ML23151A491
| ML23151A491 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/30/1993 |
| From: | Blaha J NRC/EDO |
| To: | |
| References | |
| PR-050, 58FR34947 | |
| Download: ML23151A491 (1) | |
Text
DOCUMENT DATE:
TITLE:
CASE
REFERENCE:
KEYWORD:
ADAMS Template: SECY-067 06/30/1993 PR-050 - 58FR34947 - NOTIFICATION OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING PLANS BY LICENSEES OF PREMATURELY SHUT DOWN POWER PR-050 58FR34947 RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete
STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE:
PR-050 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME:
NOTIFICATION OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING PLANS BY LICENSEES OF PREMATURELY SHUT DOWN POWER REACTORS PROPOSED RULB FED REG CITE:
58FR34947 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE:
06/30/93 ORIGINAL DATB FOR COMMENTS: 09/13/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS:
EXTENSION DATE:
I I
5 FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 59FR10267 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 03/04/94 NOTES ON SIGNED BY THE EDO.
FILE LOCATED ON Pl.
TATUS RULE THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-050 RULE TITLE:
NOTIFICATION OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING PLANS BY LICENSEES OF PREMATURELY SHUT DOWN POWER REACTORS
-OPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 93-075 FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: 93-359 CONTACTl: ROBERT WOOD CONTACT2:
PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SRM DATE:
05/24/93 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
06/16/93 FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SRM DATE:
02/03/94 SIGNED BY SECRETARY:
02/18/94 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE MAIL STOP: 12-E-4 MAIL STOP:
PHONE: 504-1255 PHONE:
DOCKET NO. PR-050 (58FR34947)
In the Matter of NOTIFICATION OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING PLANS BY LICENSEES OF PREMATURELY SHUT DOWN POWER REACTORS DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 06/29/93 06/16/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 09/13/93 09/13/93 COMMENT OF NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL (THOMAS E. TIPTON, V. P.) (
- 1) 09/15/93 09/13/93 COMMENT OF UTILITY DECOMMISSIONING GROUP (JOSEPH B. KNOTTS, JR., ESQUIRE) (
- 2) 09/20/93 09/13/93 COMMENT OF COMMONWEALTH EDISON (WILLIAM F. NAUGHTON) (
- 3) 10/25/93 09/10/93 COMMENT OF MHB TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES (STEVEN C. SHOLLY) (
- 4) 11/17/93 11/14/93 COMMENT OF MARVIN I. LEWIS (
- 5) 03/07/94 02/18/94 FINAL RULE PUBLISHED ON 3/4/94 AT 59 FR 10267
-.
- 1* "\\,. * ~I
,wifly VJ Sacv~_-.... ~~~- *..'*: 'i
)f11J\\\\1lil sent w th
,1h,1.:* of ~h~ fc-oara! ~\\~l~
f'\\\\*
\\. ' ~~ '*~
t,,I. * **
DOCKET NUMBER Pl PROPOSED RULE srJ,.- -
C ft-- F R 3 l-/ Cf '-/7)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50
- 94 t1riR - 7 Ai 1 : 0 3 RIN 3150-AE46 Notification of Spent Fuel Management and Funding Plans By Licensees of Prematurely Shut Down Power Reactors AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
I**
, )l,t
- ~..,! t i I J I r
SUMMARY
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC} is amending its regulations to clarify the timing of notification to the NRC of spent fuel management and funding plans by licensees of those nuclear power reactors that have been shut down before the expec ted end of their operating lives.
The final rule requires that a licensee submit such notification either within 2 years after permanently ceasing operation of its licensed power reactor or no later than 5 years before the reactor operating license expires, whichever event occurs first.
Licensees of nuclear power reactors that have already permanently ceased operation by the effective date of this rule are required to submit such notification within 2 years after the effective date of this rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
[30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Wood, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-1255.:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
on June 30, 1993, the NRC published in the.Federal Register I
a notice of proposed rulemaking to clarify the timing of notification to the NRC of spent fuel management and funding plans by licensees of those nuclear power reactors that have been shut down prematurely (58 rn 34947).
- 1.
comments Received I
The NRC received four comments on the proposed rule.
Three of the four comments came from licensees or their representatives and supported the rule as proposed.
These c0mm~nters agreed with the NRC assessment that the proposed rule is administrative in nature and would produce consistency with the decommissioning rule.
However, each of the three recommended that the rule amendments should apply only prospectively; tha~ is, the rule should not apply to licensees whose power reactors have already permanently ceased operating.
The commenters requested that the I
NRC allow licensees of these plants tb submit spent fuel
3 management funding plans on a case-by-case schedule.
One commenter recommended that the NRC add a statement to this effect to the final rule.
A fourth commenter supported the concept of requiring the submittal of spent fuel management and funding plans soon after permanent shutdown, but recommended that licensees be required to submit these plans within 60 days after permanent: shutdown.
The three commenters representing licensees also supported the NRC intent to initiate rulemaking on including spent fuel costs as part of decommissioning costs only after careful consideration of the database that the NRC is de~eloping in this area.
