ML20217N031
| ML20217N031 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/12/1997 |
| From: | Bahadur S NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| To: | Funches J, Galante A NRC |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20217N022 | List: |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3, RULE-PR-50-MISC NUDOCS 9708260005 | |
| Download: ML20217N031 (37) | |
Text
.
tto 0*--
et UNITED STATES j
,j-NUCLEAR REOULATORY COMMISSION r
WASHINGTON, o.C. MM1 O
d August 12, 1997 4.....s HEMORANDUM T0:
Anthony J. Galante Chief Information Officer Jesse L. Funches Chief Financial Officer A
FROM:
Sher Bahadur, Acting Chief Regulation Development Branch Division of Regulatory Applications Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research SUBJE.CT :
PROPOSED RULE ON NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING COSTS l
Your concurrence is requested on the attached Commission Paper which includes the proposed rulemaking entitled below.
This package was already concurred in by the other relevant offices in May 19FS, when the proposed rule was submitted to the Commission.
The package was subsequently withdrawn by the EDO.
At the time of the original submittal, concurrences of the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Information Office were not required.
1.
Title:
Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Costs 2.
RES Task leader:
Brian J. Richter (415-6221) 3.
Coanizant Individuals:
NRR - Robert S. Wood (415-1253)
NMSS - Larry Bell (415-7302)
- Stephen H. Lewis (415-1684) 4.
Rea!gsted Aqtion:
Review and comment 5.
Recuested Completion Date:
One week from the date of this memorandum.
6.
Summar_y:
This proposed rule was originally submitted to the Commission as SECY-96-014, dated May 1, 1996.
It was subsequently withdrawn by the ED0 on May 13, 1996, as the Commission requested further studies on the subject.
Recently, in COMSECV-97-014, dated June 30, 1997, the Commission has directed the staff to expeditiously proceed to update the proposed rule.
As the Commission has requested the staff to proceed expeditiously, we plan to forward this package to the EDO by August 20, 1997, unless I hear otherwise from you.
Attachment:
Commission Paper w/att.
9708260005 970820 P PDR WASTE WM-3 PDR-
l go ce0
.P ,
't UNITED STATES
(,j j
NUCLEAR RE2ULATORY COMMISSION w AsHINGTON. o.C. 30h0001 f
o 0....
MEMORAf100M T0:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations FROM:
_Malcolm R. Knapp. Acting Director Of fice of fluclear Regulatory Research
SUBJECT:
PR0p0 SED RULE ON NUCLEAR p0WER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING COSTS (WITS-9500lli)
Attached for your signature is a Commission paper which seeks Commission l
approval to publish in the Federal Reaister a proposed rulemaking on nuclear power reactor decommissioning costs.
The NRC staff has determined that there is a need to revise NRC's financial assurance requirements for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors because recent studies have shown that site-specific cost estimates for decommissioning often vary from the generic values provided in 10 CFR 50.75.
Therefore, the staf f is proposing to amend its regulations relating to nuclear-
_ power reactor decormissioning costs-by allowing licensees the option of submitting site-specific decommissioning cost analyses instead of using generic minimum values stated on 10 CFR 50.75(c).
This action had been submitted previously to the Commission as SECY-96-014 on May 1, 1996, it was subsequently withdrawn by the EDO on May 13, 1996, and the Commission concurred with the E00's request in a May 29, 1997, SRM.
However, in COMSECY-97-014. the Commission directed the staff to update the proposed rule that would allow for site-specific decommissioning _ cost estimates, whether higher or lower than the estimates developed using the generic formula in 10 CFR 50.75.
Att achmer.t :
Commission Paper w/atts.
J e
I C 0 " :: S S :: 0 \\
3 A) :
t I
[QB:
The Commissioners EEQM:
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations HBdfil:
PROPOSED RULE ON NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING C_STS
-PURPOSE:
To request Commission approval to publish in the Federal Reaister _a proposed rule on nuclear power reactor decommissioning cost requirements.
BACKGRO_UJp:
The staff presented a rulemaking plan (SECV-95-223) to the Commission on September 1, 1995, that discussed several actions relating to amending nuclear power reactor decommissioning' cost regulations, Subsequently, in a December 20, 1995, memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations (EDO),
Chairman Jackson directed the staff to delay work on the-rulemaking until additional data could.be obtained and studied.
However, Chairman Jackson did
" encourage the staff to pursue amendments to the regulations that would permit site-specific funding amounts.as described in SECY-95-223."
In response to the memorandum, the staff submitted on May 1, 1996, SECY-96-095, " Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Costs."
The E00 withdrew the rule on May 13, 1996, and the Commission concurred in the request on May 29, 1996.
