ML22230A058
| ML22230A058 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/16/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780216 | |
| Download: ML22230A058 (47) | |
Text
C; t;
~i ,.
- URN TO SECRETARIAT RECORDS NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
POLICY SESSION 78-9 RECOMMENDATIONS ON COURSE OF ACTION FOR ESTABLISHING NUCLEAR FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS Place - Washington, D. C.
Date - Thursday, 16 February 1978 Pages 1 _ 44 Telephone:
(202 ) 347-3700 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporten 4A4 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 2000 l NATlONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held .on February 16, 1978 in the Commission s offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. The 1
meeting was open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been revie\*Jed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or inform~l record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinations or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or a*r*g~m1ent contained herein, except as the Cammi ss ion may authorize.
(
CR 6386 dav 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
4 5 POLICY SESSION 78-9 6
7 8 RECOMMENDATIONS ON COURSE OF ACTION FOR 9 ESTABLISHING NUCLEAR FACILITY DECOMMISSIONING REQUIREMENTS 10 11 12 Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
13 Washington, D.C.
14 Thursday, February 16, 1978 15 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 9:50 a.m.
16 BEFORE:
17 DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman 18 PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner 19 VICTOR GILINSKY, Commissioner 20 RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
r 86 .o 1
- J 2 jwb P R OC E E D I NGS 2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: One, t.wo three. Why donJt le 3 we go ahead.
4 We-'re rn.eeting_this .morning on - I guess the 5 . first' item wi.11 be round 2 on decommissioning requirements.
6 Lee, I guass - go ahead. I assume you wiil 7 turn it ov_er to Bob Bernero.
g MR. GOSSICKJ Right. We 1 re here to provide some 9 additional information that ca!Ile out of th.e first briefing 10 on_this subject on the 23rd of January.
Jl So, Bob, go right ahead.
12 MR. BERNERO.: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, .we 13 .we.re with you three weeks ago to discuss decommissioning 14 and you asked that we go back, sharpen our thoughts --
15 particularly with respect to the choice of doing a single 16 ~omprehensive program, as we proposed; or trying to do J7 sorn.ething in a more timely f.ashion, by segmenting that 18 p.rogram and at least starting out doing individual proceedings 19 or rule makings, as Me started, perhaps, with the PWR.
20 We had ext.ensive discussions .with your 21 technical staff members, and with OPE since that briefing 22 three .weeks ago. And in sharpening our thoughts, .we have 23 prepared some notes which you have, in which I would like 24 to review briefly the program we proposed before -- just to 25 refresh your memory -- and_then addrsss some questions, the
86.01 .2 3 j.wb speci~ic questions that we have to confront about 2 d.ecommi ssioning and decommi ss ion.ing pol icy.
3 I will go OYer what we are doing now, in order 4 to get ~ur thoughts more sharply focused on our needs and 5 on the urgen.cies, and then address the choice of rule 6 making~ *hat are the factors, and what are the choices 7 we have'?
8 So, if we Just review, firstly, the notes .we 9 .had last time - could I have the first viewgraph, please'?
JO (Slide.>
.11 I might add:.: There are two additional slide l2 notes that I. 1.eft at your places this morning. We-'J.l 1.3 address those as ,we come to them. They were prepared after J4 the ones that w.ere sent to you.
15 If you recall, the last time we said, on MBO A, 16 this is .the portrayal of those studies that are going on 17 righh now that are .under contract. These are the technical 18 basis studies being done by Ba.ttelle.
19 The important thing to note Js that, by mid-'79 20 w.e wi.J.l have in hand both rea.ctors and th.e principal fuel 21 cycle facilities which bound the total problem,_which will 22 give us an address of the different types of nuclides and 23 the different types of waste disposal that need to be 24 ad:frassed in a comprehensive policy.
25 Turning to NBO B, the next one, please.
66.0 J .3 4 Jwb (Slide.>
2 This is the overall program, based on that set 3* of information reports, and li~tle more than a year from 4 now it has these mid-'79 staff interim reports that would 5 draw on the.information reports and mak~ public, tentatively, 6 .through a _Nu Reg document, the tentative staff thinking on 7 .each o.f .the principal issues - the financial assuranc.e 8 quest.ion, the radisoactive residue question, and. the 9 generic applicability question so that states, other 10 agencies, the public can react to it, can comment on sta.ff Jl ,_ thinking even. be.fore we come out .with an EIS.
12 The EIS would fo.l low. The states, if you Looked 1-3 on this one down at the bo+/-tom, you could see represented 14 state .workshops so that w.e could carry through the 15 important work of liaison with the states on the radioactive 16 r_esidue.criteria, and on the financial assurance criteria.
17 May I have the next viewgraph, please?
18 (Slide.)
19 MBO C was what ~e presented as the schedule for 20 addres~ing the PJRG petition. Once again, I .would just 21 emphasize that, as shown, it presumes a rule developing 22 from the treatment of that petition.
23 If, on the other hand, the determination ~s that 1e I
24 the petition be denied, then of course it Mould come to an 25 abrupt termination this summer, Just in a few months.
6.0J.4 5 j.wb So, let--'s turn to the next *vi.e.wgr.aph and 1 oak
- 2 4
3 at the questions we-'re trying to confront.
Are we dealing ,with decommissioning now?
if so, how are we dealing with it? What: are .we doing?
And, 5 What are the .weakne:sses in our present pol icy?
6 Let'"' s point out these weaknesses and be candid in admLtt ing 7 them.
8 Where is the urgency? And let-'s identify .what 9 is urgent., what isn't urgent, and.then ask ourselves ,what JO will pac.e our address, and how should ,we ::proceed?
.J I May I have the next viewgraph, please?
12 (Slide.)
1.3 The existing criteria for decommi-ssioning - much 14 _ of this you have heard be..fore. On reactors, wa have a 15 number of regulations concerning financial assurance, the 16 , decomm.issioning plans. They key element in the criteria for 17 r.eactor_s is that Reg. Guide 1.86. It-'s a very important 18 . thing in our existing policy on.decommissioning, and I wiil 19 speak to it in more detail in a moment.
20 On the fuel cycl.e side, we don-'t have quite so 21 much. W.e have Appendix up, to Part 50 on Fuel Reproc.e.ssing 22 Plants, which .we-'ve discussed before. There are financial
- 23 24 25 criteria for financial qualificationsl 70.23.
Regulations 50.33, We have a variety of criteria in regulatory guides
6.0J.5 6 Jwb l such as 3.5 on uranium new applications, which addre.ss
- 2 3
-4 criteria for dispo*sition or management of fuel cycle
.wastes.
And lastly, on the fuel cycle, we have residue 5 limits that are virtually the same as the residue limits 6 in Reg *. Guide 1.86. TheyJre handled as a branch position, 7 though.
