ML20238E163
| ML20238E163 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/03/1987 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR24018, REF-10CFR9.7 AA40-2-45, NUDOCS 8709140181 | |
| Download: ML20238E163 (82) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:h RG \\A_ O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Title:
Briefing on status of Decommissioning Activities Location: Washington, 0, c. Date: Thursday, September 3, 1987 ( Pages: 1 - 62 Ann Riley & Associates Court Reporters 1625 i Street, N.W., Suite 921 {. Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 293-3950
- F218eFA "7 '
PT9.7 PDR
Y 'x .i ' i/ 1 D I SCLA I M E R-2 S 4 5 6 This is an unofficial transcript of a' meeting o'f the-7 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on S 9/03/87 In the Commission's office at 1717 H street', 9 'i4. W., Washington, D.C. The meeting was open to public 10 attendance and observation. This transcript has not been 11 reviewed, corrected, or' edited, and it may contain -g 12 inaccuracies. 1 18 The transcript is intended solely for general 14 informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is 15 not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the 16 matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript 17 do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No i 18 pleading or other paper may be filed with the Cavamission in 19 any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement 20 or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may 4 21 authorize. 22 i / T 23 \\u 24 25 ~
,f - 1 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j'%, ./ 2 NUCLEAR REGUIATORY COMMISSION \\ 3 4 BRIEFIFG ON STATUS OF DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES 5 6 PUBLIC MEETING 7 I 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 1717 H Street, Northwest 10 Washington, D.C. l 11 l l { 12 Thursday, September 3, 1987 l 1 13 ( 14 The Commission met in open session, pursuant to 1 15 notice, at 2:05 p.m,, the Honorable IANDO W. ZECH, Chairman of I 16 the Commission, presiding. 17 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: 14 LANDO W.
- ZECH, Chairman of the Commission 19 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 20 FREDERICK M. BERNTHAL, Member of the Commission i
21 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission 22 23 i 24 25 _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - ' ^ - - - - - ' ' ^ - - - - - ~ ~
- .p 2
1 -s 2 3 4 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE:. 5: 6-S. CHILK 7. W. PARLER 8-V. STELLO 9 R. BOSNAK 10 E. BECKJORD 11 R. WOOD '12~ F. CARDILE 13 ' w., -. R. ALEXANDER s... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22. 23 24 25 l
- ~
r 3 1 PROCEEDINGS (~)- l 2 [2:05 p.m.] 3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. 4 Mr. Roberts will be joining us shortly. Commissioner Carr will 5 not be present today. Let me welcome Commissioner Rogers to q 6 the NRC and wish you the very best. We greatly appreciate your l 7 joining us in the service of our country. 8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Thank you very much. l 9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Today the Commission will be briefed 1 1 10 by the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research on the 11 Agency's decommissioning activities. It is my understanding 12 that their briefing will focus principally on the Agency's 13 proposed rule to amend the regulations for technical and 14 financial criteria for decommissioning licensed facilities. 15 The intent of the proposed rule is to assure that 1 16 decommissioning of licensed facilities will be accomplished in 17 a safe and timely manner and that adequate licensee funds will be avbilable for this purpose. 18 I 19 The Agency has previously issued a proposed rule that 20 has received various public comments which the staff has 21 factored into the proposed final rule. 22 The Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation is 23 represented today also to answer any questions on reactor 24 decommissioning activities in their area of responsibility, 25 [ Commissioner Roberts entered the briefing.) s. {
II l; k 6 4 -1 CEAIRMAN ZECH: Today's meeting is an information 77 2 briefing and no vote is anticipated. I understand copies of 3 the slides'~are available in the back of the room. 4 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any opening 5~ comments before we begin? 6 (No response.) 7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: If not, Mr. Stello, would you begin, 8. please? 9 MR. STELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are here 10 today to give you a status briefing with our at least aim over 11 the next month or so to have before you a paper which will 12 propose for you the final rule for your consideration. It is j 13 probably a month away before it will be here. 14 The difficult issues' associated with this rule making 15 'probably fall within two general frameworks, as I see them. 16 The 3.ssue of financial assurance has been one, which as I 17 recall, received most of the comments, and is a very, very i 18 difficult area, one for which there are a variety of views on 19 how to proceed. 20 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me ask one question here 21 before we go on. Has the General Counsel reviewed this 22 preliminary paper that we have seen yet? 23 MR. PARLER: I don't know what preliminary paper you 24 have seen. However, I have been following the events very 25 closely over the months. The office has expressed the position 1 d
L + 1 that there is no legal objection to the approach. I have read p. 2 some of the recent material which is not yet in final form. I 3 have not changed'my position. I think that under the 4 circumstances, it is a very fine approach. That doesn't mean it is perfect, but perhaps there is no perfect solution here. 5 6 The' framework he.re can be laid out. The real test will come 7 when we.get a specific proposal in hand. In other words, the 8 plan. That would have to be examined very carefully to make 9 certain it would have all of the provisions in it that would 10 help assure that the objective of the rule is accomplished, 11 that is that the funds are available when needed, in the 12 amounts needed, to carry out decommissioning. N 13 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You have not or you have 14 reviewed the draft SECY paper on the final rule? 15 MR. PARLER: I don't know what draft SECY paper you 16-have. 17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That answers my question. I 18 will look forward to your comments when you get the SECY paper. 19 MR. PARLER: The office's position is there is no 20 legal objection to the paper, which Mr. Stello would say would 21 be to you all in a month. I just don't know what you have 22 before you. 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Thanks. 24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Proceed, please. 25 MR. STELLO: The second issue, and we believe we can 2
s y
- . e
'6: 1' /l m move forward successfully,'in.~1ight of.the' current-facts, which- / 2 are EPA's' regulations'en residual radioactivity, which would in' 3 ' fact' govern that; point of decommissioning from which you'could 4 ^ ...Asase the site backLto general use. That rule is'still not '5 forecasted in'the timeframe for which.we would'come forward' with'the rule tb the Commission)and probably wouldinot do so in 6' 7 the immediate future thereafter. 8 I think as we will explain, we believe that we'have a 9. basis.to' move; forward without having that standard in place and ~ 10 have done studies to persuade ourselves that within'the 11 variations with which one could conjecture 'that those standards i 1 might' cover, on what the standards for residual radioactivity '12 ,'] 13 might look like, we believe'we have a sound basis to move. N 14 forward. 15' The two issues that will probably require 16 considerable study on your part and interest are'those two. I will have Mr. Bosnak take you through the briefing and we will, 17 18 of course, be back with the final paper in about a month or so. ~ 19 ' CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
- Proceed, 20
.please. 21 MR. BOSNAK: Gentlemen, the package that you have 22 before.you is organized so that we have really the first three -23 viewgraphs, principally to provida you some background, on what 24 has transpired over the past 12 years. 25 The first slide that you see gives you some of the s-
4 7 E 11- -important milestones over that 12 year period, and again to /~% 2 reiterate what the EDO has said, without question, providing L 3 for the financial assurance to accomplish decommissioning has 4 been the most controverr '.a1 and the most difficult topic we 5 have had to deal with. 6 As you can see, the next to the last bullet on this 7 first page indicates the decision made in 1983 to separate the 8 residual radioactivity level from the balance of the 9 decommissioning rule amendments. We will get into that a 10 little more later. It is an important decision that we feel 11 has been made and made correctly. 12 The second viewgraph gives you some idea of the . ( ') 13 breadth and scope of the contractor efforts.
- Battelle, k
14 Northwest; PNL, has been the principal contractor since the 15 program's inception. We have had to again study the various 16 types of licenses that are covered by the breadth of the rule 17 and looking into the various things that can affect both 18 technology, safety and of course, the principal thing is the i 19 cost of accomplishing the decommissioning for the various kinds 20 of licenses. 21 One of the other contractors that we had other than 22 the National Laboratories I wanted to highlight and we will get 23 back to his contribuulon later is Professor Jeremy Siegel from 24 the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, dealing again 25 with this area of financial stability of utilities, _ _ ___ _a
.o 8' 1 particularly in recent times, when there'has been some concern i. 2 about utilities' ability to maintain financial stability.and l 3 .not be subject to bankruptcy. 4 I wanted to point out again that while these reports 5 encompassed'a period of about 12 years, all of the information' 6 that we have has been-updated through 1987, and particularly, 7 and you haven't seen it yet, but it is part of the things that 8. are coming down, the final generic environmental impact 9 statement. 10 on the viewgraphs which are going to follow now,. 11 number three and those that follow, they define the scope of 12 the ruh, making antion and summarize the important governing , 3 13 \\... ' criteria, both as they appeared in the proposed rule, and these 14 really have not changed, and finally, we are going to focus on 15' the changes that were made as a result of the public review and 16 comment. 17 The purpose of the amendments are to assure that 18 decommissioning is carried out with a minimal. impact on public 19 health and also occupational health and safety and also, again, 20 to the environment. 21 As far as public health is concerned, we feel there 22 is a very minimal impact. There is both with respect to the 23 decommissioning and the transportation of dismantled parts of 24 the plant to the location for storage. 25' We feel that the rule accomplishes the provisions of
e 9 1 providing a framework for efficient and what is most important, fm, 2 consistent licensing actions related to decommissioning. In the past, we have had to rely on a case by case approach to the 3 4 process of decommissioning. 5 In the middle part of the slide, you see we have made 6 some attempt to indicate in approximate numbers at least, the 7 number of licensees which are affected. There are some 110 8 power reactors; 75 research and test. When we get into the area 9 of the raterial licensees, obviously, there are quite a few. 10 In a later slide, we are going to try to cover the l 11 fact that even though we are looking at some 23,000 licensees, 12 there will be a relatively small percentage that are going to \\ 13 be affected by filing and going through the administrative 14 process of coming in with their financial provisions. That 15 doesn't mean they won't have the responsibility but the 16 administrative burden on them is somewhat reduced. 17 Outside the scope of the rule are the areas that you 18 see, the high level geologic repositories covered in Part 60; 19 the land disposal, low level waste facilities in Part 61; and 20 the uranium mill and mill tailing facilities in Part 40, 21 Appendix A. 22 PNL has gone through some of the details of the 23 decommissioning waste and feel that we are in the order of 24 about 98 percent is Class A; another 1 percent would be B and C J 25 and less than 1 percent is greater than Class C. In