In a June 30, 1997, Staff Requirements Memorandum (COMSECY-97-014), the staff =was directed to update the proposed rule that would allow for site-specific decommissioning cost estimates, higher or lower than the estimates developed using the generic formula in 10 CFR 50,75.
The attached Federal Register notice (Attachment 1) is in response to COMSECY-97-014.
NQIE:
TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE CONTACT:
WHEN THE FINAL SRM IS MADE AVAILABLE Brian.J. Richter, RES/DRA
-(301) 415-6221
\\
The Commissioners 2
i i
DISCUS $10N:
Present decommissioning cost regulations call for applicants and licensees to certify that financial assurance will be provided in an amount that may be more than, but not less than, the amounts specified in 10 CfR 50.75.
These values were based on Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) studies completed in 1978 for the reference PWR and in 1980 for the reference BWR, Since comaletion of the PNL studies, changes have occurred in decommissioning tecinology and the disposal of radioactive waste.
As a result, the minimum required values in 10 CFR 50.75(c)(1) may not be representative of the current i
technology and site-specific data.
Further, site-specific decommissioning cost estimates have been developed for a substantial number of power reactor licensees since the original PNL studies were completed.
The staff is proposing this rulemaking to increase applicants' and licensees' flexibility by allowing them to submit site-specific decommissioning cost estimates that may be lower than the generic values contained in f 50.75(c).
The proposed rule may provide saviqs to some applkants or licensees because the required level of funding for Jecommissioning may be reduced.
Alternatively, it continues to a ow applicants and licensees to collect more r
funds to cover a higher estimbe of required funding for decommissioning than that stated in 6 50.75(c).
Using a site-specific cost estimate would provide an applicant or licensee greater flexibility in dealing with site-specific issues such as differences in decommissioning methodology, expected waste volumes and anticipated labor efforts to perform specific tasks.
- Moreover, applicants and licensees would be able to use a recently developed PC-based Cost code to incorporate site-specific conditions into their cost estimate.
updatns for decommissioning would still be required for the site-specific cost estimates, just as they presently are for the constant dollar amounts specified in 10 CFR 50.75, but they would not use the formula in 5 50.75(c).
This proposed rule would not require any additional action on the part of an applicant or licensee.
Any change in the level of funding in an applicant's or licensee's decommissioning fund would be at the applicant's or licensee's discretion.
These funding amounts could be cht.nged from current valucs based on a site-specific analysis, whether it be the NRC's Cost Estimating Computer Frogram (CECP) or another method.
Therefore, this action would not constitute a backfit.
As a result, the staff is proposing to publish the attached notice of proposed rulemaking (Attachment 1).
COORDINATION:
The The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this paper.
Office of the Chief Financial Officer has no resource-related objection to the The Office of'the Chief Information Officer has reviewed this proposed rule.
paper for information technology and information management implications and concurs in it.
The Commissioners 3
RECOMMENDATIQ!i:
That the Commission:
1 1
1.
Approve the notice of proposed rulemaking for publication.
2.
Certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a negative-l economic impact on a substantial number of small entities in order to satisfy requirements of the Regulatory flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
605(b).3.
1191g:
a.
The rulemaking would be published in the federal Reaister for a 75-day public comment period; b.
A draft regulatory analysis will be available in the Public Document Room (Attachment 2);
c.
The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification regarding economic impact on small entities and the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory flexibility Act; d.
Copies of the Federal Register notice of proposed rulemaking will be distributed to all affected Commission licensees.
The notice will be sent to other interested parties upon request, e.
A public announcement will be issued (Attachment 3);
f.
The appropriate Congressional committees will be informed (Attachment 4); and 9
This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information col ection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1993 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seg ).
Existing requirements were apt. roved by the Office of Managemc.t and Budget, appr~al number 3150-0011.
t.. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Attachments:
As stated (4)
f I
_ h_ lA REG".S"ER
\\0""aCg u
e 1
..._7...
i I
[7590-01-P) i e
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150-AF40 Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Costs AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations relating to financial assurance for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors by allowing applicants and licensees the option of submitting site-specific decommissioning cost analyses to justify decommissioning funding levels below the generic values currently codified as minimum levels.
l Applicants and licensees may currently elect to establish decommissioning funds above the generic levels. The proposed action is intended to offer nuclear power reactor applicants and licensees greater flexibility in estimating up-front decommissioning costs based on current technology and site-specific data which is not providea for in the NRC's generic formulas.
l DATES:
Submit comment; by (insert a date to allow 75 days public comment),
'1997.
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so. but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
4.
l t
_ -... _. ~ -
e ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to:
Secretary, U.S. Iluclear Regulatory l
l Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and l
l Adjudications Staff.
Deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.
You may also provide comments via the 11RC's interactive rulemaking web site through the-NRC home page-(http://www.nrc. gov).
