ML23087A039
| ML23087A039 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 05/02/2023 |
| From: | Tanya Hood Reactor Decommissioning Branch |
| To: | Fleming J Holtec Decommissioning International |
| Hood T | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML23087A035 | List: |
| References | |
| eConcurrence 20230328-30026 | |
| Download: ML23087A039 (8) | |
Text
POST-SHUTDOWN DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES REPORT (PSDAR)
FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE COMMENT RESOLUTION HOLTEC DECOMMISSIONING INTERNATIONAL, LLC PALISADES NUCLEAR PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-255 Following are the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) responses to comments received on the Palisades Nuclear Plant (Palisades) post-shutdown decommissioning activities report (PSDAR). Consistent with Section 50.82(a)(4)(ii) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), the public was offered an opportunity to comment on the Palisades PSDAR and the Site-Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate (DCE). A notice of receipt of the Palisades PSDAR and DCE was published in the Federal Register (FR) on August 26, 2022 (87 FR 52598). The NRC staff requested that all comments be submitted by December 27, 2022. There were 18 comments submitted to the docket related to the Palisades PSDAR and DCE. Comments that were submitted electronically can be viewed at www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket ID NRC-2022-0158 and selecting Open Docket Folder.
Additionally, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(ii), the NRC staff held a public meeting at the South Haven campus of Lake Michigan College in South Haven, Michigan, on September 22, 2022, to describe the decommissioning process, receive comments, and answer questions regarding both the Palisades PSDAR and DCE. A meeting summary dated October 31, 2022, can be found at Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML22292A261. The NRC staff notes that the verbal and written comments on the Palisades PSDAR generally fall into two categories: (1) questions and comments that are within the regulatory purview of the NRC staffs review of a PSDAR, which were considered by the NRC staff during its review of the associated PSDAR, and (2) questions and comments that, upon review, were found to be outside the regulatory authority of the NRC, or were not relevant to the NRC staff review performed (i.e., whether the licensees PSDAR meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i) and thus were not considered.
The NRC staffs review of a PSDAR does not require a response to each of the comments submitted. The NRC reviewed every comment to ensure that the information did not identify any immediate radiological health and safety matters within the regulatory purview of the NRC and incorporated this information into the PSDAR review as appropriate. Some comments were duplicative in nature. However, the NRC staff acknowledges the comments and typically attempts to address the more significant comments. Several comments on the Palisades PSDAR were found to be out-of-scope based on these considerations and were therefore not included as part of the specific responses. Following is a high-level overview that covers several reoccurring topics.
Enclosure
Decommissioning Trust Fund There were several comments regarding the decommissioning trust fund asking for clarity about the use and oversight of the decommission trust fund. The decommissioning trust fund is the most common method of meeting financial assurance requirements, typically called a Nuclear Decommissioning Trust. The decommissioning trust fund is established before a nuclear power plant begins operations to ensure there will be sufficient money to pay for the eventual decommissioning of the facility. Section 10 CFR 50.75(f)(4) requires a licensee to include plans to adjust funding levels to demonstrate a reasonable level of financial assurance, if necessary, in the preliminary cost estimate. During operations, each nuclear power plant licensee must report to the NRC every two years the status of its decommissioning funding for each reactor or share of a reactor that it owns. The report must estimate the minimum amount needed for decommissioning by using the formulas found in 10 CFR 50.75(c). The formulas establish the minimum amounts required to demonstrate reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning by reactor type and power level, including an adjustment factor for labor and energy.
Licensees may alternatively determine a site-specific funding estimate, provided that amount is greater than the generic decommissioning estimate. There are many factors that affect reactor decommissioning costs. The minimum decommissioning funding assurance amount must be adjusted annually by applying the latest escalation factors for labor, energy, and waste burial costs. The site-specific DCE for decommissioning Palisades illustrates that adequate funding is available in the Nuclear Decommissioning Trust fund to complete license termination. Once a facility has permanently ceased operations, licensees must provide decommissioning funding status reports annually, including the remaining site-specific cost estimated to complete decommissioning. The NRC staff performs an independent analysis of each of these reports to determine whether licensees are providing reasonable decommissioning funding assurance for radiological decommissioning of the reactor at the permanent termination of operation. If the annual financial assurance status report shows a projected shortfall in the amount of remaining funds to complete decommissioning, then 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(vi) requires that the licensee include additional financial assurance to cover the shortfall. NRC regulations in 10 CFR 50.75(h) provides insight to independent third parties, such as the trustee or fund manager, that have oversight of the decommissioning trust fund of prohibited investments or indirectly investing in certain securities.
