f Operations Branch Division of Industri:1 cnd Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS Larry W. Camper, Chief Medical, Academic and Commercial Use Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS Michael F. Weber, Chief Licensing Branch (FCLB)
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS FROM:
John W. N. Hickey, Chief [0riginal signed by]
Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch Division of Waste Management, NMSS
SUBJECT:
TRIGGERING LEVELS TO REEVALUATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE OF CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES I
As you may recall, Chairman Jackson, in a memorandum dated July 1,1996, asked the staff to examine: "The advisability of (a) establishing criteria that would trigger a reevaluation of the basis upon which financial assurance has been established when changed circumstances could arise which would affect the ability of a licensee to meet financial assurance requirements; and l
(b) poteretlal mechanisms for applying and monitoring the criteria."
Attached is the March 18,1997, memorandum responding to the Chairman's request. The staff identified categories of changed circumstances; developed trigger criteria to match the circumstances; and opted to implement the trigger criteria by adding the criteria to existing inspection procedures and licensing review documents.
4 Lou Bykoski has had preliminary discussions with individuals from your staff on this subject.
This memorandum is to formally request that you identify which of your inspection procedures and licensing review documents should be updated to implement this effort. We will assist as needed to revise the relevant procedures.
Attachment:
As stated CONTACT: Louis Bykoski, LLDP/DWM
%QQ[] {} ] ]hhhi (301) 415-6754 yTICKET:
N/A kTDISTRIBUTION:
Central File' LLDP r/f NMSS r/f PUBLIC RJohnson RNelson LBell ACNW T3 receive a copy of this documesin small box on "OFC:" line enter: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure; "E" = Copy vdth attachment / enclosure; "N" = No copy Path & File Name: S:\\DWM\\LLDP\\ LMB \\TRIGLVLWPD OFC LLDPm LLDF)
LLDPp h
h i/bg T
fon J key NAME DATE 10/ ) /97 10/ 3 /97 -
10/ 19 7 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ACNW: YES _/ NO _,
Category: Proprietary _ or CF Only _
IG :YES ~ NO ~
1 I l
}
l-LSS :YES _ NO _
Delete file after distribution: Yes _ No _
(dg(fM i
l 9710000190 971003 PDR WASTE WM-3 PDR
October 3, 1997
, MEMORANDUM TO:
Josephin] M. Piccons, Chi' f Operctions Branch Division of industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS Larry W. Camper, Chief Medical, Academic and Commercial Use Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS Michael F. Weber, Chief Licensing Branch (FCLB)
DWiilon of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS FROM:
John W. N. Hickey, Chief [0riginal signed by]
Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects Branch Division of Waste Management, NMSS
SUBJECT:
TRIGGERING LEVELS TO REEVALUATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE OF CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES As you may recall, Chairman Jackson, in a memorandum dated July 1,1996, asked the staff to examine: "The advisability of (a) establishing criteria that would trigger a reevaluation of the basis upon which tinancial assurance has been established when changed circumstances could arise which would affect the ability of a licensee to meet financial assurance requirements; ana (b) potential mechanisms for applying and monitoring the criteria."
Attached is the March 18,1997, memorandum responding to the Chairman's request. The staff identified categories of changed circumstances; developed trigger criteria to match the circumstances; and opted to implement the trigger criteria by adding the criteria to existing inspection procedures and licensing review documents.
l Lou Bykoski has had preliminary discussions with individuals from your staff on this subject.
This memorandum is to formally request that you identify which of your inspection procedures and licensing review documents should be updated to implement this effort. We will assist as needed to revise the relevant procedures.
Attachment:
As stated CONTACT: Louis Bykoski, LLDP/DWM (301) 415-6754 TICKET:
N/A
,t yDISTRIBUTIQN:
'd Central File LLDP r/f NMSS r/f PUBLIC RJohnson RNelson LBell ACNW Tm receive a copy of this documeeln small box on "OFC:"line enter: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure;"E" = Copy wtth attachment / enclosure;"N" = No copy Path A File Name: S:\\DWM\\LLDP\\ LMB \\TRIGLVL.WPD OFC LLDP,
LLDFf LLDPr h
h i/bg T
$n J
ey NAME DATE 10/ ) /97 10/ 3 /97 10/ /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ACNW:YES _/ NO _
Category: Proprietary _ or CF Only _
IG :YES _ NO _
LSS : YES _ NO _
Delete file after distribution: Yes _ No _
~
..~- _.-.