= _ _ 10' 1 . quantities,-we are talking about something..on the order of '{1 2; 18,000' cubic l meters per plant, that would be in the low level J .3, . waste category'and something on the order of 100 cubic meters 4. thatLwould be greater than class C. 5 This is really a table of contents for the balance'of 6 the. briefing.- The five issues of importance that you see 7<
- highlighted, decommissioning alternatives,. assurance of funds 8
for decommissioning, planning for decommissioning, environmental review and the residual' level of radioactivity,- 9 10 are all covered within the rule with the exception of the ~ 11 residual level. As'we indicated before, it is decoupled from 12 the balance of the rule. ~ T }- 13 Each of the first three, decommissioning qs 14 alternatives, asraranca of funds and planning, we are going to 15 cover in some detail in the rest of the briefing, because this is the area in which there have been changes from what you saw 16 17 in-the proposed rule. l 18 The bullet on environmental review, I just want to 19 again point out, as it says here, the current regulations, and J 20 this has not been changed from the proposed rule, the current 21 regulations require mandatory site environmental impact 22 ' statements. The proposed rule did not and the rule is going 23 forward now and does not require a specific mandatory site 24 environmental impact statement. All that is required is a l 25 generic environmental impact statement which the staff will l -]
+ 11 ( 1 file with. EPA, then each site must go through an environmental (~% N 2 assessment and out of that environmental assessment might come 3 the need to have a site specific environmental impact 4-statement. It is not mandatory. l 5 With respect to residual level of radioactivity, as i 6 stated before, it is not covered in the rule. The Agency is 7 participating in an EPA interagency working group. Eventually, 8 but this is not in the near future, it is probably a matter of 9 several years before the proposed guidance will come out, to be 10 issued by the President, and when it is available, obvicusly, 11 we would intend to implement the guidance via necessary { 12 separate rule making action. ~] 13' We are studying and considering the need to publish 14 some interim policy guidance other than what we now have. i That i 15 is under consideration. 16 on the next slide, what we have really is a breakdown 17 i of the comments on the proposed rule. The general response 18 varied from support or support with suggestions to statements ~ 19 that the existing rule was adequate, that the proposed l ^ 20 amendments were unnecessary, that they were overly prescriptive j 1 21 and burdensome. -i I 22 The changes of significance that we will be covering f 23 are first, and there are really only three, decommissioning ) 24 alternatives. We now say positively in response to the 25 comments, that we needed in this area to be perhaps more s-I
.g 'A_ 12: .[(D. 1 prescriptive,. and we now say positively _that. dismantlement o.; 2 safe. storage, and safe storage in the 60 year timeframe, both' 3' are acceptable. We will get into thefseparate decommissioning-4: alternatives. 'That is one change'of significance. o 5. The second is in the area'of assurance of funds. - In 6' that area,.we wanted to provide.in the material licensee. area, L 7 the fact that there will be financial' tests and parent company-8 guarantees and also.the amounts have. changed. i 9 With respect to power reactors, the certification 10 amounts;and adjustment factors.have' changed. 11 Also, lastly, funding assurance is no longer a 12 specific condition of licensing. r~" 13 (> The rest of the changes we look at as rearrangements 14 and clarifications. Those are the three principal ones and we 15' are going to get into those in a little more detail. 16 S1,ide number six, the conment says provide more 17 detail in the rule on the criteria regarding decommissioning 18 alternative choices. What we had before, we have said if there 19 were sufficient benefits, you could get into one of the 20 alternatives that provided for delay. It was a question of 21 what we meant by " sufficient benefits." 22 As you see in the discussion, there are tnree types 23 of alternatives.- The first is dismantlement. That is a rapid I l34 timeframe, approximately 5 to 7 years. The problem may or may 25 not be but it is possible that there will be no disposal space s. ___m. - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
r ,i4' t wg.. 13 'l available when the utility might wish to use this particular-ym [2 alternative'. 3-Safe storage isLthe alternative that we have added to 4-the final rule. .We are' talking'about a time of approximately .5 60 years..The 60 years comes from a period of about 50 years 6 'for most of the radioactivity.to decay to a sufficient amount-7 that it is not expected to be'a great problem. We were adding 8-an uncertainty factor of about 10 percent, five years, and: 9 roughly another five years to accomplish the dismantlement. A 10 total of about 60 years. 11 As we have indicated here, the choice of the 1.1 alternatives remains. We have not ruled out any of:them, ' ( ?s., 13 although several commenters suggested-that we should prohibit- ' (., 14 the alternative of entombment. 11 5 We decided that we would like to be able to provida 16-the greatest amount of flexibility but control flexibility 17 through the utilities. \\ 18 Entombment still remains but that must come into the I 19 staff for a review. 1 ] 20 As we said, delaying beyond this 60 years is -{ 21 evaluated on site specific factors. We are talking about s 22 things such as more than one plant at a. site, whether or not 23 the plant has operated for a long period of time, and has a l l 24 large amount of long life. radioisotopes that have built up a f x, 25 large inventory or not. Those are factors that affect whether I
t
- 9, 14 I
f1-orinot entombment is a viable alternative. \\, D t V.' 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Before you go.away from that slide, ~ 3-Lyou have three' alternatives. Would the final decommissioning 4 rule; prohibit future options for other uses of the facility l 5-such as'some kind of a plant structure'in another type of k i 6 ' industrial application? d i 7 MR.'BOSNAK:- It'would not. If you have 8 decommissioned it and you are going to a' situation in which you 9. have made'it safe'for all uses. We have discussed'the. 4 10 situation in which'someone might wish to convert from'say a 11 . power. license to another type of license, perhaps it may wish 12 ito be converted to a low level waste site. That could be an-i 13 alternative and this rule does not preclude such options. 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: How about if the choice was to make 15 it into some other kind of industrial activity? ~ 16 MR. BOSNAK: A non-nuclear industrial activity? 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes. 18 MR. BOSNAK: There would be no prohibition. 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Would you have to -- 20 MR. STELLO: It wouldn't preclude you for using it 21 for a nuclear application, like fusion plants. 22' CHAIRMAN ZECH: Does the final rule say that? Is it 23 clear? You only have three alternatives here. 24 MR. BOSNAK: The definition of " decommissioning," I 25 think that should encompass what you are considering.
.v 15 1 " Decommissioning" is defined as removing a nuclear facility 2 safely from service and reducing residual radioactivity to a 3 level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use 4 and termination of license. 5 It would be an area that we in the NRC would not be 6-concerned with. 7 . CHAIRMAN ZECH: My only concern is you say there are 8 three alternatives, dismantlement. I am envisioning not 9 dismantling it. You are saying safe storage, 60 years. I am 10 envisioning that maybe you want to convert it to something 11 else, much less than 60 years after it was first decontaminated 12 and all. It certainly is not entombment. E' 13 When you don't have some kind of an alternative down 14 to provide for a conversion or -- 15 MR. BOSNAK: You do have to render the site safe for 16 unrestricted use. It would involve one of these three ways of 17 doing it. 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That is my problem. 19 MR. STELLO: I think maybe I can help. I think I 20 understand the problem. To decommission, you do not have to 21 remove the buildings. You can keep those buildings and use 22 those buildings for some other purpose, some other industrial 23 purpose. 24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It doesn't say that, as I read the 25 alternatives. That is my problem. L
,1 16 g -1 .MR.ESTELLO: " Decommissioning" means.getting rid of-Q 2: the' radioactive' material only. After you decommission the ' facility, satisfy.our rules, there will.be buildings standing. '3 '4: You are not making them tear down the buildings. 5 MR.' 'PARLER:. The Chairman's~ point is that the-three ' alternatives that you give does not appear to be sufficiently 6 7 . broad to cover the scope of decommissioning you are talking >8 about. 9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That is exactly right. 10 MR. BOSNAK: You have to be able to arrive at'the- 'll condition in~which the site, including the-buildings and 12 facilities,'are safe. 13' CHAIRMAN ZECH: I' understand that. 14 MR.'STELLO: We will make that clear.in the rule that 15 the buildings, once the residual radioactivity is reduced to a 'evel',for unrestricted access, they can be used for any other 16 l 17-purpose. We will make it clear. i 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It seems to me it should be clarified E 19 lI that'once they are decontaminated, the radioactivity is gone, 20 you don't have to tear the building down, if it is useful for ] 21 something else. -22' MR. BOSNAK: I think we make a statement in the 23 supplementary information that such buildings, if they contain i R24 no radioactivity, you don't hrve to do anything to them. I ~ O '25 believe that is already in the supplementary information. i
g. f t n + k e, 3 g, Q' Q 3 ..h tl g 7 . lt 4 7-2 ,~ .V' t L 1. . CHAIRMAN ZECH:- My'only point.is in.tlia, alternatives, E fg.- N ') Q -2i you dontt provide a provision for.what you are tellin,g me right .3'. now. . g 4' 'MR. STELLO: We'will make it clear. Ithillkwe'h%ve L 5, been too.close to this, because we all understand what these p 6-2words mean. u !) 7. CHAIRMAN.ZECH:.That is why you are he h todhy. 9, s ou 8-- ~MR. STELLO:. Yes,wewillmahceitclear. } '9: COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:' What you are saying, l'think,' L10 ' is'it is' implicit in.the term " unrestricted use." {p^ n ' I: 11 ' MR.iSTELLO: Yes. o 12 MR. BOSNAK: Yes. "3' 13. CHAIRMAN ZECH: All I am saying is make another ( '14 alternative, perhaps. p 4 15 MR. STELLO: Or -clarify in these altMrnat' y.ss that l 16-you do.not need to remove'thova buildings once ysu'have removed 17 the radioactivity to-a level-where unrestricted access is /S 9 r 18 available. We will do'that, t n.q
- 19 CHAIRMAN 2ICH:
Before you go again, I have one other s' t . 20. question on that slide. Entombment, I think the disadvantages o 21 of entombment.are rather apparent. Could you identify the 22 advantages of entombment over some other decommissioning optdon or perhaps.tell us about the ciqcunsta'nces under which you ~ 23-( i-24 would approve entombment? i >q o.g 25 MR. BOSNAK: One of the ways, and I think you l 's i / .. j 4"
v O y 18 4N.01' t ' mentioned earlier that.if we had a plant that had not operated y-~, 2 for a"long period'of' time and had not built up a large >a y v. i q j g nventery of long lived isotopes, that would be one of the li ' is 4 things that in order to use the entombment option, you would 51 have to make sure'they have removed these long lived 6 'r. radioisotopes and we are talking about some that have 20, 30, y li ~ 7 80,000 years, half lives. In a way, that is a disadvantage but I4 if.a' plant has not operated for a long period of time, this 8 9' would not'present as much of an obstacle. .n, 10-That is one area an utility might wish to use this
- 11 particular-optien.