This site provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function.
For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@nrc. gov.
Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC.
These same documents may also be viewed and downloaded electronically via the interactive rulemaking website established by HRC for this rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMA110N CONTACT: Brian J. Richter, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301)415-6221, e-mail bjr@nrc. gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Background
The NRC b: determined that there would be a benefit in revising its financial assurance requirements for the decommissioning of nuclear power 2
l t
i reactors to provide additional flexibility in establishing decommissioning j
funding levels.
Recent studies have shown that site-specific cost estimates
_for decomm ss on ng often vary significantly from the generic values provided i
i i
i in 10 CFR 50.75.
Therefore, the IJRC is proposing to amend its regulations l
relating to nuclear power reactor decommissioning costs to allow applicants j
and licensees the option of submitting site-specific decommissioning cost analyses to justify decommissioning funding levels below the generic minimum values currently codified at 10 CFR 50.75(c). Applicants and licensees may l
currently elect to establish decommissioning funds above the generic minima, lhe Intended effect of this proposed action is to offer nuclear power reactor applicants and licensees greater flexibility in estimating up-front decommissioning costs based on current. technology and site-specific data.
4
)
)
Dittentrecuirements Requirements pertaining to financial assurance for the decommissioning of nucleir power reactors are contained in 10 CFR 50.75 which, among other things,. specifies generic decommissioning costs currently codified as minimum levels for pressurized water reactors (PWils) and boiling water reactors (SWRs).
Applicants.nd licensees may currently elect to establish decommissioning funds above the generic levels.
The requirements further call for the certification by each electric utility applicant or licensee that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in an amount, adjusted annually, which may be more but not less than the amounts stated in f
that section. An inflation formula is also provided (that accounts for the 3
i l
cost-of labor, energy, and waste burial) for applicants and licensees to use l
in performing annual updates of their cost estimates for decommissi,oning..
I Rggulatory_oroblem to be resolved The present 10 CFR 50.75 was issued in 1988 and contains 1986 dollar-adjusted estimates based on Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) studies completed in 1978 for the reference PWR (NUREG/CR-0130) and in 1980 for the reference BWR (NUREG/CR-0672).
In preparing these reports, PNL performed detailed technical studies of decommissioning costs, using the information available at that time, in situations when data was scarce.-assumptions were There used to obtain representative estimates of the decommissioning costs.
were no sensitivity studies done based on the variability of various parameters used in the analysis.
Consequently, the codified values may be either above or below the funding level necessary to decommission a given facility.
During the years since the initial decommissioning cost estimates were conducted, a number of changes have occurred in decommissioning technology and in the availability and cost cf low-level waste disposal.
For example, when "NUREG/CR-0130, " Technology, Safety and Costs.of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station," 2 volumes, June 1978; and NUREG/CR-0672, " Technology, bafety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station," 2 volumes, June 1980.
Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the POR's mailing address is Mail 20555-000); telephone (202)634-3273; fax (202)634-Stop LL-6, Washington, DC Copies may be purchased at current rates from the U.S. Government 3343.
370892 Washington, DC 20402-9328 (telephone Printing Office, P.O. Boxor from the National Technical Information Service by writing (202)512-1800);
NTIS at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield VA 22161.
4
the PNL studies 'ere conducted, waste disposal wa. not considered a problem, It was' assumed that low-level waste could be disposed of easily and at I
reasonable costs and that spent fuel would be reprocessed.
Because of the current high cost of low-level waste disposal, licensees have made significant efforts to reduce projected decommissioning waste volume.
As a result of these efforts and developments in decommissioning technology, the NRC staff contracted with PNL to reassess the cost estimates for decommissioning the reference PWR and BWR plants (Trojan and WNP-2, respectively) on a site-specific' basis using current technology for decommissioning cost analyses.
These latest PNL cost estimates #, which were published as drafts for public comment, contain estimates that are considerably lower that most_ site-specific licensee decommissiontrg cost estimates, and even lower still than the minimum decommissioning cost values provided in 10 CfR 50.75(c).
For example, the latest PNL cost estimates, when low-level waste is assumed to be sent to the disposal facility at Barnwell, South Carolina, show a cost to decommission approximately 40X lower than the values provided in 10 CFR 50.75(c).-
In addition, there is a lack of data from actual site-specific-decommissioning activities.
Therefore, rather than change the values in 10 CFR 50.75(c), the Commission has elected to amend the regulations to allow applicants and licensees to submit a sit: specific estimate, which may be lower than the generic values provided in 10 LFR 50.75(c).
This has the pot.ential to provide a significant reduction of burden to some applicants and licensees.