~
pt 9 M *g,q
/1 t
UNITED STATES j
,j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
^f WASHINGTON, D.C. 2000H001
\\..... 'e#
October 3, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO:
Josephine M. Piccone, Chief Operations Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS Larry W. Camper, Chief Medical, Academic and Commercial Use Safety Branch Division of Industrial and Medical Nuclear Safety, NMSS Michael F. Weber, Chief Licensing Branch (FCLB)
Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, NMSS y
/
FROM:
John W. N. Hickey, Chief- 'f
~ f' N
Low-Level Waste and Decbrtimissioning Projects Branch Division of Waste Management, NMSS
SUBJECT:
TRIGGERING LEVELS TO REEVALUATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE OF CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES As you may recall, Chairman Jackson, in a memorandum dated July 1,1996, asked the staff to examine: "The advisability of (a) establishing criteria that would trigger a reevaluatior) of the basis upon which financial assurance has been established when changed circumstances could arise which.vould affect the ability of a licensee to meet financial assurance requirements; and (b) potential mechanisms for applying and monitoring the criteria."
Attached is the March 18,1997, memorandum responding to the Chairman's request. The staff ioentified categories of changed circumstances; developed trigger criteria to match the circumstances; and opted to implement the trigger criteria by adding the criteria to existing inspection procedures and licensing review documents.
Lou Bykoski has had preliminary discussions with individuals from your staff on this subject.
This memorandum is to formally request that you identify which of your inspection procedures and licensing review documents should be updated to implement this effort. We will assist as l
needed to revise the relevant procedures.
Attachment:
As stated t
CONTACT: Louis Bykoski, LLDP/DWM l
(301) 415-6754 l
j'_
p aseg i**,*
/
op UNITED STATES l'
S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION h-
'f WA5HINGTON, D.C. 20555-4001 Q
o March 1.8, 1997 h
l MEMORANDUM T0:
Chairman Jackson FROM:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director i r Operations CUBJECT:
TRIGGERING LEVELS TO REEVALUATE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE OF CHANGING CIRCUMSTANCES INTRODUCTION:
In.a memorandum dated July 1, 1996, you asked the staff to examine:
_j "The advisability of (a) establishing criteria which would trigger a reevaluation of the basis upon which financial assurance has been established when changed circumstances could arise which would affect the ability of a licensee to meet financial assurance requirements: and (b) potential mechanisms for applying and monitoring the criteria."
The staff provided responses to the above questions and two others by memorandum dated August-22, 1996. from James M. Taylor. Executive Director for-Operations, to you.-
In that response, the staff indicated it would consider' the establishment of triggering levels in review and inspection procedures.
The following constitutes the staff's further response, indicating the status of the staff's review of this matter, in addressing the question. the staff _ focused on three areas of consideration.
The first-area was to -list possible conditions in which changed circumstances could arise that would affect costs.
The second area focused on the crite-ia that'could trigger a reevc.luation based on changed circumstances, The third area-of consideration dealt with the implementation of the reevaluation and j
the need for a rulemaking.
CONTACT:
Louis M. Bykoski, NMSS 415 6754 i
a
~'
'l Chairman Jackson.
A.
Conditions that Affect Financial As wr3nce Some of the conditions that could affect the basis of financial assurance follow:
e Transfer of ownership or control of the license.
Since Nuclear Regulatory Commission a) proval is required for such cases, in its review, staff ensures t1at the new entity provides any required financial assurance before author 1hig the license transfer. When licensee ownership changes, staff requires that the new entity provide revised financial assurance instruments to ref'ect the new organization When control of a license is changed, staff reviews whether this change will affect any financial assurance that is in place.
For power reactor licensees. a chance in their status from " electric e
utility." aj defined in 10 CFR 50.2. to a "non-electric utility "
Such changes either would be precipitated by changes in ownership or control that would be reviewed, as described above. or could result from actions taken by rate regulators, which the staff is tracking.
Current regulations permit an option for providing decommissioning s
financial assurance (an external sinking fund) for electric 3
ut111tles (10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(11)). that is not considered sufficient. Standing alone, for non-electric utility power reactor licensees.
Change in the radiological conditions at the fac111tv subsequent to the submittal of a decommissioning funding plan (DFP) or decommission 1no olan (DP).
These situations could include:
a.
Incidents or events; b.
Unplanned process upsets:
Changes in scope of operations, facilities, equipment, and c.
decommissi.ning:
d.