In a related area, one of these commenters' noted that the NRC currently has regulations in place in 10 CFR Part 72 to ensure a licensee's financial qualifications for,the safe construction, operation, and decommissioning of an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI).
The fourth commenter supported rulemaking on funding assurance for spent fuel storage costs that would be similar to, but separate from, decommissioning costs.
- 2.
NRC Response to comments The NRC responds as follows to the issues raised by the
J 4
commenters:
(1)
The rule should only apply prospectively, NRC response:
The NRC disagrees that this i;:ule should not apply to licensees of plants that have already permanently ceased operating.
This rule should be consistent with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.82(a), which requires all power plant licensees to submit decommissioning plans no later than 2 yea~s after I
permanently ceasing operations regardless of how:1ong the plant operated.
The NRC recently amended 10 CFR 50.82(a) to allow the collection period of any shortfall of decommissioning funds to be determined on a case-by-case basis for plants that had been shut down prematurely (57.[.R 30383, July 9, 1992).
However, even licensees of these plant~ must submit their deco~issioning plans within the 2-year time frame, notwithstanding the collection ;
period ultimately adopted.
To maintain consistency, the NRC believes that the 2-year limit should be applied to plants already shut down.
However, to assure that the NRC does not impose unnecessary burdens on these licensees, the final rule has been modified to allow these I
licensees 2 years from the effective date,of the 1 rule to submit
\\
5 their spent fuel manage~ent and funding plans. 1 (2) submittal of spent fuel management and funding plans should be reQ)lired within 60 days of permanent shutdown of the facility, rather than within 2 years.
NRC Response:
The NRC disagrees with this comment.
Sixty days is too short a period in which t~ develop a meaningful spent fuel management and funding plan.
Because licensees will
. normally develop.these plans in conjunction with their decommissioning plans, the NRC should maintain consistency by requiring the same 2-year limit for both spent fuel management and funding plans and the overall decommissioning plan, which includes decommissioning funding.
(3) costs associated with the construction. operation. and decommissioning of ISFSis are already assured by provisions in 10 CFR Part 72.
1In practice, licensees of most of the nuclear power plants that have already permanently shut down have developed plans for the management and funding of the disposition of spent fuel at their sites.
For example, Fort St. Vrain has either shipped spent fuel offsite to DOE or moved it to an ISFSI onsite.
- Shoreham is shipping its fuel to Limerick.
Yankee-Rowe and Rancho Seco have developed plans for onsite storage facilities.
Humboldt Bay and Lacrosse are maintaining fuel in their spent fuel pools.
Dresden 1, San Onofre 1, and Indian Point 1 are maintaining fuel in their spent fuel pools or in pools of other units still operating at the site.
Peach Bottom 1 has no fuel onsite.
6 NRC Response:
The NRC agrees that Part 72 contains provisions to ensure that licensees have adequate funds to construct, operate, and decommission ISFSis.
Spent fuel management and funding plans submitted in compliance with the amended S S0.54(bb) need not cover spent fuel while it is being stored in an ISFSI in compliance with Part 72.
The NRC will consider whether these provisions are adequate when it evaluates whether it is necessary to include spent fuel management and funding as part of deco~issioning costs.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
Availability This final rule clarifies the timing of the submittal of plans for managing and providing funding for managing all irradiated fuel for those licensees whose power reactors are shut down prematurely.
This action is required to coordinate the submittal of spent fuel management and funding plans with the submittal of decommissioning plans for prematurely shut down reactors.
Because management and funding of spent fuel can have a significant impact on the method and timing of decommissioning, licensees should submit their plans for spent fuel management and funding to be consistent with the timing provisions for decommissioning plans in S50.82(a) (i.e., no later than 2 years l
after permanent shutdown).
7, Neither this action nor the alternative of maintaining the existing rule would significantly affect the environment.
Changes in the timing of the submittal of spent fuel management and funding for prematurely shut down power reactors would not alter the effect on the environment of the licensed activities considered in either the final spent fuel disposition rule (49 rn 34689; August 31, 1984) or the final decommissioning rule (53 rn 24018; June 27, 1988) as analyzed in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586, August 1988).
The alternative to this action would not significantly affect the environment.
Therefore, the Commission has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule will not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.
No other agencies or persons were contacted for this action, and no other documents related to the environmental impact of this action exist.
The foregoing constitutes the environmental_assessment and finding of no significant impact for this final rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork
8 Reduction Act of 1980 (44 u.s.c. 3501 et seq.).
Existing requirements were approv~d by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number [3150-0011].
Regulatory Analysis On August 31, 1984, the NRC published a final rule, "Requirements for Licensee Actions Regarding the Disposition of Spent Fuel Upon Expiration of Reactor Operating Licensees."
(49 rn 34689).
As part of this rule, the NRC required power reactor licensees to submit for NRC review and approval, no later than 5 years before expiration of the reactor operating license, their plans for managtng spent fuel at their site until title to the spent fuel is transferred to the Department of Energy (DOE).
These plans are to include plans for funding of spent fuel management before transfer to DOE.