Further, the intent of the financial assurance provision-of 10 CFR
'NUREG/CR-5884, " Revised An41yses of Decommissioning for the Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station," 2 volumes, November 1995; and NUREG/CR-6174 " Revised Analyses of Decommissioning for the Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station," 2 volumes, July 1996.
5-
l 50.75 (53 FR 24018; June 27. 1988) is not to precisely estimate l
decommissioning costs, but to ensure that the bulk of the funds required for decommissioning will be available when neec4d.
Decommissioning Cost Estimates Applicants and licensees who do not wish to use the gene,ic cost estimates for decommissioning provided in 10 CfR 50.75 have the option of using the Cost Estimating Computer Program (CECP) or other site-specific methods.
CECP may be used to obtain site-specific decommissioning cost estimates based upon methods used in the NRC computer codes contained in NUREG/CR-6054, " Estimating Pressurized Water Reactor Decommissioning Costs,"
November 1995, or NUREG/CR-6270, " Estimating Boiling Water Reactor Decommissioning Costs,"' December 1994.
An applicant or licensee may wish to prepare a site-specific cost estimate for decommissioning using a methodology different from the CECP.
If so, the applicant or licensee should document the cost estimate in a comprehensive and clearly organized manner so that the NRC staff can review the methodology and basis used to prepare the estimate.
The decommissioning estimate should cover all required decc:missioning activities and reference sources.of information used in determining the cost components of decommissioning, These cost components should include labor, management
' Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR's mailing address is Mail Stop Lt.-6, Washington, DC 20555-0001;- telephone (202)634-3273; fax (202)634-3343. Copies may be purchased at current rates from the 1J.S.
Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20402-9328 (telephone (202)512-1800); or from the National Technical Information Service by writing NTis at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
6 I
i oversight, equipment, supplins, waste disposal, license fees, taxes, contractor. overhead, and profit.
The applicant or licensee must also provide details supporting any assumptions, as well as the basis for those j
assumptions, used in preparing the estimate.
The level of detail should be sufficient to identify unit costs, quantities and sizes of components, low-level waste volumes, contaminated surface areas, and labor, i
Applicants and licensees should calculate their decommissioning estimates in current-year dollars.
If costs are calculated for another year, I
the applicant or licensee should adjust the estimates to current-year dollars and indicate the assumptions used to make the adjustment.
Some applicants and licensees include estimates for such factors as the cost of storing spent fuel and the cost of returning the site to its original state beyond what must be spent to remove the radioactive material, which is commonly known as the " green field" cost.
Such costs are not required by the NRC as part of the decommissioning cost estimates.
Rulemaking Initiation The proposed amendment would allow applicants and licensees the option of submitt ug sit specific cost es+4 mates for decommissioning.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The proposed amendment would allow applicants and licensees the option -
of submitting site-specific cost estimates for decommissioning.
This action is being proposed to give applicants and licensees the option of submitting 7
b
1 4
4 site-specific decommissioning cost analyses to justify decommissioning funding I
f levels below the generic values currently codified as minimum levels, l
I Applicants and licensees may currently elect to establish decommissioning fends above the generic levels.
The proposed action is intended to offer nuclear power reactor applicants and licensees greater flexibility in estimating up-front decommissioning costs based on current technology and site-specific data which is not provided for in the NRC's generic formulas.
This revision to the NRC's regulations simply permits applicants and licensees to submit estimates of up-front decommissioning funding that they believe more realistically and accurately reflect the anticipated costs of decommissioning their nuclear power plants.
Allowances of site-specific cost estimates would not lead to any increase in the effect on the environment of the decommissioning 4.ctivities considered in the final. rule published on June 27, 1988 (53 FR 24018) as analyzed in the Final Generic Environmental impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear facilities (!1UREG-0586, August 1988). Therefore, promulgation of this rule would not introduce any impacts on the environment not previously considered by the NRC.
Therefore, the Commission has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in subpart A of 10 CFR Ptrt 51, that this p mposed rule would not be a maior Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and therefore an Copies of NUREG-0586 are available for inspection or copying for a fee d
from the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR's mailing address is Mail Stop LL-6 Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (202)634-3273; f ax (:'02)634-3343.
Copies may be purchased at current rates from the U.S. Government Printing Office, P,0, Box 370892, Washington, DC 20402-9328 (telephone (202)512-1800); or from the National Technical Information Service by writing NTIS at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
8
-. ~..
I i
environmental impact statement is not required. No other agencies nor persons were-contacted in making this determination, and the NRC staff is not aware of l
1 I
any other documents related to the environmental impact of this action.
The foregoing constitutes the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for this proposed rule, i
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement J
i This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information d
l collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Existing requirements were approved by the Office i
of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0011.
Public Protection Notification j
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of informattor unless it displays a currently valid i
i OMB control number, i
Regulat'ry Analysis The Commission has prepared a draf t regulatory analysis on this proposed L
l 1 regulation.