A small plant, again, that is not one of 12 the largtfoperating plants. There might be some advantages to 13 the utility to do this. f 14 MR. STELLO: There is one thought that I had about ,.15 entombmant. If you look at particular sites, they have all of 16 the attributes that are useful for central stations, the 17 " ologies" are all there, meteorology, seismology, hydrology, 18 access to water, access to rail, whatever. As an utility 19 continued to provide the service of electricity and you look 20 out in thi future, it is likely that will continue to be a t 21-desirable place to perform that activity. h2 If that continues to be the case, then they are going L 23 to continue to occupy the site and entombment for them will be 24 of little or no impact in terms of the financial cost to them. 25 The savings in terms of reduction in amount of activity with i _.________.________--_o
~I , A 19 [ 1 time, in terms of decontaminating, is far less, the amount of j i s 2 materials is far less, so it may turn out for a particular 3 utility that will continue to use this site to produce 4 electricity, for that to be a viable option, or it may not. It 5 doesn't seem there is enough to preclude that from being a wise { ( 6 choice. I don't think we know enough today to project what 7 that might look like 30 or 40 or 50 years from now. 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I guess my point would be that I 9 think entombment ought to be perhaps an alternative, but 10 certainly one that ought to be looked at very carefully before 11 it is permitted. There ought to be some good reason for it.- 12 Who is going to make the final decision regarding the ,T 13 power plant? What does your rule say? Does it come to the 14 Commission? Does the Commission make the final decision 15 regarding power plants, not necessarily materials licensees, 16 but just talking about power plants? 17 Is that alternative going to come to the Commission 18 for a final decision? Is that what the rule says? 'f I 19 MR. BOSNAK: As far as either the safe storage or the j 20 dismantlement, that would not come to the Commission. 21 Entombment is something again the staff would have to review on 22 a detailed basis. 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Does the rule say that? I 24 MR. STELLO: The rule would assume these activities 1 25 would be delegated to the appropriate offices, NRR and NMSS, in l l I .j
r < g n ---- .n' ~ 'a f ' ) :fl ^ ~ %, }
- 'y _
A .e },. 20 g "7%i h the -long tahm.. Clearly, as'we'~ enter into.this activity,Lthe. 7 t-3;gifN ', -@r. ',4 first several, there is no question.that'I would feel very) l .c v- .f y a ,.s. i 3 unc:omfortable in. moving, forward ~ without CommiWien involvement, ' a c' wt - 7 t s g g., 4 on them. I would expect that at>some\\ point,,off into the ne W : a 1-5 25 years,' when we will be getting into 'tliits activity, these 'I g C would be reduced tio a routine staff activity and the staff 6 '1 q 7. would be able.to handle them. S' '8' CHAIRMAN ZECM: Perhaps. j 9 MR. STELLO: ;In the.near term, the Commission would j i 10 clearly be in'olved. ,,/ v a, 94 'y s 11 CHAIRMAN ZECHR,The Commission has a responsibility .i 12 to be involved in my judgment'and should be involved. 1 ( 13' MR. S'IEbLO: No question about it. \\i ' q r 14 CHAIRMAN ZECHi,I think that should ie clenr. i t .5 MRI. STSLLO: I sincerely have the feeling that if we } L16 didn't see the wisdom in that, we would be reminded. 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: YesT.I think you would be. It in our 18 responsibility,,and we have to accept thatl responsibility. 19 All'..right. Iet's move along. 20 MR. B3SNAK: On the next slide,,this issthe' area that 21 is tha ttrea of, principal comment and principal Stdtf and g 22 . c o n t :te.c t o r s t u d y. 23 As you can see bere, the way this is outlined, we s 24 have the' comment on top and the background and discussion and j 25 finally the response. TheNasiccommentwasthat--:atleast 5js r s i 5 p-
y-_- g c. 21 1 'some of the commenters recommended that we delete certification. (3 2 for-power reactors. Others wanted us to retain it, but provida 3' greater flexibility. 4 Now certification, as far as power reactors are 5 concerned, is that early on -- and the rule provides for this - 6 - that this is, again, in the outline that you see here -- 7 criteria for funding' assurance, the first thing that -- and 8 this is the basic tenets that still are in the final rule -- 9 you've got to establish your financial responsibility early in 10 life by filing either decommissioning funding provisions. 11 For power, reactors, we provide for certification. 12 The utility certifies that it's going to meet its requirements 13 by providing funds by the various.means that you see: 14 prepayment, all funds at start; an external sinking fund where 15 you periodically deposit funds in a segregated account; we have 16 a surety method or insurance; internal reserves, and I have a 17 separate slide on this because this is the type of funding 18 which provided for the greatest amount of controversy and 19 difficulty. Internal reserves are obviously where you don't 20 segregate the funds in a particular account, and as we've said 21 here, it's not permitted for utilities that operate only a 22 single generating station. 23 The federal licensees, all they need do is provide a l 24 statement of intent, and I might point out here that in the 25 proposed rule, this included also, besides the federal power
22 'l. licensees, state and local, and that was changed, and that.was [, 2 the change that was made. 3 Going back to'again the criteria for funding 4 assurance, once you've established early on in life the fact-5 that you are providing for funding, then there must be a 6 periodic adjustment of the funds that you have, and this is: 7 done for power reactors on an annual basis.' And then five 8 years prior to the end of operations, you submit a more 9 detailed funding -- decommissioning' funding plan and finally, 10 near the end of the operating license term, the final 11 decommissioning plan. I 12 Now in response to the various comments that the 13 Staff received, we chose to disagree with the deletion of 14 certification for power reactors, and as we have here, we say 15 that the Commission, in prior meetings that we've had with you, has ' advocated its use for power reactors. 16 17 Now certification does do a lot to minimize 18' administrative effort for both the licensees and the Staff, and 19 we believe it maintains a good assurance that the funding is 20 there and will be there when it's needed. I 21 COMMISSIONER 2 BERNTHAL: I didn't understand what 22 you're saying. You're saying that many of the commenters 23 didn't want to have to certify that one of these methods would 24 be available? You chose to disagree with them? 25 MR. BOSNAK: Some of the commenters wanted us to s-l
.y; 23 '1 ' completely delete certification. q s 2.- . COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: On.what basis? l
- 3 MR. BOSNAK:
Just that it did not. provide us the '4 assurance that we-needed,.that.it was not -- it was not good I 5 enough,.that they felt thatlunless you had something like a q 6 prepayment method'where you put all the funds in at the 7 beginning,;that that was'the only thing-that would satisfy 8L them, so that certification where you haven't decided what 9L alternative you're going to use, it provides for a general 10 level.of funding.. 11-COMMISSIONER SERNTHAL: Excuse me. There's a 4 12 . disconnect here, because your paper.says certification.via, 13 .among'other things, prepayment, and I would assume that i 14 certification-involves all.of these options and that certifying 15 any one of them, including prepayment, falsely would be treated in the normal way that any material false statement to a 16 '17 federal agency would be. 18 I guess I'm failing to understand. They wanted you 19 to delete certification of what? 20 MR. BOSNAK: Completely delete the use of 21, certification. 22 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL: But we want -- I should think 23 anyone would licensees to certify this. 24 MR. BOSNAK: Exactly. That's why we disagreed with 25 the commenters. i _____ - _ D
s a ); ,h ,9; y 24-i p .f R 1. ' COMMISSIONER)BERNTHAL:: And what woul'd they have } "Q- .y 2 preferred as;an option? l 3 MR..BOSNAK: They would have preferred that,it not;be 4 . certified, butIthat the' funds be' deposited or that -- '5~ ~ COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL: 'Well, it would still have~toL i' 6-be. certified to us. 'I mean, we aren't going to go out and l 7 check the bank account. We're going-to require certification, '8 are we not? -9 Somehow there's a misunderstanding, I think.- I 10 understand what you're saying,'but it sounds like'what you're 11 stelling us-is that'these commenters misunderstood the way -- 12-MR. BOSNAK: I think there was some misunderstanding .r 3 '13 s.,.. / 14-COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:: we operate around here. 15 MR. BOSNAK: --- of what certification means on their 16 part.- 17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Yes, okay. 18 MR. WOOD: Could I say something? I 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Would you identify yoursialf for the 20 record? 21 MR. WOOD: Robert Wood. I work in the Office of 22 Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 23 The issue of certification was pretty simply to pick j 24 a spec.ific number, a dollar amount, for decommissioning costs w_ 25 rather than have the licensees submit a detailed funding plan,
5 25 1 a site-specific funding plan, early in the life. ('~% 2 Some people objected to the amount that we put in the 3 proposed rule, that it was either too low or too high, and 4 other people objected that it wasn't specific enough, that a 5 general number, a specific dollar figure, was not detailed 6 enough. But the Staff did feel that to alleviate administrative burdens on the licensees and on the Staff that a 7 8 general number early in the plan to give a general ballpark figure of how much money to accumulate would be sufficient, 9 and 10 then later towards the end of operating life, you could come up 11 with a detailed funding plan. 12 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I see. So you're saying the l 13 certification issue revolved around the question of the 14 licensee certifying the amount of money that was necessary to l 15 be put aside. 16 MR.. WOOD: That's correct. 17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. That makes more sense. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's proceed. 20 MR. BOSNAK: On page 8, Slide No. 8, which is a 21 continuation -- 22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm sorry. I want to ask one 23 more question, then, before we leave this issue. '~ 24 Could you explain to me why any sensible financial 25 manager would not immediately prefer to choose the internal
v g, 26 j _ '1 reserve method rather'than any of the rest of these? 2 -MR. BOSNAK: No, I cannot. 3 . COMMISSIONER.BERNTHAL: Simply on the basis of the '4 fact.that the funds.are going to be available for anything they 5, want to use'them for. 6 'MR. BOSNAK: : Exactly. 'You know, if he qualified as. 7 not being a single generating. station, internal reserves would 8 be, I think, the preferred method of choice. 9 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: 'And what is the basis of 10 discriminating against: single generating stations? .11 MR. BOSNAK: Well, the idea being that a single 12 station, if that were all its assets -- and there are some 's 13 arguments that could be made on the other side that even with a 14 single. generating station, there would be enough funds, but to 15 provide a degree <of backup, we felt that there should be some 16 additional assets besides the plant which is going to be i 17 decommissioned. 18 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Do we have statistics to 2 19 confirm that single generating stations on average have a 20 larger percentage of their assets tied up in these plants than 3 21 multiple generating stations? 22 MR. BOSNAK: I'd like to ask Bob if he can answer 23-that. 24 MR. WOOD: We are thinking specifically of the 25 situation of the Yankee companies in New England where the J
27 1 reactors were built.and the companies were established only to-l 2 operate that one plant, and when that plant is finished, the so. 3 companies themselves will essentially go out of business. i 4 COMMISSIONER BERNTRAL: They are_ surely a small 5-fraction.of the single generating station companies, aren't 6 they? 7 MR. WOOD: Well, not really, because most utilities, 8 I think the feeling is on the internal reserve, that most utilities are ongoing concerns that will have this franchised 9 10 to generate electricity after their nuclear plants are 11 decommissioned. 12 In the case of the Yankee companies and perhaps a few ^ 13 others around, given that that is their only asset, you have no n.- 14 future revenue base on which to finance this internal reserve 15 when it comes time to decommission. 16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, that's precisely the 17 point. Why should these many other companies, in lieu of other 18 statistics that would support it, the many other utilities that 19 are ongoing concerns, then, be caught within a net that, it 20 seems to me, perhaps should be more narrowly drawn or confined? 21 Or do you have statistics to suggest a basis for that? -22 MR. WOOD: Well, I think there are -- you know, I 23 think there are -- most utility companies, we expect will stay in the business of generating electricity after that. 24 25 I think the other thing to keep in mind is, a lot of
h 1 j s i 4 '28 i the State Public Utility Commissions'have'made decisions that. I l' j .f?% \\ w l. " 2 even.the larger electric utilities should accumulate funds in 3 external! reserves with trusteeship-type of accounts. l 4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHALt. Do we know how'many' single 5 utiliti'as that's'being. required for? 't 6 MR.. WOOD: Single asset utilities?- [ COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Single asset. utilities. 7 r a s 8 .MR. WOOD: As far as I know, it's only the Yankees. 9 There has been talk periodically'of different companies like ? 10 Middle South'or Commonwealth Edison to spin off some nuclear 11 plants and maks them in separate corporations, and in.that 12 case, I think we'd want to have those come under that rule, 13. too.
- k. /
'We may.want to give consideration in the future, if, say, 14 Braidwood,-lboth units were spun, we might want to.look at 15 whether they should be -- 16 MR. STELLO: I wonder, does this mean this applies 17 only to those utilities lika Yankee, that the only thing they 18 own is that nuclear plant? 19 MR. WOOD: Essentially. 20 MR. STELLO: If someone had lots of coal-fired plants 21 and one nuclear plant -- 22 MR. WOOD: It would not apply to them. 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, that's not what it 24 says. 25 MR. STELLO: Okay. The rule is written to preclude
s 29 1 where the single asset of the company is the nuclear plant. .O I 2 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: All right. Good. That's 3 encouraging. 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's proceed. 5 MR. BOSNAK: On page 8, Slide 8 is a continuation. I think we mention that in the final rule, we did increase the 6 7 certification amount. This is what the utility would use when it certifies early on in life that it is aware of the amount of 8 9 funds that are going to be needed, and the certification amount 10 has been adjusted. There was another comment that we should 11 provide for differences.in size and type and clarify -- this is 12 a point that the Chairman made earlier -- that the amounts do l ~~ 13 (N not include the removal or disposal of anything that is i 14 unassociated with radioactivity. So buildings that are not 15 contaminated, they can stay. This is not required that that be 16 part of the amount of dollars that are set aside for 17 decommissioning. 18 And we did revise in the final rule the escalation ~ 19 factor to, we think, better account for increases in 20 decommissioning costs, which involve labor, energy, and wasta 21 burial, so that it's not just an inflation factor. It tries to 22 take into account other changes that would occur in these three 23 areas. 24 And we did make some clarifications, and these are, 25 from a legal point of view, changes, but there was no real
e s T '3 0. ?- r significant modification lof the rule,'and we've. clarified that 1- ' w.- ,2 a' licensee may certify an amount. larger than the prescribed-31 minimum amount. This was again the basis of a' comment, that-4- you could, if;you so wished, base the~ certification on whatever-5 he had at the site. 6 And as we've said hore,.the' rule no longer requires a _c. -I 7 details estimate earlyLin life. That comas'later. B We've' clarified the-requirements of the-rule, and 9' we've said specifically.that they are in addition to and not a 10 substitutionJfor requirements of agencies such as the State i 11' Public Utilities commissions, and we've clarified withLrespect 12' .to -- while it doesn't involve the area of funding, it's c 'S 13 indicated here -- rearrangement of recordkeeping, and other N 14-than maintenance of records, we are not requiring specific 15 design features or procedures to facilitate decommissioning in I 16 the rule specifically at this time. 17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Let me ask again, now that 18 we've established that the-average financial officer acting in 19 his company's best interest is going'to use the internal-20 reserve option in all probability, what safeguards have you
- 21 built in, then, to deal with the circumstance, for example, 22 where a company finds itself in financial straits maybe two 23 years, three years -- pick an arbitrary time -- before a plant is about to -- is scheduled for decommissioning, what 24 25 safeguards exist, then, within the rule as drawn that would i.