On June 27, 1988, the Commission promulgated its final decommissioning rule (53 f.R 24019).
pection 50.82 of this rule provides that licensees of all power reactors that permanently cease operation after July 27, 1988, including those that shut down prematurely, must apply to the NRC to decommission their facilities within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations.
Section 50.82(b)(l)(iii) further provides that the proposed,decommissioning plan submitted by the licensee should
)
consider such factors as the "unavailability of waste disposal
9 capacity and other site-specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning safely~... "
The Commission. requires licensees to submit decommissioning plans in a timely manner after they permanently cease operation~ at their facilities.
The NRC's regulations recognize that a licensee's ability to plan properly and safely for decommissioning depends on a licensee's ability to manage and dispose of its spent fuel.
Thus, the timing of requirements for submittal of plans for spent fuel management and storage should be consistent with the timing for submittal of decommissioning plans, including those fo~ power reactors that have been shut down prematurely.
Therefore, the NRC is amending 10 CFR 50.54(bb) to require each power reactor r
licensee to notify the NRC of its program to manage and provide funding for management of the irradiated fuel at its reactor either within 2 years after the licensee permanently ceases operation of its reactor or no later than 5 years before its reactor operating license expires, whichever occurs first.
Licensees of nuclear power reactors that have already permanently ceased operations by the effective date of this rule are required to submit such notification within 2 years after the effective date of this*rule.
Although the timing of preparation and submittal of plans for management and funding of spent fu~l would be formally advanced for licensees that shut down their power reactors prematurely, these licensees typically would have already
(
10 evaluated spent fuel management and funding issues before submitting decommissioning plans required under 10 CFR 50.82.
This rule merely makes 10 CFR 50.54(bb) submittal schedular requirements consistent 'with 10 CFR 50.82.
Thus, there should be no substantive impact on power reactor licensees.
I This final rule would not create substantial costs for other licensees.
This final rule also will not significantly affect State and local governments and geographical regions, or the environment, or create substantial costs to the NRC or other Federal agencies.
Th~ foregoing discussion constitutes the regulatory analysis for this final rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this final rule will not have a significant impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
The rule will *potenti~lly affect approximately 115 nuclear power reactor operating licenses.
Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the definition of small
~
businesses as defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 u.s.c. 632, the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business Administrator (13 CFR *part 121), or the Commission's Size Standards (56 rn 56671, November 6, 1991).
11 Backfit Analysi~
The NRC has determined that this final rule does not impose
.a backfit as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(l).
Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire I
protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping
)
requirements.
For the reasons given in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 u.s.c. 552 and*553, the NRC is adopting the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART SO-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
- 1.
The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
Secs1* 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 9.37, 938, 948,. 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended,
12 sec. 23.4, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201 as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242 as amended 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 u.s.c. 5851).
Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2131, 2235);
sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 u.s.c. 4332).
Sections 50.13, 50.54 (dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939 as amended (42 u.s.c. 2138).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.2235).
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 u.s.c. 4332).
Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 u.s.c. 5844).
Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 u.s.c. 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 u.s.c. 2152).
Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2234).
Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2237).
- 2.
Section 50.54 is amended by revising paragraph (bb) to read as follows:
S50.54 Conditions of licenses.
13 (bb) For nuclear power reactors licensed by the NRC, the licensee shall, within 2 years following permanent cessation of operation of the reactor or 5 years before expiration of the reactor operating license, whichever occurs first, submit written notification to the Commission for its review and preliminary approval of the program by which the licensee intends to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel *at the reactor following permanent cessation of operatic~ of the reactor until title to the irradiated fuel and possession of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy for its ultimate disposal in a repository.
Licensees of nuclear power reactors that have permanently ceased operation by [insert the effective date of this rule] are required to submit such written I
I notification by [insert a date 2 years after the effective date of this rule].
Final Commission review will be undertaken as I
part of any proceeding for continued licensing under Part 50 o~
Part 72.
The licensee must demonstrate to NRC that the elected actions will be consistent with NRC requirements for licensed possession of irradiated nuclear fuel and that the actions will be implemented on a timely basis.
Where implementation of such actions requires NRC authorizations, the licensee shall verify in th~ notification that submittals for such actions have been or will be made to NRC and shall identify them.
A copy of the l
14 notification shall be retained by the licensee as a record until expiration of the reactor operating license.
The licensee shall notify the NRC of any significant changes in the proposed waste management program as described in the initial notification.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this di LL day of 1994.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
ooeKET NUMBERPR r-a PROPOSED RULE..!..!.!__,;;.~-
(S/rf R 3 '-J'l"l1
-* -~ t\\L I Lt}
U::iNHC l**l;;~r*vin I. L.F.~v-,:i.s 7801 Roosevelt Boulevard Phi la., PA 19152
- 93 NOV 17 P 3 :55
__,r**r !t.> ();. :-:t,.... rd ft~r '-l JuCKt. i 1N,, \\ ': r. viu bh, NC'i United States Nuclear Re gulatory Comm:i.ss:i.on Washington, D. C. 20555 In the matter of Exemptions in Accident Insurance for Nuclear Power Plant s
.;,matur<:ely i,,hut dovffl.
