ML22230A063
| ML22230A063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/23/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780123 | |
| Download: ML22230A063 (61) | |
Text
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TO SECRETARIAT RECORl)S IN THE MATTER OF:
COMMISSION MEETING BRIEFING ON DECOMMISSIONING Pl ace -
Washington, D. C.
Date -
Monday, 23 January 1978 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 NATlONWIOE COVERAGE *DAILY Pages 1 -
58 Telephone:
(202) 3.47-3700
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on January 23, 1978 in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Washington, D. C.
The meeting w~s open to public attendance and ob~ervation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, 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 informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determinaticins or beliefs.
Nb pleading or other paper may be filed with the Commission in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any statement or arg!_tment contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
6170 CR Barther 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COJ,\\'.IMISSION Briefing on Decornm.1.s-sioning -
Commission Conference Room 1717 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C.
1 Monday, January 23, 1~78 (3:30 p.~.)
The Commission met pursuant to notice at 3:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
Commissioners Hendrie, Gilinsky, Bradford, and Kennedy.
I
2 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Why don't we come to order.
2 We are here this afternoon to hear from the staff ori the 3
progress and stage of a management ejective on decommissioning.
4 Is there a staff paper associated with this?
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0,ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 Mr. Dircks.
Yes, Secy 78.13.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Who should I* look to as chief?_
MR. DIRCKS:
Bob Bernaro will be giving the briefing.
But just to refresh you, Mr. Chairman, this is one of these package briefings that we are presenting.
It is going to put together all of it, everything on decommissioning.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Very good.
MR. DIRCKS:
Although I think we are going to be asking at the end, or calling your attention to two aspects we would particularly like the Commission to fucus on, a plan and the PIR petition that is pending.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
With that, all right, Bob.
MR. BERNARO:
You may recall last month you had a briefing on the waste management program, a broad overview.
Thatis where you saw this viewgraph before, which lists traditional classes of waste.
The last one of which listed is decommissioning.
Decommissioning is to some extent not a class of waste, it is a source of waste.
Our purpose today is to talk about decommissioning in general and to specifically approach you for approval of--a plan to establish revised or
3 new NRC policy on decommissioning, and to get your concurrence 2
or your approval of how we can deal with a petition intimately 3
related with that.
4 (Slide) s The outline I would like to follow is to cover 6
first a definition of terms, so that we understand what we are 7
referring to when we use the term decommissioning, review the a
present situation, what the regulations cover, what the 9
present arrangements are for decommissioning, and then describe 10 to you a plan for re-evaluation and policy development.,_After 11 that, discuss the PIR petition and other related matters, 12 and potential problems.
13 14 In order to conserve time, I am*_ going to gloss over some of the things, the viewgraphs, to a degree.
- However, 15 you have been furnished with a hand-out which is basically 16 the viewgraphs with more detailed material in them.
17 (Slide) 18 The definition of decommissioning is a little 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
bit difficult.
I extracted these phra,ses from our own regul-ations, Section 50.82.
The key words are that decommissioning is retirement from active service, with disposal of radio-active material.
The disposal need not be away from the site.
It is quite possible that the material is disposed of on the site.
And we use the term decommissioning.for repositories, 25 i
or a low level burial ground*; or a uranium mill, where the wast'7
4 is right there.
It is just a matter of putting it into some 2
stable form or stable situation that is acceptable.
3 (Slide) 4 The radioactive residues of the variety of 5
nuclear facilities, nuclear facility licenses and material 6
licenses, covers a very broad spectrum.
You have the reaqily 7
removable thin~s, such as spent reactor fuel, the stored 8
solid wasts, gloves, things of that sort.
There is much of it 9
that is removable only with difficulty, irradiated structures, 10 reactor *core barrels, things of that sort.And there are things 11 that are virtually not removable.
Theoretically you can 12 remove mill tailings, but all you do is translate them 50 miles or something.
i 13 14 I
So we have quite a broad spectrum of wasts to consider 15 in decommissioning facilities.
16 (Slide) 17 The problems in decornrnissionig fall in two basic 18 areas.
One has technical problems, and economic or legal 19 20 21 22 or administrative problems.
In the technical problems, you have a host of questions, how you decontaminate things, how does one accomplish remote disassembly, packaging of waste, irradiated core 23 structures, things of that sort.
24 There is a need, too, where concrete structures Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 are involved, large concrete--structures can become contaminated
5
~nd you don't want to haul away all six feet thick of conrete 2
as waste.
There is a very strong incentive to minimize the 3 waste voluem, so there comes a need to consider spalling or 4
shaving the first contaminated six inches or so of conrete 5 off the mass of structure.
6 There are questions of material salvage that come 7
up.
In some instances expensive alloys are.involved in large 8
masses, large quantities.
9 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
In what way is the concrete 10 contaminated?
11 MR. BERNARO:
Well, from theory there is some 12 induced activity, the primary biological shield around the 13 reactor, the rebar in it may be irradiated.
It is very low.
14 The primary contamination would be from liquid contamination, 15 the cell of a fuel fabrication or fuel reprocessing 16 facility, where sp~llage has seeped into the first two Or three 17 inches.
It is quite difficult to remove then.
18 Then in the administrative area, the economic and 19 legal problems, there is the question of *financial assurance.
20 Decommissioning is an end of life.event, not a beginning of 21 life. So the time where funds are needed to accomplish 22 decorrµnissioning is at t.he end. of life.
We have to project 23 require~~nts,-*¢osts;*-ai.that***time ~nd consider methods to 24,
- insure now that. those funds will be available.
This is Are-Federal Reporters, Inc. I 25 / sensitive. to.the type-of lic-ensee involyed.
We have a broad
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 6
spectrum here.
We have large, what one might call protected reactor owners, the public utility, who are regulated, or protected in their monopoly.
And *there are simple business ventures, people that run uranium mills or fuel fabrication plants that are not in such a protected situation.
Decisions on fiancial assurance can affect the rate structure for electric utility consumers. I-t can affect the taxes for those companies.
So these are all significant factors.
If the question of bonding comes up, there is a very serious question when someone speaks of 60.or J::-00 reactors, each possibly being bonded for $30 million to decommission them.
Who is holding this bond money?
What does that_bond mean?
Is it just in the open bond market, or is it mutually self-assurance, or pool assurance?
There are questions of this nature.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Where do you see the tax effect?
MR. BERNARO:
The tax effect, if one requires front-end money from perhaps a reactor owner, to put money µpin the early stages, we don't know wherher an escrow account or an advance depreciation or a performance bond would have an i
I
' I effect on the income taxes or Federal tax position of the We just don't know.
utilitty.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Do you know how utilities I
i I
I
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12
. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 handle this item for tax p~rposes now?
That is, when they depreciate the items involved in a plant, what values do they assigned that are related to,decommissioning?
Do they make assumptions on the salvage value?
7 MR. BERNARO: We have information to*date that says most of the ones we know of are treating -~t as a negative salvage value.
They are using an artificial depreciation.
Numbers of the order of $25 million in some instances, ten perce 1 t of the capital costs in the case of the State of Connecticut, which is rather high when you come down to it. And they are dealing with it as an advance depreciation that can go into company working capi ta.l, into the cash flow, but can not be used, as I understand it, as a basis for issuance of securities.
They can't go raise money on those plant assets or whatever that money goes into.
And in this way theyare apparently charging today's consumer of electricity, the one using the reactor, for the future decommissioning, and they are assuring the presence of the funds by carefully enhancing their financial integrity *.
Now as far as the tax aspect of it, I just don't know. We are not clear on that at all.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But it would obviously affect their depreciation.
MR. BERNARO:
Yes, it can be involved there, I just don't know how.
8 Now in this administrative economic legal 2
arena, there are also very serious questions of custody and 3
jurisdiction that are very delicate.