4 31 1 prevent the company from drawing on that internal reserve to O ( _/ 2 meet other financial obligations at that time? 3 MR. BOSNAK: Well, periodically and annually, the 4 utility does have to assure itself that it does have the funds 5 that are supposed to be available. 6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Assure itself or assure us? 7 MR. BOSNAK: Well, assure us and assure itself that - 8 - and I don't know if you're getting to the situation in which 9 a utility may be filing for bankruptcy, for instance. That may 10 be a possibility. 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Certainly. 12 MR. BOSNAK: In either case, we believe that we've , S 13 set aside enough funds, and whether or not the utility files ( 14 for bankruptcy and whether they have internal or external 15 funding assurance, this requirement of ours is a liability and 16 an obligation, and we may have to -- if we're talking about 17 bankruptcy, I'm sure we will have to enter into the court i 18 proceedings to establish the fact that this is a 19 responsibility, and this is something that comes ahead of the 20 commitments to pay interest and dividends to security holders. 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: In which circumstance, you 22 would end up in court, and even if you did get priority 23 treatment, maybe even over shareholders of preferred stock, you 24 still might end up getting 40 cents on the dollar or something 25 like that. Is that a possibility? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - ' - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - ' - - -
t ,g'
- (-
32-5.1 ' MR..BOSNAK:- Well, I would hope not,cbut.the-other /Q)- - % gr 2-L thing.that'-- i; 3 . COMMISSIONER'BERNTHAL:- Well, is it orlisn8t it? I -4 could hope'not,-too, but is that a possibility? -a. 5 .MR.iWOOD: When we had our consultant, Dr. Siegel', 6- 'wholMr. Bosnak mentioned earlier, look at this problem,1we had 7' him specifically look at the case of Public Service'of New'- b 8.
- Hampshire, Consumers Power.
.9' ' COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'didn't have anybody in 1 10 ' mind. 1 1 11 (Laughter.] 12 MR. WOOD: 'For example'only. His. belief as a k}*) Professor of Finance, is an utility is kind of.anLunique 13-14 corporate animal. They.have a franchise to sell electricity, -15 to produce it, distribute it,,and this obligation is not going 16 to go away, even if the utility files for Chapter 11. What a 17 Chapter 11 filing means'is they~try to restructure their debt 18 and that the stockholders and bond holders may or may not get 19 their value back out of that. 20 He used as part of his analysis evaluation of the 21 value of the firm as based on the market price times the number 22 of s hares outstanding and found that even for the worse 23 utilities in the worse financial shape, that there was significant value over and above what the decommissioning cost 24 1 s-25 would be. It would never be in the stockholders' interest or ,__________------------A
- (
33 1: the. bond holders' interest to force'a liquidation of the fW 2 company.. The company would stay in business, continue to produce electricity'and because traditionally the obligations 3 4 of the company for decommissioning or other obligations would 5 come prior to these bond holders' and stockholders' interests, 6' .those would alway's be covered, even in a bankruptcy proceeding. 7 The only situation where that wouldn't occur would be' in the very small highly improbable case of complete 8-9 liquidation of the utility. 10 I think there has'been no history in the last-50 or 11 ~ 60 years of a major utility going bankrupt. Just a couple.ct 12 days ago in the Wall street Journal, there was a little ^s 13 discussion about Wabash Valley Power Authority, which was a 14 part' owner of Marble Hill, and had to absorb $400 or $500 15 -million in~ costs when that plant was cancelled. 16 TheyLfiled for Chapter 11 in 1985. According to the 17 article, they are still paying all their obligations, still 4 18 providing electricity to their customers, paying wages, paying 19 all other obligations. The only thing they are not paying is 20 the $400 to $500 mTilion in loans they got from REA. That part 21 of it is being restructured and postponed. 22 I.think there is some precedent for saying Dr. j ~ ? 23 Siegel's view might be correct. ~ ~ ~ 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess the thing that 3 4s l' 25 troubles me is the mera complexity of the discussion here and
r: T. 34 .it shows how:over;our' heads we are in trying to deal with l' M ~.1/ 2- ~ = speculative questions in the financial world. It is'ons of the 3 l reasonsiIchave never believed the Commission should'take. 4 terribly active involvement in-these questions'of financial '5 . qualification, for example, way back when that was-an issue. 6-This is different, where we have to.become-involved, but h'aving. recognized that we have to become-involved, one. 7 8 wonders whether it shouldn't be simple. It just seems'like 9 when you have toLatart talking about the, complexities of: 10 Chapter 11 and what happens when you go to court and who gets-l 11 the money and who doesn't and the fact that you do have.to go 12 to court, I worry about the complexity of that and the-kind of- /' \\..];- 13 assurance you get. 14 MR. PARLER: If you do get to the~ point where you l 15 have to worry about the complexities of Chapter 11, the 16 lawsuits, getting 40 cents on the $1.00, you do really have a 17 big. problem. The functions of people such as myself or Mr. 18 Woods, the people that work in the Legal office, is to maks -19 sure that these arrangements or a combination of arrangements, 20 are written so that you have a legally binding understanding 4 21 document that presumably will without too much litigation, make it quite clear that funds are available in such amounts for 22 i 23 certain purposes. 24 If one assumes that one is relying simply on an ul 25 s internal reserve which is not segregated or protected in any
s. =%. s {g 35-jli . ay,.that.aniutility;can do whatever-it wants with it,'there is w O'v2 2 a problem.there. Jhers.certainly is'a potential problem. 3. There,is a' potential; problem there even if one'doesn't-talk! -4 about bankruptcy.- The utility might choose to use'the funds to 5-avoid bankruptcy, for example. 6. All of,those things cannot be spelled out in the 7 rule. .There are already a number of combinations'of possible 8. ' arrangements the legal mind and the financial' mind can come up with to accomplish a particular; objective. 9 10 That is why I said at the opening of this meeting, 11 -this rule will just set out the framework. The challenge is
- 12 goingLto be the first couple of these arrangements we get.
37 13 Whoever.is here,in this position and their colleagues, the (2. / 14 legal. staff and the financial staff, will have to examine these 15 things very carefully. 16 CONNISSIONER BERNTHAL:- If I hear what you are 17-saying, you are telling us that it will be the task of the 18 - Office of General Counsel of this Agency on a case by case 19 basis within this broad framework to make sure that in fact, 20 whatever the number may be that is certified as adequate, that 21 number will be accessible for decommissioning in any! reasonable 22 eventuality? 23 MR. PARLER: Try to do the best we can along with the 24 responsible state PUC, who also has a different role in this, 25 to put the best points of views and minds together to come up
,g. 36- .) i 1 with--- something. that. will: presumably stand the test. mkN 12- . COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: If the internal' reserve-I 3 option were'not there, to what. extent.would that simplify your 4' -- task? ' 5-MR. PARLER: Commissioner.Bernthal, a couple of years n .) '6 ago, the Legal Office provided an analysis to the Commission. ,7 -You haven't seen-this yet, commissioner Rogers,.I will get it 8 to you right after the meeting, and it was also before 1 i 9 Commissioner Carr's time. Clearly, a segregated reserve would 10 ba one of the preferred options, putting the money all up. front i 11 and fairly insulating it from anything else would also be, 12 strictly from a legal standpoint, perhaps the most preferred- 'q 13 option. It may be highly impractical because people usually 14 don't do business that way. You may wind up having a 15 combination of these things. 16 At one time, the staff indicated that perhaps it 17 would favor'it. They indicated a greater measure of assurance would' be provided by the internal reserve method, if it was 18 19 supplemented by a mechanism such as insurance or a surety 20 arrangement. You could have something like a segregated 21 internal reserve approach. There are all sorts of things that 22 people just have to look at specifics and work out. 23 All of that, I can assure you, can't be spelled out 24 in this rule. You would have the most restrictive rule you 25 have ever seen, which probably wouldn't solve any problems. ss
+
- p 37 El
' MR. STELLO: I don't want to prolong the discussion, (~h x_ / 2 but isn't the same question' germane to an insurance company, if' 3l they-have it tied up, whether an insurance company would give 4 that guarantee? What happens if the insurance company goes 5 bankrupt? -6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: What if Lloyd's of London 7 goes bankrupt. That is why we have insurance companies. One-8 hope they don't go bankrupt as well. It is a second order 9 concern; let's put it that way. 10 CRAIRMAN ZECH: The assurance of funds is an 11 extremely important issue. That is what we are trying to talk i 12 about. Wo.can all see how complex it is. The General Counsel, {} 13 .I think, has described the situation very well because we are 14 trying to get something that we can all be assured of, but we 15 recognize that the laws of our country and financial and legal 16 implications are sometimes difficult to make very simple. We 17 are trying to find the assurance that the funds will be 18 available. That is what we are trying to say. We are trying 1 19 to make it as simple as we can. We recognize it is a pretty l l 20 complex issue to make simple, q j There has to be in the rule the assurance to the 21 j 22 Commission essentially that to the best of our ability, the 23 funds will be available for decommissioning. 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That is exactly the problem I i 1' N,_.? 25, am getting at. If the rule permits an uninsured internal i __-___-___-______-_U
38 l 1-reserve, for example, under circumstances that aren't hard to ('T 2 imagine, I gather there is no legal basis for OGC even to 3 negotiate an agreement where you could get the kind of 4 assurance that you would have, for example, with any of th'ese 5 other options or the combination of options, as Mr. Parler just 6 raised. 7-MR. PARLER: If the understanding is this rule would 8 permit just any old internal reserve approach to pass muster, 9 no matter what, I think it should be changed. That is not my 10 understanding. 11 My understanding is whatever the arrangements are 12 need to comply with this rule, and they would be reviewed by r ~' 3 13 b the appropriate staff people of this independent regulatory 14 agency just like everything else sent to it for approval is j 15 reviewed. It either passes muster or it doesn't. 16 i COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: " Muster
- means that in your 17 judgment, under conditions of bankruptcy and the other I
18 scenarios we have talked about here, external creditors or the 'l 19 company itself and one or another exigency would not have 20 access to those funds,~ and that is the kind of thing OGC would 21 seek to craft and this rule provides the flexibility for you to ) 22 do that; is that what you are saying? 23 MR. PARLER: OGC would seek to craft it. It is my 1 24 understanding of the rule, it would provide that flexibility. { 25 i If my understanding is not correct, that the Agency would have n
4 1 to accept whatever~is proposed, any of these several things ..-x 2 mentioned on one of these charts, that would give me 3 difficulty. 4 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I guess you haven't seen the 5 final paper? 6 MR. PARLER: I haven't seen the final paper. 7 MR. STELLO: I said it is the most difficult part of 8 this. The other side of that issue that is again troubling is 9 whether we ought to allow it, and whether there will be 10 pressure by public utility commissions who want to keep rates 11 low. At some point when something comes up to cause the L 12 utility to dip'into this fund, in order to keep the rates low, i X~% 13 it is an area we need to look very hard at and it is not an .( I 14 easy choice. 15 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Good point. 16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let's proceed. 17 MR. STELLO: We will definitely re-visit the issue. 18 MR. BOSNAK: Can we move onto number nine, gentlemen? 19 Some of this, we have already covered with respect to Professor Siegel and the fact that the market value of troubled utilities I 20 21 is substantial. 22 There are two things that are not mentioned here that 23 he had in his report. There were a couple of recommendations. 24 One, he suggest2d that we at least investigate the possibility 25 of strengthening by legislative action, and this would