Please accept this letter as my comments upon the above cited exemption requests from Rancho Seco, Ft St Vrain, Yankee Rowe, San Onofre, and Shoreham.
The Commissioners would be fools to provide any exemption.
Fuel pool problems are constantly cropping up. The latest is two engineers at Susquehanna pointing out the possibility of a fuel pool accident leading to a meltdown. Fuel pools leak.
Reracking has lead to many questions about criticality.
I hope that the Commissioners have enough sense to keep all insurances in force.
- l l****:1.,t-**93.
MAY 1 o 1994 -._
Acknowledged by card..... "-*-*-........ _
IJ.S. -
,, (,0,.~MISSION CE SECTION c:-:-*c -,,...-,, ~ st:c;,ET ARY F THE CO',,1iSSION Document Statistics tmark Date I/ / l ~ / q'j_
,-:., t 'C)v',4 I
A 'j
- ,.,, r.., _-r... -uc--od--,:3_=-----
s**
- ~n /J;ijjs; fl()/0 IVd'orL
~--
MHB Technical Associates Consultants on Energy & the Environment lO~~m Mr. RobertWood Inspection Policy & Licensing Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Mail Stop 12 E4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis
- ashington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Wood:
e documents my comments on the NRC's proposed ru]e which would amend 10 CFR "Notification of Spent Fuel Management and Funding Plans by Licensees of y Shut Down Power Reactors". I concur in the need for the proposed rule, but I have comments on certain aspects of the proposal. The proposed rule would permit licensees to delay submitting a plan for assuring the funding of spent fuel management for a period of two years after shutdown. This time period is excessively generous, and should be substantially shortened.
Premature shutdowns are by definition not planned. Nonetheless, assuring the safety of spent fuel in water stora!e is and remains important for the long term. It is therefore necessary that funding be assured. for long-term spent fuel management following premature plant shutdown.
It is important for the NRC to recognize that the rate treatment accorded operating plants by state utility commissions ends when operation is terminated. While there is no case of which I am aware in which a state utility commission have refused to allow rate treatment for costs associated with spent fuel management, there is also no reason to believe that utilities will be able to pass through such costs to ratepayers without limitation. Due to the importance to safety of spent fuel management, assurance of availability of fun din$ for spent fuel management activities must be provided very quickly. I believe that a penod of 30-60 days should be sufficient for a utility to describe its capabilities plans for assurmg adequate funding for spent fuel management after plant shutdown.
Further, I believe that the NRC should move expeditiously to formulate and issue for public comment a proposed rule which would amend the NRC's re~lations concerning decommissioning funding. Such a possibility is noted in SECY*93-117 age 2). The cost of spent fuel management activities after shutdown are not trivial. My col eagues at MHB have reviewed numerous decommissioning cost estimates, and have noted that such decommissioning cost estimates have included post-shutdown spenJ fuel management costs estimated as high as $40 million per year in current (1991) dollars for the first twoJears after shutdown. I have discussed such costs with several utilities, and. J. have been tol that such costs have been running in the range of $8 million per year for recently shut down facilities.
The significance of this range of costs for spent fuel management after shutdown ($8 million to $40 _million per year for what is. essenti~lly an "O&M" cost) ~a~ be seen by C?~paring it to operating plant O&M budgets which are m the range of $80 million to $120 nulhon annually for single-unit plants. While such costs are tolerated for operating plants (as evidenced by their approval in rates by state utility commissions), it is less clear how willing rate
. -co~miss1ons will be to pe~mit subs;a:1t1al O&M expenditures for the long term for plants which are no longer producmg electncity.
1723 Hamilton Avenue-Suite K, San Jose, CA 95125
- Phone (408) 266-2716
- Fax {408) 266-7149 MAY 1 D 1994
~f.rt Acknowledged by card..................................
~J.S. ~]!_ L:,..
..-,. >:,,\\,,!ISSION D: *'.. :, :
- .:.: '. * *1.: r* -3f.:CT iON O:+. ~c *:/ 1;1..-: :*>:; 'tif:TARY OF 1 HE CO.\\i1Vl1SSiON
Mr. Robert Wood 10 September 1993 Pagel Moreover, compared with decommissioning cost estimates in the range of $200 million under the current NRC rule, it is clear that post-shutdown spent fuel management costs in the range of $8 million to $40 million per year will quickly rival decommissioning costs. Inasmuch as NRC requires creation of a decommissioning fund to provide assurance of adequate funding, NRC needs to require similar advance funding arrangements for post-shutdown spent fuel management costs.
Such costs wiH ensue over a number of decades for many currently operatini plants. Taking Pilgrim as an example, even if DOE begins accepting spent fuel in 1998 (which DOE has alreadY. acknowledged that it cannot do using either an MRS or high level repository), spent fuel will remain at Pilgrim until at least 2026 -- thirteen years after the plant is shutdown at the end of its licensed life. Of course, if a more realistic DOE spent fuel acceptance date is used (the NRC staff has acknowledged that the high level repository will not become available until 2010.ru w earliest), the time extends well beyond 2026 for Pilgrim.
