ML20217H252
| ML20217H252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/26/1997 |
| From: | Richter B NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ICONE5-2574, NUDOCS 9804290330 | |
| Download: ML20217H252 (6) | |
Text
,
Proceedings of ICONES:
5* International Conference on Nuclear Engineering May 26-30,1997, Nice, France i
ICONES-2574 i THE NRC'S RESPONSE TO ELECTRIC UTILITY DEREGULATION AS IT RELATES TO FINANCIAL ASSURANCE FOR DECOMMISSIONING Brian J. Richter i Division ofNuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission Mail Stopt 9-F31 1 Washington,DC 20555, U.S.A.
phone: (301)415-6221 fax: (301)415-5389 ;
e-mail:bjrgnre gov AiSTRACT electricity industry." (Cams,1996) 1he most important driwr, ofcourse, The U.S. ebetric utihty industry is in the throes of a rmjor is the increasing number of Federal and State initiatives addressing restruuuring caused by deregulation by rate regulators. Ore deregulation. i consequence ofthis restructuring is concem over the utilitics' ability to On the Federal kvel, there are at hast four pieces of relevant l continue to gmrartee finarchl assurance for the operatbn and legislation submittedto tle 105th Congress. The Federal Energy decommissioning ofnuchar power reactors. Prbr to deregulation, Commission (FERC)has,in order No. 888, April 24,1996, cfTectively reguhtory agencies owrsaw utihties' colketiom of funds for safe established a precedent that, for electric sales under FERCjurisdiction, operationanddecommissioning. Afterderegulation,therewillnolonger there will be full recovery ofall costs that were prudently incurred based be regulatory owrsight in these areas for many utilities, nor will utilities on an expectation of serving customers in the future and that become ha ve a relatively assured source ofincome from ratepayers. stranded as a result of moving to a competitive market. Although the llence, the NRC believed it necessary to revise its regulations so FERC order pertains to wholesale tr arkets, most believe the precedent that it could maintain assurance that adequate funds remain available for has been set and the same standard will apply to stranded costs that result operation and decommissioning ofnuclear power reactors. The NRC from retail competition. Further, the Department ofEnergy is working on published an advance notice ofproposed rulemaking seeking comment draft restructuring legislation that will likely requue States that open retail on general revisions it was proposing, as well as responding to specific competition to consider a mechanism for recovery of stranded costs, questions relevant to the issue. Dased upon comments received, the includeemironmental protection and reliability prosisions, and support NRC is proposing sewral modifications to its regulations. State restructunngactivitiesbyclarifyingthejurisdictionalrolesofthe The NRC has also undertaken related actions, including the is suance States and the Federal Govemment, but would probably not impose a of anadministrativeletter,adrailpolicystatement,anddrafistandard Federal mandate on States to open their retail markets to competition.
review plans,which address financial assurance for decommissioning. On the State level, there are at least ten States that have restructuring plans under way, at difTering stages ofdevelopment. So far, common features ofthe plans include a phase-in offull retail competition, creation INTRODUCTION of an independert system operator, recowry of sone or al of the From the number ofrecent articles in the technical and the popular stranded costs, and open nondiscriminatory access. Some plans also press and the number ofconferences being held on the subj ect, it is clear proside for the unbundling ofbills and sersices, the functional separation that deregulation ofthe electric utility industry is well under way in the ofdistribution and generation, and rate caps.
United States. Neil Cams, the then Chairman, President, and CEO of The goal of all these actions, of course is increased competition in WolfCrock Nuclear operating Corporation, began his keynote address the electric utilty bdustry. This increased conpetition rmy cause at one ofthese conferences with: "One ofthe larger growth industries in integrated power systems to separate their systems into functional areas.
this countryiswriting, lecturing,andseminatingaboutderegulatingthe Therefore, a lcensee may diwst ebetric gercratim assets from 9804290330 970526 PDR ORG NREB 1
0//
PDR t pr<o
The 5th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering ICONES May 26-30,1997 transmission and distnbution assets by forming separate subsidiaries or review is one required when there is a transfer oflicense or a request for separate conpanies for gpreratiort Or a licensee nmy separate or a name change.