8 May I have the next slide, please?
9 (Slide.)
10 Now, this document - Regulatory Guide 1.86 - is Jl .- the crux of the present treatment of decommissioning on 12 reactors. , We have, in print, the advice to the applicants 13 in Regulatory Guide*l.86 that identifies four a.cceptable 14 decommissioning modes: mothba.lling, ent.ombment, dismantling,
. 15 and conversion.
16 If you examine those modes for a.while, you can 17 se.e some problems. Mothba.lling is not. "decommissioning";
18 it.J's a holdi.ng action. It-'s a temporary act.ion awaiting 19 some decay, Dr some ~ccumulation -0f funds, or some other 20 proceeding before one goes int.o a . .final decommLssioning.
21 Entombment, as read in Reg. Guide 1.86, implies 22 that you would cast in concrete, or entomb in some f.ashion, 23 that. would hold the radioactivity safely until it had 24 decay.ed away. The Reg. Guide does not address the di ff i cult 25 question of saying~ What sort of radionuclides can be dealt
~6.01.6 7 jWb ~ith in this way? .Can you really t~ke reactor residues 2 and cast them up in concrete and leave them there, 3 eff.ectively, in perpetuity? So, there-'s a real question 4 about the ¥alidity or ~!ability of that decommissioning 5 mode.
6 "Dismantling" is a reference and choice 7 decommissioning mode .which means.: clean up all the residue 8 to an acceptably low level so that you can release the site 9 and di.spose of it in repos.itories. That w.e clearly endorse JO as an acceptable mode *
- 11 *11 Conversion1' is perhaps a tac etious choice. It 12 speaks to what you do at the site after it-'s released, and 13 is not rea~ly a separate mode of decommissioning. It-'s an 14 action subsequent to some decommissioning.
15 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: ~\!hat do you do if you 16 __ decommission the residue?
17 MR. BERNERO.: If you decommission the radioactive 18 residue - remove it to an acceptable level so you can release 19 the site for some other use in an unrestr-icted fashion --
20 then it-'s an academic point whether one converts the turbine 21 +/-o run off the fossil boiler or converts the sit-e to a park --
22 -converts, or .whatever
- 23 . If, on the other hand, you have entombed~the 2-4 radioactivity in some way to ~equire surveillance, then you 25 still have a monitoring of that site, or a custody of that
86.0J.7 8 j,wb site required. And ones again, itJs somewhat academic 2 what you-'r_e doing on_ th£! site - ,whether you-'re st i.ll 3 generating power there, or have converted it into something 4 else.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: *"Conversion, 11 that is 6 _not the decommissioning mode.
7 MR. BERNER.o.: No. Really, it""s not a proper 8 choics as .a decommissioning mode.
9 So, what you see in Reg. Guide J.86, we-'ve got 10 what is no.w, in retrospect, a poor choic_e of decommissioning Jl modes offered.
12 The thinking in the industry, I might add, if L3 one takes the Atomic Industrial Forum research into account, 14 in their re_csnt report on decommi.ssioning all the thinking 15 in the industry -- and ours is runn-1ng in this way, too 16 is that dismantling is the mode of choice, and the only 17 discussion is how long you should wait. What are the 18 tradeoffs, the cost/benefit, of reducing dose rates by 19 lett:ing some radioactive decay take plac.e - reducing costs, 20 manpower costs, at the same time you're accumulating custody 21 costs and uncert-ainti-es the longe_r you wait.
22 So those are tradeoffs of JI.when, 11 not "whether" 23 you ,wiJ.l dismantle. The- choice rea.lly is when you wLll 24 dismantle.
25 It you look in the AIF study, they use the term
8.6.0J .8 9 Jwb nentombment*" as a -variation of "mothballing. 11 I t-'s just a 2 variation on a theme. It-'s a di~ferent *ay to padlock the 3 door while yott're *ai ting.
4 Now, Reg. Guide 1.86 also has some residue 5 limits in i t ~
6 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD1 Let me just ask about the 7 dismantling.
- What volume of material - stuff, metal, 8 whatev.er - are you talking about .when you talk about 9 "dismantlingn?
10 MR. BERNE Ro: Right now, we-'re estimating that
.1 I to dismantle a pressurized water r.eactor - a large one, 12 like Trojan - is more than half a million cubic feet.
13 And in our scrutiny of the report we-'re .working on right 14 now, we are suspiciou's +/-hat that number may be low.
15 So I would say that we.,re somewhere in the range 16 right now of, say, half a million to a million cubic feet.
17 COMMLSSIONER BRADFORD: That- .would be the 18 low-level *aste?
19 MR. BERNERO: Tent;at ively, that-' s al 1 1ow-.le ve 1 20 *,wast:e. We-'re doing a subset calculation on the assumption 21 that some of the activated product1s - that is, the core, 22 shrouds, and things like that that have activated niobium 94 23 in it, since that.,s a very long halflife material and would 2-4 have a dose rate at the surf ace on the order of R per hour, 25 that one might have to send that to the high-level
36.0J .9 10 j.wb reposit,ory, and that would add cost.
2 MR. MINOGUE: Your quantity is relatively smail 3 of that kind of material.
4 MR. BERNER01 But we-'re bringing in the delta 5 .cost that would accrue if you .had to do *that, and that can 6 add up to a million or two million.
7 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
- You s.ay that-'s low?
8 Because it-' s on the surf a.c.e?
9 MR. MINOGUE.i Activation i*S throughout the 10 material. I t-".s Just that there isn-'t that much stuff that-' s JJ ln high neutron flux.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: There-'s not that much
)3 material.
14 MR. MINOGUE: There-'s not *that much material 15 exposed to h~ direction of the neutron flux.
16 MR. BERNERo: It-'s the pieces immediately around 17 the core ass.emblies. There-'s even a question, when you get J8 out to the reactor vessel itself, to the prassure vessel 19 it:self, whether you-'d have to do this.
20 COMMISS.I0NER GILINSKY.: So it is basically on the 21 surface?
22
- MR. BERNER0.i Where the flux ls highest, 23 immediately near the surface o.:f the core assembly, and in the 24 core structures - any of the core structures.
25 MR. MINOGUE: It-'s. not surface contamination that
- 86. 01.10 JJ Jwb you can remo,ve.
- 2 3
.4 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
~R. MINOGUE.:
I understand.
The act.i vat ion .is higher toward the surface, but itjs integral to the material. It"s not 5 readily removed.
6 It"s not like taking o.ff a layer of contamination.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: To give me a point of 8 ~-referenc.e: How many thousand cubic feet .is available, say 9 at a site like Sheffield?