I do not concur with the suggestion in the SECY paper containing the proposed rule that post-shutdown spent fuel management costs should be included in the Decommissioning Trust Fund (DTF). Eirfil, this raises the issue of whether the IRS will allow the DTF to qualify as a tax-deductible expense. Second, a number of utilities and state governments are requesting, or will be requesting, that some of the spent fuel management costs be paid for out of the Nuclear Waste Fund that is managed by DOE. I understand that DOE is actively considering its policy on cost-sharing after 1998 because of its apparent failure of satisfy its contract commitments with utilities. NRC should require by rule that such planning occur now and that apJ?ropriate advance funding arran~ements be made in a fashion similar to deconurussioning funding, but separate from lt.
I would be pleased to discuss these matters further with you or your staff should you desire. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
~c.
Steven C. Sholly Senior Consultant
< TRANSACTION REPORT>
09-10-1993(FRI) 11:48 C
RECEIVE J
NO.
DATE TIME DESTINATION STATION PG.
DURATION MODE RESULT 2588 9-10 11:44 4082667149 2
0°03'10" FINE.E OK 2
0°03'10"
e Commonwealth Edison 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove, Il linois 60515 DOCK.ET NUMBER PR p;,QPOSED RULE
~
( 59-F P-3 Lf Cf'/1 f.'OCKCTLU 0 USNHC l:::1/
- 93 SEP 20 A 9 :S7 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 September 13, 1993 RE:
Proposed Rule, Notification of Spent Fuel Management and Funding Plans by Licensees of Premature Shut Down Reactors (58 Fed. Reg. 34947, June 30, 1993)
Requests for Comments
Dear Mr. Chilk:
A notice was issued June 30, 1993 in the Federal Register on decommissioning.
This notification addressed a proposed rule on the timing of spent fuel management and funding plans by licensees who have shutdown prematurely. The proposed rule would require that a licensee submit such a notification within two years after permanently ceasing operation or no later than five years before the operating license expires whichever occurs first.
The proposed rule appears to provide the necessary clarifications needed for prematurely shutdown plants that will be consistent with the timing provisions contained in the NRC's final decommissioning rule enacted in 1988. Commonwealth Edison sees this activity as merely an administrative change and supports this effort.
It appears the proposed rule will have no impact on current licensees.
We have discussed this proposed rule with NUMARC and agree with their similar conclusions.
h\\ memo \\ naugh\\memotap\\ 31 Sincerely,
~o~
William F. Naughton
- Director, Strategic Licensing &
Regulatory Performance
fi.5. ~!')'~; i: *:, 1~*: G: 1LP.TORY :OMMISSIOt-.
[. _;*;!,.-i, ~:;:. :;[-r V!C[ ~EC:i*)N r * :-1 'C:f G~ rhc..:,:c~:f1l:T:\\RY or T~,: CC*,,:*.,:~::vN
DOCKET NUMBER FROPOSED RULE PR 5 0 WINSTON & STRAWN <~~.~.P..34lf'-17)
FREDERICK H. WINSTON (1853-1886)
SILAS H. STRAWN (1891-1946)
Samuel J. Chilk 1400 L STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3502 (202) 371-5700 FACSIMILE (202) 371 *5950 September 13, 1993 Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 ATTN:
Docketing and Services Branch
..,,Ct\\!..ILL' USNi*!C
- 93 SEP 15 CHICAGO OFFICE 35 WEST WACKER DRIVE Ai C '.~§..Go, ILuN0Is 60601 (312) 558-5600 NEW YORK OFFICE 175 WATER STREET NEW YORK, NY 10038-4981 (212) 269-2500 Re:
Notification of Spent Fuel Management and Funding Plans By Licensees of Prematurely Shut Down Power Reactors; Proposed Rule; 58 Fed. Reg. 34,947 (June 30, 1993)
Dear Mr. Chilk:
On June 30, 1993, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
( "NRC") published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking concerning the submission of spent fuel management and funding information by power reactor licensees.
58 Fed. Reg.
34,947 (1993).
The proposed rule would revise 10 C.F.R.
§ 50.54(bb) to provide that the licensee of a prematurely shut down plant must submit a spent fuel management plan within two years following permanent cessation of operations.
On behalf of the Utility Decommissioning Group ("Group"),!' we submit the following comments on the proposed rulemaking.
The Group supports the Commission's proposal to revise 10 C.F.R. § 50.54(bb) to clarify the timing of submission of spent fuel management plans by licensees of prematurely shut down reactors.
Under the proposed amendments, a licensee would be required to submit a spent fuel management plan to NRC within two years following permanent cessation of operation of the reactor or five years before expiration of the reactor operating license, whichever occurs first.
The proposed revisions add the two-year post-shutdown deadline to address the contingency of premature l'
The members of the Utility Decommissioning Group are Duke Power Company; Entergy Operations, Inc.; Florida Power and Light Company; Northeast Utilities; Texas Utilities Electric Company; and Virginia Power Company.