We are dealing with a 4
matter that the states look upon as their prerogative to say 5
what assurance shall we have of the financial integrity of the 6
company, what assurance shall we have of the availability of 7
funds to take care of decommissioning.
a An interesting problem arises when you look at 9
decommissioning from a nuclear and a non-nuclear point of 10 view.
It is theoretically possible for us to clean up a site 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 to radioactivity levels that are acceptable for unlimited release.
But there stands a reactor site with an old cooling tower, an old intake structure, an old reactor containment building, a bunch of concrete.
It is not a pristine site.
The question arises should you clean up to a pristine site.
Should you knock down the cooling tower, tear down the reactor building, which would be a formidable task.
And our estimates are showing us that is a very significant fraction of the cost in the total decommissioning of a site.,
if one goes for dismantling.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
I have had one coversation with a state agent and was told that should strictly be the state's prerogative to decide whether the site is cleaned up to that extent, pristine condition, without reflecting on *the radiological iafety question.
25
2 9
So this question of jurisdiction is quite delicate.
COMMISSIONER GLINSKY:
You threw out a number like 3
$30 million earlier.
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BERNARO:
For decommissioning, yes.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is basically to clean up the radioactivity?
MR. BERNARO:
No. We are coming up with numbers I am reluctant to discuss in too much detail our first calculations on the PWR, but we are coming up in that ralrn for total decommissioning, that is, getting down to a bare site, level ground --
i COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is removing the structur~s I
and all?
I i I
MR. BERNARO: _ Yes, demolishing the structures, so there is nothing standing on the site at the end, it is a parking lot sort of thing.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Leveling it. It is not pristine, there is a lot of stuff around.
MR. BERNARO: No, there is no attempt to restore it to the original pine tree cover or anything like that.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: You have knocked down the structures MR. BERNARO:
No more cooling towers standing.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But you have left the concrete on the ground, I suppose.
2 3
4
- ---------------~-----------------------------,
10 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are the sub-surface structures still there?
MR. BERNARO: I can't really say.
I don't know.
I don't know if there is any sub-surface structure. We are 5
apprehensive about that estimate being optimistic.
It may 6
be optimistic.
And that.is in staff review right now, that 7
estimate.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You thought $100 million 9
was high?
10 MR. BERNARO: When I said $100 million, I was 11 referring to the Connecticut ten percent of capital cost, 12 which could easily get you to $100 million and I think 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 that is high. I think it should be half of that, perhaps.
I COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: At any rate, somewhere betwee~
i teh $30 and $100 million?
MR. BERNARO:
Yes.
From what I have seen it looks like $25, $30, $50 million, a numer in that range would be a suitable description I I
of a cost to get down to a levelled site.
MR. RATHBUM:
Is that in '75 dollars?
MR. BERNARO:
'76 dollars.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
level and uncontaminated?
MR. BERNARO: Yes, acceptable for unlimited release, we can just walk away, no licensing.
Assuming the state agrees, and EPA agrees with our criteria for acceptable residue.
We are talking about very low levels of residual activity, 2
and here lies a significant jurisdictional problem.
EPA 11 3
has the statutory responsibility for setting acceptable levels 4
of contamination in the environment.
5 COM..~ISSIONER KENNEDY:
To an ambient standard.
6 MR. BERNARO:
- ies.
If we are to* authorize 7
decommissioning to unrestricted release, we would then be basing s
our findings on once you get it down to that level, you can 9
walk away from it.
We ought to be very careful that the 10 EPA endorses the figure~ and that.the states endorse the 11 figure, because ultimately we are walking away from the site.
12 Then their State radiological health service, or whatever 13 the description is, then is going to worry about that site 14 if they don't agree and object.
15 We have already had some communication from them 16 requesting or exploring ways that they can get into the 17 decision-making process, so that when we are making decisions 18 with respect to acceptable levels of residue, they are a part 19 of the decision.
20 21 22 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Are you suggesting you could have 50 different ones?
MR. BERNARO: I hope not.
But the precedent we 23 have with the Clean Air Act is not clear right now.
And we 24 are very vulnerable on that point.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 One last thing in-*the administrative area is when
you look at decommissioning, and the decision-making that 2
goes with it, you are speaking of a cost-benefit basis.
3 Is it worth it for society in general to clean up this site 12 4
any further?
Is it worth it to dismantle everything*, as against 5
entombing the stuff.in place and writing off the site 6
irrevocably?
7 The basis for such a cost-benefit~analysis is a 8
very senstivie one.
~ should be done prospectively, not 9
retrospectively.
Not in the sense of contaminating sites 10 and then worrying about the problem.
11 EPA tried to confront this issue in their recent 12 proposals for acceptable levels of contamination in soil, 13 trying to make a distinction between plutonium in soil at a 14 place that already exists, as against plutonium in soil at 15 a place yet to be built or operated. And they couldn't 16 distinguish between the two.
17 (Slide) 18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Suppose you were going to 19 build another reactor at that site?
Could you use the same 20 colling towers and structures?
21 22 MR. BERNARO:
Possibly. And it would also, of course, reflect on your decision should you bother dismantling the 23 plant at least now, the.old plant.
Does it make sense 24 to dismantle Indian Point I right now while Indian Point 2 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 and 3 are sitting there perking away for a long projected life?
13 MR. MINOGUE:
It is likely these facilities would 2
not be reuseable.
You have enough change** in the design and 3
approaches after 40 years that the buildings are not quite 4
the right size, the cooling towers are not the right configur-5 ation.
It is unlikely the *equipment would be reuseable.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 1-S 16 The site might be reuseable.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Consider the number of _regulatory guides that will. have issued in 30 years.
MR. MINOGUE:
On cooling towers, yes.
For once in my life I am speechless.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Even you can't conceive of it?
MR. MINOGUE:
No.
But the site itself may well be, unless you assume some entirely new a:i;:proach to the ____ _
generation of energy.
It might very well be a very desirable site for another power plant.
MR. BERNARO:
The site then becoming a segregated facility by its nature.
i I
I 17 18 19 MR. MINOGUE:
It gives you some incentive to restore yours to the.original grade, because you will be a new facility on the same site or in that same area.
buildin 1
20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BERNARO:
Now I would like to review what is in the present regulations on decommissioning.
It is spotty.
Part 50 has the most of it.
50.33 requires financial qualifications.
Every time we license a part 50 applicant, the staff has to make a finding that this licensee or proposed
14 licensee is financially qualified to operate and to shut 2
down and maintain in a safe condition that facility he seeks 3
to license.
4 5
6 It.is not clear that that addresses decommissioning.
It just says financial qualifications, and_that is it.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there some standard for 7
this shutdown, or some amount of money you have to be able 8
to produce?
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 MR. BERNARO:
No, we don't have that. We have a Regulatory Guide 186, an attachment to the paper we forwarded to you, attachment B, and it gives very general guidlines on acceptable methods for decommissioning and acceptable de minimus levels of contamination.
That reg guide is creaky with age already.
It hasn't had a proper test, an open regulatory test.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Is there any real finding 17 made here?
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BERNARO:
Oh, the financial qualifications finding is made by, I would say, the economists, the book-keepers, looking at it.
OOMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
This is like what we have been through on construction permits?
MR. BERNARO:
Yes, that sort of thing.
When one looks at the costs involved with buying and.building and operating &-reactor, you are dealing with a
15 level of money that is so much greater than the 2
decommissioning costs that it is pretty hard to see the 3
decommissioning costs as a :big perturbation.
When you get to 4
the fuel cycle facilities, it is a different story.
5 50.82 does speak to decommissioning, but we will 6
cross that bridge when we get to it; it is*end"'."""of-life 7-phrasology.
At the end of its life*or near the end of its 8 life, the licensee may apply for termination and we go through 9
a decommissioning plan.
But that is the time we would address 10 the details of it under the present regulations.