JO MR. BERNERO: I made a rough estimate. I was Jl looking at.the thing and saying: approximately how many 12 yards, or acres of burial ground are we talking about? And 13 I don"t know what ul timat.e criteria .wi 11 be on burial 14 grounds, but if one assumes something like a 20-foot depth 15 o.f burial of this waste, reasonably* compacting it, in the 16 numbers we"re coming up .with we--'re speaking of one, maybe 17 two acres of land .for a r.eactor decommissioning.
18 It-' s not an insurmountable tand area involved, 19 not an extremely high number.
20 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: If you had a facility 21 say the siz.e of She.ffield, how many reactors could you put 22 there?
- 23 24 25 MR. BERNERD:
of the Sheffield facility.
I visited -
O.ff-hand, I don"t know the acreage The only iow-level burial grounds
86.Dl .J J 12 jwb . COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Pick one that you
- 2 3
4 visited.
MR. BERNERO.:
ground up there.
In Hanford, Washington, the burial As I recall, that burial ground must be 5 somewhere around LOO acres.
- And if you were dealing with 6 1 or 2 a.cres per reactor, you"d have 50 or more reactors 7 that go in there.
8 But the bulk o.f their bus ine,ss seems t,o be 9 gloves, and hospital .waste, and_things like that. So I JO don-'t kno.w if one can dedicate burial grounds .t-o reactors, JJ .but at least this gi,ves the scale of burial that we"re
-,- 12 13
_dealing.with.
No,w t,hese residue limits in Reg. Guide 1.86, we 14 rea.lly need to a pp rec ia te . what they are and ,what they ar.e 15 . . not. These; .have b.een used f,or years. These r.es idue 16 limits have been around for 15, maybe 20 years. They are 17 surface contaminat*ion 1 imits.
18 They are sp.ecific limits~te.lling you how many 19 counts per minute you can swipe o.ff of the surface. They 20 are good practice *values. They"re responsible. Heal th 21 phys! els ts haNe used.. them for years.
22 They are not established cr~teria. They are not 23 something that has been tested in the public forum; that has 24 g.one through any kind of .a rigorous test for validity on a 25 valid basis.
36.01.12 l3 Jwb There's nothing in there for soil contam.ination; 2 ther.e-'s nothing in there for activated materials; no criteria 1e 3 there that* say .what to do .with niobium 94 contaminated core A pie.c.es; and there-'s nothing for buri.ed activity - for how
.5 to deal ;Wi.th something that"s buried.
6 May I have the next slide, please?
7 CSlide.>
8 So if you .Look at. the evaluation of deco.mmissioning 9 in a reactor application, the whole thing is Jaundiced by JO the .existence o.:f Reg. Guide 1.86 and the criteria we have JJ out, with all their w.eakness.es.
12 . The licensee l~oks to Reg. Guide 1.86. He J.3 . _identifies- .the tentati v.e mode to dec.ommi ssion, cal cul ates 14 the .cost" and submits it to the staff.
J5 The staff looks at that. Typically, one gets 16 either mothballing or dismantlement. In the cases I-';ve seen J7 and ~iscussed rec~ntly, people are tending to u~e the AIF 18 number, now. Previously, they were tending to use a 19 mothballing number that .was on the orde.r of $ l O mi 11 ion, or 20 something like that.
2J COMMISSIONER KENNEDY.: What-'s the other number?
22 MR. BERNE RO.a The other number, if, yo.u use a
- 23 24 25 relatively prompt dismantling, AIF comes out about $20-odd mLll ion, $2 l- or $22- something on that order.
Well, the sta~f looks at the applicant-'s numbers
dav 14 retype of jwb 13 1 and as part of our financial qualifications-finding, examines 2 how that fits into his cash flow problems. And the.staff, as 3 part of the licensing, has to say that this applicant is 4 financially competent to operate the reactor.
5 And as you've heard .before, when you're looking at 6 the scale of costs and expenditures associated with building and 7 operating.reactors in a power utility system, the cost of 8 decommissioning appears rather smaller than scale. It does 9 not get a highlight or emphasis. But it's considered.
10 The staff considers the cost in its NEPA cost-benefit 11 analysis. In the supplementary information paper we sent up 12 a little more than a week ago, we attached a 50-33 finding, a 13 typical one, and the current standard analysis of cost penefit 14 with respect to decommissioning that the staff uses in all its 15 FES accounts.
16 The staff no longer does the FES cost-benefit with the 17 applicant's nu~ber for decommissioning. We standardized on the 18 AIS dismantling decommissioning number, in order to calculate a 19 mills per kilowatt hour, to use our standard calculation.
20 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What is the .. significance of 21 that when you get into the cost?.
22 MR. BERNERO: . It's fairly small. It's a real cost.
- 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25
86.01 .14 15 j.wb It has to be assigned, and it has to be assigned and
- 2 3
4 weighted. It comes out to be lOths of a mil per kilowa~t hour, or hundredths of a mil per kilowa+/-t
.hour -- a ,relat:ively srna 11 number.
5 COMM I SSIONEH GI LINSKY: At ,what point would it 6 aff.ect anything the staff do,es?
7 8
9 JO
.J J 12
- 13 J4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2*4 25
6.02.1 16 pv, MR. BERNE RO: In.-' the justi ti cation .of coal 2 -versus nuclear.
3 MR. MIN.OGUE: ItJs part of the .NEPA evaluation.
- 4 MR. BE RNERO;: We have to show that i tJ s 5 cost-ben.eficial to generate the electrical power by this 6 .nuclear plant rather than a hydro plant or a c.oal plant. And 7 the Principal .arg.ument for economic benefit .is mi.lls per 0
8 kilowa.tt hour of delivered .electricity. The commissioning is 9 tr.eated as a .cost of generating the electricity; so that" s JO .how i+/- g.ets in there *
- 1 I But now the staf.f in l.ooking at the decommi.ssioning 12 stops short of any specific requirement on funding assurance.
13 At this point, :weJ:v:e 1ooked at the commissioning in 14 ,perspectiv.e, made a finding that the applicant has the 15 financial integrity or power to handl.e costs of_ this 16 ~agnitude, but then it is left to the state regulating bodies 17 to handle this, to say this is the way yo.u should accumulate 18 those resources for decommissioning or this is the level of 19 assurance you should have for the acc~mulation of those funds.
20 L.et~s have the next viewgraph.
21 (Slide.>
22 JJve inserted - and this is in one of the 23 suppleme.ntary notes I left at- y.our places*-.- an example of 2-4 funding for reactor decommissioning, such as one of the states 25 is doing.
36.02.2 17 J A number of states are .following_this p~ttern.