Each Group member company owns or operates one or more nuclear power plants subject to NRC regulation.
U.S. ~!:,.'C-:,:_,,;:; *~:GiJLAT'... RY COMMISSIOI\\
[,CC:' - ; I ; ' J & ~ *'.RV'Cc: SECTION u:*r !(.i: OF r:,:: ;::.;:c::-iETARY OF 1:,:: CC. ~t* 1-,:lON
WINSTON & STRAWN Samuel J. Chilk September 13, 1993 Page -
2 -
shutdown.
This deadline would be consistent with the deadline established in 10 C.F.R. § 50.82{a) for submission of a proposed Decommissioning Plan21 and would address the need for coordination of plans for spent fuel management with plans for decommissioning. 'J.1 We recommend that the NRC consider the following matters in connection with the promulgation of these proposed regulatory revisions.
- 1.
The Proposed Revisions Should Apply Prospectively (i.e., Should Not Be Applied Retroactively)
The proposed revisions to 10 C.F.R. § 50.54(bb) should specify that they are not applicable to plants that have already permanently shut down.
Existing shutdown plants have established, or will soon establish,
schedules for submission to NRC of decommissioning and spent fuel management information, and those schedules should not need to be adjusted in response to this rulemaking.
To effect this clarification, the regulation could be worded in the same manner as the NRC's decommissioning rule, 10
'l/
The Group has been following the NRC's ongoing review of its decommissioning regulations, which we understand will include a review of the requirements in 10 C.F.R. Part 50, to clarify their applicability to holders of possession-only licenses for shut down power reactors.
As part of that process, the NRC should clarify that 10 C.F.R. § 50.75(f), which governs the submission of Preliminary Decommissioning Plans, is not applicable to a plant that shuts down prematurely and is unable to comply with the five-year pre-shutdown deadline.
For prematurely shut down plants, NRC requirements for submission of a
proposed Decommissioning Plan (Section 50.82{a)) and these proposed revisions concerning submission of spent fuel management information
( Section 50. 54 (bb))
should be sufficient to inform the NRC of the licensee's pertinent post-shutdown plans.
'J.I The Group submitted comments in July, 1983 on the proposed rulemaking concerning promulgation of Section 50.54(bb)
(formerly 50.54(x)).
In those comments, the Group expressed the view that "coordinated planning [between decommissioning and spent fuel management] is essential."
Group comments dated July 5, 1983, at 4.
The current proposed rulemaking is consistent with the Group's views as stated in those earlier comments.
WINSTON & STRAWN Samuel J. Chilk September 13, 1993 Page -
3 -
C.F.R. § 50.82, to state that the provision is applicable "For a facility that permanently ceases operation after [the effective date of the rule,.... ]."
- 2.
The NRC Should carefully Consider the Need For Rulemaking on Funding For Spent Fuel Management In the Statement of Considerations accompanying this proposed rulemaking, the NRC indicates its intention to consider future rulemaking "on the inclusion of spent fuel costs as part of decommissioning costs."
58 Fed. Reg. at 34,948.
We understand that the NRC is currently conducting a study of licensees' spent fuel costs, similar to the decommissioning cost estimate studies performed in connection with the development of the NRC's decommissioning regulations.
The Group supports the NRC's i ntention to await completion and review of these spent fuel cost studies before committing to the development of further regulatory action in this area.
The Group encourages the NRC to issue for public comment the results of its spent fuel cost studies when they become available.
The NRC could then consider the study results and public comments, along with the existing body of regulatory provisions governing funding for decommissioning and spent fuel management, before deciding whether further regulatory action in this area is warranted.
On a related matter, we note that at a June 23, 1993, Commission briefing on the status of review of the NRC's decommissioning cost estimates, the NRC Staff suggested that the costs of an ISFSI, for those licensees employing such fuel storage a r rangements, could be significant.
However, the NRC's ISFSI licensing regulations already ensure that adequate funds will be available to cover such costs.
NRC regulations require that an ISFSI license application include information demonstrating the applicant's financial qualifications, including estimated construction costs, operating costs, and decommissioning costs. 10 C.F.R. § 72.22(e).
Specific financial assurance requirements for ISFSI decommissioning are set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 72.30.
Before a specific Part 72 ISFSI license is granted, the NRC must find that the applicant is financially qualified to engage in the proposed activities.
10 C.F.R. § 72.40(a) (6).
Some licensees with ISFSis are currently recovering the costs of those operations as fuel costs, and others have included anticipated ISFSI costs in their decommissioning cost estimates and decommissioning funding arrangements.
WINS TON & S TRAWN Samuel J. Chilk September 13, 1993 Page -
4 -
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these matters of importance to the decommissioning process and encourage the NRC to move forward with promulgation of the proposed regulatory revisions.
We look forward to commenting further on the issue of funding for spent fuel management should the NRC consider that subject in the future.