The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission.
The draf t analysis is available for inspection i
in the NRC Public Document Room,-2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, i
DC.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Brian J. Richter, 9
f
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301)415-6221, e-mail bjr@nrc. gov.
The Commission requests public comment on the draft analysis.
C'omments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the.NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C.
605(b))*as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Pub. l., No-104-121 (March 29, 1996), the Commission certifies that j
l this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposad rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants.
The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set-out in regulations' issued by the Small Business' Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this' proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions'that would impose a backfit as defined in.10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
10
\\;
l.
Specifically, these changes do not impose.any requirement on applicants or g
licensees, but are strictly voluntary.
t List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified in 'ormation, Criminal penalties, Fire protection, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the i
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50--DOMESTIC LICENSING 0F PRODUCTION AND UTillZATION' FACILITIES 1.
The authority citation for Part 50 continues to-read as follows:
AUTHORITY: Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161,_182,-_183, 186,-189, 68 Stat.
936, 937, 938 -948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as
-amended (4E v.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282);_ secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246-(42 U.S C. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.
955 as amended (42 U.S.C.-2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853-(42 U.S.C. 4332).
Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under 11
Sections 50.23, 50.35, sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C, 2138).
50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec.185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2235).
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.'91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332)
Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844).
Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C 2237).
In 5 50.75, paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph (c) 2.
are revised to read as follows:
6 50.75 Reportina and recordkeepino for decommissionina ola'nnino.
(b) Each electric utility applicant for or holder of an operating license for a production or utilization facility of the type and power level specified in paragraph (c) of this section shall submit a decommissioning
'unding report, a; required by 10 CFD 50.33(k) of tFis part, containing a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in an. amount either based on a site-specific cost estimate for decommissioning the f acility, adjusted annually, or stated in the table in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, adjusted annually using a rate at least equal to that stated in paragraph (c)(2) of this section, by one or more of the methods described in If the paragraph (e) of this section as acceptable to the Commission.
12
applicant or licensee chooses to base its decommissioning cost estimate on a 4
site-specific cost estimate that is lower than the required amount stated in 10 CFR 50.75(c), the applicant or licensee shall submit copies of its estimate and each u,date to the NRC, As part of the certification, a copy of the n
financial instrument obtained to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (e) of L
this section is to be submitted t'o NRC.
(c) Table of optional amounts (January 1986 dollars) to demonstrate reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning by reactor type and power I
level, P (in MWt);
3 Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this ____ day of
, 1997.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, John C. Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission, 13
.e l
1, REGU_A ORY ANA_YS::S 201 AV EN)::NG NUCLEAR 30WER REAC 01 JEC09::SS::0N::NG COS S m
REGULATORY ANALYSIS FOR AMENDING NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONING COSTS i
The NRC has determined that it would be beneficial to revise NRC's financial assurance requirements for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors to provide additional flexibility in establishing decommissioning funding levels.
Recent studies have shown that site-specific cost estimates for decommissioning often vary significantly from the generic values provided in 10 CFR 50,75, Therefore, the NRC is proposing to amend its regulations relating to nuclear power reactor decommissioning costs by allowing applicants and licensees the option of submitting site-specific decommissioning cost analyses to justify decommissioning funding levels below the generic values currently codified as levels.
Applicants and licensees may currently elect to establish decommissioning funds above the generic levels, I,
Statement-of the Problem and Objective The presant 10 CFR 50.75 was issued in 1988 and contains 1986 dollar-adjusted estimates based on Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) studies completed in 1978 for the reference PWR (NUREG/CR-0130) and in 1980 for the
reference BWR (NUREG/CR-0672).'
In preparing these reports, PNL performed detailed technical studies of decommissioning costs, using the infvrnation.
available at that time, in situations when data was scarce, assumptions were used to obtain representative estimates of the decommissioning costs.
There were no sensitivity studies done based on the variability of various parameters used in the analysis.
Consequently, the codified values may be either above or below the funding level necessary to decommission a given facility.
1 During the years since the initial decommissioning cost estimates were conducted, a number of changes have occurred in decommissioning technology and in the availability and cost of low-level waste disposal.
For example, when the PNL studies were conducted, waste disposal was not considered a problem.
It was assumed that low-level waste could be disposed of easily and at reasonable costs and that spent fuel would be reprocessed.
Because of the
(
current high cost of low-level waste disposal, licensees have made significant efforts to reduce projected decommissioning waste volume.
As a result of these efforts and developments in decommissioning technology, the NRC staff contracted with PNL to reassess the cost estimates for decommissioning the reference PWR and BWR plants (Trojan and WNP-2, respectively) on a
'NUREG/CR-0130, " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station," 2 volumes, June 1978; and NUREG/CR-0672, " Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station," 2 volumes, June 1980.
Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC; the PDR's mailing address is Mail Stop LL-6, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (202)634-3273; fax (202)634-1 3343.
Copies may be purchased at current rates from the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 370892, Washington, DC 20402-9328 (telephone (202)512-1800); or from the National Technical Information Service by writing NTIS at 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
i site-specific basis using current technology for decommissioning cost analyses.
These studies displayed a considerable disparity among the PNL rc' tits, licensee decommissioning cost estimates, and minimum decommissioning cost values provided in 9 50.75(c).
For example, the latest PNL cost estimates, when low-level waste is assumed to be sent to the disposal facility at Barnwell, South Carolina, show a cost to decommission approximately 40 percent lower than the values provided in 9 50.75(c).
Because of the lack of data from actual site-specific decommissioning activities, the staff has elected to amend the regulations to allow applicants and licensees to submit a lower site-specific estimate rather than change the values in 9 50.75(c) at the present.
This has the potential to provide a significant reduction of burden to some applicants and licensees.
Further, the intent of the financial assurance provision of 9 50.75 (53 FR 24018; June 27, 1988) is not to precisely estimate decommissioning costs, but to ensure that the bulk of the funds required for decommissioning will be available when needed.
The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule because this amendment does not involve any provisions that would 'mpose a backfit as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1).
11.
Identification and Preliminary Analysis of Alternative Approaches Current rule requirements pertaining to financial assurance for the decommissioning of nuclear power reactors are contained in 10 CFR 50.75 which, among other things, specifies minimum generic decommissioning costs for PWRs and BWRs.
The requirements further call for the certification by each electric utility applicant and licensee that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in an amount, which may be more but not less than the amounts stated in that section.
An inflation formula is also provided (that accounts for the cost of labor, energy, and waste burial) for applicants and licensees to use in performing annual updates of their cost estimates for decommissioning.
These requirements as specified in 10 CFR 50.75 constitute the baseline or no-action alternative.
The proposed amendment would allow applicants and licensees the option of submitting site-specific cost estimates for decommissioning that-are lower than the generic formula amounts, in the staff's preliminary review, other alternative actions were considered.
Most notably, the staff considered incorporating lower decommissioning estimates in the regulation, thereby reducing the likelihood that applicants and licensees would need to develop lower site-specific estimates.
However, given that a blanket reduction in decommissioning estimates may 'sult in some plants having lower estimates than they would actually require at their end of life, that option was dropped from consideration for the time being.
This is based on the Commission's view that the necessity of providing the requisite levels of financial assurance must be maint?.ined.
111.
Estimation and Evaluation of Values and Impacts Presently, 10 CFR 50.75, " Reporting and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning Planning" does not allow applicants and licensees to submit site-specific decommissioning cost estimates if they are lower in value than
_4
the estimates stated in 10 CFR 50.75(c).
However, lower site-specific estimates may be submitted to the NRC by an exemption request, as stated in 10 CFR 50.12, " Specific Exemptions." The proposed rule would allow applicants and licensees the option of submitting site-specific cost analyses that may be lower than the generic minimum values stated in 10 CFR 50.75(c).
There are several potential impacts to applicants and licensees resulting from the proposed rule.
One is that applicants and licensees would avoid the procedural and administrative burdens associated with an exemption request.
However, the costs to an applicant or licensee of having to perform the site-specific cost estimate remain the same whether an exemption is required or not.
The proposed rule enhances regulatory efficiency with the elimination of the need for submitting an exemption request, and NRC's review and approval or dental of it.
Should more site-specific cost estimates be submitted having values lower than those provided by the present 10 CFR 50.75(c), cost savings would accrue to applicants and licensees and possibly to their rate-payers.
There also are several possible impacts to the NRC. One is that NRC would not have to review exemption requests, and make findings based on the exemption standards in 10 CFR-50 12 for the lower estimates.
However,=another likely impact to the NRC would be the additional burden of having to review more :;ite-specific cost estimates than would have been submitted without the rule.
The quantification of the impacts follows.
If one assumes that an exemption request would take about I staff-week of additional effort on the part of an applicant or licensee and that an average applicant or licensee staff hourly rate in the preparation of an exemption request is $55, the savings per applicant or licensee of not having to prepare an exemption request is about $2,200.
NRC would also benefit by not having to review exemption requests.
If one assumes that the NRC staff would require 1 additional staff week, at $55 per staff hour #, the NRC savings for each exemption request not submitted would also be $2,200.
Therefore, the total savings from the elimination of one exemption request would be about 54,400.