2 This one com.es from New York State,_.which ls a relatively 3 experienced pubLic servic.e comm.ission that is experienced in 4 dealing with nuclear reactors in that State. Now, their 5 approach is based on the pr1ncipl e that decommlssioning costs 6 should be borne by the customer served, and . . they approach 1 t 7 that the proper way to get the resources for the commi.ssioner 8 is to set up a cash sinking fund and get the maximum yield on 9 ,that c.ash sinking fund to obtain the lowest cost to th.e 10 consumer._ Since, you kno.w, the electricity user is paying for JJ this, they want the most efficient way of .accumulating the 12 funds *
.e ]3 Now, that cash sinking fund is done in this way.
14 They select a depreci.ation value, a* negative salvage value 15 .. which .can be wriJ:ten off_ this decommissioning expense as a 16 depreciation cost *--
17 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Your net negativ.e salvage.
18 MR. BERNERO: Your net negative salvage value.
19 So, .what it does, it giv.es them a great amount to 20 write off as depreciation expense.
21 . No.w, the *conventional depreciation, which is 22 depre.c iation of capital, they-'*ve already got in the ground, 23 you know, they-'ve already built, that is part of their rate 24 base. They-'re entitled to a return on that investment, and 25 they are entitled to get bonded indebtedness bo put liens on
86.02.3 18 that investm.ent. But this reserve for decommissioning, 2 though the state allows them to bill the customer, they 3 have to put that: into a reserve that is not in a rate base *
.4 ThererorE, the shareholder in the company gets no return on 5 it. And also -
6 COMMLSSIONER KENNEDY: It"s in the rate bas.e, but 7 not in the ~
8 MR. BERNERO: ItJs in the charge to the customer.
9 CC}MM ISSI ONER KENNEDY: Okay.
JO MR. BERNERO: But not in the rate base used to
~1 I cal.cul ate rate return to the investor. And they are not 12 allowed to bond against it.
13 MR. RATHBUN.: Bob, isnJt that treated as though 14 it were the customer-'s money?
15 MR. BERNER01 No. In that sense, the inve stars 16 canJt get a return on it, and you can-'t bond against it. Yes, 17 it-'s ,treatEd as customers-' money, but .what is done -
18 MR. RATHBUN.: ltJs not a fully .funded reserve, 19 however?
20 MR. BERNERO.: It is funded in the sense that those 21 funds are put directly into the short-term cash flow of the 22 company, and they may be in physical plant equipment. And 23 this state, in partic:ular, argues that this puts these funds 24 ~nto a position where they will earn the maximum return. It-'s 25 basically the customers., money put in position of the greatest
86.02.-4 19 le verage, and it-' s there under day-to-day, year-to-year 0
2 scrutiny by the regulating body, accumulated so that at the 3 time the decommissioning of the plant is needed* it is a 4 r.eady possibility for the utility to raise money directly 5 on those resources that are not encumbered and the resourc.es 6 _ar-e,, of course, there.
7 The State of New York argues .that, by doing this, 8 a typical rate of return and, consequently, interest-leverage 9 is about 15 perc.ent rate of return; ,whereas, if you turned 10 .with the customers-' money and said "I want to put that into Jl a high-security bond or an escrow fund or something," you get 12 7 or 8 percent, something like that *
- i.3 14 15 intereist.
So, you just1double the leverage; you double the COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Where does that 15 percent 16 come from?
17 MR. BERNERO.: That"s the allowable rate of return 18 on the short-term funds of the utility in New York, at least.
19 MR. RATHBUN: I think it-'s as though the customers*'
20 -- this money - the customers-' money is invested in the 21 utility at their rate of return vis:-a-vis in federal securities that 22 earn 7-1/2 percBnt, something like that.
2.3 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Then, it"s as though it were as-24 sume:1 to be a .common stock investment.
25 MR. RATHBUN.: It"s whatevsr the weighted cost of
386.02.5 2
- capital is.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: It wouldn't be anywhere* near 15 per t.
3 MR. BERNERO: New York, on the short-term cash flow, 4 says that the typical rate of return is about*l5 percent, the 5 allowable 6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It replaces the need to borrow 7 money on which they would otherwise -- short-term rates and up 8 being 15 ~ercent.
9 MR. RATHBUN: I think it's to raise money, actually.
10 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Incremental growth capital?
11 MR. RATHBUN: It may be, because the customers will 12 provide the capital to the utility to payments for decommission-
- 13 14 15 ing before *the utility just for New York. The utility will incu any cash outlay for the purpose -- if the utility's .. need to raise capital in the market is reduced by receipts of the money from 16 customers, that reduction in cost would be passed on to the 17 consumers, who will thus get a rate of return on their money of 18 about 15 percent. The reason was that the *cost of new money
- 19 and related income taxes during this period was about twice the 20 return of 7 1/2 percent that they would be likely to be earning 21 through 22 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: :okay. So it's the income tax
- 23 that does it.
24 MR. RATHBUN: I'm sure that has an impact.
~ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 C.01MISSIONER BRADFORD: It must be. You're taking
86.02.6 21 a much. lower rate of .return, and you're ge_tting the tax 2 effect.
3 MR. RATHBUN: Yes, sir. I *think that-'s part of it.
4 MR. BERNERO.: But once again, if we go back and say 5 what is our concern as NRC in this instance and in a.11 other 6 reacto.r instances, curr.ently, we defer to the state or the 7 other regulating body to see to a specific form of financial 8 assurance. What the NRC do.es is merely Look at the general 9 financial capability of the company, subject to a review.
10 We, of course, have a continuing review rasponsibility as Jl the plant operates as time passes, so that we could, even 1O 12 years in.to the future, look at the plant and say, *"You're 1.3 ge-tting kind of shaky. It doesn--'t look like you have enough 14 money to decommission.n 15 So that the real significance to us is, should *e 16 be getting into this specific assurance form, or should we 17 :l eav.e that t,o the state?
18 Let-'s turn n.ow to the next *vie,wgraph an.d see what 19 ,we do now on the fuel cycle currently. I use, for simplicity, 20 .the uranium mLll appl !cation, .where the treatment is the most 21 developed.
22 <Slide.)
23 Because the bulk of the licensing ~ork in fuel 24 cycle is there, the applicant prepares a tailing stabilization 25 and decommissioning plan. I-'ve split the two, although they
6.02.7 22 ar.e both rea_lly part of decomm.iss.ioning.
2 There are criteria available in sources, if you 3 .. know .where t.o look, tor ho.w to prepare and what to project 4 - :for these things. The interim criteria for tailing 5 stabilization can be found in Reg. Guide 3.5, which tells 6 you what to put in a uranium miJl appl.ication 1 icense.
7 There are :few criteria available for mi.11 residues.
8 By that, I mean for .what to clean up a miil to, what soil 9 levels, .what sur:face contamination levels. We have a branch 10 position, like Reg. Guide l.86 *
- I I Did you have a question?