11 Part 50, appendix F, applies only to reprocessing 12 plants; it is the closest we have come to a policy which says 13 make ease of decommissioning a design objective.
It suggests 14 competent authorities, hearing on the criteria, it suggests 15 opportunity for public cormnent, and perhaps a hearing.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Has this been applied?
17 MR. BERNARO:
The part 50 appendix F really hasn't 18 had that much use since it came out in '71.
19 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Isn't appendix F the one that 20 has the specific exemption.-for NFS West Valley?
21 MR. BERNARO:
Yes, but that was on high level waste 22 only.
There is a grandfather aspect to NSF West Valley 23 with respect to appendix F, because F came out f~ve years 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
after that plant started to operate.
I I
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: But doesn't the decommissioning I
25
16 of that plant fall under Appendix F?
2 MR. BERNARO: In theory it does. I would say there 3
is a grandfather question, but in *fact it is a decommissioning 4
of a fuel reprocessing plant, and appendix F would apply.
5 The only exemption was the solidified waste in five years, 6
because it was alkaline waste and that was-given a specific 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 separate rule-making.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What is happening at the plant there?
MR. BERNARO: At West Valley, NMSS is having a difficult time with it, trying to pursue the question of decommissioning~: at the same time the co-licensees, the New York ERDA.and NSF, New York ERDA being more deeply hooked than NSF, they are trying to get USDOE to take over the whole facility~
So eve~y exploration -of decommissioning is met with why don't you wait until DOE takes the place, they may want to do soemthing with it.
So right now it is in a standby mode.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is it mothballed in some way?
MR. BERNARO:
You could call it that.
It is dormant, it is not mothballed in the sense that you can walk away from it.
The fans are kept on to keep negative pressure in the cells, so contamination doesn't seep through the gaskets and so forth. But it is a dormant plant, there is Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 no activity in there other than surveillence. But it is not a
mothballed plant in the usual sense of the tenn, one that 2
merely has watchmen.
It has dynamic systems operating, 3
vent condensers for the high level waste tanks, echaust fans 4
for the process cells, things of that nature.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And this is going to go on 6
pending resolution of the whole problem of*who is responsible 7
for it?
17 8
MR. BERNARO:
Yes. Right now that is the appearance o
- 9. it.
There was a paper submitted to the Commission this past 10 spring, -March of '77, reviewing the NSF West Valley situation. -*
J 11 There was an interim safety evaluation done to see if we are 12 at the edge of a cliff.
And as I recall the situation there, 13 it is dormant, it is donnant acceptably.safe for the foresee-14 able future, the near term.
It is a mess to be cleaned up, it 15 is a clear and present hazard sort of thing.
16 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Wouldn't there be some value 17 in separating out the plant problem from the problem with 18 the tanks?
19 MR. BERNARO:
Except that the plant is so 20 intimately involved with the tanks.* If one is to do something 21 with *the waste in the tanks, the first place one looks for an 22 evaporator to concentrate waste or anything is in the plant 23 and piping system.
It is very likely a good technical 24 solution will have perhaps some modifications to that, then I
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 the plant will digest that waste, swallow it back up and make
18 it into solidified form amenable to shipment away.
2 Part 20 is notable for decommissioning.
It 3 II limits low level waste burial to state or Federally owned land.
4 II That has been extrapolated to entombed facilities.
The state 5 II has some sort of role if there is to be a permanent dedication 6 II of the low level waste in an entombed faci1ity.
There is 7 II nothing in parts 3 0, 4 0, or 7 0.
BIi The material license portions of the regulations 9 II are really mute on the subject of decommissioning; there is 10 II a big gap there.
11 II COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What.does the Government do 1211 with its decommissioned plants?
13 MR. BERNARO:
Collects them.
The Government right 14 II now, DOE you are referring to, is agonizing a reappraisal of 15 II the whole thing.
Their first order of business is what they 16 II call their abandoned sites program.
These are not so much 1711 their facilities, but these old things where Madam Curie's 18 II uranium was* processed, this sort of thing.
They are sites 1911 that were released a long time ago, and are sitting out there, 20 II and may or may not be acceptable.
21 II They have a high.: priority program to do surveys, 22 II evaluations, go through them and get them cleaned up in a 23 24 five-year program.
COMMISSIONER.GILINSKY:
What about. the Government Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 II reactors?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, i'nc.
25 19 MR. BERNARO:
There are government reactors, Hansford, Nevada's national reactor test station, all of these places, *.. and right now they are concentrating on an inventory of what they have and a long-range plan for what to do with it, some orderly decommissioning of thosee things.
But it is a much much longer term than this five-year abandoned sites thing.
MR. MINOGUE:
There are a few small power plants in the civilian sector that have been decommissioned that go back to the late '50s, :.in the civilian sector.
MR. BERNARO:
There is a table in the paper CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Weren't some of the part 115 machines decommissioned?
MR. MINOGUE:
I don't recognize part 115.
MR. BERNARO: You mean the demonstration reactors?
MR. MINOGUE:
Evidently it was done successfully.
MR. BERNARO: There is a table in the paper of the 15 test and demonstration reactors that have been decommissioned Not all were dismantled; some were mothballed or entombed.
Then there are dozens of little research pool reactors.
It is in table 1 of attachment B to the paper Secy 78-13.
It lists reactors such as Saxton, C-4, NASA Glenbrook, Elk River, that generation.
of attachment Bin Secy 78-13.
It is on page 12 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What financial provisions
2 3
4 5
- 6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 20 have been made in the case of say Peachbottom, ones that were 1
built for operating facilities?
Are they carrying that along as an operating expense?
MR. BERNARO:
I don't know how they are carrying that.
I would point out that PEachbottom was built by that whol college of utilities, but is actually ope~ated by Philadelphia Electric.
Fermi I was the Power Reactor Development Corporation, and they indeed had a level of funds such that the Commission stepped in and said you can't afford to operate any more, you have go~ to decommission.
That was mothballing type decommissioning.
MR. MINOGUE:
I don't recall any specific provision of funds for Peachbottom I.
There was a recognition the plant might run for perhaps ten years, and then be shut down, but I think the feeling was that the cost of ultimate decommission-ing would not be sufficiently great to be any undue burden.
MR. BERNARO:
It is on a possession-only license now.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Is that Philadelphia Electric?
MR. BERNARO: Yes. It is out of sight with those two big boiling water reactors that are operating. So it is a very small thing in their operation, I would think.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
What about Fermi I?
MR. BERNARO:
Fermi I is on a site for forthcoming
21 reactors, Fermi II and III.
2 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Has it been turned over to 3
Detroit Edison?
4 MR. BERNARO:
It is a possession-only license.
5 I assume it is Detroit Edison.
They are the site owner and 6
operator.
7 COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And the expense associated 8
with that is born by the Company?
9 MR. BERNARO: By Detroit Edison. I am not sure of 10 that.
It is a conjecture.
11 MR. MINOGUE: I am not one hundred percent certain, 12 but I believe the expenses on Peachbottom I were born by 13 Philadelphia Electric and :G~lf Oil in some way.
I don't 14 believe there is any government money in that that I am aware 15 of.
16 (Slide) 17 MR. BERNARO:
If you look at the present situation, 18 we have two poles, almost, of problems.
NRR is re-issuing 19 virtually all facility licenses under part 50.
It is not 20 like 30, 40 and 70, where it is a material license. They 21 are, of course, constrained by the 50.33 requirements to 22 evaluate financial integrity.
There is advance evaluation 23 of decommissioning, but recognizing that the cost is relatively 24 small compared to the cost of the plant, whether you are looking Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 at the financial integrity or looking at the mills per kilowatt
I~------
22 hour2.546296e-4 days <br />0.00611 hours <br />3.637566e-5 weeks <br />8.371e-6 months <br />.analysis, the decommissioning is not a big bump in the 2
curve.