"disaggregate"its functions through restructtning, mergers, and corporate spin +1Ts that lead to changes in owners or operators officensed power reactors. Funding Assurance for Decommissioning Funding assurance for decommissioning for nuclear power plants is govemed by a three-stage process. First, as required in Title 10 of the POTENTIAL EFFECT OF DEREGULATION ON THE NRC Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR), section 50. 33 (k), on or before July The NRC needs to determine the potential etreets that increased 26, 1990, Icensees were required to submit a report, inckxiing a competition from deregulation will have on stranded costs and, in tum, on certification,anhow fmancial assurance for decommissioning would be the safe operation and decommissioning ofpower reactors. Similarly, provided. Second, licensees are required to annually update the amount NRC neoda to examme the relationship between itselfas health and safety ordecommissioning funding assurance recpired under the formulas in 10 regulator and the rate re[n.lators. NRC must determine whether rate CFR 50.75(c), although they are not required to file this adjustment with deregulation and restructuring will result in new types ofreactor owners the NRC. Licensees are tlrn required to adjust collectbus from and operators that might afTect safe operations and funding assurance for ratepayers in coordmation with the appopriatepublic utility commissions decommissioning. The NRC must determine whether its policies and (PUCs) or FERC. Third, five years before permanent cessation of regulations apply to these new entities. Ifnot, the NRC must then identify operations,a licensee must submit a preliminary decommissioning cost the impacted areas (such as fmancial qualifications, decommissioning estimate that includes a funding plan that would make up any additional fundmg assurance, interim spent fuel management, and antitrust review) decommissioning funds needed over the last fiveyears ofoperation, so andettemptiomodifythem. that at the time ofpermanent eessation ofoperations, all funds estimated The NRC has recognized the primary role that State and Federal to be needed for decommissioning would be available. By the time economic regulators serve in setting rates that include nppropriate levels submissbn of tic post-slutdown decomuissionity actisities report offinxlingforsafeoperationanddecommissioning Potentialderegulation (PADAR)is submitted, licensees should be ftdly funded, although final ofthepower generating industry has created uncestainty with respect to funding plans and adjustments to them during any safe storage period are whetherexisting NRC regtdations conceming decommissioning funds and subject to NRC audit. For those licensees that shut down their power related financial mechanisms will require rrnlification to account for utihty plants prematurely (that is, before the scheduled end of their operating reorganinttions not contemphted when currett fnancial assurarce license term),10 CFR 50.82 prmides that the schedule for collecting any requirements werepromulgated. balance of funds estimated to be needed for decommissioning will be determined on a case-by-case basis.
EXISTING NRC REQUIREMENTS Before discussing the actions the NRC has under way, it would be Foreign Ownership beneficial to review some relevant existing requirements. Applicatioas for license for new facilities or for transfers ofownership ofexisting facilities may inchxle requests by foreign entities to own all or part ofa reactor facility. In general, section 103d of the AEA prohibits Financial Qualifications fbreign ownership, ckxnination. or control ofa license applicant.
Section 182a of the Atome Errrgy Act of 1954, as anended (AEA), prmides tic Commission with the abikty to ask fbr the information it deems necessary to decide on the technical and financial NRC Definition of " Electric Utility" l
qualifications ofan applicant for a license. The NRC has procedures for Deregulation may cause some licensees to no longer meet the reviewbg the financial qualifcations for any appleant for a new definition of"clectric utility"as defined in 10 CFR 50.2. Should this occur l construction permit (CP), though therc are none at present. The only to a licensee, the ticensing basis under which the NRC originally found a entities that the NRC is required to resiew for fmancial qualifications at the licensee to be financially qualified to construct, operate,or own its power operating license (OL) stage are those applicants that do not meet the plant, as well as to accumulate adequate funds to ensure decommissioning NRC'sdefmitianof"electricutility." Alinancialqualificationreviewis at the end ofreactor life would be affected.
obviously required for a combined license application, that is, when an In general, the NRC has distinguished between its power reactor cpplicant applies for a combined CP and OL he NRC's regulations electric utility licensees and all other licensees. For example,in 1984, gowrning financial qualification reviews also allow for post-OL non- because of a court decisbn. the NRC chminated the fmancial transfer reviews, in which the NRC may ask an entity for more detailed qualifications roiew ofapplicants for operating licenses. In 1988, when financial information ifdetermined appropriate by the NRC. His has the fmancial assurance fordecommissioning rulemaking was made final, been used by the NRC in limited situations. De last financial qualification the NRC albwed its ebetro utilty Icensees to accunuhte 2
l l-
The 5th international Conference on Nuclear Engineering ICONE5 May 26-30,1997 decommissioning funds over the expected remaining operating lives of In response to these desebping issues, the NRC has been theirplants and did not require assurance for unfunded balances that other responding in a variety of ways discussed here in chronological order.