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No.
t3 MR. BERNERO: The applicant, then, .with these 14 interim criteria, estimate,s the cos+/- o.f decommissioning. He 15 has a tentative decommissioning plan, and he proposes a surety 16 arrangement and says, JIJ intend to see to the funds being 17 available by such-and-so means. 11 18 Typica.lly, on a mi 11 that-'s a performance bond, 19 we-'re talking somewhere in the range of $2--4 mill ion for the 20 total cost.
21 The sta:ff then reviews it and licenses that mLll, 22 based on the acceptability of the tentative plans for tailing
- 23 24 25 stabilization and decommLssioning, on the reality or realism o:f the estimated cost, and on the acceptability of the surety arrangement.
6.02.8 23 May I have the next viewgraph, please.
2 (Slide.)
3 What are the weak.nasses in what we-'re doing now?
4 The first and most prominent weaknass is we don-'t 5 have recognized criteria for radioactive rescue. We 1 ve got 6 some g.ood practice numbers for surface contamination. We-'ve 7 got some questionable criteria for decommissioning modes in 8 Reg *. Guide l.86.
9 But .we don-'t have g..ood radioactive residue criteria JO _ Jor soils, for surfaces, for burial, for activation products.
JI And .we don-'t have a clear policy on the pe.rmissible modes of 12 . decomrnJ.ssioning.
1.3 We-'ve got to confront this question of is it 14 acceptable to ~ix radioactivity in place and then walk away 15 from it. The concept of a low-level burial ground or 16 stabilized mill tailings or perhaps an entombed reactor, or 17 should we as a matter of policy be requiring dismantling of 18 virtually all cases.
19 We don-'t have a clear pol icy about timing. Is it 20 reasonable, is it rational, for reactors to be shut down and 21 then allowed to sit in mothballs for LOO years bet.ore one 22 dismantles them.
23 We talk about institutional changes that are 24 possible, then. We can be talking of quite a bit different 25 society, perhaps.
6.02.9 24 We. don-'t, have a clear pol icy on financial 2 assurance. We-'ve got a dichotomy. On the reactor side, we 3 look at financial integrity; on the fuel cycle ~ide, we tend 4 to l.ook at a fixed or rigid assurance. So, we need some sort 5 of coherent statment of policy there.
6 And lastly, a very important thing, I think, li+/-tle 7 is being done to see that plants are being designed to 8 facili tat.e decommissioning. .When you reaJ.ly focus on 9 decommissioning, it brings the designers to work. They accept 10 the costs. They focus on them, and they do something with JJ them.
12 A good example~ the uranium mLlls with the recent 13 pressure on.decommissioning. The mill designers have started 14 +/-,o tak.e a harder 1 ook at the tailings and how they accumulate.
15 In many ins'nces, they used to build the tailings dam out of 16 tailings and acc.umulate tailings behind the tailings dam made 17 . of tailings. But then, when you go to decommission the thing, 18 yo.u now have to decommission the dam. So, that led to a 19 generation of thought that said; J1No, let-'s make .an earthen 20 dam and then put the tailings behind it."
21 Now, further thoughts on decommissioning are 22 getting to stiJ.l another generation, and that is: excavate 23 and further simplify the decommissioning.
1* 24 MR. MINOGUE: I*'d like to add a comment in regard 25 to decommissioning reactors.
86.02.10 25
_ Of course, the steps that are taken to reduce
.occupational exposure, to design to facilitate maintenance and . to cut exposure in the course of maintenance also 4 serve to facilitate decommissioning.
5 So, I think it-'s a little too strongly stated 6 to imply that nothing is done in the de.sign to facilitate 7 decommissioning.
8 MR. BERNEROt Yes. I was intending things like 9 making pie.ces more readily segmented-JO COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Specific design criteria
,I I aimed at.this type of result.
)2 MR. BERNERo: Casting bore holes in concrete so 1-3 that you .could, .with a very sma.11 ~harge,spall off the 14 contaminated. piece.
15 May I have the next slide, please.
16 (Slide.>
17 So, if you look at the factors, we-'ve got -two 18 questions to ans,wer here: What do we need urgently? Where 19 is the critical path in ge.tting to a policy and rulemaking 20 on d.ecommissioning?
21 First of all, I think we have to recognize that 22 responsibility for decommissioning is the urgent thing. It-' s 23 not the ac.t o.t decommtssioning. What-"s urgently needed is 2-4 the assignment and acceptance of the clear responsibility for 25 what to do about decommi.ssioning. The act of actually cu.tting
26 up the plans and hauling the piec.es away is something that
- 2 3
4 is in the future.
Now, ,when ws go _into this policy of rulemaking, as w.e said in the supplementary paper, the re are four 5 principal factors that have to b.e considered: the 6 acceptability .of a decomm1-ssioning mode; the residual 7 contamination limits, whether they be in soil, on surfac.es, 8 in burial, or ~hatever; the timing of decommissioning; how 9 long one should wait to .minimize radiation exposures, how 10 long one can Mait in spite of the pressures to get the Job j J done; and lastly, what are appropriate financial or surety 12 arrangements.
13 ThereJs a subset question that can tie the last 14 two together. JtJs possible that we would want to build in J5 .inherent financial pressures of some sort that would promote 16 the decommissioning of -a plant to make it worthwh! le to clean 17 it up and clean it up promptly.
18 Now, the factors that wi.11 control the schedule 19 o~ dealing with these four principal issues, we think, are, 20 first of all, the residue limits.
21 This is a very complex thing, and it definitely 22 involv.es the Environmental Protection Agency, and it involves 23 all ot the states in setting residue criteria that the EPA 24 can endorse, that we are confident of and can endorse, and 25 that all of the states or virtually all of the states .will
86.02.12 27 accept.
2 We already have :certain criteria in place. The 3 State of California right now is furnishing the criteria for 4 the decommissioning that DOE is doing at Santa Susanna, and 5 they-'re using a criterion of no detectable radioactivity, 6 ~hich is a very tough one to live with, because, you know, 7 it-'s like saying zero release. It only makes sense if you 8 say no detectable measured in such-and-so way.
9 So, we project that the critical path is ge+/-ting JO residue limits that are sound and acceptable *
.11 And the.second piecing item is getting a consensus 12 _ of opinion on sound arrangements +/-or financial assurance.
- J.3 Now,. this is not to say that we would use the same 14 _ financial assurance policy right across the board, but perhaps 15 we would at least think out and very clearly enunciate 16 differences for different licensees and the bases for those J7 - differences.
18 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD.: What 1 s going on in that 19 area now? Is it essentially the assumption that, if it~s a 20 utility and qualified to bui.ld_ the plant, it would be 21 qualified to decommission it?