3 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
As a practical matter, we 4
don't pay much attention to it.?
5 MR. BERNARO: No, it is very low.key treatment.
The 6
reg guide 186 is there as guidance, and the licensee can 7
evaluate and do evalluate that, oh, we might decommission this 8
way or that way.
The lack of clear policy on how to get 9
rid of the things, once and for all, though, leads to an 10 11 accummulation of mothballs.
We have got sites collecting one after the other.
Peachbottom I is on the site with II 12 and II, and Indian Point I on the site with 2 and 3 operating.
13 Fermi I, GE recently came up before the staff because of 14 the seismic problem, the GE test reactor.
15 One of the first things that came out in that 16 we are talking about a site with an ative test reactor, 17 what else is there?
Two old quote decommissioned unquote 18 *. reactors, the. Eveser (sic) and the VBWR.
One of them I
I 19 is sitting there dormant, mothballed for 13 years, and the othe1 I
20 for 9 years.
21 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Where is this?
22 MR. BERNARO: In Vallacito, California.
They are 23 not a clear and present hazard, a mothballed reactor is not 24 a real proximate danger.to any human life; it is just a mess Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 that has to be cleaned up.
II 2
3 23 What happens for lack of policy is this accummulation
- of such residual problems.
On the NMSS side you are dealing with material 4
licenses for the most part, only a few facility licenses, 5
6 fuel reprocessing plants and --
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Let me stop you there for a 7
second.
Financial questions aside, what assumption is made, 8
- is the utility asked to indicate what it is going to. do 9
with the reactor at the end of its useful life?
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BERNARO:
Generally they are asked to make a tentative decommissioning analysis.
Reg Guide 186 leaves the door wide open. You can mothball, you can entomb, dismantle, or convert to another facility.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Do you have to indicate ahead of time what your plans are?
MR. BERNARO: Yes, you have to discuss it. But in general they discuss mothballing.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Theyare not held to that?
MR. BERNARO: No, because 50.82 is there.
COMMISSION GILINSKY:
So in effect the licensing process pretty well ignores decommissioning?
MR. MINOGUE:
That is a little too strong, but you are in the right direction.
MR. BERNARO:
~ plays a very low key, if at all.
MR. MONOGUE:
There was a basic perception several
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 24 years ago, because a number of these demonstration plants had been rather successfully decommissioned, that there were many paths to decommissioning, and all of them involved little more than throwing money at it.
There was no real technical difficulty.
So there hasn't been a lot of emphasis placed on this in the licensing process.
with you.
So to that extent I agree But I wouldn't say it has been ignored in the sense that nobody failed to recognize something needed to be done at the end of life.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And it is correct, is it, tha~
I the assumptions that were mde, that there were not insurmountabl 1e significant technical problems to be dealt with, it was just, as you pointed out so well, a mess that needs cleaning up, but not a technical problem?
MR. BERNARO:
No, and not a truly enormous amount of 17 money, compared to-teh resources of a reactor owner.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
But assumptions are made in the environmental impact analysis about the site after the reactor stops operation?
know.
MR. BERNARO: I am not sure of that. I just don't I think the site is written off as an irretreivable
\\
commitment of.the land, the few acres involved.
MR. DIRCKS:
I think in the cost-benefit analysis 25 you don't reclaim the site for any other purpose.
2 3
4 25 COM..1\\1:ISSIONER KENNEDY:
But in fact you could use it fr another power plant later, so you would have a benefit.
MR. DIRCKS:
But they don't take that benefit.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
They don't take it in the 5
original analysis.
6 MR. MINOGUE:
Just look at the last 40 years at 7
the development of the sizes of plants~
Fo:tty--year-old ?ites 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 are generally not that useable today. It would not seem prudent to assume that to be a given.
MR. BERNARO: Getting to NMSS facilities and material license history, there have been many facility decontaminations both inside the government and outside.
Every time someone changes his process flow sheet, they frequently go in and decontaminate.
They decommission a chunk of the facility and rebuild it to some other process.
That has been done many times, the technology is well-established.
There have been problems, mill tailings of course the Grand Junction case is a dramatic one, all of the current concern about mill tailings is very real.
NSF West Valley, in retrospect it seems a textbook example of bad decisions, problems, or mistakes. It has a lot of difficulties associated with it.
NMSS is,on the other hand, looking now to their present activities, licensing principally in uranium mills --
CO~.MISSIONER GILI~SKY:
Was there something not
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 26 foreseen at NSF, that all of this material would leak out or what?
MR. BERNARO:
r is difficult to reconstruct.
There was a great deal of attention given at the time to who is responsible for this.
In fact, even going so far as to make th State of New York stand Fbehind that state-chartered corporation.
I found little in the record to show that a great deal of thought was given to how to get the junk out of the tank, making sure it is a good tank, the best tank, but not any real thought to that.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Why didn't they use the process they used in Idaho, acid solutions,. and everything seems to be working okay.
MR. BERNARO: Well, the generation that designed remember NFS West Valley was designed in the early to mid 1960s, and it went on line in '66.
It was based on defense reprocessing technology, which to this day neutralizes the waste.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:.. But ! ____ tpoua_ht that is not
~
the case in Idaho.
MR. BERNARO:
Idaho is the exception.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
That is also a Defense establishment.
MR. BERNARo:*A unique one, yes.
There has been a polarization between the Idaho philosophy and the Savannah
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 River-Hanford philosophy.
And I am afraid the influence is COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Did it start that way?
27 Didn't they change somewhere al6ng the line in their process?
MR. BERNARO: I -don't know. I thought Idaho used acid waste always.
MR. MONOGUE:
That fs my understanding, too.
I thin that is the case.
MR. BERNARO:
But the Hanford and Savannah River, starting up in the early '50s, or mid-'S0s, they were World War II tradition, neutralizing the waste, and we did it that way last year, we will do it this year.
That is where all of the tank technology that went into NSF came from.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I thought this all stemmed from the shortage of. stainless steel during World War II, and that is why they went to those tanks and that solution.
MR. BERNARO:
Gee, I wouldn't think --
I have 17
~---------- ------ --- --- ---- -* --
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 never heard that argument.
The only argument I ever heard was one tha~ I find credible, that there was less attention paid, you know, just throw the stuff in the ground, we are going to have a lot of it.
The first chemical processes were notable for having enormous quantities of waste.To get a little bit of uranium, and a little bit of plutonium, they generated a lot of 1-guid.
So there was just recognition that we needed a lot of tanks.
And as a corollary, perhaps, if you are going to build dozens and dozens of tanks, you
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 28 don't want to build them out of stainless steel, which especially then was rare.
In a sense I am concurring with your proposed reason.
But I had never heard it phrased in that way.
But what NMSS is doing now, *thE=y are delaing with licensing actions on uranium mi*lls, renewals for fuel fabrication facilities.
And because they are dealing with facility owners, who to some extent are simply business ventures, no guarantees, no protected regulated monopoly situation, what they are requiring is a tentative decomrnissionin plan, and some sort of performance bond, some front-end money.
But keep in mind you are only talking about a few million dollars here, $2 or $3 million, numbers of that order, and NMSS is working closely with the states, like the mill tailings bonding, because many of the mills are in agreement states.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
There is only a material license.
What are the licensees responsibilities once he has divested himself of the material?
MR. BERNARO:
None.
But see that is the key.
In order to divest himself of the material, the residue comes into question. If he is operating at some --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
NMSS continues to have a grip on him because there is residue in his plant?.
MR. BERNARO: Yes.
The grip is on him, not.on the
2 3
4 5
6
- 7.
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 29 plant.
It is a peculiar difference from the reactor situation, where the plant itself is licensed, and of course the owner, is the licensee. And that is why one speaks in a reactor**
of going to a possession-only license, which is an analogue of a material license.
You are not allowed to generate power, in fact you are physically incapable of it, you t~ke the fuel out of the reactor.