licenses wererequiredtoprovide. First, with thoughts ofmodifying pertment parts of the regulations dealing In 10 CFR 50.75(e)(3), the NRC defines the acceptable methods with the financial assurance requirements for decommissioning nuclear l for electric utihties to provide financial assurance for decommissioning. power reactors, the NRC published in the EsdadRcais'norApril 8, i l Lese rnethods include prepayment, an extemal sinking fund in w hich I996 (61 FR 15427), an advarce retice of proposed rulernaking j pyments are made at least annually, and a surety method or insurance; (ANPR). In it, the NRC was looking for comments onia consideration
{
i a statement ofintent is acceptable for Federal Government licensees. For toamendgf 50.2,50.75,and50.82torequirethatelectricutilityreactor
! licenses that are not utilities,10 CFR 50.75(eX2) lists the acceptable licensees provide assrance tht the fuD estimated cost of l
options. A couph of the nrthods are connon to the utility 1 sting, decommissioning willbe avaibbb tirou@ an acceptabb guarantee l prepayment and the statenrnt of ntent for FederalIrensees. Non- mechanism if the licenses are no longer subject to rate regulation by utilities can also use an extemal sinking fund in which deposits are made PUCs or FERC and do nc( fave a guaranteed source ofincome. He ;
- at least annually, but it must be coupled with a suretymethod ofinsurance, amendment would also allowlicensees to assume a positive real rate of i the value ofwhich may be decreased by the amount being accumulated retum on decommissioning funds during the safe storage period. Lastly, l in the shking fund. Further, ron-utihs may use a surety nrtled, aperiodicreportingrequirementwouldbeestablished. Inresponse,the
! insurance,orotherguaranteemethod. Aparentcompanyguaranteeof NRC received 650 comments from 42 commenters. He commenters funds fordecommissioning costs based on a fmancial test may be used if were classified into four groups. The largest group ofrespondents was the guarantee and test meet the requirements in Appendix A to 10 CFR utilities and utility groups (28 commenters). Public utility commissions and j Part 30. In general, the tests relate to amounts of net worth and other related organizations submitted nine comments, and two public interest ratios, bond ratings for the parent companies, and the like. groups submitted comments, as did three commenters referred to as With respect to the trans fer oflicenses, the NRC must evaluate and "other."
approve all direct and indirect transfers under 10 CFR 50.80. The NRC Besides seeking comments on the proposed amendments, the ANPR evaluation is based on finarcial quahfications of tle transferee by specifically asked for comments on six areas ofconsideration: timing and determining whether the new entity will mcet the definition and remain an extert ofelectricutilityderegulation,strandedcosts,nuclearfinancial electricutility,reviewingrecent fnuurial performarce, and for tlose quahfications and 4mmksioning fundmg assurance, decommissioning restructurings that create holding companies, requiring that the holding funding assurarre and a Federal Gosemment licensee, status of company either be added to the license or obtain a commitment from the decommissioning tmst funds during the safe storage period, and reporting j licenseecr to inform the NRC before significant assets are transferred to on the status ofdecommissioning funds. l the parent. Lastly,the NRC needs to analyze the antitrust implications of The comments ran the prrut of opinion on tirse topics. With the transfers as required under section 105c of the Atomic Energy Act. respect to the ANPR questions rehtbg to tie tming and exters of ne NRC has provided more flexibility to its electrical utility licensees deregulation, commenters' answers varied from as soon as 199R, to than toother licensees because electrical utilities have existed in a highly withn 5 or 10 years, to a considerable kngth of tne. Regarding a stmetured emironment regulated by PUCs or FERC, and electric utilities restructuring or deregulation scenario, indisidual commenters had some have had a virtually assured source offunds from their customers for the specifs tloughts, but many corrmenters said there was sgnifrant costs associated with producing, transmitting, and distributing electricity uncertamty with respcct to the breadth, timing, and implementation details indefinedfranchiseareas. ofthenewcompetitiveelectricbusiness. Asonecommenternoted,the pace of dereguhtbn wil be set by Federal and State kgishtbn.