22 MR. BERNERo.: We are actually making the finding 23 in 50-33 as part of the satisfaction of that regulation. Our 24 staff evaluates the total financial capability of the licensee 25 or applicant and his total responsibilities, operation as well
86.02. J.3 28 J a.s decommissioning, and makes the positive finding that he 2 - can afford to d.o any and all of it. And that is subject to 3 re-revie.w during the existenc.e of the license.
4 But thatJs as far as we go. We do not, then, 5 specify how he keeps his b.ooks, whether .he accrues the funds 6 in. this way or that way. That, we leave to the state or other 7 regulatory body.
8 MR. MINOGUE: Of cours.e, there.,s a distinct 9 difference in the financial situation between the fuel cycle 10 ~ompanies and the reactors.
Jl MR. BERNERO: In the fuel cycle companies, they.,ve 12 been pressing f.or,ward with decommissioning plans on people
]3 other than mi.11 owners, the fuel fabricators, and they-'re 14 ge.tting more and more_information and plans on that. And 15 the question of financial assurance is being raised . there.
16 Big .companies .who own several plants or who are very large 17 corporations are arguing that their liquid assets may be 18 sufficient to be a basis of judgment~ like 50-33.
19 So, i f we lDok at individual rulemakings 20 May I have the next slide, please.
21 (Slide.)
22 This is a slight variation of the argument we made 23 before, that although individual rulemakings can give you 24 rules tailored to the specific facility and, perhaps more 25 important, get you somethirig at the _earliest opportunity, Me
- 6. 02. 1*4 29 end P\I.
are sti 11 troubled that a piecemeal approach wLll not
- e 2 3
establish general policy, that it would be difficult to
_de1ine asst of facilities.
4 If you go back and recall the schedule that.,s on 5 NBOA, the first: of your notes, really, one would define a 6 se.t o.f just one facility, a PWR, probably, and then a general 7 proceeding. It .wouldn.,t* be a subdi vis.ion into PWR, BWR fuel 8 . 1abr.1cation plant, or whatever. It .would probably be an 9 initial reactor rulemaking, fo.llowed by a general clean-up
- 2 JO rulemaking, sort of an interim and then a final *
.I I 12 13
)4
)5 16 17 18 19 20
.2 J 22
- 23 24 25
6, 03, 1 . 30 sp.
That raises the question, .wi.11 that be confusing
- 2 3
4 t.o the public? Wi.11 that be" confusing to the other agencies?
Wi.11 that actually save time?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.a The proposi t.ion 'is .whether 5 to separate out reactors.
6 MR. BERNERO: In the schedule we have, as ;We 7 discussed: before, the PWR comes out earl i.est.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Right.
9 MR. BERNE Ro.: That:' s very shortly.
JO Then the BWR and_the other bases in the general
.11 plan ~ome out next year.
12 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Yes *
.13 MR. BERNERO.a So that the choice would be going 14 Mith the PWR now or perhaps using it as representative of 15 reactors and then going .with a final pol icy based on a.11 of 16 them next year.
17 I .wouldn-'t propose the solution of four_ sets or 18 10 sets - you know, one, for every fc:icility - but about the 19 only segmentation I think that could be done.rationally is 20 using the PWR report as the basis for an interim rule making.
21 MR. MINOGUE: That might be appplicable to both 22 types.
23 COMMSSIONER GILINSKY: This was the question I 2-4 raised last time. The PRW report is coming in fairly early.
25 MR. BERNERo: Fairly shortly, yes. To use it as
36,03,2 3) representative.
2 CO MMLSSI ONER GILINSKY: My thought .was that the 3 principal decommissioning problem, which, as I see it, is 4 the one that deals with reactors, is the one that we need 5 to address rather quickly.
6 I was asking whether in fact we could do 7 precisely +/-hat -- start with the PWR as representative of a 8 .c.ertain class of reactors.
9 MR. BERNERO.: We .could reasonably take the PWR as 10 representative of light water reactors.
Jl We expect that the volume of waste .with the BWR 12 will be greaber, at least AIF do.es. AIF has a substantially 13 different .figure. And there is some logic for that.
14 We-'re not certain about the o~cupational exposure, 15 how that will go. But again, I .would expect it to be in the 16 same~rder of magnitude. At least we might prorat~ or l7 estimate whatever influence that would have on policy.
18 There would be technical validity to using the PWR 19 as a _representative reactor. The real quest ion would be, 20 could we proceed and effectively with what.amounts to a 21 reactor policy enunciation and rule making in the full 22 respect of decommissioning modes, residue limits, financial 23 assurance, the works.
24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Could I ask another 25 question.
86,03,3 32 CA) the.re is no p.ublic heal th and safety issue 2 here, at least certainly not an urgent one of that kind.
3 MR. BERNERO: It's a .waste management.
4 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Number two, .when is the 5 first decommissioning we are talking about?
6 MR. BERNERO: We.11, depending upon our policy, 7 if we said - and I'm just going to hypothesize a number 8 if we said thou shalt dismantle a reactor 10 years after 9 you shut it down as, say, an early extreme, then there are a JO number of r.eactors that should start decommissioning right
.11 .. now. They-'ve been in moth balls .for 10 years. So that no.w 12 1 would expect that we would probably, just to,minimize 13 occupational exposures, we-'d probably go longer than that in 14 years. The .first deco.mmissioning .would probably be in the 15 future even after .we enun:ci-ate a policy in 1979.
16 MR. MIN.OGUE: In any event, there is no immediate 17 public healthissue.
18 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: But get on to the punch line 19 you-'re preparing to deliver. In view of the residual limits, 20 the need to set those, the need to set general aspects of 21 decommissioning mode.s, fin.ancial arrangements and so on, the
.22 cl ear need for. st-ate workshops -
- 23 2-4 25 MR. BERNERO: That we see as the critical path
- CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: -- liaison working these details out with EPA and so on. Suppose you went ahead on the BWR.
36,03,4 ..33 Never mind all the other facilities. When would you get a 2 rule in plac-.e?
3 MR. BERNERO.: Wall, we would be proposing the 4 rule along with the policy statement in December .,79, which 5 is a y-.ear from this December.
6 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY.: That is just the BWR?
7 MR. BERNERo.: No, that.,s the total program.
8 Now, in advance of that the.re are two things that 9 I think ar.e worth some recurrent atbention here that affect 10 _this trade-off of whether to do it separate or whether to do JI it total program. You may recall in the first briefing we 12 discussed the PIRG petition ,whi.ch addresses this active 13 financial assurance, or passive financial assurance, you 14 might call it.
J5 Should NRC ..continue to do what we do just looking 16 at financial integrity or should we put our hand in the pot 17 and require some sort of a surety bond held in escrow?
18 We propose to addr.ess that issue and to do that 19 issue just a few months from now, and that is a significant 20 part of policy to be enunciated.