Documentation There were several comments indicating the PSDAR is generic and should contain more site-specific actions or information. The PSDAR is a planning document, the licensee can make changes to its plans or commitments after submitting the PSDAR. However, the licensee must notify the NRC in writing before performing any decommissioning activity that is not consistent with, and/or could be considered to be a significant change from, the actions or schedules described in the PSDAR. Significant changes in cost must be reported to the NRC. Significant changes to the milestone schedule contained in the PSDAR are used by the NRC staff to reschedule NRC inspections of the licensee's decommissioning activities, as well as to determine the appropriate use of other resources. Written notifications to the NRC related to changes to the PSDAR do not require a 90-day waiting period before initiation of activities, unless those activities are inconsistent with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(6) and would therefore require NRC approval before the action could be performed. Typically, the NRC staff would not require
a public meeting to discuss the subsequent changes to the PSDAR unless the NRC staff determined that the change was significant enough to warrant an additional public meeting.
If the NRC staff found the PSDAR deficient, the NRC staff would prevent the licensee from proceeding with decommissioning activities as described in the PSDAR. There are a number of factors that could cause the NRC to stop a licensee from decommissioning a plant, such as lack of adequate funding or low-level-waste disposal capacity. The NRC would also find a PSDAR deficient if it contained activities that would endanger the health and safety of the public by being outside the NRC's existing regulations or that would result in a major detrimental impact to the environment that was not bounded by current environmental impact statements or reports.
The NRC does not approve the PSDAR. On July 29, 1996, the NRC amended its regulations for reactor decommissioning to clarify ambiguities, codify procedures that reduced regulatory burden, provide greater flexibility, and allow for greater public participation in the decommissioning process in a final rule titled Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors (61 FR 39278).
As part of this rule, the Commission determined that decommissioning activities could be safely conducted under the current license conditions and restrictions applied to an operating facility.
The Commission therefore determined that a detailed decommissioning plan requiring NRC review and approval would be redundant to the activities already authorized by the Commission in the facility license. Hence the NRC reviews a PSDAR for completeness but does not explicitly approve the contents of the decommissioning plan. However, any actions outside the licensed authority would require the licensee to request a license amendment and would need to appropriately justify why the change was safe before it could be approved. With regard to major decommissioning activities, the 1996 decommissioning rule allowed licensees to perform activities that met the criteria in 10 CFR 50.59, Changes, test, and experiments, which the NRC amended to include additional criteria to ensure that licensees consider concerns specific to decommissioning. Based on NRC experience with licensee decommissioning activities at the time, the Commission recognized that the 10 CFR 50.59 process used by the licensee during reactor operations encompassed routine activities that were similar to those undertaken during the decommissioning process. The Commission concluded that the licensee could use this process to perform major decommissioning activities if licensing conditions and the level of NRC oversight required during reactor operations continued during decommissioning, commensurate with the status of the facility being decommissioned. The 1996 rule also required the licensee to provide written notification to the NRC before performing any decommissioning activity that is inconsistent with, or makes significant schedule changes from, the actions and schedules described in the PSDAR.
Environmental Reviews There were a few comments about environment impacts that may occur over time regarding water quality, radiological contamination at a site, and public health. In accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, all agencies of the Federal Government are required to assess the environmental impacts of any major Federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. Many of the environmental impacts associated with a nuclear power reactor are reviewed and analyzed as part of the environmental reports and other documents that support the construction and operation of the facility. Therefore, the majority of the environmental impacts associated with decommissioning are considered to be bounded by these previous environmental actions. Accordingly, the NRC oversees and regulates the decommissioning process in the same way that it regulates the operation of a nuclear power plant, which means that any decommissioning actions not bounded by previous
environmental reviews would need to be reviewed and approved by the NRC before the licensee can take the associated action.