You are just authorized to possess the 60,000 curies of.activity.
I would like to move on now.
(Slide)
We have a great deal of pressure-now, we need change, we have just talked about NSF West Valley, the accummu-lation of mothballs.
There is a good deal of Congressional pres~sure on this subject, as you are.. probably_ aware.
There have been a number of hearings on it, and a GAO report.
We have before us a Public Interest Research Group, who have petitioned for a rule change, and we will touch on tha a little later.
The public pressure is to do something about decommissioning, to clarify it.
As I said, NMSS is even trying to clarify their regulations at this stage, to make thei job easier in current licensing actions.
(SLide)
So we are looking for a m~ster plan to reconsider and re-evaluate policy and come up with a coherent picture.
30 Now we expect that a properiy constructeq 2
master plan would have joint action by the licensing and support 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 offices.
This is a matter that involves NRR, NMSS, and the support offices can give them a great deal of help in the technical area, and in the administrative area with the states, because of the tight involvement with the ~tates.
We would look for a substantial data base.
We need a lot of information to know what all of the different facilities are and what can be done.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
You are talking about a gran master plan which deals with all facilities?
MR. BERNARO:
Yes, everything.
This is what I am trying to p~oint out, how can this agency approach the 14 problem without distinguishing fuel fabrication plants as 15 against a PWR or a low level burial ground, or a radiographer 16 or something like that.
17 The issue.of decommissioning, of disposing of radio-18 active residue.
19 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: What do you mean without 20 distinguishing?
21 MR. BERNARO: Well, what are the general principles 22 we would apply, and then what variations might be appropriate, 23 24 o;ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 variations due to the type of licensee, to the type of facility involved~ the level of financial power that that licensee has, financial integrity.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 31 There are a variety of issues that have to be considered in this plan.
But we are looking for a plan that would approach the issue from the general-and work down to the particular.
MR.
DIRCKS:
Agency plan.
MR. BERNARO:
Not a NRR-NMSS approach, but just what is the issue.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I think there is some virtue in going from the general to the specific.
There is also some virtue, it seems to me, in going the other way.
MR. BERNARO:
Indeed the plan reflects that, I think.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
For one thi*ng,
- if you are looking for this grand master plan, you will tend to wait a good deal longer than you might otherwise in doing some things you could do.
And, you know, it has the virtue of a certain logic, but just looking at your schedule, jumping ahead a little bit, it does in a sense slow you down, I think.
MR. BERNARO:
Let me go through that.
I don't think it is that slow.
I would like to make certain arguments for it.
(Slide)
We have got current work:: going on right now that carries us into a position that we are farther along than it
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 appears on the surface.
We have had studies by Batelle Northwest going on at a low profile for the last couple of years, and these are studies to generate specific detailed information on the _.alternative methods to decommissioning 32 particular types of facilities.
What are the costs in dollars, in man rem expose?
What are the volumes of waste_generated? '
What are the problems?
We have set up those contracts for a range of facilities and in the notes I gave you there are eight specific facilities, two types of reactors, PWR, BWR, fuel reprocessing plants, low level burial ground, mixed oxide fabrication plants, a small one, like the existing ones, uranium fabrication plants, UF 6 plants and uranium mills.
MR. MINOGUE:
THese are all based on pulling together technology that already exists.
So recognize here this is not a p~ogram to develop new*techniques, but to
-pull together the techniques that have been used over the years.
MR. BERNARO:
One of those is done, the information report on the fuel reprocessing plants is done and published in final form.
It was published at the end of the last fiscal year.
COM..MISSIONER BRADFORD: When you say the technology already exists, what do-you have in mind?
MR. MINOGUE:
In the area of reactors and in the
33 area of fuel facilities there are a number of cases.where 2
people had to come in and carry out decontamination operations 3
_in order to repair or r-efurbish equipment, change-over 4
in process systems.
That has been going on for 30 years.
5 In that period of time a number of reagents have been developed, 6
techniques assessed, ways of handling this* problem.
7 What these guys have done i.s not*re-invent the wheel s
so much as to go out and make a critique of what has been done i 9
the industry and in the government programs and look at how 10 these techniques would be applied to these different types 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 of facilities.
That is one of the arguments, of course, to come at this from the general.
The techniques are much the sam~,
whether you are talking about decontaminating process piping in a reactor or anywhwere else; it is all piping.
MR. BERNARO: But the contractor here is directed to stick with the state of the art to the greatest extent.
And this range of facilities was selected in the hope of providing a specific set of facilities that would cover the whole range of interest.
So that if one wants to generalize, we have a broad base to generalize upon.
A corollary to these studies of how to decontaminat or decommission existing f ac*ili ties is a study of ways to facilitate decommissioning. *- ANything they turn up in this
will also come out that perhaps a design change of this 2
or that will greatly facilitate decommissioning.
3 It would identify problem areas, difficult areas, costly 4
areas.
And that is part of this whole contract effort.
I 5
Now other things are going on that relate to 34 6
this.
We have continuing liaison with EPA on disposal criteria, 7
acceptable residue levels.
That relates directly to what is 8
an acceptable final situation for decommissioning.
9 The waste management program in total relates 10 very strongly to this.
Recall that decommissioning is*a way to 11 generate waste, not to dispose of*it.
And all of the 12 considerations, waste classification, that MNSS is looking 13 at, the waste disposal criteria, the risks associated withit, 14 all that relates directly to this.
15 AIF recently published a reactor decommissioning 16 study that we are evaluating closely and comparing to our 17 work.
18 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What were the conclusions of 19 that?
- 20 21 MR. BERNARO:
They conclude that it is worthwhile to let*it s+/-t for quite a while to decay radioacativity 22 and then go in and dismantle it.
23 after a su_bstantial delay.
It is a lot cteaper to dismant e 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What is a substantial delay?
MR. BERNARO:
Numbers as high as a hundred years.
35 Decades of delay.
Going after nuclides like cobalt 60, 2
things like that~ getting 10 half lives 0£ a 5.7 year half 3
life.
4 We are finding a lot more concern with the nuclide 5
they didn ' t find concern with, niobium 9 4,.and our 6
results are indicating.perhaps some delay is worthwhile, but*
7 not too many decades.
You have got more long-lived 8
indiced activity in the reactor vessel than AIF has.
9 10 11 12 13 14 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
From the niobium?
MR.,BERNARO:
Yes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
What is the half life?
MR. BERNARO:
20,000 years.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
You have to wait a long time~
MR. HERNARO:
Yes.
It is there. And it is a fairly 15 hefty gamma field.
By fairly hefty, after you decay away the 16 cobalt 80 and the short-lived induced activities, we._ are 17 talking about fields of a few R per hour, 1, 2, or 5 r per 18 hour2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br />, enough to make manual operations difficult, not 19 very high fields, but enough to be costly.
20 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: For instance, is it next to the 21 vessel*or inside the vessel?
22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BERNARO:
In and around the*reactor vessel and its barrel and so forth.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That is down in the range where you might get under water?
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 36 MR. BERNARO:
Yes.
MR. MINOGUE:
There are techniques for doing this kind of work under water, however.
MR. BERNARO: :es. But it is not so high as to make it a terribly formidable obstacle.
We are evaluating the possiblity of contaminated scrap recycle, valuable metal alloys.
This is associated with a DOE request for an exemption that I will touch on later.
(Slide)
We look for the development of regulatory policy to involve three focal points.
Contractors~ can supply information and that is all they should supply. They can be hired to generate ~echnical data, put it in a form to make it useable to us.
We see the NRC staff then holding the responsibility to evaluate contractor-furnished information,.
to derive policy alternatives and conclusions, to see which way might we go, solicit broad comments, discuss this with all related Federal agencies, state agencies, and the public.
And to.formulate or propose regulatory policy to you gentlemen.