2J Now, the other thing that I think is worth going 22 into in a little more detail - may I*have the next slide, 23 please.
24 {Slide.>
25 This is the second of the two slides I put* up at
86, 03, 5 34 your pla.c.e.
2 The last time .we were her.e I spoke of the need 3 that NMSS had asked for clarification of existing regulations 4 b.ecause they are seeking and obtaining decommi.ss ioning plans 5 and inf:.ormation with very lLttle basis in regulation on 6 Mhich to base their requests. And we prepared and are 7 holding in ab.eyanc.e, pending the outcome o.f. this discussion 8 here, a paper to give to you on a clarification of existing 9 regulations ~1th respect to decommissioning.
10 And basically this paper and regulation change JI would state ho.w NRC, ,of course, holds t.he licensee responsible 12 for decommissioning
- 13 The reason for our clarifying the regulations is 14 that right now, if you look for any evidence in the 15 regulations for how NRC r.equir.es the information about 16 decommissioning, you really need a guide to find it. You"..11 17 find it in Reg Guide 4.2. You-' 11 find it in Reg Guide 3.5.
18 You-' 11 find it in the correspondence of indi v.idual lic.en_sing 19 cases. Bu+/- it-'s not standing out there clearly, publicly 20 enunciated in the regulations.
21 _ I.f you look in part 51 - 51.20, to be specific -
22 the Commission has said very explicity what the reactor 23 environmental report should treat. It should discuss this, 2-4 that, and everything in detail. But it do.esn-'t say a .word 25 about decommissioning.
86,03,6 35 So ,what that clarification would be -
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What report is this now?
3 The environmental report?
4 MR. BENERo: Yes,. this is 'bhe environmental 5 .report, on a rea-etor, Section 51.20 of the regulations. It 6 te,lls you what to address in that. And then Section 51.40 7 of that same part 51 says, for other major facilities, go 8 thou and do like a reactor. It refers to 51.20.
9 COMMI.SSIONER GILINSKY: *, How do you get the data 10 _ .for the cost-benefit analysis? Does that come from another Jl section ox the environmental report?
12 MR. BERNERO:.: W.ell, on decommissioning, that 13 .section of the regulations *is mute.. Where youJ.11 .find_ the 14 decommi ssioni.ng covered is in the supporting regulatory 15 guide. It is only stated explicitly in the supporting 16 regulatory guide, Reg. Guide 4.2, on the fuel cycle where you 17 do .find such information in supporting regulatory guides~ and 18 now itJs doubly derivative, doubly obscure.
19 Did we clearly expect_this sort of information?
20 We clearly see this kind of responsibility. So Mhat we Mould 21 propose in this subsequent clarif.i.cation is .a change to 51.20 22 that specifically applies to reactors, and by reference in
- 23 24 25 51.40, als.o appplies to any other major facility, I _think bi.genough to require an environmental report. And that section.would say, we must have the tentative plans for
86, 03, 7 36 decommissioning, the tentative cost for decommi.ssioning, 2 and surety arrangements for funds. These ar.e the cr.i teria 3 for decommissioning. We donJ't. have any be~tter ones to give 4 right now, and we Mon 1 t have any b~tter criteria for 5 residue.
6 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It 1 s not clear to me that if 7 you haven""t provided any improved guidance to applicants, 8 that thatJs necessarily very helpful.
9 Let me go back to the question I was trying to 10 get an answer to. before. The reason that ,we-'re here is to
.t I discuss .whether or not. we should go ahead with the 12 decommissioning plan on a generic basis, or whether ,we should
- 13. begin to split o.ff part-s o.f it and do, tor instance, a J4 decommlss.ioning plan for pressurized .water reactors.
15 Let me ask once again, if we were to* start now to 16 move ahead to do a separate decommissioning rule making for 17 pr.essurized ,water reactors, .in view of the n.eed for the 18 state workshops, a need ,which I beli e*ve .will be there when 19 the.re is doubt .whether the matter dealt solely with PWRs or 20 generically, the n_eed for_ liaison .with the EPA and_ the 21 .working out o.f the residue. limits and so on,_.which I assume 22 would be nec.essary for the individual proceedings as well 23 as the generic ones, et cetera; when would we get the BWR 2-4 rule making in place, or .when would we get the proposed --
25 .where woul.d_ the PWR triangle come out on the MBOB chart?
6,03,B 31 MR. BERNERO: It would com.a out almost the same 2 position.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Good.. Just stop there. Say 4 that again, please.
5 (laughter.)
6 MR. BERNERo: Well, since the pacer -
7 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Just Say it again.
8 MR. BERNERO.:
- It .would come out at v.ery nearly the 9 same time.
10 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE.: Plus o.r minus a mo.nth or two *
.l J Two months?
12 MR. BERNE RO: At best, a few months.
13 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Three months?
14 I think that-' s the assent ial point that I-'m trying 15 to bring out here.
16 Now, .what else do you want to te 11 me?
17 MR. MINOGUE: Well, to th~ extent that we might 18 .waffle one or several of these issues, y-0u could conceivably 19 do some kind o.f an interim rule making prior to that relat.ed 20 to PWRs, as, .for example, these surface contamination limits.
21 That-'s not something we .would r.ecommend.
22 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I find that a totally 23 unattractive proposition.
24 _ If the objection to the presetit situation is that 25 the Commission-'s directions are fuzzy, I find the proposal to
86,03,9 38 to go o.ff and create yet a second lev.el of fuzz not a 2 helpful on.e.
3 MR. MINOGUE.: 1-'m not proposing that, Mr. Chairman.
4 What I-'m say.ing is that if .we tz:y to do something earlier, the 5 only May,~e can do that and save a lot of time ~ould be to 6 _ fuzz.~ne o~ these issues. 1-'m not recommending that.
7 CHA1RMAN HENDRIE: Okay. I think that draws 8 rather clearly the issues then.
9 Commentary'?
10 COMMI.SSIONER KENNEDY: What can we do in the J1 meantime?
12 MR. BERNERo;: Well, it may not be clear from MBOB, 13 but there are two generations of liaison ~ith the states and 14 other agencies, and perhaps I should ..emphasiz.e what they are.
15 (Slide.>*
16 Th.e first generation this year is liaison .with the 17 states and other agencies on the information in hand, namely, 18 the PWR report, the fuel reprocessing report, and any pieces 19 _ of the MOX report that become available.
20 Then the second generation of that liaison .with 21 the states requires us to deal with them on a ievel higher 22 than ~hat the contractor is saying. And the level higher 23 than what the contractor is saying is *this set of staff 24 .report-s on the three critical issues, plus the subsequently 25 available contractor reports, so that now the states are not
6,03,10 39 dealing .with simple factual data .from the contractor, but 2 they are dealing with what t*he regu1at ory: staff is reading 0
3 into it, ,what conclusions we are starting to dr*aw from it.