Alternatively, should the proposed rule result in an applicant or l
licensee submitting a' site-specific cost estimate, that it would not have submitted under the existing rule, it is assumed that the preparation would require about a staff-year of industry effort and 2 staff weeks of NRC staff review time.
These correspond to values of about $115,000 and 55,000 for the industry.and NRC respectively.
However, under the existing rule, applicants and licensees are required to submit a preliminary det.ommissioning plan containing a cost-estimate'for decommissioning "at or-about 5 years prior to the projected end of operation."
This part of 5 50.75 would remain unchanged by this proposed amendment.
Assuming a 20-year remaining life of plant, the site-specific estimate would tnen need to be performed, on average in 15 years.
Assuming a 5 percent real interest rate, and a 15-year difference, the cost differences between the performance cf the site-specific cost estimate now and 15 years hence are about 560,000 for an applicant or licensee and about $2,600 for the NRC.
NRC labor rates presented here differ from those developed under NRC's license fee recovery program (10 CFR Part 170).
For regulatory analysis purposes, labor rates are developed under strict incremental cost _ principles wherein only variable costs that are directly related to the implementation and operation and maintenance of the proposed requirement are included.
This approach is consistent with general cost-benefit methodology.
Alternatively, NRC labor rates for fee recovery purposes are appropriately designed for full cost recovery of the services rendered and as such include non-incremental costs (e.g., overhead and administrative and logistical support costs). _ _______-__
Under the existing rule, generic decommissioning cost estimates can range in value from around $150 million to $420 million.
In terms of a sensitivity analysis, a revised site-specific estimate that is assumed to lower the estimate by one percent would result in savings of approximately
$1.5 million to $4.2 million.
Assuming an average remaining life of plant of about 20 years, and a 5 percent real interest rate, the annual savings would range from about $45,000 to $127,000.
If a revised site-specific estimate were to lower the estimate by 2 percent, the resulting total savings would i
range from $3 million to $8.4 million, with the corresponding annual savings l
on a per-reactor basis ranging from $90,000 to $250,000.
l l
IV.
Presentation of Results l
Impacts of this proposed rulemaking would result from: a decrease in the number of exemptions submitted, the submission of additional site-specific cost estimates, and a smaller amount of money needed for decommissioning.
From the estimates provided above, it was shown that savings from exemptions of $2,200 each could accrue to the NRC and to an applicant or licensee, given the stated assumptions.
The costs of an applicant or licensee submitting and the NRC reviewir.g an additional cost esti, ate would be $60,000 and $7,600 respectively, lastly, the analysis shows that an applicant or licensee can save approximately $45,000 to $125,000 annually for each I percent decrease in their total decommissioning cost'estimath. Thus, if the decreased cost estimate resulted in a 2 percent decrease, the annual imoact would then be a benefit of $90,000 to $250,000 for the applicant or licensee. _
To estimate the total industry impact, one needs to multiply the total number of applicants and licensees assumed to take advantage of this. option by the average savings.
If one assumes a quarter of the licensees could save
$100,000 annually, the annual impact would result in an annual savings of about $2,750,000.
A key component of the analysis, however, is that given the proposed rule is optional, any applicant or licensee who takes advantage of the revision would only do so if it were to its advantage.
BENEFITS (COSTS) 0F SITE-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATES Industry NRC Each additional site-specific cost estimate
($60,000)
(52,600)
Decreased annual cost estimate per 1% decrease in decommissioning amount 545,000 to $125,000 Decreased annual cost estimate per 2% decrease in decommissioning amount 590,000 to $250,000 V.
Decision Rationale for Selection of the Proposed Action
-Given the proposed action is a reduction of burden and is not a requirement, an appl cant or license a would not submit a site-specific cost estimate to the NRC unless it would be to the applicant's or licensee's benefit.
From the estimates shown above, it appears that applicants and
. licensees would submit a site-specific estimate if they would be able to reduce their decommissioning cost estimates by greater than 1 percent.
-VI.-
Implementation The staff proposes that any rulemaking take effect 30 days after publication of the final rule in the Federal Reaister.
l-
_9
NRC 3ROPOSES ~~0 AMEN)
RU_E.
RE _A~::NG ~0 POWER REAC~~0R-DECOMM::SS::0NING COS~~S
f4RC PROPOSES TO AMEt40 RULE RELATING
.T0 POWER REACTOR DECOMMISSIONINGLCOSTS The, Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes to change its regulations that provide financial-assurance for decommissioning nuclear power reactors.
Under the proposed amendments, NRC licensees could submit site-specific decommissioning cost analyses to justify funding levels lower than the generic l
l minimum amounts currently set out in NRC regulations.
Recent studies have 1
i l
shown that such site-specific decommissioning cost estimates often vary significantly from.the generic amounts.