Commenters, in general, stated that the ultirmte extent of rate NRC RESPONSE TO DEREGULATION (de) regulation will be the deregulatian ofelectricity generation, but not of The NRC believes that action is necessary on its part to be in a transmissbn and dstributbn rates. Bere were diwrse siews and positbn to respond to the upcoming changes n the ebetric utility thoughts on the resulting industry structure, but as a couple ofcommenters mviammunt. uis is especially important since the industry is restructunng noted, the NRC shouki abandon any attempt to antripate market in an efTort to become more competitive in r esponse to Federal and state structure and any rule should accommodate nuclear units subject to regulatory initiatives. Le increase in competition could result in economic traditional regulation and those in the new competitive markets. The last pressures that may affeet the way licensees address maintenance and the question in this area focused on the differences in State polcies and safetyofnuclear powerplant operations, as well as affect the a vailability implications. Answers varied, but ifone can draw an inference from ofadequate funds for decommissioning. I lence, these aetions reinforce present conditions,it appears that reform may proceed at difTerent speeds the NRC's position that action is both necessary and timely. in different States because oflocal market and political pressures.
The message the sta fTreceived from these comments is that the NRC is correct in its approach that deregulation is here to stay and that the Proposed Rulemaking NRC mustrespond to it in some fashion by modify ing its regulations.
3
a The 5th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering ICONES May 26-30,1997 The second area ofconsideration in the ANPR was stranded costs. TVA had at one time temporanly depleted its decommissioning fund."
Many commenters thought regulators would allow prudently incuned The staffs positbn is to not elimnate tle special status afforded to strarxled costs to be recovered h sorre rmnner, especbily Federal licensees as such action may result in a backfit that would be decommissioning costs. However, the NRC is aware that stranded costs difficulttojustify.
must be addressed to ensure that they are being adequately handled and The status ofdecommissioning trust funds during the safe storage that licensees are not fmancially afTected so as to put public health and period was thenext ares ofconsideration. Themajorityofcommenters safety in danger. He proposed reporting requirements are seen by the supported allowing cmdit for eamings on funds during extended storage stafTas a vehicle for the NRC to keep atop this potential problem. periods. Some argued that ifcredits for camings were not allowed, more ne third area ofconsideration in the ANPR was nuclear financial funds than necessary would be collected, therebygenera ting unwarranted qualifications and decommissioning funding assurance. nere were nine expense to Icensees and custoners arxl possible htergrrratbnal subyuestions under this heading: funding a ssurance to cover premature inequities. Still others,in support ofcredit for eamings, stated that this shutdowns, a power reactor operator that ceases to be a utility, a variety should cover not only the extended sa fe storage period, but other periods of assurarre options, fnmeial test quahfratbns, PUC or FERC as well. He stafTproposes to allow licensees to take credit for camings certification,the impact ofaccelerated funding, potential shortfalls from on extemal sinking funds from the time ofthe funds' collection through the underestimating costs, a captive insurance pool, and other NRC options decommissioning period. The proposed reporting requirement pro ides in case of a limited role for the PUCs or FERC. the NRC with the ability to monitor licensees' decommis sioning funds.
In the proposed rule, the NRC responded to all these issues. Suflice This proposed actbn would prmide licensees n: lief from current it to say for here that the staffs position was to state that NRC's requirements with no adwrse impact on puble leahh and safety, underlying philosophyof fnancial assurance for decorrmssbnng is licensees.orNRC resources.
unc ha ngcd. Basically, licensees that remain " electric utilities" by the A related issue was whether the NRC should specify a rate ofretum NRC's revised dermition are to cornply with th: same financial a ssurance forlicensees to use in calculating camings. Commenters suggested the regulations as before. However, with deregulation, the stafTdoes not use of variable rates ofreturn dependent upon what the licensees were beliew that it would be able to identify all the potential types oflicensees able tojustify, or rates tied to bond rates, or rates established by States. J there may be. Therefore, new and unique restructuring proposals will The stafTproposes to use ofa 2 percent real rate ofreturn and recognizes necessarily involve ad hoc reviews by the NRC. Further, the NRC will that its implicit use of a zero real rate ofretum was too conservative.