Then, of course, the Commission considers the staff recommendations, weighs the public comments, and sets the policy.
This plan we hav~ set up is what we think is the appropriate way to do this, for decommissioning.as a general
i 2
3 4
5 issue and decommissioning in particular.
(Slide)
There are three areas where we feel that the NRC staff has to take a lead role in the evaluation.
This should not be delegated to contractors:.. -The financial 37 6
assurance evaluation, the regulatory considerations thereof, 7
the evaluation of acceptable radioactive residue levels, the s
evaluation of generic applicability.
9 In the financial assurance, the decision on how 10 much financial assurance is needed for each type of licenses, 11 who is responsible, who guarantees that responsibility, and how.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 All of this should be judged by the staff.
Of course that principally involves the licensing offices and in particular the economic staff in NRR, where most of our economists work.
The radioactive residue, we have this interface with EPA, their responsibility for standards.
We have had difficult_progress in this area of setting standards for radioactive residues in tqe environment.
It is a very difficult one.
There is an important state role here because the states have a voice in this matter.
- Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Generic applicability is where one gets to the thing, if we have studied 8 different types of facilities, are these reference plants representative of the full range of plants?
Can we extrapolate to other types of facilities?
Can we extrapolate to policy-*judgments?.
I 25
38 Here we are extrapolating from the particular to 2
the general, in considering this master plan.
So this is 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 the point I want to make here, that the plan is to set general policy for.decommissioning to be applied to particular types of facilities or.. actions, but the data base, the information base, is generated on particular types, hopefully covering the entire spectrum of them, in order to have a soundly based policy.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Where is all this headed?
Is it headed toward rule-making?
MR. BERNARO:
Yes, it is.
(Slide)
This viewgraph covers the existing work, whab.*JWe are doing, these information reports from Batelle.
At the top you see the pressurized water reactor report, the draft is in hand, we are deeply involved in the staff review of it now.
The BWR report comes in in FY '79.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Are these significantly different?
MR. BERNARO:
I don't know yet.
Much of it ought to be the same on the outer auxiliary systems, cooling towers, things like that would be virtually identical. But the reactor itself, I don't know.
That is where we would expect the differences, in the reactor and containments.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
~ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 39 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And the contaminated steel pipe?
MR. BERNARO:
Yes, the balance of the plant, the steam condenser, that sort of thing, will undoubtedly have a higher level of contamination.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why did you start-with the reprocessing plant?
Did you have NSF in mind?
MR. BERNARO:
Well, yes and no.
This sort of grew like Topsy.
The reprocessing plant was the first concept that got very far along, and then it was accellerated to complete it as a sample or test case for two reasons.
One was it was yseful for NFS, it covers a very broad spectrum f
the tyeps of decontamination involved. You have transuranics, loose fission products, crud, all sorts of things.
Technically it ~s a very good question how to decommission a*fuel reprocessing,plant.
There was another reason for us to complete it last fiscal year, and that was to terminate work on reprocessing in an orderly fashion.
So we just artificially got that wrapped up as a good test case, as a first cut for the entire package.
And then gave the highest priority next to the reactors.
And the priorities that were selected for these others are perhaps of interest.
The mixed oxide fabrication plants exist, there are.a group of these.
And they need decommissioning.
These are things like Kerr-McGee Cimeron,
dkw 2
3 4
5 old plants, NFS Erwin faciliity, there is a portion of that facility that is old.
40 So we are using the Kerr-McGee Cimeron as the reference plant there for that MOX.
That is why that was first.
It also can derive a great deal from the fuel 6
reprocessing plants.
We want low *level burial next, and then 7
the uranium mills next, to match the uranium mill schedule 8
o the GEIS on uranium milling, so that we don't do things 9
twice.
10 We base it on that GEIS and all of the information 11 that flows out of that.
12 Then we leave until last the fuel fabrication 13 plants, that is, uranium, and the UE 6 conversion plant, for 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 two reasons.
One, there is not a great deal of pressure on either of those things for decommissioning at this time. And secondly, from a.technical point of view, they seem the most straight forward, and have a precursor, both of them have a precursor up there in the MOX fabrication and in ithe.. fuel reprocessing.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
The reactor facilitation and fuel cycle facilitation followed.
If You look at the pattern, the key point --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What does that mean?
MR. BERNARO:
These are other ways to improve decommissioning.
This would be a long-term payoff, that 25
dkw 2 41 should we start to bump these designs in some way, and through 2
the regulatory process, to avoid difficult decontamination 3
problems, or decommissioning design problems.
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. MINOGUE:
See, that's the one thing we incorporated--not licensing processes--to make any real effort to force the plants to be designed.to facilitate later decommissioning.
And the thought here is that there may be some relatively straightforward things that could reasonably be done; make it much easier later~
MR. BERNARO:
As an example, a 6-foot layer of concrete, that's going to have the first 6 inches contaminated; does it make sense to cast in a layer of steel?
Or some holes £or explosi~e, or something like that?
So that when the time comes, you just put some plugs in, and bip, there it goes.
You've got the material off on the floor.
The:* key thing here is if you look at the.
information flow you see either final or draft form reports in hand in the middle of calendar year '79.
See, along about.June or July of '79 there, the July of this work is done.
You've got a broad spectrum of information available to you.
May I have 14 please?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 (Slide.)
dkw 3 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 42 So what the plan looks to, the plan looks to buildin on that base, and having the Staff*.analysis in the following areas.
The first one at the top: liaison with the states the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which relates to rate-setting bodies.
And a Staff analysis for financial assurance; what is the spectrum of financial assurance requirements we have in the -- in the whole range of our licensing activities.
We have then liaison with EPA on radioactive residues, and perhaps that's not the best term. :.*=-~ risk assessment -- but an evaluation of what are acceptable residual activity levels, and closely tying that with our EPA liaison:,.... because=.in effect, we wait until EPA gives us those levels or those criteria for residual activity, or we generate them and_get EPA to endorse them as we go along.
And thirdly, the_ generic applicability, we have both the reactor people looking at their reactor range of interest, and the fuel cycle people, NMSS, looking at theirs NMSS gets two other. little bumps, because they're still picking up these other --
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Let me understand.
You say, "proposed rule."
That's a rule that covers all these facilites?
MR. BERNARO:
Well, it would be a policy statement
dkw 4 2
3 4
5 6
43 accompanied by whatever proposed rule is needed for its basic implementation.
Now --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I guess -- you know, you** re finishing the PWR work in the middle of fiscal '78 sometimes, but you're not going to get to anything in the way of a rule on, say PWRs, until the middle of fiscal '80.
And I'm 7
wondering why we hav.e to wait so long.
8 9
10 11 MR. BERNARO:
Well, we --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I realize the advantage of doing it all together, and seeing* it all laid out before yoµ.
But the facilities, it seems to me, the ones we are 12 most concerned about, are the reactors.
13 14 15 16 MR. BERNAR.O:
Well, OPE raised this point.
And before I leave this viewgraph let me just make a point and then address your issue.
If you look here on this MBOB, you see state 17 workshops.
We indicate two of them, down at the bottom 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 here, and the purpose of these is, in an orderly fashion, to deal with the states in a formal way, to let them know what information we are generating, to share it with them, to tet their comments on it, and with these interim reports on financial assurance, radioactive residues, and generic applicability, to share our thought processes with them at the earliest opportunity.
So that when we come out with the Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 draft environmental impact statement to support that policy
dkw 5 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 44 and rule, we do have a confidence that it's not sudden, burst on the public and on the states so that they don't understand it, or don't agree with it.
MR. MINOGUE:
One thing that I think is fairly important here, Commissioner: the technical reports that come o t of the work by the contractor of course are being published and roach available as quickly as they are being done, so much of th technology transfer if you like, is there to be used by l.icensees without -- we have rules already that provide a legal framework for handling this area.