Minimum amounts now specified by NRC are based on decommissioning cost studies. completed in 1978 for a typical pressurized water reactor-and in 1980 for a typical boiling water reactor.
Because of changes in technology and radioactive waste disposal since those studies were made,'the current costs may be either above or below the funding level necessary to decommission a given facility.
High waste-disposal costs, for example, have caused licensees to reduce significantly the projected volume of waste from decommissioning.
Full details of = the proposed rule are published in the edition of the Federal Register.
The notice also may be accessed on the NRC Interactive Rulemaking Website.
Comments on the proposed rule should-be su hitted by to the Secretary of the Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,-
DC120555-0001, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
You may also-provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC home page-(http://www.nrc. gov).
This site provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format),.if your web browser supports that function.
R-w
CO\\GRESS::0s A_
_E ERS
f uouq
~
- bi 1 --
UNITED STATES
[-
.j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGToN. o,C,. 2055H001
'54.....,
The Honorable Dan Schaefer,- Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington,-DC 20515-
Dear Mr. Chairman:
in the near future, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) intends to publish I
in the Federal Reaister the enclosed proposed amendment to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 50.
The amendment, if adopted, would give licensees-the option of submitting site-specific decommissioning cost analyses that may be lower than the generic minimum values.
The Commission is issuing the proposed rule for public comment and has specifically requested comments with respect to the scope, level of specificity, and methods of implementation of the rule.
-Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc:
Representative Ralph Hall
The Honorable Dan Schaefer Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I In the near future, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) intends to publish l
in the Federal Reaister the enclosed proposed amendment to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 50.
The amendment, if adopted, would give licensees the option of submitting site-specific decommissioning cost analyses that may be lowei than the generic minimum values.
The Commission 1: is:uing the proposed rule for public comment and has specifically requested comments with respect to the scope, level of specificity, and methods of implementation of the rule.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc:
Representative Ralph Hall DISTRIBUTION:
Central f/c RDB r/f ACThadani, DEDE FCostanzi RAuluck LRiani CGallagner DMendiola DOCUMENT NAME:0:\\ RICHTER \\0ECOM\\CONG.LET OFC:
RDB:DRA DB:DRA_
rs D:DRA D:RES OCA BRichh:ay[ SBahadu JMurphy MRKnapp DRathbun NAME:
DATE:
[/N97 6/ t'V97
' /
/97
/
/97
/
/97 COPY:
Yes - No Yes - No Yes - No Yes - No Yes - No 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY (RES File Code) RES
ka00
- d UNITED STATES -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION o
WASHINGTOtt, D.C. 20566-4001
\\..../
b The Honorable James M.- Inhofe, Chairman Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private
_ Property and Nuclear Safety Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate-
. ashington, DC-- 20510 W
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In the near future, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) intends to publish in--the Federal Reaister the enclosed proposed amendment to the Commission's rules-in--10 CFR Part 50.
The amendment, if adopted, would give licensees the
-option of-submitting site-specific decommissioning cost analyses that-may be lower than the generic minimum values.
The Commission is issuing the proposed rule for public comment and has specifically requested comments with respect to the scope, level of specificity, and methods of implementation of the rule.
1 Sincerely, Dennis K, Rathbun.-Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc:
Senator Bob Graham m
i MEMORA,NDUM TO:
Malcolm R. Knapp, Acting Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research FROM:
Carl J. Paperiello, Director j
Office of Nuclear Material Safety
/
and Safeguards
/
/
SUBJECT:
OFFICE REVIEW AND CONCURRENCE OM PROPOSED RULE ON NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR DECCMMISSIONING COSTS 1
/
i The Division of Waste Management staff has reviewed the Commission Paper entitled
" Proposed Rule on Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Costs." We have no comments and concur on the Commission Paper, p
CONTACT:
Lc"% M. Bykoski, NMSS/DWM l
(301)415-6754 1
1 TICKET: LLDP-70160 DISTRIBUTION 3entral File LLDP r/f DWM r/f NMSS r/f RRE EBrummett NMSS Dir.Off, r/f CPoland MFederline JGreeves ACNW To receive a copy of tNo document in smal box on 'UFC:" Ene enter: "C" = Copy without attachment / enclosure; 'E" = Copy with attachment / enclosure;
'N" = No copy
)
P:th & File Name: S:\\DWM\\LLDP\\ lmb)70160
-BL' ejr OFC LkDP.
LLDP$
LLDP M
Dd
/
NMSS NAME $
1/bg TCJb N n-Jkkey hes!
CPaperiello DATE 8//T /97 8/k /97 8/ / C/97 8////97 8/ /97 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ACNW: YES _L NO _
Category: Proprietary _ or CF Only _
IG : YES _ NO j LSS : YES _ NO _ Delete file after distribution: Yes _ No _
___