Changes in waste management technologies (e.g., radiological surveys, dismantlement, decontamination. volume reduction, recycling) and regulatory requirements:
e.
Identification of unauthorized material or form; and f.
Possession limit changes.
In the past, there have been few cases where NRC has discovered conditions that significantly change decommissioning cost estimates in DFPs or DPs.
Two examples where decommissioning cost estimates were affected were related to c)ntamination at the fuel fabrication plants operated by Westinghouse in Columbia. South Carolina, and General Electric in Wilmington, North Carolina.
NRC reviewed the significance of these events and requested revised CFPs.
r
Chairman Jackson Licensees with leakina or rupturs' cealed sources.
Licensees with e
sealed sources are required to perform periodic leak tests of their sources to verify source integrity.
Leakage or rupture of sealed sources must be reported to staff.
These events could place licensees into the category requiring financial assurance.
Chunaes in waste disposal costs that could affect the current cost e
estimate.
Staff has periodically prepared revisions to NUREG-1307. " Report on Waste Burial Charges."
This document provides licensees guidance on currer.t commercial low level radioactive waste disposal charges.
The latest version. Revision 5.
was published in August 1995.
Power reactor licensees are required to annually update cost estimates and include changes in waste disposal costs.
Materials and fuel-cycle licensees update cost estimates and include waste disposal cost changes in DFPs every 5 years.
e Failure of a licensee ta nay reauired fees This may be an indicator that the licensee may have financial assurance problems.
B.
Reevaluation Triqqer Criteria I
The staff considered the subject of criteria that would trigger a reevaluation based on the changed circumstances.
The following criteria are proposed for each of the six cases identified above:
e Transfer of ownership or control of the license Staff will continue to review decommissioning financial assurante in all cases insolving the transfer of ownership or control of a license.
As part of this review, staff will assess whether any significant changes in proposed licensee operations or site radiological conditions have occurred that would require decommissioning financial assurance changes.
For power reactor licensees. a change in their status from " electric e
utility." as defined in 10 CFR S0.2. to a "non-electric utility."
Proposed changes to NRC regulations which more sharply define what qualifies an entity as an " electric utility" as opposed to a "non-electric utility" should be adequate to help staff recognize those power reactor licensees that no longer meet NRC's definition of " electric utility" and which therefore need reevaluation.
Ch3 nae in the radioloaical conditions at the facility subseauent to the subrittal of a DFP or DP.
For power reactor licensees, new radiological conditions are adequately covered by the requirements for annual updates required in 10 CFR 50.75.
For other licensees, when staff becomes aware of significant changes in radiological conditions. staff will review a specific licensee's current compliance with decommissioning financial assurance requirements and request the licensee to evaluate whether additional financial assurance is needed.
If the licensee's evaluation results in J
Chairman Jackson,
increased decommissioning costs inat exceed the contingency factor in a decommissioning cost estimate (NRC guidance is to use a 25 percent contingency factor in the licensee's decommissioning cost estimates). NRC staff will request tt. any financial assurance instrument be revised to reflect the increased decommissioning costs.
Additional guidance 1n cases where significant soil contamination occurs is found in the Branch Technical Position entitled "When to Remediate Inadvertent Contamination of the Terrestrial Environment,"
e licensees with leakino or ruptured sealed sources.
Staff will review the need for decommissioning financial assurance or the need to upgrade existing decommissioring financial assurance upon discovery of leaking or ruptured sealed sources.
If the inventory quantity thresholds for unsealed material are exceeded and. if within 90 days, the leaking or ruptured source is not transferred to another licensee and contamination remediated staff will request licensees to provide the required level of decommissioning financial assurance and to take remediation action.
l e
Chanoes in waste disDosal costs. that could affect the current cosi estim3te.
On issuance of revisions to NUREG 1307, " Report on Waste Burial Charges." the Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning Projects j.
Branch staff will assess whether significant cost increases have occurred that should trigger licensees to revise cost estimates and 1
provide additional levels of financial assurance to reflect the increases.
For power reactors, the required annual coE*. estimate adjustment should accommodate waste disposal cost incre-. s.
For other licensees, if waste disposal costs double, staff w141 consider requiring licensees to revise cost estimates.
e Failure of a licensee to pay reouired fees.
In cases of fee delinquency referred to cogn12 art licensing offices, by the License Fee and Accounts Receivable Branch. for enforcement action, the licensing offices will assess any impacts on applicable current financial assurance arrangements.
C.