exercise direct oversight ofsuch reviews to maintain a consistent NRC Historically real(i.e.,inflationadjusted,aftertax)ratesofretumfrom policytowardnewentities. U.S. Treasuryissues have been around 2 percent, and the stafTproposes I The fourth area ofconsideration related to decommissioning funding to allow licensees to use 2 percent in their calculations. However, higher assuranceandaFederalGovemmentlicensee. Almostallcommenters amounts ofeamings will be allowed during the period ofreactor opera tion teak the position that Federal licensees should be treated the same way ifspecificallydeterminedbyarate-settingauthority. Ifratesarelower as non-Federallicensees. Le general feeling was that difTerent treatment than 2 percent,10 CFR 50.82 already pro ides that licensees are to for Federallicensees could create competitive advantages for the Federal adjust decommissioning funds during safe storage to reflect changes in licensees, and that NRC should ensure that the playing field remained costestimates.
lew1. Only'lVA took the position that ample reasons exist for continuing Reporting on the sus of the decommissioning funds was the last the use ofstatements ofintent a s provided under the current regulations. area ofconsideration. While most commenters supported a reporting I lowever, TVA also provided an extended description of the steps it has requirement, there was concem with content, frequency, and possible takentouseanextemaltrust,"allrequirements" contracts anditspower duplication ofetTort. The stafThas proposed to implement a reporting toissueindebtednesstoensureitsdecommissioningcosts. Afactorthat requirement that would have licensees submit a report once every 3 years, weighs heavily in this decision is that the NRC's Office ofthe Inspector and annually ifwithin 5 years ofthe planned end ofoperation. To make General published an Aulit Report,"NRC's Decommissioning Financial the report as simple as possible for the licensees, the NRC plans to issue Assuranec Requirements fbr Federal Licensees May Not be Suflicient," a drafl reguhtory guide that would endorse Financial Accounting (NRC-OIO,1996). The report found that " ..NRC's decision to allow Standards Board'(FASB) draft standard No.158-B, " Accounting for Federal licensees to use a statement ofintent...wa s ba sed primarily on the Certain Liabilities Related toClosure or Removal oflong-Lived Assets."
assunption that the Federal Gowmnrrt would pay the fnancial The NRC proposes endorsing this draft FASB standard as a means of l obligations of the lone Federal licensee....should it be unable to do so. providing guidance for licensees to comply with those portions of the However, based on our review of the U.S. Code and discussions with NRC's regulations regarding a licensee's reporting on the status ofits officials from the Department ofthe Trea sury, the Office ofManagement decornmissioning funding. Licensees wouU comply with the FASB j and Budget and TVA,we believe NRC's assumption is questionable."
l Be report also fmnd "...that, although not required, TVA ha s es tablished a funddedicatedtomeetitsdecommissioningobligations. However, 8 FASB is a private body that establishes authoritative financial because this is an intemal fund it can be used for other purposes. In fact, accounting and reporting standards. ;
i 4
i
The 5th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering ICONES May 26-30,1997 standard once it becorres foal to remiin consistent with gercrally concems regarding the potential safety impacts on NRC power reactor accepted accounting principles. He NRC has resiewed the proposed licensees resulting from economic deregulation and restructuring ofthe contents ofthe reputs on decommissioning fund, to ensure that the needs electric utility industry and the means by which NRC intends to address ofthe agency are balanced against the time constraints of the licensees. those concerns. The draft policy indicates that the NRC has not found a This proposed rulemaking is scheduled to go to the Commission in consistent relationshiphetween a licensee's financial health and general the Spring of 1997, to seek Commission approval for publication in the indicators ofa plant's safety. Ilowever, the NRC can rely on inspections
[gdgggggittgt to chrk onphnt safety performance, and shouki pubk health and safety require, the NRC may require a plant to shut down. If the shutdown were pimnanentand if deregubtion occtried at the same tne, the Administrative Letter licensee may no longer have the funds necessary to decommission the 1 Le NRC's next step in responding to electric utility deregule tion, a s plant. Tirrefore, while the NRC is concened about the irrpact of it relates to deconmissionirs fmancial assurarse, was to issue an deregulation and restructurmg on the adequate assurance of AdmmistratiwtetteronJune21,19%. Administrativelettersarcatype decommissioning funds, it is aho corcened with tir potertial effect ofgeneric communication used by the NRC to inform specific groups of deregulationmayhaveon operationalsafety.
licenseesaboutparticularproblems, developments orothermattersof The NRC draft policy expressed cwcem about the speed at which interes1 tothe ticensees. It was entitled " Licensee Responsibilities Related deregulation and restructuring may take place. His goes back to the to FinancialQualifications,"anditspublicationserwdthreepurposes. NRC concern about licensees no bnger being aue to fa the NRC First was to renund licensws oftheir responsibility under 10 CFR 50.80, defirutianof" electric utihty" as when they obtained their license.