- ~:~toQ~
William A. Horin Robert L. Draper Counsel to the Utility Decommissioning Group
~. g~g~:ou~~~ PR 5-0 CS'S' F R 3'-J'ILf,)
1* : ** L:!
NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES COUNCIL J ~N,<C
(!)
1776 Eye Street. NW.
- Suite 300
- Washington. DC 20006-3706 c202) 872-1280
- 93 SEP 13 P 11 :OO Thomas E. Tipton Vice President & Director Operations, Management and Support Services Division Mr. Samuel l Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washlngton, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch September 13, 1993
SUBJECT:
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule, Notification of Spent Fuel Management and Funding Plans by Licensees of Prematurely Shut Down Power Reactors 58 Fed.Reg. 34947 (June 30, 1993)
Request for Comments
Dear Mr. Chilk:
These comments are submitted on behalf of the nuclear power industry by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) 1 in response to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) request for comments (58 Fed.Reg. 34947, June 30, 1993) on proposed rule revisions to clarify the timing and details of notification of spent fuel management and funding plans by power reactor licensees who have shut down prematurely.
The industry agrees that the proposed rule change is administrative in nature and provides consistency between spent fuel management planning (10 CFR 50.54(bb)) and decommissioning plan requirements (10 CFR 50.82(b)(l) and 10 CFR 50.75(f)). The proposed rule would require that a licensee notify the NRC of its program to manage and 1 NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operate nuclear power plants, and of other nuclear industry organizations, in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member of NUMARC. In addition, NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.
!J.C. r-.'L'( I. r.. 1 REGUU1TORY COMMISSIOf-1 D r '. : t G & SERvlCE ECTION
\\.;
t 1,.:1: OF l HE CECRETARY GF l H£ COM*c11~S:ON
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk September 13, 1993 Page 2 to fund management of its irradiated fuel within two years after permanently ceasing operation of its power reactor or no later than five years before the operating license expires, whichever occurs first. The proposed revision also provides for specific demonstration, verification and record.keeping to accompany this notification, in place of the case-by-case approach associated with the current rule.
It is our understanding that this proposed rule does not apply retroactively to licensees that have permanently ceased operation of their power reactors prior to the implementation date of the final rule. Indeed, we believe it would be inappropriate to do otherwise. For those licensees, spent fuel management planning should continue to be handled on a case-by-case basis as provided by the current rule, which was in effect at the time those licensees ceased operation, rather than according to the specific requirements contained in the proposed rule revision. We recommend that a statement be added to the final rule to clearly indicate that the requirements of the revised rule do not apply to reactors that have permanently ceased operation prior to the rule's implementation date.
The Discussion section of the proposed rule (Page 34948) states that, "The Commission will consider rulemaking on the inclusion of spent fuel cost as part of decommissioning costs when its information base on spent fuel cost is fully developed."
We agree that generic rulemaking on this issue is premature and should only be considered after sufficient data are available to support informed decision making.
If there are any questions regarding the comments provided in this letter, please contact Alan Nelson, John Schmitt or me. We are available to meet with the NRC and discuss the issue further if desired.
~~i Thomas E. Tipton TET/APN:plg
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY
(7590 P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 50 RIN 3150- AE46 Notification of Spent Fuel Management and Funding Plans By Licensees of Prematurely Shut Down Power Reactors Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
- 93 JUN 29 A11 :57 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its regulations to clarify the timing of notification to the NRC of spent fuel management and funding plans by licensees of those nuclear power reactors that have been shut down before the expected end of their operating lives.
The proposed rule, if adopted, would require that a licensee submit such notification either within 2 years after permanently ceasing operation of its licensed power reactor or no later than 5 years before the reactor operating license expires, whichever event occurs first.
q l1~Jq3 DATE:
Comment period expires [75 days after date of publication in the Federal Register].
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is G/jO/'f'J r,Jr
. 2 able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Mail written comments to:
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch.
Deliver comments to:
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm Federal workdays.
Examine copies of comments received at:
The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W. (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Wood, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, telephone (301) 504-1255.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 31, 1984, the NRC published a final rule, "Requirements for Licensee Actions Regarding the Disposition of Spent Fuel Upon Expiration of Reactor Operating Licensees" (49 FR 34689).
In part, this rule added to the NRC's regulation
3 a new paragraph -- 10 CFR 50.54(bb) which required license*es of nuclear power reactors to submit for NRC review and approval, no later than 5 years before the reactor operating license expires, their plans for managing spent fuel at their site,until title to the spent fuel is transferred to the Department of.
Energy (DOE).
These plans.are to include plans for funding of spent fuel management before transf e*r to DOE.
In the preamble to the 1984 final rule, the commission responded to comments on the proposed rule by stating that:
Premature shutdown or termination of a reactor's license which results in an unanticipated need for*
interim storage or disposal arrangements is not expected to be a generic problem.
The Commiss*ion will qonsider the consequences of premature termination'of operation, should such an event occur, on a c.ase-by-case basis.
Even if a reactor shuts down prematurely, it will still be re<i{llired to comply with license*
requirements (49 FR 34689, at p. 34690).