MR *.. :BENARO.:.::. Each *one. of these information reports from Battelle is being published as a new reg report with a solicitation of commonet on the cover sheet.
We are giving them very wide distribution.
(Slide)
J I wo1.::.ld :Li.ke to clarify for a moment.
I said in the :i;*aper here that OPE concurred with the paper.
That was 18 inaccurate.
OPE actually said to send it forward, but they 19 20 21 raised an.alternative that was not considered in this paper, and is similar to what you are suggesting.
What about individual rule-makings?
Take these 22 things as they come along and dweal with them, and we can get 23 the rules tailored to specific facilities and get them at the 24 earliest opportunity.
That is an advantage.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 We did not _;*elect to recommend that to you because
DB 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 45 we felt that piecemeal approache.does_not establish general policy.
And one might really have to go*back and reconstruct or change things.
An objective appraisal of the whole spectrum might give a different policy*than the preliminary or advance consideration of one type*of facility.*
Secondly, it is difficult to define the comprehensive set of facilities.
How many reactors or how many fuel cycle facilities will define the rule-making set? it is very difficult to say.
We have eight to look at. We may conclude, it is hypothetically possible we will conclude we need to look at more.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But the bulk of it is reactorsj We are talking about well over a hundred reactors in this country.
MR. BERNARO:
Well, the number of facilities and the dollars involved, that is probably true.
MR. MINOGUE:
I think the biggest technical difficulties and the big safety issues are going to arise from the fuel facilities, many of which are reprocessing plants and mixed oxide.
The situation will not change that 21 much ih the next few years.
What is then done is done.
22 We are not building any new mixed oxide plants.
23 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
But we are authorizing the 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, tnc. bj ilding of new reactors.
It would be nice if we had our 25 thoughts about decommission~ng.
DB 2 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 46 MR. MINOGUE:
I don't feel the technical problems involved in decommissiong reactors are all that great.
I think it is important to hang it together with a well-thought-out coherent policy.
But I don't see any really serious major technical problems involving a real threat to the public health and safety such as you would see looking at facilities like NFS, if not properly handled.
It is a question of what is the.urgency of moving ahead now with all of the rule-making which detracts efforts from some of the other things.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
The reports that arose from NSF are in advance of the other ones.
So why can't we get going on that right away?
You ought to be able to do reactors 13 next.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BERNARO:
The point I would make is there is more to doing fuel reprocessing plants policy or PWR policy than having that Battelle report. It is the perspective one must have, okay?
Here is some information, here is the cost.
That fuel reprocessing plant is based on Barnwell, by the way.
We thought that was more long-range useable than NFS.
But it is just technical information on what are the possible ways to clean up*a cell, carve up a*buried stainless steel waste tank.
It is not enough to set a policy.
MR. MINOGUE: Also the reprocessing plants are generators of low level waste.
I think the issue of how you could lay out a rule-making now, when you don't know.
I 47 where the waste is going is very difficult.
2 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: And how is that going to 3
change.
4 MR. MINOGUE:
The decommissioning activity is 5
a generator of waste.
The way in which you go at it will 6
depend to some extent on what the ultimate* storage process is 7
to be, but that is an unknown.
8 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
How is that going to change?
9 Maybe we ought to wait and not rush ahead.
10 MR. MINOGUE: I was trying to answer the question 11 about should we go ahead with rule-making right now for 12 reprocessing and mixed oxide plants, and set the other stuff 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 on a later schedule.
I would hope to see some developments in the idea.
of waste management in the next year or so that would help point to the end disposition, what it would be. But we don't have that time.
MR. BERNARO: There is another point to be made.
There is nothing to prevent the use of this information in case-.
by-case policy by the licensing offices.
The good example is the.decommissioning study of reprocessing plants, which shows that the decommissioning of a buried high level stainless steel waste tank is no small problem; it is expensive, it is a major factor in the decommissioning.
If Barnwell i'>.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 is to operate under some proposal for a demonstration plant
_J
48 or experimental facility, NMSS can use this information directly 2
in determining do we want them to use two, three, or four 3
high level waste tanks, or are*we going to say that is only
- 4 a back-up.
5 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: They are not going to be 6 reprocessing in the next year or two, but we are going to be 7 turning on reactors.
So it seems to me *it would be nice to 8
have in hand an approach on decommissioning those plants 9 that we are truning on, or will be turning on.
10 I would assign pretty high priority to that.
11 MR. BERNARO: We will have a staff, you could call 12 it a NRC calculation of the cost of decommissioning a 13 reactor by several means.
The staff will have available the 14 technical feasibility judgment, the financial evalD:a,tion 15 can be used in the final evaluation.
When we get to the PIRG 16 petition, you will see how we intend to early on treat the 17 question of should we change our £inancial requirements, go 18 for the bonding as they petition, or stick with 50.33 as we 19 presently do.
20 So there is an avenue for early action ori it.
21 But it.is not an attempt to have early general policy for 22 PWRs or for reactors of any kind.
But early action is there.
23 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: COuld you tell us about the 24 pie ti tion?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. BERNARO: Okay. --
i 2
3 4
(Slide)
The PIRG petition_S0-22, we received it in July.
It specifically seeks that we pass-rules for assurance of reactor decommissioning by *surety bonds held in escrow 5
so that the present generation of electricity users pay for 6
the decommissioning of the plant.
7 They raise a point in that petition that is a 8
sensitive onew The allegation is made if we ever have a 49 9
serious reactor accident, all of the reactors will have to be lO decommissioned at once, and therefore financial integrity goes 11 out the window as an index.
12 We will have to decommission 60 or 100 reactors in 13 one short span.
We considered two ways to treat this.
14 15 16 (Slide)
We could treat it in this whole policy program, and there is a natural resolution of the issues, minimum l7 additional efforts to do that. ~There is a very serious draw-18 19 20 21 22 back.
It means two and a half years after the petitioner petitioned us, we would come up with the answer.
We felt that was too long.
We looked for separate early treatment, a prompt response addressing only the issues raised by the petitioner, not trying to solve all of the decommissioning 23 policy issues.
24 (Slide)
I Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 We condluded that it was possible to have a short-
range liaison with the states and FERC on the rate base 2
aspects.
That is already underway.
3 We have a number of answers from state regulatory 4
commissions and the like and there seems to be unanimous 5
condemnation of the bonding as an expensive*and undesirable 6 way to do it.
50 7
We feel that it is reasonable to project determining 8
a staff position by this summer, and preparing -- I 9
say here a proposed rule.
A proposed disposition of the 10 11 12 13 petition~ and that bar chart there presumes that it would be a rule, but of course if the proposed disposition is a denial, it would stop at that point.
It is on these grounds we believe and request your 14 approval to deal with the PIRG petition on this short-range 15 schedule.
16 Again, I emphasize dealing with the question shall 17 we use 50-33, financial integrity as the present practice 18 is, or shall we require surety bonds held in escrow as 19 petitioner.. requests.
20 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Only that question?
21 MR. BERNARO: ::.only that question, yes, and not 22 going into any one of a host of alternatives of financing.
23 Our data base for making that judgment would be what 24 amounts to one solid round of liaison with the states and Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 FERC in the PWR report. We would extrapolate from that and
51 say this is representative of BWRs as well, orders of magnitude.
2 We have a sense of dollars there, a sense of technology.
3 That is our data base for making this proposal.
4 5
6 7
So we propose the early thing.
(Slide)
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
How much earlier is that?
MR. BERNARO:
That comes out a year and a half earlier a It would be summer of '78 as against December '79.
9 July of '78.
Fifteen months on paper.
10 There are related matters.
Just to touch on them 11 briefly, a long-standing request for exemption~ started with 12 AEC, now DOE.
The scrap recovery, improvement and upgrading 13 on the enrichment plants.
There is a great deal of recovery, 14 it is contaminated with technetium and uranium.