" Transfer ofLicenses," that licensees are to inform and obtain advance he policy went on to state: "Although new and unique restructuring opproval from the NRC for any changes that would constitute a transfer proposals willnecessarilyinvolve ad hoc reviews by the NRC, the ofthe license, directly or indirectly, through transfer ofcontrol of the NRC Commission will exercise direct oversight of such reviews to maintain license. Secondly, licensees were reminded of their responsibility to consistent NRC policy toward new entities." Herefore, the NRC intends promptly report to the NRC the information regarding their financial to implement policies and take action necessary to ensure that its power quahfications and decommissioning funding assurance that may have a reactor Icensees rermin responsible for safe operatbn and significantimplicationsfor puble Italth ard safety. And hst, tir Arnmmndng.
Admmistratiw ixtter states the desirability ofproviding the NRC advance The NRC policy has 5 major points. First, the NRC will continue notice ofany plans for such changes so that staffreview resources can be conducting the funneial quahfrations, deconmissioning funding ard allocated and NRC decisions are not unr ecessarily delayed. antitrust reviews. Second, all nuclear power plant owners, direct and ne reason for the letter's publication was that the NRC wanted to mdmx:t,mustbeidentified. Aird, staff-levelworkingrelationshipswith i make certain that any "(c)orporate restructuring thct changes the ' electric State and Federal rate regulators will be established and maintained. I utility' status of a power reactor lice isce or otherwise alters the basis Fourth, the relative responsibilities of power plant co-owners or co- !
under which a licensee received an operating license for a power reactor licensees will be evaluated. Last, regulations will be reevaluated ibr their wcudd be brought to NRC attention in a timely fashion." adequacy to address changes resulting from rate deregulation.
De policy statement alsoidentified five issues related to restructuring and ecanomic dcregulation ofihe utility industry: NRC responsibilities Decommissioning Rule vis-a-vis State and Federal economic regulators, co-owner disision of he next NRC action was more directly related to nuclear power respor?ibuity, financialquahficationresiews,demmmissioning funding i plantdecommissioning than to the financial assurance questions. On July assurancecompliancereviews,andantitrustresiews. Ashortdircussion 29,1996, tle NRC published its final rule on "Deconmissioning of
{
ofthesedetails follows.
Nuclear Power Reactors." In gercral, the rule attenpts to chrify First, the stafTsees the ' RC's role and those of the rate regubs cmbiguities in the existing rule and codify procedures that reduce the as basicallyunchanged. But the NRC is looking forward to working and i regulatorybtmlen provide greater flexibility, and allow for greater public consulting with the regulators more actively. The key component of the puticipaticn in the Jewmmissioning process. "Puc NRC's position is that second issue is that while some co-owners may only be authorized to !
this action will enhance efliciency and uniformity in the regulatory proces s possess the nuclear facility and its nuclear material, but not to operate it, ordecommissioningnuclear power plants. the NRC views all co-owners as co-licensees who are responsible for complying with the terms oftheir licenses. Withrespect to the third issue, the NRC beliews its existing regulatory framework is presently suflicient Draft Policy Statement to pmvide rcasonable assurance ofthe financial qualifications ofutdity and The NRC published its "Drail Policy Statement e, the Restructuring nm-utility applicante and licensees. Fourth, the NRC is publishing a cod Economic Deregulation ofthe Electric Utihty industry" on Septemher pmp> sed rule on decommissioning fundmg assurance based on the input 23,1996 (61 FR 4971!). The NRC's purpose was to set faurth its from its ANPR. Lastly,theantitrustresiews must continue sotheNRC 5
~
The 5th International Conference on Nuclear Engineering ICONE5 May 26-30,1997 can identify all owners ofits licenses to assess whether there have been "significant changes" in ibense transfers since the licensing reviews.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance given by Robert Draft Standard Rev'ow Plans Wood, NRC, in providing infonnation and insights relating to the paper The fmal NRC documents to be mentioned are " Standard Review and to Ann Beranck, NRC, for expert editing assistance. Any errors Plan on Antitrust"(lambe,1997) and" Standard Review Plan on Power remainthoseofthe author.