Licensees are required to comply with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations related to liquid effluent discharges to bodies of water. Compliance with the Clean Water Act implementing regulations requires the licensee to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for routine discharges to any body of water. In many cases, the EPA may delegate the authority to write and monitor the use of NPDES permits to States; for most facilities, the` NPDES permit is issued by the State where they are located. In some States, the authority still remains with EPA. Likewise, the EPA has implemented regulations for discharges to the atmosphere (Clean Air Act), and permits are required for specific pollutants, although reactor decommissioning does not generally fall under these regulations.
Although there is not a site-specific environmental review associated with the PSDAR, such a review takes place when the licensee submits a License Termination Plan (LTP) to the NRC for approval. In approving an LTP, the NRC is approving the licensee performing the activities necessary to remediate the radiological contamination at a site to a level that permits release of the site from oversight by the NRC, usually for unrestricted future use. Therefore, the LTP should include information addressing both the radiological and non-radiological impacts on the human environment associated with these proposed activities. Non-radiological impacts include but are not limited to the following: land use; water quality; transportation; air quality; ecological resources, historical, and cultural resources; hazardous material/waste; noise; visual/scenic quality; socioeconomics; and public and occupational health. These environmental impacts are reviewed and approved by the NRC as part of the approval process for the LTP.
However, under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.82, many of the activities necessary to complete site remediation can be completed under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.59 prior to the submission of the LTP. Therefore, these activities will not require prior NRC approval, but the impacts of these actions will be considered as needed during the environmental review associated with LTP approval. Consequently, unless certain site-specific issues exist or are identified during decommissioning, when the NRC staff approves an LTP it is approving primarily (a) the adequacy of the decommissioning funding plan to assure that sufficient funding is available to complete the remaining radiological remediation activities, (b) the radiation release criteria for license termination, (c) the adequacy of the design of the final survey to verify that the release criteria have been met, and (d) the conclusion that the environmental impacts are either bounded generically or by previous environmental review documentation, or have been adequately addressed on a site-specific basis.
Oversight of Reactor Decommissioning There were several comments about oversight of the decommissioning process and the role of the resident inspector in decommissioning. The NRC oversees the decommissioning of nuclear reactors, in part, through inspections that emphasize radiological controls, spent fuel pool operations, movement of fuel into dry storage at an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), and the safety review and corrective action program. Many activities that occur during decommissioning are routine when compared to an operating nuclear power reactor. These include decontamination of surfaces and components, surveys for radioactive contamination, waste packaging and disposal, and other activities. The NRC inspection effort at plants being decommissioned is less than at an operating reactor site, which is commensurate with the changing scope of activities at a decommissioning facility. Rather than maintaining a continual
presence, NRC inspectors at a decommissioning facility will be on site to cover specific activities of higher risk or interest (e.g., the movement of spent fuel into an ISFSI), as well as to provide oversight of the licensees overall programs and approach for decommissioning. During active decommissioning, NRC inspectors may be at the facility 2 or 3 weeks of the month. During a long-term storage period, they would be present several times a year.
Consistent with agency procedures, the NRC typically maintains a full-time resident inspector onsite during part of the first year after permanent shutdown of a power reactor. The resident inspector oversees the plant transition from operation to permanent shutdown in order to verify that the licensee complies with their license, technical specifications, and procedures related to entering decommissioning. During the first year, the licensee prepares the plant for safe decommissioning. The actions taken by the licensee include the modification of systems to include deenergizing and dewatering, shipment of radioactive waste, emptying of tanks, draining of systems, and electrical isolation of components. As during plant operations, the resident inspection staff is supplemented with special inspection expertise as needed, which includes security, emergency response, health physics, environmental monitoring, and engineering. NRC inspections continue throughout decommissioning until the licensee demonstrates that the site meets the license termination requirements. The level of decommissioning inspections will be commensurate with the licensees planned decommissioning activities.