h ,e 40 11N obviously-have to go-to.the Congress, the firm,-legal 1 I 2' . obligation of an utility to undertake decommissioning. -That: lH 3 was a. recommendation that was made. I believe I'saw a memo 4-from OGCLto the Commission somewhat related to this, that this 5 is being;1ooked at. 6' MR. PARLER: I haven't seen the memorandum, but 7 decommissioning to'me is clearly a part of this Agency's public 8 health and safety responsibility. This Agency does clearly in 9, my judgment have the authority to so direct the licensee. If 4-10 there is any possible need for legislation in this area, it-11 'might'be on'the point, or at least one of the points Mr. 12 Bernthal was alluding to, to provide perhaps'better assurance 13 .that in tho'unlikely event of a bankruptcy, that the funds that 14 were available remained available to use for decommissioning. 15 Certainly,-legislation to make it clear that we have the 16 authority to' order. decommissioning, we don't need legislation 17 for that, in.my opinion. 18 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you.. Let's proceed. 19 MR. BOSNAK: The second area was we should stay 20 abreast of the overall financial health of utilities, not 21 specific utilities but things that might affect the overall 22 area such as deregulation, for instance. This is something we 23 are already doing. 24 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: On point one, in fact, the a N_ 25 rule does not say just utilities owning more than one
f. 7-D: L
- ,; f i
l
- o 41
.1 $q . generating facility, as I understand from.our previous 4 J.A 2, discussions. L Tl MR.'BOSNAK: That's correct. 3 4-COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:, It is more. narrowly drawn 5 thanSthat. I just' wanted to. clarify that again. 6 CHAIRMAN'ZECH: Proceed. 7 MR. BOSNAK: Slide-number. ten is the situationLwe '8-I talked about of having funding as a licensing condition.- This .9 was objected to with respect to the operation of plants. The 10 staff agreed. We have modified the rule to specifically remove '11 funding'as a requirement of license but obviously it is 12L ' instituted in the other sections offthe' rule, so that-you &pk 13 'cannot operate without this area, but it.is not a condition of / g _.1 - 14 license. 15 At the bottom of the page, we.again wanted to ~16 reiterate that funding must be demonstrated for new plants at 3 17 the time they apply for an operating license. Plants which are 18 operating at the time the rule becomes effective must comply 19 within 2 years of the effective date of the rule. 20 The decommissioning funding provisions are adjusted 21 on an annual basis. 1 l 22-CHAIRMAN ZECH: Could you expand just a little on why 23 you agreed with the comment and removed the funding requirement 24 as a condition for a license? i a \\ 25 MR. STELLO: You simply don't have to have that many
4 . y. 42 -l-license amendments in the~ process.- Do it one. time by rule. ~ 2 ' CHAIRMAN'ZECH:- You accomplish the'same thing? 3 MR. STELLO: You accomplish the same thing.and save- ) 4 '- an awful lot.of paper. 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: You don't need amendments, but you' d 6- -have a rule-that will take care of-the same thing? 1 7 MR. STEIlo: You do it by the rule. \\ 8 MR.'BOSNAK: Number 11, the comment was that.more criteria _is needed in preparing and evaluating the 9 -10 decommissioning plans, in particular, coverage of radiation 1 11 protection,' quality assurance and physical security. We did j 1 12 agree with the commenters' concerns and in most cases, they. ^ 13 were already addressed in the rule. However, we have modified \\ 14. the rule to include specific description of quality assurance,- i I l that'these features need to be included in the decommissioning 15 j 16 plan. 17 Physical security and'the technical specifications 18 which are applicable to the decommissioning process, those are ~ 19 not the technical specifications that are applicable say to 20 possession only license. We are talking about the 21 decommissioning process itself. j 22 We have indicated that we are going to have to 23 develop additional guidance in regulatory guides and standard 24 review plans in the following areas, and the things we have 25 ' talked about with respect to financial assurance, format and
43 1 content of the decommissioning plans and recordkeeping and (3, 2 updated procedures for termination of licenses, which is not 3 covered in Reg Guide 186. 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me ask you a question. What was 5 the rationale for deferring licensee submission of their 6 detailed decommissioning plan until after the facility ceases 7 to operate? 8 It seems to me, why not require submission several 9 years prior to scheduled and of operations while the utility 10 has some value? 11 I don't understand the rationale. Maybe I've 12 misunderstood that you're saying, but is that what you did? 13 HR. BOSNAK: The detailed decommissioning plan where 14 they have made the selection of the alternatives and all of the 15 rest of the things that are covered here are not required until 16 just before the termination of the license. 17 What is required five years before the termination is 18 an updating of the financial provisions, and that is something, 19 I believe, that you covered earlier in one of the meetings 20 where we came down with the proposed rule. That still remains 21 in the rule. 22 So we're not coming in with the details of the 23 decommissioning itself, but we are requiring five years prior 24 to that point a complete upgrading of the amount of monies that 25 would be needed, so that if before, if you recall, they're x.
, 3.; }. 44 1-
- using a set amounts now they;have to go-through'and really come 2'-
up'with a more' exact amount of' funds that are going to be. 3. required:to accomplish the plan. 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I guess my point ~is, it.seems rather 5 late in the history of'the organization to make this kind of a 6-requirement. .7 What's the likelihood that the Government, perhaps', will be.left with the responsibilities if the licensee'should. 8 9 cease to exist at that late stage? 10 MR. BOSNAK: Well, we are going to review -- 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Why are we doing it so late? 12 MR. BOSNAK: Well, we are going to review the '.7 13 k;! detailed funding plan that comes in five years prior to'this 14' point in time, and again, if that does not appear to be a 15 propei and of the kind that we feel is going to be necessary, 16 there will be some action taken. 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well,.why don't you have the detailed 18 decommissioning plan at the same time you have the funding 19 plan? What's the difference? 20 MR. BOSNAK: Does anyone have an answer for that? i 21 MR. CARDILE: My name is Frank Cardile from the 22 Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. 23 Up front, currently right now when a rule goes into 24 effect, each utility would have to give a preliminary idea of 25 what their funding provisions are, but they're not going to ~ L. l-
,% f
- n:u T
T ) a 1 .m m%o /1 y ,f f 9- .E ~45 Jii', v. .~ 4 7 g y
- f'
- li
'have to' provide the details of exactly how they'ra going to l 7' ~ \\,f .2 accomplish the decommissioning activities at this' time, because 3 it's, you know, 20 y ars in advance of:when a reactor would 4 shut down. 1 4 5-Wh' t the rule would, requtire would be that one-year a t ' priortotfeexpirationoftheo'peratingNicense/theutility-6 3 7 would have to submit its plans for the actual' conduct of -8 carrying.out the decommissioning process itself, how'it's going i .u j 9 to protect the, health and safety.of the public and the workers.'> 10 a That would be submitted one yeaf prior to the expiration of tho' k 11 operating license, and that would give us a chance to then y @. 12 review that. f C"% 13 ] Mhat happened was that at'the previous Commission.- 14 meeting, the Commissioners wereicbncerned that, gae, that's
- s
( L 15 g only one year before they're ready to shut down.- What about ..s J s 16 waste disposal? What about other questions that may be coming 17 up? And that was why, at the requent of the Commissioners, I 18 guess a couple years ago, we put out the proposed rule, and we i 19 added a requirement that five years before they shut down, t., hey make~an up-to-date assesamen't of the current situation with-i 20 21 regard to waste disposal, so that they wou].d be thinking and ,h 22 planning ahead, and the NRC would know that they were thinking 1 23 and planning ahead. 24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: 3 ell, I agree with that. But'isn't \\ 25 it true that the rule permits deferring the licensee's w i _w'
._------r-
- g e
y, x
- [_j[
F 46 f{ % 4 1. M, submission of tho' detailed decommissioning plan until after the ,U( ;,I 2 facility' ceases'to exist? p.j' 3 MR.LCARDILE: No. What-it says -- 4 CHAIRMAN.ZECH: What'does'it say? .5 MR CARDILE: y The language in 50.82 is that an ? 6: application must be made within two years following the - 4. y 7 permanent cessation of operations. 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: What? 9-MR. CARDILE: There is the application for -- '10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Prior to-shutdown? 11' MR.-CARDILE: Well, it must be made within two years 12 following shutdown. -t A 13. CHAIRMAN ZECH: Following shutdown? ) 7'J ?l4 x MR.-CARDILE: That would apply to-a reactor that, for
- .3 i [. J h413..example, like a Three Mile Island, that if they decided that t
e ( 16-they're going to decommission, it's not planned. Q'M . In other 17' words, they have two years from the date that they decide to decommissN.on to submit that plan. ~ 18 o x 19 But in the normal case, the rest of that sentence 20 ' reads that the ncrmal reactor that runs to the end of its life, i m ( 21 he has, it says here, in no case must an application -- must a r, 22 decommissioning plan be submitted later than one year prior to 23 expiration of the operating license. In other words, the 24 normal reactor -- 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, my personal feeling is, that's j l
.w 47 g 1 'a little lente anyway. But'will you'look at that whole thing y ,m- %( 2' and make sure that it's clear as it should be? I think it - 3. ' perhaps needs a little bit of clarification.- I'didn't read it-4 that way. 5 MR. BOSNAK: Right., Some of the wording with respect 1 ( 6 to funding plan and decommissioning plan, I think may be a f 7 little difficult to interpret. 8-CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's take a look.at that 9 and make sure that it's as clear as you can make it and do it. 10 My personal view is that it ought to be done earlier than what 'l 11 you're saying. We ought to take a look at that, too. 12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Could I just say something? ("-} 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Certainly. ' 14 ' COMMISSIONER ROGERS: It seems to me that the cost 15 estimate of that decommissioning is -- you know, it's going to 16 be just a guesstimate until they really do produce a detailed 17 plan, and we all know that in this business costs are very, 18 very difficult to predict in anything involving nuclear p* ants, ~ 4 19 and that as the and of life approaches, it's very important to 20 have that detailed plan as the basis for ascertaining whether 21 that reserve fund is sufficient. 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: And my point is that we should do 23 that not, you know, at the very last moment, but perhaps a 24 little before one year before the end of life. I don't know (N 25 how much. Five years, four, something like that, and then i
.y u., .c y .'3 } ~ r 48 1 p a J 1, modify it as-you go ahead., That's what Mr. Rogers points out. e. 4. ~ y...-) 7 (, MR. CARDILE: That' is what is required at afive years. s 3 / CHAIRMAN ZECH: Okay. Then I think we need to, ~ h ~l L 6 lb 7 clarify it in there, because I couldn't read-it that way. l 4 s y" ) y -J 5 COMMISSIOl % BERNTHAL: I thought'you just said'- ( a, 8 i p. } 6 earlier that at five-years the waste disposal question.is'the 1 + 8' / <' ~7 issue that had to bs-clearly addressed. )* j q-8- MR.JDOSNAK: No. e^ p 9 T COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL:; To sort of see that they were 10 thinking about it. ') ,s j 11 MR. CARDILD As part of developing his cost" estimate ( : 12. at five years,'he has to base it on an up-to-dita assessment of r .,h the cu. vent situation, And that would include things sugh as 13 / \\" ' ' / 14 whatyvill' he be doing with the waste. ' ) ?, ll l k l r' 15 CCEMISSIONER SERNTHAL: I see.! Okay. t 3 2 16 MR. BOSNAK: All.rpght. Let's move on to the next r j e t ~ 17 slide on 12. j /
- J f
.a 18 CHAIRMAM^ZECH: Let's make isure you make that as 19 clear as you can. It simply /isn't as clear -- .(We'lltakeanotherlookatthetimingof 20 MR. BodNAK: . Il 'p r 21 it as well. + f 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Okay, thAnX you. Good. Go aha$d. 23 MR. BOSKlGi Movin<L on ho No.12, this is the major _i i< s 24 i " area affecting material licensees. Now this is e.t change that . f' q.' 25 was not in the proposed rule. We've included tha'use of a 1 ~ T ,f f J.