4 And i t-'s that-. second generation that is being 5 done and I believe turns out to be the critical path.
6 So we are actually doing something right now.
7 We ha:ve already ,undertak.en liaison with the states and ,with 8 other agencies on_this and are publishing a.11 the materials 9 ,we .get. as. r.apidly as possible and soliciting comment on it.
I 10 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:: Let me _un.derstand this *
.JI You-"re saying there is basica.lly .nothing to be 12 gained by going forward with the .re.actor part, specifica.lly.
13 MR. BERNERoa Well, ,what weJre saying is that if 14 you elect to go forward with the PWR part, you have to go 15 through the cycle with states, EPA, and the like. And there 16 are extensive times involved in that, and there are t.wo 17* generations of that" 18 There are two basic approaches.
19 One is, you haye to give the states something to 20 see and to understand and react to, and the first_thing ~e 21 have available is .what .the contractor has generated. They 22 made. a fuel reprocessing plant report and the PWR report.
23 As we go over that ~1th the states, the contractor 24 is sti 11 working and .. the sta_ff is .working analyzing that 25 information and drawing conclusions from it, delving into it
86 ,.03 ,-1 t 40 for Mhatever significance is there.
2 Then the next level, of discu.ssion with the states 3 and with EPA is, what does xhat all mean *to the staff? Does 4 that lead us to believE that we can promulgate standards 5 such as these, or policies such as .these, that NRC will take 6 .whatever posi tJ.on .we seek? That is the second generatlon 7 of discussion we feel is vital to have .while it-'s sti.11 8 ,tentative, be.fore we get sort of cast in bronze .with 9 proposed policy statements, to discuss that with the states JO and .with EPA and whatever other agencies are involved.
Jl And-then Mith that_second generation of insight, l2 then we go into the pol icy statement~ EIS, and the .works.
I 13 So really Me are on that accelerated schedul~
14 with the present schedule. We are not waiting to do the 15 sta.ff .work. If you 1 ook at MBOB, those lines are now --
16 they are now to get the financial analysts working, to get 17 the rssidual activity analysts working, working ~ith the 18 states and EPA. That-'s to do it now with the information at 19 hand.
20 It~s not as if we were proposing to get the whole 21 set of information reports and.then start to work. We already
.22 have proposed an overlapping schedul.e, and that-'s why the 23 critical path still r.emains the d.egree and extent of liaison 2-4 you have with states, EPA, FERC, the works.
25 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Your rscommendation then is as
36, 03, 12 41 before -
2 MR. BERNERO: Yes, sir.
3 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: - in the base paper, mainly 4 to go forward on this broad-front schedule and push forward 5 to get these thirigs in place on the basis that it takes them 6 all into account, and ,which schedule, you tell me, differs 7 from that for a single thing like BWR-'s by -
8 MR. BERNERO.: A few months, at best.
9 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: - a couple months, at best.
10 MR. MIN!)GUE.: Yes, sir.
JJ CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Further discussion?
12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Is there any reason between 13 now and_ then not to at least r.equire in the applications that 14 we are considering for individual facilities a statement of 15 their current decommissioning plans and their finances?
16 MR. BERNERO: We do require it. We do require it 17 in a rather obscure way.
18 COMM! SSIONER BRADFORD: Why aren-'t .we requiring it 19 in a ~lear way?
20 MR. BERNERO.: That.,s the issue, because - I-'m 21 jumping the gun because I haven-'t presented you with the 22 paper and the discussion thereof, but this last note on 23 clarification 24 (Slide.)
25 - that-'s one of the principa.l merits of doing
86,03,13 42 end~p *
~hat, is to be more explicit so that one can clearly say, 2 look, -0ur regulations require it; it-'s not buried in some 3 Reg. Guide.
4 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: There is .that merit to it.
5 It do.esn-'t improve the guidance.
6 MR. BERNERO: No. It doesn-'t change the 7 technical e f.f.ect.
8 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: It-'s similar to the argument 9 that I keep having to make when Congressmen ask, .couldn't 10 the NRC implement a number of the things in the draft 11 legislation on its own present authority? And-the answer is 12 yes, but it certainly would be nice to have the blessings of 13 seeing it in the statute, having been considered by the 14 Congress, which is precisely the same sort, of situation, 15 instead of having to dig it out, such as it is, from the 16 present guidance. They would like to £ee it in the 17 regulatioQs that make it clear. People just won-'t -argue 18 about it.
19 So having argued_ their sort of argument, the other 20 place, I must admit some sympathy for it.
21 COMM! SSIONER BRADFORD: Do you also contemplate 22 a little housecleaning on that one Reg. Guide that you
-3
- 23 24 25 indicated ~as deficient in several respects?
43
_. CR 6386 MR. BERNERO: Reg Guide l.86is a 1 natural victim
- HOFF T. 4 2 *of this policr development.
dkw 1 3
(Laughter.)
4 MR. BERNERO: I think it's out of date. It's at 5
least obsolescent. I think~it,will be substantially revised 6
in.order that it will later reflect proper residual activity 7 criteria and a much clearer definition.of decommissioning 8 modes and timing.
9 Now much of that may end up in regulation, I don't 10 know right now how much will end up in regulation and how much 11 in Reg Guide. But right now, what we have, as the Chairman 12 put it, is fuzzy. And'I think one of the biggest balls of 13 fuzz is that Reg Guide.
14 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I take it you're not 15 recommending, for example, to strike the word "conversion" 16 from it now rather than waiting until 1979.
17 MR. BERNERO: I see no merit in trying to do any 18 patch on it at this time. Once again, since the general 19 trend in industry treatment, and certainly in staff treatment, 20 is to look at the cost of decommissioning for prospective as a 21 dismantling cost, the staff is tending to use latest available 22 data on dismantling costs, and I don't think anyone would deny 23 that that's the best option to use as a first estimate.
24 Ace-Federal Aeponers, Inc.
I think it becomes a moot point whether the Reg 25 Guide says conversion or entombment, because no one's really
r 44 dkw 2 1 going that way. *No one's using it.
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Other discussion?
3 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: I agreed with it the first 4 time,,and I haven't changed my mind.
5 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: I'd propose, just to see if there 6 is in fact a consensus, I'll ask the Commission if it would 7 vote to approve the Staff's recommendations in the 78-13 8 paper, supplemented by the proposals submitted today for the 9 other tidying up, for which there will be a paper.
10 Agreed?
11 (Nods in the affirmative.)
12 CHAIRMAN, HENDRIE: So ordered. Thank you very much.
13 (Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the hearing in the above-14 entitled matter was adjourned.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace*Federal Reponers, Inc.
25