And they 15 request us to provide an exemption in the regulations so 16 that they can put that nicke1,principally the nickel and 17 copper and stainless steel out into the commercial market, 18 with low levels, but detectable levels of these two activities 19 in them.
20 Fuel cycle license renewals is a subject that relates 21
- to decommissioning, because of NMSS' efforts there.
They 22 23 24 sent you a.paper, Secy 78-74, which gives the status of their renewal activity in general and in particular touches on this need for decommissioning,plans, this approach.
They_
ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 have active with us a request for a clarification in the
2 3
52 rules, so they can point to something, at least one thing in the regulations to say that material licensees. should consid r decommissioning.
We are _working on that and expect a paper in 4
about a month.
5 I mentioned before the abandoned sites program by 6
DOE that is going on, the high*priority oh abandoned sites.
7 And then analysis of all of their other facilities.
We have 8
9 10 11 12 been asked to discuss decommissioning as a subject with the State of Vermont.
(Comments missing at this point due to steno changing paper.)
The curse of the whole waste management effort 13 is that it is so easy to justify putting it off for another 14 15 16 six months or a year or two years.
So the greatest fear is loss of momentum, loss of attention, loss of priority.
There is a potential problem with ~disagreement 17 on residue limits.
We are dealing with EPA, their respon-18 19 20 21 sibility, and all of the states.
Lastly, I want to emphasize again, waste disposal capability.
Decommissioning is a way to generate waste.
We are -talking about hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of 22 waste from a single facility.
A single reactor might generate 23 a half million cubic feet of waste or more. A credible policy 24 on decommissioning a reactor is only credible if there are O.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 low level burial grounds, int-ermediate level burial grounds,
and high level burial grounds to accept that waste.
2 So this is an offshoot of the waste management 3
program in this regard.
4 5
I have no further remarks.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Thank you.
That was a very 6
gOod briefing.
It is good to see you 'taking it so 7
seriously.
- 53 8
But I do think, picking up*from your last comments, 9
that it would be good if we could move ahead even more 10 swiftly~
11 MR. BERNARO: We tried to accellerate--if you would 12 look at that schedule, the critical path is the BWR and we 13 tried. to jack up the BWR report as much as we could, and 14 tried to get another six...months out of that schedule, but 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 it is just not credible.
The right manpower availability is the problem.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
I wonder if they are really not too far apart, the BWRs and yWRs.
Why can't one get started with the PWRs, and then when you have to deal with.
BWRs, you will be able to use a lot of what you did on PWRs.
MR. BERNARO:
Well, we are trying to use as much as possible from one facility to the next.
But there are differences in the system.design of the two reactor types that make us suspicious.that we are going to have all that Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 much in common.
2 3
4 5
54 MR. MINOGUE:
What is in common would carry forward.
It is the same basic group of people.
- We have very high quality people working on this project at Batelle.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why not go forward with a rule on PWRs and it will have to be modified for BWRs?
6 MR. BERNARO:
It might be worthwhile in structuring 7
what we see as a rule*.
Will the rule be thou shalt decommission, 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 0.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 dismantle and clean up a site to some pristine status within 10 years of shutting it down, or within 50 years of shutting it down; Or would the rule authorize entombment, or dismantling at the option of the licensee?
It is such a general thing that I don't think it is COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
WOuldn't it in any event contemplate some facilitation of the decommissioning process in the original icensing process, as you pointed out earlier?
MR. MINOGUE:
Yes, evaluation thereof.
Another issue is the residual levels that are acceptable.
The regulato y guide does not have a well-thought-out basis.
It has veen very well accepted, it has been around for years.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
What would you say would happen for BWRs between now and the beginning of 1980, when we would be coming forward with some kind of* a rule?
MR. BERNARO: The cost, the technical feasibility, the impact of decommissioning is there on the record, we have the analysis of it.
That will be used case-by-case by NMSS.
55 But there wouldn't be any *rule saying we won't give 2
you an operating license unless you recognized that the 3
regulations will require you to decontaminate the site totally 4
5 in ten years after shut down.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Why would you be smarter:-~ to 6
deal with that in 19 8 0 than say this year?*
7 MR. BERNARO: Because then you will have looked at the 8
whole range of facilities this agency deals with. And you 9
can have then a consistent policy.
10 MR. MINOGUE:
And you have time to get more feedback 11 from EPA, and the various state agencies that are involved.
12 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Did I read you have feedback 13 from what, 17 or 18 states now?
14 MR. BERNARO:
Yes, 16.
That's replies on this PIRG 15 petition. And eight of t~em have~-
16 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: That is only a relatively narrow 17 aspect of what*you really want *to know from the states.
You 18 want to be able to get out to them with a range of decommissioni g 19 concepts, talk to them in terms of what decommissioning is.
20 MR. BERNARO: Yes.
Many of the states in their*
21 responses are coming up with questions, saying while we are on 22 the subject, we would like to talk about residual activity
~
23 levels and what you ought to be doing is coming up with 24 sound criteria and costs.
A.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 MR. MINOGUE:
And long-term land use questions
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
"-.ce-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 56 enter into this also.
CHAIRJ.1.1.AN HENDRIE:
An interesting discussion.
Perhaps those of you who are not affected with* t_he current plague have cleaner heads.
I have observed we have gone about a half hour beyond what we projected.
I think it has been an excellent briefing on a rather serious -subject,.and has bee one which has long needed some careful thinking.
In the staff paper, the staff just made some recommendations about choices with regard to going with reg guides,*or going with rule-making on decommissioning.
There is the further question raised, that you have raised as well, can this rule-making be broken down into the general versus some sort of a series of perhaps first the smaller ones, would that. make it ge> __ ~~E:1_"1=~~: __
Also there is a question of the disposition of the PIRG petition.
Should it be considered separately, in advance, or wait for this whole procedure to move on.
I must say 1 find myself sort of stuffed full of information which I am grateful to have, and feeling rather fiercely the need for respite from having to make decisions on this point at this time.
I furthermore feel the need to go and call assorted people about our favorite gas. cooled reactor at the moment.
I wonder if the Commission would agree with me that it would be :useful if the staff here on this issue would sharpe V
57 now for us the issues we have been discussing in the last 2
half hour and we schedule a further Commission meeting on it to 3
sort of proceed on with the momentum developed in this 4
5 6
briefing and discussion, to see if we can't make a decision on the matter?
How does that strike you?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
That is *fine with me. I 7
don't know there is much further sharpening needed. What did 8
you have in mind?
9 10 11 12 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, for instance, if we chose to go in a rule-making mode as compared to regulatory guides and so on for decommissioning, there is a Federal Register notice draft which is attached hereto.
OPE suggests 13
- that. it seems to them somewhat loosely framed, and perhaps open-ended.
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Did they send us a memo in this regard?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
They suggest it might be useful to discuss, and to have a little clearer view in mind of what would go on in that rule-making.
And perhaps then to reflect that insofar as we can foresee it in the draft notice.
I think some discussion back and forth *between OPE and Standards and so on might help to develop that point, and then at the next meeting on this subject, perhaps that could be presented in a fairly focused way.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 We now have this substantial base we can work on.
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
. 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 58 I just have the notion that the discussion is likely to continue for another 30 or 40 minutes, and I *would still have a little trouble finding a distinct consensus out of the Commission.
That may be my own faultiness of head at the moment.
MR. DIRCKS:
I think we would appreciate some time to sharpen the analysis of that one point, of should we go for individual rules or what. I think we can come back with something on that point. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes. I will look for us to try to schedule this fairly soon, that is, you come back to us and give us some papers for the next meeting.
I guess I am saying I don't feel the need that these be the most formal pieces of paper. I think getting back to it, before the memory of this session ahs gone out of our heads would be useful.
Thank you very much.for an excellent presentation.
(THereupon at 5:10 p.m. the briefing was concluded.)