L 4 I 49 1 financial' test and parent company guarantee, and I might
- p; s
2 indicate.here that these tests are based on EPA criteria, similar criteria to what they use on firms with hazardous 3 k 4 waste. So there is a test of the parent company financial 5 worth, and there is a test relating the parent company worth to 1'. 6 the decommissioning costs. And as in the case of power 7 reactors, the certification amounts were increased. B The comment we mada earlier here that we believe that 9 instead of the 23,000, somewhere on the order of 3000 licensees 10 will be required to develop and submit these financial i 11 provisions instead of a full 23,000. So that obviously is an 12 effect on the workload of NMSS. f-13 Now the final rule is to be made a ma ter of ('g# 14 compatibility for agreement states, so that would be included 15 with respect to our agreements with those states. 16 Now the next slide, 13, the current status' of 17 rulemaking, all of the comments have been considered and 18 addressed, and in the package that you'll be getting, the major j 19 comments are covered in the supplementary information, and we l 20 have a NUREG at the time the rule is published that will cover 21 all of the comments. 22 The rules have been revised, addressing all the 23 public comments, and as we've indicated earlier, the package 24 should reach the commission during the month of September. i 25 Currently, OGC.is making some revisions due to the recent court \\
50 g l'
- action that vaicated the -backfit rule.
i 2 MR. PARLER: Mr; Chairman, those revisions will be '3 minor, if'any. What we're doing is going through a quality. 4 control type check to see whether any. changes are required.
- 5 There'shouldn't be any changes required.
I don't'think there 6- 'will be. .7 ~ CHAIRMAN ZECH:. All right.. Thank you. 8 MR. BOSNAK: And the generic environmental. impact 9 statement is in its final stages of preparation. That will: L ,10 also be ready to be released. So as we indicate here, the task fremaining to resolve any of the Commission comments,. including 'll 12 obviously those that you made here this afternoon, completing ,. 3. 13 the final generic environmental impact statement and then ,: t 14 basically issuing the rules.and the impact' statement, and for 15 the next several years, to prepara and issue what we consider-16 to be necessary implementing Reg Guides and standard review 17 plans. 18 So that completes my prepared briefing on the status ~ 19 .of the decommissioning rule amendments. 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very mach. 21~ MR. STELLO:- We have a lot of comments that we've 22-heard today, and we will try to implement them. 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me see if we have any other 24 comments from my fellow Commissioners? X,, ' 25. Mr. Roberts?
51 L 1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No. o ,r s 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Bernthal? 3 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I have one other question 4 here,-and that'is with respect to the threshold criteria for 5 decontamination, the criteria that EPA, as I understand it, is still in'the process of developing. And my question is simply 6 7 to what extent is that important or may that impact the effect 8 and the nature of the rule, should we finalize it before EPA 9 establishes those thresholds? 10 MR. BOSNAK: Our contractor has looked at this and 11 has looked at ranges between, oh, 10 and 25 MR per year -- that 12 would be the level -- and has found that it's not at all 13 sensitive to the level of background. ~ 14 Obviously if we came out with something that was 15 extremely low, then that would up the cost considerably. But 16 we feel that if we have something within the range of j 17 reasonableness, it will be covered, that the decoupling of the' 18 two will not have an effect. i 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. All right. Along the 20 same line, then, what about our own agency policy or lack i 21 thereof, at this point, I guess, of what should be a de minimis 22 standard, below regulatory concern, and shouldn't that be 23 coupled here? l 24 MR. BOSNAK: Bob Alexander -- l I ( ' 25 MR. STELLO: We're preparing a response to the
-A
r ,. :. 4 52-1L -question. 6., ~ 2 .j x COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: To what question? The:one I-3 'just asked?: 4 MR.~BOSNAK: We have something on de minimis. We have a slide, if.you'd like to --
- 6 CHAIRMAN ZECH:
We have another speaker here that 7 wants to address that issue. You go right ahead. 8-MR. STELLO: The other speaker may not be aware of 9 the other piece of paper. The Commission has also asked us to 10 set-a de minimis level for general purposes. 11 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: That's right. 12 MR. STELLO: That's with respect to individuals. The 13. ('"-) standard that we're talking about with respect to the clean-up, 14 residual activity from all pathways, is what Mr. Bosnak was 15 describing, and I assume it will be on the slide. 16 MR. ALEXANDER: Yes. The interagency -- 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Would you identify yourself, please, l la for the reporter? ~ 19 MR. ALEXANDER: R.E. Alexander, Office of Research. 20 CHAIRMAN'ZECH: Thank you. 21 MR. ALEXANDER: The interagency group that I 22 represent the NRC on and that EPA chairs is preparing guidance 23 to federal agencies on the general subject of exposure to the 24 public and control of exposure to the public from the many .+ <Qij 25 different sources that exist-t
53 1 The decommissioning criteria or the decommissioning ( 2 problem is just one of those sources. There are many others, like transportation of radioactive material, effluents from 3 4 plants, and so forth. 1 5 The problem is one of having a logical framework 6 within which to set individual standards such as 7 decommissioning to try to ensure that the public is adequately 8 protected from all of these sources and to do so in a logical s 9 way. 10 so if I might show you the way we're approaching the 11 problem on this committee, I have two vu graphs to show you. 12 They do not represent a staff position in any sense of the word 13 or an EPA position. C" 14 1 This is simply the logical framework within which the 15 committee, the interagency committee, is working right now. It l 16 might be helpful. 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Fine. Go ahead. 18 MR. ALEXANDER: Across the top on this figure are the 19 individual sources that I mentioned awhile ago, and limits are 20 to be set, already have been set, for many of these sources. 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Tell us what they are. I can't see 22 them. 23 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Neither can I. 24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I can't hardly see your slide. Can 25 you take the microphone with you and walk up and point out what L_
4 54 -1 you have there, please? Just point out the key things you're m 2' telling us, please. Thank you. 3' MR. ALEXANDER: All right. Each box represents a 4 -source of exposure-to the public, and X,.we haven't -- this 5 number hasn't been set yet. It looks.right now like it would 6 be 100 millirems per year, which is the number _that the ICRP is 7 using now, recommending now, and.I believe that that is the I 8 number that the new NCRP report that just came out last week 9 recommends. So probably that one will be adopted by the EPA 10 committee. 11 So the problem then is to apportion this 100 12 millirems among the various radiation sources that people are ,.m. 13 exposed to in the country. 14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm sorry. Does that include 15 things other than radioactive materials? 16 MR. ALEXANDER: No. 17 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I'm just talking about X-18 rays, and that does not include medical X-rays. 19 MR. ALEXANDER: It includes ionizing radiation from 20 any source, which would include X-rays, medical X-rays or 1 21 industrial radiography or any source. 22 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Well, medical X-rays are 23 already averaging 100 MR per year. 24 MR. ALEXANDER: It wouldn't be the -- the dose to the ( _ 25 patient would not be included. It would be the dosa, for l 1
l. 55. (1 example,: to someone in the public on the outside of the medical ry 2: building or to the secretary in the office, public. exposure,
- t exposure to members of the public from-any source.
i 4-COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Secondary exposure, okay. 5-MR. ALEXANDER: Now one of these boxes is- '6 decommissioning of lands and structures. Another one will be. 7 the: unrestricted release of materials and equipment. Another 8 one is transportation of radioactive materials, the-release of. 9 effluents, radioactive affluents from facilities and so forth,' 10 and the.overall. objective would be to take reasonable steps to 11 have assurance that no one in the public would receive more 12' than 100 millirems from all of these sources combined in one 13 year. -j-- '( 14 Of; course, a major difficulty is that there isn't any 15 one agency with the mandate. You have for almost everyone of 16 these boxes, you hava one or more federal agencias or state i 17 agencies with that responsibility. 18 The approach we're taking would go as follows: We 19 might assume, I believe safely, that no individual in the 20 public would be exposed to more than four of these sources. '21' Now probably no one would be exposed to more than one or two cf' 22 them, so I think the assumption that no one would be exposed to 23 mora than four of them is probably safe, so that that 24 simplifies matters quite a bit. We feel that then if the limit .s i g_[ 25 or what we call a source upper hourd for each one of these L
r; 56-
- 1-sources would be one-fourth of the 100 limit, or 25 millirems-
~ t%- i- ; 12-per. year,'that we'could have assurance that no: individual would. ~ ~w 3 receive more than 100,fthe thinking being that it would be ..4 unreasonable to assume'that a person could be exposed to more ,5 than four~sourcas. 6' COMMISSIONER BERriTHAL: So'what you're saying is that-7 applying that standard, for example, to a decommissioned' site 8 - would mean that any average member of tie public that happens 9 to walk across the site or work on the, site should, under no 10 circumstance, get any more than 25 MR per. year. 11 MR. ALEXANDER: From that source, yes. 12 MR. STELLO: From all' pathways. 13 7g COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: From all pathways..at that -(~') 14 site. 15 MR. ALEXANDER: Yes. 16 MR. STELLO: Digging up.the dirt, whatever, building 17 a house, living.there, farming it, whatever. 18 MR. ALEXANDER: I don't mean to suggest that the 19 committee has already decided to recommend 25 for 20 decommissioning. I think it~will be somewhat less. 31 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: No, I understand. It's a 22 benchmark, at least. 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Go ahead. 24 MR. AIZXANDER: 25 would be an upper limit. And then m, .(,; 'another thing that we're concerned about is the incidentally 25 _-- a
't - y \\ 57-l' exposed workers. These are workers who are exposed to;
- p ig 21 radiation,. but not 'in connection with their jobs.