Reactor Licensee Financial Qualifications and Decommissioning Fundmg Assurance"(Wood,1997). Their availability for public comment was announced in the fglgd &ghtg on December 27,1996 (61 FR REFERENCES 68309). Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, Pub. L.83-703,68 Stat.
He antitrust standard review plan will serve three purposes: first, 919 (42 U.S C. 2011 et seq.)
it willprovide guidance to the Commissior, antitrust stalfin canying out Carns, N. S.,1996," Overcoming the Myths and Exposing the Truths theantitmstraanci.sreTi redbytheAtcrnicEnergyAct;second,itwill about Nuclear Power," Keynote Address, Energy Daily Conference, provide CammissionstafTa:Amanosementinsightintohowantitrust " Nuclear Power; Makmg the Competitive Cut," Washington, DC.
consideruions function in the overall hcensing process; and third, it will Federal Energy Reguistory Conmission, "Prorrotog Wholesale ymide the public at large with insight into the role played by antitrust Competition'Ihrough open Access Non-Discriminatory Transmission procedures in the NRC's oserall licensing responsibility. Services by Puble Uthies; Recoscry of Stranded Costs by Public .
'lhe standard review plan on licensee financial qualifications and Utilities and Transmitting Utihties"(I 8 CFR Parts 35 and 385), Federal l decommissioning financial assurance will provide procedures used to Register, Vol. 61 No. 92, May 19,1996, pp. 21540-21737. i evaluate initial license applications and license trans fer applications with Lambe, W. M., and Davis, M. J.,1997 " Standard Resiew Plan on
(
l respect to financial qualifications and to determine whether licensees are Antitrust," Draf1 Report for Comment, NUREG-1574, U.S. Nuclear 1 l complying with NRC requirements for ensuring that adequate Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
decommissioning funds are available. NRC 's Decommissioning Financial Assurance Requirementsfor FederalLicenseesMayNotbeSupicient, April 3,1996,U.S. Nuclear i RegulatoryCommission,OfficeoftheInspectorGeneral, O!G/95A-20.
CONCLUSlON U.S Code of Federal Regulations, "Donestic Licensing of One idea that the NRC staffwishes to maintain through these various Production and Utilvatim Facibties,' Part 50, Chapter I, Title 10, ao ivities and publications is that the NRC's underlying philosophy of "Faergy."
! finnoial assurarse for decorrmissioning is uncharged. Basically, Wood, R. S.,1997, " Standard Review Pkm on Power Reactor l lisensees that remain " electric utihties" by tle Corrmission's revised Licensee Fbancial Quahfrations ard Decommissioning Furdirs defmition are tocomply with the same financial assurance regulations as As suranee," Dra f1 Report for Comment, NUREG- 1577, U.S. Nuclear before. However, with deregulation, the stafTdoes not believe that it Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.
would be able to identify all the potential types oflicensees there may be. )
'lherefore, new and unique restructuring proposals will necessarily invohe ad hoc reviews by the NRC. Further, the Commission will exercise direct osersight ofsuch reviews to maintain consistent NRC policy toward new entities. In addtion to tle proposed revised definitons, tie staffis ;
proposing sescral other nudifcatiom, The frst is to require power !
reactor Icensees to perixlically report on the statm of their l l dec:mmissio, ting funds and fundmg for the management ofits irradiated fuel. Second is to mochry the regulations so that any Federal Govemment licensed utility will no longer be able to use a letter ofintent as a method offinancial assurance. Finally, the staffis proposing to allow licensees to take credit for the camings on decommissioning trust funds.
Perhaps it is best to fmish by reiterating the last point of the draft policy statement. nat is for the NRC to
- Reevaluate its regulations for I theiradequacy to address changes resulting from rate deregulation." It is most likely that the actions discussed here will tot be tle last the Commission takes on financial assurance for the decommissioning of reactors.
6