Imolementation For power reactor licensees, no changes to staff licensing, inspection, or regulatory procedures other than the aforementioned rulemaking redefining "electirc utility" are needed to implement the above decommissioning cost estimate reevaluation triggering criteria.
Under 10 CFR 50.75(d), non power reactor licensees are required to provide a description of the means of adjusting the cost estimate and associated funding level periodically over the life of the facility.
Staff has asked research and test reactor licensees to provide updated estimates based on this requirement, and plans to continue to use this approach.
For materials and fuel-cycie licensees the staff's preferred option is to implement the triggering criteria through modification of existing guidance and procedures.
This ap3 roach has the advantage of more timely implementation than would be possible t1 rough rulemaking.
l l
m
[.
t Chairman Jackson 5-Under this option the staff would issue to licensees and staff an information notice on triggering criteria and would request the appropriate Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards divisions to incorporate this guidance into existing inspection procedures and licensing review documents.
Materials and fuel cycle licensees are both on a 10 year license renewal cycle.
The revised guidance would include adding license conditions to require materials licensees to revise DFPs at intervals no longer than 5 years.
A second option considered by staff would entail a rulemaking to require materials licensees that exceed the trigger levels presented above to submit to NRC a reevaluation of the adequacy of their decommissioning financial assurance funding.
A rulemaking would provide a regulatory basis for enforcement actions if licensees do not provide timely reevaluadons of decommissioning cost estimates.
However, such enforcemen; actions are expected to be so infrequent as to not justify the resource commitments that would be needed for rulemaking, CONCLUSIONS:
The staff plans n) changes to current practices for power and non power reactor licensees other than completion of the rulemaking redefining " electric utility."
For materials and fuel-cycle licensees, the staff plans to modify appropriate licensing and inspection guidance as described herein.
cc:
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner D1cus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan SECY OGC OCA OPA
y i
Chairman Jackson -
s Under this option the staff w W d 1ssue to licensees and staff an information notice on triggering criteria and would request the appropriate. Nuclear Material Safety and Safegt/ards divisions to incorporate this guidance' into existing inspection procedures and licens1q review documents, Materials and-fuel cycle licensees are both on a 10 year license renewal cycle.
The revised guidance would include adding license conditions to require materials
-licensees to revise DFDs at Intervals no longer than 5 years.
A second option considered by staff would entail a rulemaking to require materials licensees that exceed the trigger levels presented above to submit to NRC a reevaluation of the adequacy of their decommissioning financial assurance funding.
A rulemaking would provide a regulatory basis for-enforcement actions if licensees do not provide timely reevaluations of decommissioning cost estimates.
However, such eniorcement actions are expected to be sc infrequent as to not justify the resource commitments that would be
~ ced for rulemaking,
[0NCLUS10t{S:
The staff plans no changes to current practices for power and non power reacter licensees other than completion of the rulemaking redefitnng " electric utility."
for materials and fuel cycle licensees, the staff plans to modify appropriate licensing and inspection guidance as described herein, cc:
Commissioner Rogers Commissioner D1cus Comissioner Diaz Commissloner McGaff1gan SECY OGC OCA OPA TIC.iE T NO: [0096-00490 DIS TRIBU TIO+
Centret file NMSS tt!
DWM til DWM t/f NMS$ Orr.0!! t/f (00 til CPoland PSotsel PT:essler MBrodgers L Bell RNelson A CNW 3:\\D WMJL OPA Md\\ TRIGl *,"
MarA SenaR Bones in Concurrence Block to Define Distnbutton Copy Preference; In small Bou on *0FC.* lune enter: C = Cover ( = Cover & inclosure N = No Copy
'SEE PREVIOUS CONCURR(NCE OFC LLDP' NMSS' LLDP' OGC' IMNS' NRR' NAME LBykoskilwd (Kraus JHickey STreby DCool DMathews DATE 2/20/97 2/14/97 2/20/97 2/18/97 2/21/97 2/21197 i
mmmmmmuur N IMI M
EME N
EWIMI N OFC DWM' NMSS' OfD,$
EDG NAME JTGreeves CPaperiello HT mfason LCal}an h p97 hI 7
l 197
/ 19 7 DATE 2/24/97 2/26/97 OFFICIAL RECO iD COPY in small Box on 'DATE:' line enter: M = E Mail Distribution Copy H = Hard Copy proofed /2/24/97/DWM CJ PDR : YES _ NO A Category; Prope6etary _ or CF Only 1 i
ACNW: YES A NO _
(G :YES _ NO A Delete file after distribution: Yes a No a