And since i '3 the limit for members of the public would be going down from 4' .the old'500 down to 100, we're afraid-that a lot of people y , 5. would get caught between the 100 and the.500, and unless that is1taken into consideration, it could result'in unnecessary 6' 7 monitoring training. And then finally for workers, it would be L. 4 8'. 50 times X or 5 rems per-year. i 9 If I could have the next slide, please? l b 10 This is the framework with a little bit, I hope, of 11 the logic built in. We look now at the dose ranges. Above the 12 overall'11mit of, say, 100, those risks would just be 13 prohibited by the Government. .(' '14 The next range would be below the overall limit but 15 above the upper bound for each source. For example, in the 16 case of decommissioning, say that one turned out to be 25. 17 Then we're looking at the range between 25 and 100. In that 18 range, since there are several sources, individual risk from 19 all sources combined are permitted, but for the reasons I've 20 stated, it looks very feasible to make sure that no one would 4 21 get'more than the limit and that in all probability, the dose 22 to any one individual would be far below the limit. 23 Now below the upper bound for each source is an interesting range between the below regulatory concern level 24 25 and the level for the source upper bound. For example, suppose
p 58 1 the below regulatory concern level would be set at 10 millirems W'IQ',2 per year. Then you'have a range between 10 and 25.for each 3. T source in which the AIARA concept would be imposed. 'In other 4 -words, the. Government agencies would impose AIARA restrictions, 5, so that the 25 would not.be accepted, but'ALARA -- reasonable 6 steps would be taken to reduce those doses below 25. 7 The AIARA methods,. working together with all of those 8 ten sources I showed, should be capable of keeping the dose to-9 any individual to less than 10 percent of the -- let me' state 10-that' differently -- should be able of' keeping the average dose 11-to~ individuals to less than 10 percent of the 100 limit. 12 Now this is an important line he're for us. This l's i 13 the NRC line. The BRC level would be the same for all of these 3 14 sources, and, of course, we don't know'what that level is. 15-That's part'of the job of this group. But below the regulatory 16 concern 's.oel, controls would be entirely voluntarily, as the 17 name "below regulatory concern" suggests; Government 18 intervention could not be justified. ~ -19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: So you're suggesting that the 20 de minimis level, the below regulatory concern level that we've 21 been working on quite apart from decommissioning,.is likely to 22 be a number that is less than this suggested 25 MR. 23 MR. ALEXANDER: Yes, yes. 24 Now the next level, the between the below regulatory ,k 25 concern level and zero level, is a level that I'm calling the i
59 1-below personal interest, where the. risks are so low that .2, they're not.of interest to anyone. 3 You notice that my Vu-graphs have not used the words 4 "de minimis," because any of the last three ranges I mentioned, 5 different people use the word "de minimis" to describe. 6 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: But why would we even, as a 7 regulatory agency, given your own definition, why would you 6 have on your slide the BPI? It seems to me that what we want 9 to know is the regulatory concern level. It seems to me that' 10 the ott.er thing is perhaps something for Health and Human 11 Services to worry about and not us. 12 MR. ALEXANDER: Well, we have Health and Human 13 Services represented on the committee. Many different agencies ~s 14 are represented on this committee, and we're trying to cover 15 the dose range between zero and infinity. 16 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. This refers to 17 committee work, not to what we're going to do. 18 MR. ALEXANDER: Exactly. 19 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: Okay. 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you very much. 21 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: I think I got the answer to 22 my question. I've forgotten what it was. 23-(Laughter.] 24 Let me just make -- I want to make just one short ( 25 comment and getting back to the issue of the internal reserve. 1 i l - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ = - - - - - _ _
p 60-1 I think you remember the reservations that I expressed, what is' a u ( f 12 it,_two, years ago when we discussed this sabject.. I still have 3 those reservations,_and I'm going to be awaiting with 4- . anticipation 1the analysis of the: General ~ Counsel on this 5 matter, because I have to'tell you that if.the-rule as:it 6 stands, as you. propose it -- and I guess the final proposal, 7 the final-final proposal isn't in yet -- permits what I would . 8 loosely term a naked internal reserve,.one to_which finally the 9 licensee has access in the circumstances we've discassed, 10' financial duress circumstances. 11 'If that is permitted in this final-final analyets 12 that oGC might make, then I concur with OGC in what I think he I 13 h'y said, that that would give me serious problems, and I would c.- 14 hope that we would think twice before permitting that sort of 15 option for licensees. 16 And in that vein, I would just say that it seems to 17 me -- I'm certainly no expert, but I suspect that there are 18 enough sweeteners in whatever reserve might be required to be 19 set aside and appropriately insulated -- tax write-offs, 20 perhaps the proceeds aren't taxable; I don't know -- but I l 21 -think there is probably enough there that it's not unreasonable 22-to make this a fairly tight provision. ~ 1 23 That's all I have to say. 24= CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Commissioner Rogers, do q 4 25 you'have anything? .m,
[. 61 1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No. A ' ( 2-CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, let me thank the staff.'for a 3 very, informative briefing. It's my understanding that the 4 Commission will-receive the proposed final rnla sometime fairly 5 soon. At that time, we will be able to review the final rule 6 and hopefully vote and put it into effect. 7 It's been a long time coming. I know it's very, very important, and it does merit the attention that it's gotten. 8 I 9 won't ask you to tell me when we're going to get it, because 10 we've given you enough things this afternoon, I think to look 11 into again to make sure that -- 12 MR. STELLO: To change our estimate from within a 13 month or so, within a couple of months or so -- t. '~ 14 COMMISSIONER BERNTHAL: You're the Chairman. Go 15 ahead and ask. 16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, I don't want to press him into 17 something that he's unhappy with, but I know they're going to 18 be happy to get it down here. 11 But we want a good package, and that's my charge -- a 20 good package and as soon as you feel that you're satisfied, why l 21 we want to see it. i 22 In any case, I do thank you for a very important 23 briefing. Any other comments from my fellow Commissioners 24 before we adjourn? ( 25 (No response.)
1 62 1 CHAIRMAN.ZECH: Thank you very much. We stand i 2 adjourned. 3 (Whereupon, at 3:40 o' clock, p;m., the Commission 4-meeting was adjourned.] 5~ 6 1 7 8 9 10-l 11 12 (., 13 14 15 16 17 18 g 19 20 21 22' 23 24 L 25
1 2 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 3 ~4 This is to certify that the attached events of a 5 meeting of the U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: 6 7. TITLE OF MEETING: Brtefing on Status of Decommissioning Actly.ittes -8 PLACE OF MEETING: Washington, D.C.. 9 DATE OF. MEETING: Thursday, September 3, 1987 10 ' 11 - were held as herein appears, and that this is the' original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the Commission taken f: 13 stenographically.by.me, thereafter reduced to typewriting by 14 me or_under the direction of the court reporting company, and 15 that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the 16 foregoing events. 17 18 ~~~~~~~7Fa7 'i:j y rin iUFrim' ---- / - ' ~ ~ ~ 19 20 21 + 22 Ann Riley & Associates, Ltd. -23 24 l - 25 L
i i COMMISSION BRIEFING STATUS OF DECOMMISSIONING RULEMAKING 9 SEPTEMBER 3, 1987 ) 4 .-_-___-,4
l HISTORY AND BACKGROUND o 1975 - COMMENCE REEVALUATION OF DECOMMISSIONING POLICY, o 1976 - CONTRACT WITH PNL TO STUDY TYPICAL DECOMMISSIONING COSTS, EXPOSURES, AND AMOUNTS OF WASTE FOR POWER REACTORS, FUEL CYCLE AND MATERIALS FACILITIES o 1978- ~ PETITION BY PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH GROUPS T0 t 79 DEVELOP RULES FOR DECOMMISSIONING AND FINANCIAL ASSURANCE o 1979-HELD A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS WITH STATE 80 0FFICIALS AND A PUBLIC' MEETING o 1981 - ISSUED DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT i o 1983 - DECISION MADE TO SEPARATE RESIDUAL RADI0 ACTIVITY LIMIT ISSUE PROM BALANCE OF DECOMMISSIONING RULE o 1985 - ISSUED PROPOSED RULE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT 1
L
SUMMARY
OF MAJOR TECHNICAL REPORTS PREPARED BY NRC CONTRACTORS AND STAFF o PNL o TECHNOLOGY, SAFETY, AND COST OF DECOMMISSIONING THE FOLLOWING PWRS BWRS RESEARCH AND TEST REACTORS 1 e URANIUM FUEL FABRICATION PLANTS URANIUM HEXAFLORIDE CONVERSION PLANTS NON FUEL CYCLE NUCLEAR FACILITIES INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATIONS o ORNL TECHNOLOGY AND COST OF TERMINATION SURVEYS o CONTRACTORS OTHER THAN NATIONAL LABORATORIES UTILITY FINANCIAL STABILITY AND AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING FACILITATION OF DECOMMISSIONING o NRC STAFF ASSURING THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING
- ALL INFORMATION UPDATED THROUGH 1987 FOR USE IN FINAL GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2
{- DEFINITION AND SCOPE DECOMMISSIONING DEFINED AS REMOVING A NUCLEAR FACILITY SAFELY FROM SERVICE AND REDUCING RESIDUAL RADI0 ACTIVITY TO A LEVEL THAT PERMITS RELEASE OF PROPERTY FOR UNRESTRICTED USE AND TERMINATION OF LICENSE LICENSEES AFFECTED (APPROXIMATE NUMBERS) 110 POWER REACTORS - PART 50 75 RESEARCH AND TEST - PART 50 10,000 MATERIAL-NRC - PARTS 30, 40, 70, 72 13,000 MATERIAL-AGREEMENT STATES - PARTS 30, 40, 70 OUTSIDE OF SCOPE HIGH LEVEL WASTE FACILITIES - PART 60 LOW LEVEL WASTE FACILITIES - PART 61 URANIUM MILL AND MILL TAILINGS FACILITIES - PART 40 (APP, A) 4 I 3 l
MAJOR TECHNICAL ISSUES ADDRESSED BY PROPOSED RULE o DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES o ASSURANCE OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING o PLANNING FOR DECOMMISSIONING o DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING PROVISIONS o DECOMMISSIONING PLAN o ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WITH SITE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN LIEU OF MANDATORY SITE SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS o RESIDUAL LEVEL OF RADI0 ACTIVITY o NOT COVERED BY THIS RULE o PARTICIPATION IN EPA INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP o ANTICIPATE PROPOSED FEDERAL GUIDANCE BY EPA o NRC TO IMPLEMENT EPA GUIDANCE VIA SEPARATE RULEMAKING ACTION o INTERIM NRC POLICY GUIDANCE BEING CONSIDERED l l 4
PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE-l
- o PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD CLOSED 7/12/85 o
143 SEPARATE COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED FROM INDIVIDUALS AND PUBLIC GROUPS 56 FROM INDUSTRY (INCLUDING ELECTRIC UTILITIES,-MATERIAL FACILITY LICENSEES AND' UNIVERSITIES 62 t FROM STATE AND' LOCAL GOVERNMENT 21 FROM FEDERAL GOVT AGENCIES 4 e e 9 e e 4 5 __ __x
~ 8 MAJOR COMMENTS - PROPOSED RULE - DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES COMMENT - PROVIDE MORE DETAIL IN RULE ON CRITERIA REGARDING DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE CHOICES DISCUSSION THREE ALTERNATIVES DISMANTLEMENT - TIME APPR0XIMATELY 5-7 YEARS (DECON) PROBLEM - LACK OF WASTE DISPOSAL SPACE SAFE STORAGE - TIME APPROXIMATELY 60 YEARS (SAFSTOR) ENTOMBMENT - TIME APPROXIMATELY 100-300 YEARS (ENTOMB) PROBLEM - LONG LIVED RADI0 ISOTOPES NEED TO BE REMOVED BEFORE ENTOMBING
RESPONSE
CH0 ICE OF ALTERNATIVES REMAINS; RULE REVISED TO ACCEPT PROMPT DECOMMISSIONING OR DELAY TO 60 YEARS DELAYING COMPLETION OF DECOMMISSIONING BEYOND 60 YEARS IS EVALUATED BASED ON UNAVAILABILITY OF WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND SPECIFIC SITE FACTORS, i 4 6 1 -=
7 a .s MAJOR COMMENTS - PROPOSED RULE -ASSURANCE OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING-COMMENT):-SOME'RECOMMENDEDDELETIONOF.CERTIFICATIONFORPOWER-o REACTORS WHILE OTHERS WANTED-CHANGES.TO PROVIDE GREATER. FLEXIBILITY CRITERIA FOR FUNDING ASSURANCE- 'o ' ESTABLISH GENERAL FINANCIAL-RESPONSIBILITY EARLY.IN LIFE BY FILING OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING PROVISIONS o PERIODIC. ADJUSTMENT OF' FUNDING o FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO END OF OPERATIONS, SUBMISSION OF DECOMMISSIONING PLAN o FINAL DECOMMISSIONING PLAN i POWER REACTORS CERTIFICATION OF FUND _LN_G o CERTIFICATION THAT PRESCRIBED MINIMUM FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE VIA: o PREPAYMENT - ALL FUNDS AT START o' EXTERNAL SINKING FUND - PERIODIC DEPOSITS IN SEGREGATED ACCOUNT o SURETY METHOD /I.NSURANCE'- GUARANTEE IN CASE OF DEFAULT o INTERNAL RESERVE - PERIODIC DEPOSITS IN UNSEGREGATED ACCOUNT - NOT PERMITTED FOR SINGLE GENERATING STATION d o FEDERAL LICENSEE - STATEMENT OF INTENT 1 -RESPONSE 1 ) o STAFF CHOSE TO DISAGREE WITH DELETION OF CERTIFICATION o COMMISSION HAS LONG ADVOCATED ITS USE o CERTIFICATION MINIMIZES ADMINISTRATIVE EFFORT FOR j LICENSEES AND NRC WHILE STILL MAINTAINING REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF FUNDING 4 o CERTIFICATION MINIMUM AMOUNTS ARE BASED 0N A LARGE DATABASE DEVELOPED BY PNL WHICH HAS BEEN UPDATED AND REPRESENTS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE RANGE OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS 7 - :e
l* ASSURANCE OF FUNDS (CONT'D) RESPONSE CONT'D REVISIONS INCLUDE: o INCREASED CERTIFICATION AMOUNT o ADJUSTED CERTIFICATION AMOUNT TO ALLOW FOR DIFFERENCES IN REACTOR SIZE AND TYPE AND CLARIFY THAT PRESCRIBED AMOUNTS DO NOT INCLUDE COST OF REMOVAL OR DISPOSAL OF NONRADI0 ACTIVE STRUCTURES AND COMPONENTS [i ~ REVISEDESCALATIONFACTORTOBETTERACCOUNTFORPOSSIBLEi ~ o INCREASES IN DECOMMISSIONING COSTS INVOLVING LABOR, ENERGY, AND WASTE BURIAL l, CLARIFICATIONS MADE: o CLARIFY THAT A LICENSEE MAY CERTIFY AN AMOUNT LARGER THAN THE PRESCRIBED MINIMUM AMOUNT AND BASE THE CERTIFICATION l ON A SITE-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATE. RULE NO LONGER REQUIRES SUBMITTAL OF THE DETAILS OF THE ESTIMATE EARLY IN REACTOR LIFE. o CLARIFY THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS RULE ARE IN ADDITION TO AND NOT SUBSTITUTION FOR REQUIREMENTS OF AGENCIES WHO ESTABLISH RATES AND ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED, BY THEMSELVES, TO SET RATES, o CLARIFICATION AND REARRANGEMENT OF RECORDKEEPING. OTHER THAN MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS, SPECIFIC DESIGN FEATURES OR PROCEDURES TO FACILITATE DECOMMISSIONING NOT BEING EXPLICITLY REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. l 8
u '\\, ~ MAJOR COMMENTS - ASSURANCE OF FUNDS COMMENT-COMMENTERSM{REDIVIDEDONALLOWING SE OF INTERNAL RESEPVES AS AN ACCEPTABLE FUNDING METHOD FOR POWER REACTORS, y
RESPONSE
o USING A STANDARD OF PROVIDING REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DECOMMISSIONING, INTERNAL t RESERVE HAS BEEN RETAINED IN THE FINAL RULE FOR UTILITIES OWNING MORE THAN ONE GENERATING FACILITY o STUDIES BY EXPERT CONSULTANT DR, J. SIEGEL OF WHARTON {' SCHOOL, U, 0F PENNSYLVANIA, DONE FOR NRC (NUREG/CR-3899 AND UPDATED-IN SUPPLEMENT 1) INDICATE THAT EVEN FOR UTILITIES INVOLVED IN EXTREME FINANCIAL. CRISES, INTERNAL RESERVE PROVIDES REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF THE AVAILABILITY'0F FUNDS FOR MULTI-GENERATING FACILITY UTILITIES 1 i l N s. 4 \\ 9
j w $g rq gy 1 ] MAJOR COMMENTS - ASSURANCE OF-FUNDS - j' FUNDING AS A LICENSE CONDITION COMMENT - OBJECTED TO PROPOSED RULE REQUIRING FUNDING AS A g CONDITION OF LICENSE 7 y n,r RESPONSE ' I L(i g f- "3 AGREED WITH COMMENT, RULE HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO REMOVE bld FUNDING REQUIREMENTS AS A CONDITION OF LICENSE AND INCLUDE .IN OTHER SECTION OF THE RULE. i i FUNDING MUST BE DEMONSTRATED-FOR NEW PLANTS AT THE TIME l 0F APPLYING FOR AN OPERATING LICENSE n o OPERATING PLANTS MUST COMPLY WITHIN 2 YEARS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE 9 DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING PROVISIONS ADJUSTED ANNUALLY IN A PRESCRIBED MANNER FOR INCREASE IN COSTS. e 8 y o, I \\ .s .),' 10 a3
4 MAJOR COMMENTS - PROPOSED RULE DECOMMISSIONING PLANS COMMENT - MORE CRITERIA NEEDED FOR PREPARING AND EVALUATING DECOMMISSIONING PLANS, IN PARTICULAR RADIATION PROTECTION, QUALITY ASSURANCE, AND PHYSICAL SECURITY.
RESPONSE
GENERALLY COMMENTERS' CONCERNS ARE ALREADY BEING ADDRESSED DY l-OTHER EXISTING REGULATIONS, REGULATORY GUIDES AND STANDARD l REVIEW PLANS; HOWEVER, RULE HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO ADDITIONALLY l INCLUDE IN THE DECOMMISSIONING PLAN SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE, PHYSICAL SECURITY, AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE DECOMMISSIONING PROCESS. ADDITIONAL DETAILED GUIDANCE VIA REGULATORY GUIDES AND STANDARD REVIEW PLANS TO BE DEVELOPED FOLLOWING ISSUANCE OF RULE IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: FINANCIAL ASSURANCE STANDARD FORMAT AND CONTENT OF DECOMMISSIONING PLANS UPDATED PROCEDURES AND TERMINATION OF LICENSE (E.G. RG 1.86) RECORDKEEPING l e 11
7 [, ? l' t} p,, 7 t ~. p,,. jp. g u j"3 x
- MAJ08.1EVISIONS AFFECTING MATERJ!n LICENSEES M
j c, ir e f k g ):, '? o INCLUDED USE OF' FINANCIAL TEST AND PARENT COMPANY f f1 0 GUARANTEE (TESTS BASED ON EPA CRITERIA FOR HAZARD 0US F ff,1, WASTE) a l 4o TEST OF PARENT COMPANY FINANCIAL WORTH o TESTRELATING,PARENTCOMPANTWpRTHT0 DECOMMISSIONING o ' COST e l/ 1 . ?, f, {l' rI ,e $( !r i o - CERTIFICA'fl0N AMOUNTS-INCREASED f fi ( + v t L ~ __________-__..____J.."_-___________ ' i x.f, e v. 3 4 4 1.n i ,' BASED ON EXEMPTION.S FOR LICENSEES POSSESSING;0')ANTITIES OF "i .r 't
- i. MATERIAL BELOW THE TilRESH0LD. LIMITS IN THE REGULATIONS, ONLY
/300'0' MATERIAL. LICENSEES (0F23,000?T0TAL)-k.!LLBEREQUIRED. ad. TT0'DEVEL0hANDSUBMITFINANCIALPR0 VISIONS./ g s i 1 gI f' ' l N ~ s. r v e p / j.8- .I s . M J ,,_.y [ ) n s ) o T' i;i, / 4 <j', / t ~ /. ~ ~r f r 1 e', lp i) ,Lj l 4 r., \\ .f o' p -{ -il + \\ 3 ? m 4 t / l j ,a-5 y _f a_ - / 12 ' x . _ - _ _ _ =
/ i 1 LzLt STATUS OF RULEMAKING-1 I o PUBLIC COMMENTS; CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED o ' MAJOR COMMENTS COVERED IN SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION o ALL COMMENTS COVERED IN NUREG AT TIME RULE IS PUBLISHED o RULES REVISED ADDRESSING PUBLIC COMMENTS - STAFF WILL SUBMIT RULE PACKAGE TO COMMISSION IN SEPTEMBER FINAL VERSION OF GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, o (GEIS) IS IN PREPARATION o TASKS REMAINING: 1. RESOLVE.ANY COMMISSION COMMENTS 2. COMPLETE FINAL GEIS 3. ISSUE RULES'AND GEIS 4. PREPARE AND ISSUE IMPLEMENTING REGULATORY GUIDES AND-STANDARD REVIEW PLANS i l 13 .__ - __________ _____________ r
l sa t u d i mi i v l i d s l ne aic u r nru d noo e Af s ro s t e. i cs n rr o ue m ok s r d. o ns d w aa 4 e e / nd d r n X i e ea b s n 5 mo i d S op ae T cx rt I C e t c MI m m i I L os oy rr LB re rl ot U f c fl f s TP r a e N t u tt t r EE i o i n i L i m s me mn l AT i i d i i V l d l i l I F e c s UO l n l n l r Q 4 ai ai ae 1 ES / ub u uk R X nm nr nr i e EE no no no r SB 5 Ac Af A w u OM g DE M i F E VL A I TU CO X X EI FV X 5 0 FI 5 ED N LI A UR 4 NO / NF 4 X A 5 4/ 3 X 5 -- 4 / 2 X 5 4 / 1 X 5
NNNNNNONNNONNNNNdWdWNN0kNNONNSSOOphp0$hj@gfg}g l;i [ Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips .lF. TP.AMSMITTAL TO: t ADVANCED COPY'TO: The Public Document Room C I//d /[7 P. DATE: 1 lg SECY Correspondence & Records Branch j FROM: 'j! i: Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting i:: document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and I l placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or !j,-. AIb rd io-A required. f Meeting
Title:
I ! L$, L L LLAu J Meeting Date: 9 /J/f 7 Open [ Closed i : </ 1 l l 1 :" I . Item Description *: Copies Advanced DCS
- 8 l[:
to PDR Cg i 1 :. 1 -'!!
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 - k &> M-4 \\ 2-r i 3 : l 3 i h 2. i .a : l 3 : l 3 3El 3. 3 ,g: 3 3 3 3l:. 4. 33 l 3 3:;; 3"l 5* 33 3:: 35:M 6. 35: SE, SI
- PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY papers. 811 % Y b Y YYl Y Yl b bYlEha kihl
E L G D E A A E C T R N R N E I U E V B O M A S M S N E O R C C H E. E H R C V E T U S A O N C O E E G O L I S C Y O L R R N R B L U O YD A T U L O F RE N P A S AI 0 O S D D TF T C E L ME L E NI H O OT L R UT T O T R RT A I LS S T T FI U OU E R N M M Q VJ R D O O SR O E E E F C LE R R YT T S AP F LO N U S U E EN I D DT S R R S R IO K A I S O I A VN S TI N D D S N T I I N DE RE D EE F P A NR T O C 0 E ~ T A LT H SN C I S AI T E E N I OD UM E R R O N TE DR M LE A C O N I E OF SI VP A RR S A I T KB R TE K R I C SM DE A NT S A E O NR L ON I I L T RC A A CI R A I O R EE P HC TR N O ,O I SS T K A SH I I D ) RA A EI R H HP E C TB VM R A ( I O TE R D TR F I E NT CF T MR PL AS E K I I O PE E LK R M LF UV LR LS O E EE I OI W L LD EL VT L CR E LN C EN E M L AU RC LI V LL A E L RO UR E OA R G A EB OB CL L RU F N R V S RE TD A E OR E BN I NI R V E HH N P OV . O EP CT EO B CI E HP A HS s E TU ED TR E ON 0 H E H TI l D T NE NA NP T EHE E E E ETC ED EWL W V W R WN WOE O E O TDU TU TLV L T B ENO EO EEE E O A BAS BB BBL B N}}