Generally, early in the first year after permanent shutdown, the NRC inspection program is transferred from the Reactor Oversight Process to inspection oversight in accordance with Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2561, Decommissioning Power Reactor Inspection Program, which was revised in January 2021 (ADAMS Accession No. ML20358A131). The contents of this IMC are publicly available and outline the oversight activities that the NRC staff will be involved in throughout decommissioning.
Public Involvement There were comments about how the public can freely participate in the decommissioning process. Public involvement in the NRCs activities is a cornerstone of strong, transparent regulation of the nuclear industry. The NRC recognizes the need and desire for community involvement in the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant. However, the NRC was created by Congress to be an independent regulator charged with ensuring public health and safety and protecting the environment. Therefore, the NRC ensures that all stakeholders, including members of the public, are given a fair and equal opportunity to comment on a licensees plans for decommissioning of a nuclear power reactor, but does not officially recognize or endorse any specific special interest group, public or private organization, community group, coalition, or individual. This is accomplished, in part, by offering several options for providing comments.
Specifically, the NRC regulations require that public meetings be held to obtain public comments on the PSDAR and LTP, as well as part of any request for a partial release of the site before approval of the LTP. The opportunities to provide public comment include public meetings, letters to the NRC, and public comments via the Federal Register related to either these public meetings or on specific licensing actions (e.g., changes to the plant technical specifications to address decommissioning) being submitted to the NRC for approval. This approach ensures that one or more organizations do not dominate the public forum, and allows members of the public to provide alternative and differing viewpoints and comments to the NRC.
Spent Nuclear Fuel There were a few comments regarding the management of the spent fuel and the cleanup of radioactively contaminated items on the site. The NRC has strict rules governing nuclear power plant decommissioning activities involving cleanup of radioactively contaminated plant systems and structures and storage of the radioactive fuel. These requirements protect workers and the public during the entire decommissioning process, and the public after the license is terminated.
There are two acceptable storage methods for spent fuel after it is permanently removed from the reactor core: spent fuel pools and dry cask storage. The spent fuel pool option involves storing spent fuel assemblies under at least 20 feet of water, which provides adequate shielding from the radiation for anyone near the pool. The assemblies are moved into the pool from the reactor along water filled canals, so that the spent fuel is always shielded to protect workers.
After removing the structures used to support reactor operations as part of decommissioning, which may include the spent fuel pool, the licensee may store spent fuel onsite in an ISFSI.
During normal operations, the spent fuel pool is filled with water to keep the spent fuel cool. In relation to the mitigation of any credible accidents associated with the spent fuel pool, the NRC staff has generally determined that 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> is a conservative minimum time available to implement mitigation actions, and/or initiate protective offsite measures using State and local government comprehensive emergency management plans, if the water were to drain from the pool and jeopardize the ability to keep it sufficiently cooled. However, in a hypothetical spent fuel pool accident scenario, the staff notes that 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> is not the expected amount of time it would take for water to drain from the pool. A beyond design-basis accident that results in the water draining from the pool (whether a full or partial drain-down) would likely take much longer than 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> because of the robust construction of the spent fuel pool and the large volume of water in the pool. Furthermore, particularly for older fuel, air cooling and other heat removal mechanisms following loss of cooling water may be sufficient to keep the fuel cool indefinitely or would significantly extend the fuel heat-up time.
In addition, a licensee may rely, in part, upon the established capabilities of its operating reactor as required in 10 CFR 50.54(hh)(2) to mitigate the potential consequences of a severe accident at a spent fuel pool. Decommissioning licensees may also choose to retain some of these capabilities to provide assurance they can implement mitigation measures within 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> or may commit to another strategy that provides similar assurance. Before a licensee can make any changes to the spent fuel pool and its supporting systems, the NRC staff reviews and independently verifies the analyses provided by the licensee to determine that a minimum of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> is still available to restore cooling or implement offsite protective measures. Taken together, these considerations ensure that spent fuel can be safely stored in the spent fuel pool of both an operating and decommissioning facility.
Regarding dry fuel storage considerations, the NRC oversees the design, manufacturing, and use of dry casks for use in an ISFSI. This oversight ensures licensees and designers are following safety and security requirements, meeting the terms of their licenses, and implementing quality assurance programs for all combinations of cask designs and specific ISFSI locations. Cask designers must show that their systems meet the NRCs regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 72, Licensing Requirements for the Independent Storage of Spent Fuel, High-Level Radioactive Waste, and Reactor-Related Greater Than Class C Waste. An NRC-approved cask is one that has undergone a technical review of its safety aspects and has been found to be adequate to store spent fuel at a site in accordance with NRC requirements.
The NRC issues a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) for a cask design to a cask vendor if the NRC staffs review of the design finds that it is technically adequate. The CoC is valid for up to 40 years from the date of issuance in accordance with 10 CFR Part 72, subpart L. The NRC staff reviews cask applications in detail. The agency will only approve a system that meets NRC requirements and can perform safely. NRC inspectors visit cask designer offices, fabricator and spent fuel storage facilities to ensure they are meeting all applicable regulations. Cask design applications, the NRCs documentation of reviews, and NRC inspection reports related to both cask manufacturing and specific ISFSI activities, including construction, are available to the public on the agency website at www.nrc.gov. The NRC believes spent fuel pools and dry casks both provide adequate protection of the public health and safety and the environment.
Therefore, there is no pressing safety or security reason to mandate earlier transfer of spent fuel from pool to cask.
Tritium There were several comments regarding the release of tritium that could contaminate water resources near Palisades. The NRC evaluates abnormal releases of tritium-contaminated water from nuclear power plants, particularly those that result in groundwater contamination. The NRC takes these abnormal releases very seriously and continues to review these incidents to ensure that nuclear power plant operators take appropriate action, including during decommissioning activities. Tritium is present naturally in the environment and the radiation produced by natural tritium is identical to the radiation produced by tritium from nuclear power plants. The tritium dose from nuclear power plants is much lower than the exposures attributable to natural background radiation and medical administrations. Everyone is exposed to small amounts of tritium every day, because it occurs naturally in the environment and in the foods we eat.
Workers in federal weapons facilities; medical, biomedical, or university research facilities; or nuclear fuel cycle facilities may receive increased exposures to tritium.
The drinking water samples collected and analyzed as part of the Palisades Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program (REMP) include Domestic Water, South Haven Drinking Water, and Palisades Park Community Water. All drinking water samples are analyzed for tritium, and gamma and gross beta emitters by Teledyne Brown Engineering Environmental Services. Palisades pre-operational environmental study established a baseline of gross beta activity for the site before Palisades was operational. The drinking water sample results collected, in accordance with the REMP, support the conclusions of the sites effluent monitoring program for 2021. This conclusion is that the surrounding environment is not affected by effluents from Palisades. No REMP drinking water samples from 2021 contained a detectable level of radionuclides based on gamma spectroscopy or tritium analysis results.
Waste Transportation There were a few comments concerned with how waste from the site would be transported.
Safety in the shipment of nuclear materials and low-level radiological waste is achieved by a combination of factors, including the physical properties of the nuclear material itself, the ruggedness of the container, and the operating procedures applicable to both the transportation package and the vehicle transporting the package. Before any shipment can occur, the shipper is required to review the package certificate of compliance to determine if any testing or maintenance is required. The shipper must take radiation measurements at specific locations on and around the package to make sure that the levels are below the required limits. The shipper must also meet the Department of Transportation's (DOT) requirements for shipment of the
nuclear material including route selection, vehicle condition and placarding, driver training, package marking, labeling, and other shipping documentation. The DOT requires carriers to receive emergency response training that includes written procedures. In addition, the DOT requires emergency response procedures to accompany each shipment.
The NRC performs inspections to determine whether transportation package users have appropriately packaged materials for shipment, including implementation of the appropriate package measurements and other procedural requirements to ensure radiation levels are not exceeded. The NRC inspections also focus on whether transportation packages have been properly inspected for certain package-specific criteria such as leak-tightness, that bolts and other equipment are intact, and that the packages are safe for transport. The results of these inspections are publicly available in the NRCs ADAMS document library.