Similarly, in the final decommissioning rule (53 FR 24018; June 27, 1988), the Commission acknowledged that, in certain instances, reactors might be permanently shut down before completing the full term of their operating lives.
- However, because the Commiss.ion determined that such* instances would be
4 infrequent, it did not explicitly include in the rule remedies for premature shutdown.
Subsequent to the publication of both the final spent fuel disposition and decommissioning rules, 6 power reactor facilities have been shut down prematurely:
the Fort st. Vrain Nuclear Generating Station, the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1 of the San Onofre Nuclear Station, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, the Trojan Nuclear Station and the Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
Unit 2 of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station also effectively permanently ceased operation after suffering its March 1979 accident although the licensee never formally announced its shutdown.
The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.82(a),provide that all power reactors that permanently cease operation after July 27, 1988, including those that shut down prematurely, must apply to the NRC to decommission their facilities within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations.
Further, 10 CFR 50.82{b) (1) (iii) indicates that the proposed decommissioning plan submitted by the licensee when applying to decommission should consider factors such as the "unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site specific factors affecting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning safely *** "
5 Discussion The Commission requires that each licensee submit its decommissioning plans in a timely manner after permanently ceasing operations.
The NRC's regulations recognize that the ability of a licensee to plan properly and safely for decommissioning depends on a licensee's ability to manage and dispose of its spent fuel.
Therefore, the timing of actions required in 10 CFR 50.54(bb) for managing and storing spent fuel should be consistent with the decommissioning timing requirements in 10 CFR 50.82.
The intent of 10 CFR 50.54(bb) is to provide for plans for the orderly management of spent fuel by the time the reactor is permanently shut down.
When the NRC developed S50.54(bb), premature reactor shutdown was not deemed to be very likely and, in any case, DOE had scheduled to begin operating a permanent repository in 1998.
However, the number of reactors that have been shut down prematurely has increased over earlier expectations.
Also, DOE has delayed development of a permanent repository, which increases the number of reactors that will likely need to store spent fuel on-site.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to amend 10 CFR 50.54(bb) to require a power reactor licensee to notify the NRC of the licensee's program to manage and provide funding for management of the irradiated fuel at the reactor either within 2 years following permanent cessation of operation of the reactor or no
6 later than 5 years before expiration of the reactor operating license, whichever occurs first.
The NRC chose a term of 2 years following permanent cessation of operations to be consistent with the timing provisions in S50.82(a) for submittal of a decommissioning plan.
Also, continuing to require licensees to submit spent fuel management and funding plans 5 years prior to expiration of the operating license for a plant that does not shut down prematurely will maintain consistency with the timing provisions of S50.75(f) for submittal of a preliminary decommissioning plan.
Additionally, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75, costs of spent fuel removal and disposal are not included in the decommissioning cost estimates.
This proposed rule is consistent with that objective.
The Commission will consider a rulemaking on the inclusion of spent fuel costs as part of decommissioning costs when its information base on spent fuel costs is fully developed.
A licensee will need to plan to manage spent fuel once its plant permanently ceases operation so as to comply with the NRC's decommissioning regulations in 10 CFR 50.82.
Therefore, the conforming changes in 10 CFR 50.54(bb) would not represent any additional requirements.
Rather, these changes are administrative because they clarify the timing of submissions of spent fuel management and funding plans for those licensees whose power reactors are shut down prematurely.
7 Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
Availability These proposed amendments would clarify the timing of submission of plans for managing and providing funding for managing all irradiated fuel for those licensees whose power reactors are shut down prematurely.
This action is required to coordinate the submission of spent fuel management and funding plans with submission of decommissioning plans for prematurely shutdown reactors.
Because management and funding of spent fuel can have a significant impact on the method and timing of decommissioning, licensees should submit their plans for spent fuel management and funding to be consistent with the timing provisions for decommissioning plans in §50.82(a) (i.e., no later than 2 years after permanent shutdown).
Neither this action nor the alternative of maintaining the existing rule would significantly affect the environment.
Changes in the timing of the submission of spent fuel management and funding for prematurely shutdown power reactors would not alter the effect on the environment of the licensed activities considered in either -the final spent fuel disposition rule (49 FR 34689; August 31, 1984) or the final decommissioning rule (53 FR 24018; June 27, 1988) as analyzed in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586, August 1988).
The alternative to this
. 8 proposed action would not significantly affect the environment.
Therefore, the Commission has determined, under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule, if adopted, would not be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, and therefore an environmental impact statement is not required.
No other agencies or persons were contacted for this proposed action, and no other documents related to the environmental impact of this proposed action exist.
The foregoing constitutes the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact for this proposed rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule does not contain a new or amended information collection requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 u.s.c. 3501 et seq.).
Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number [3150-0011].
Regulatory Analysis on August 31, 1984, the NRC published a final rule, "Requirements for Licensee Actions Regarding the Disposition of Spent Fuel Upon Expiration of Reactor Operating Licensees."
9 (49 FR 34689).
As part of this rule, the NRC required power reactor licensees to submit for NRC review and approval, no later I
than 5 years before expiration of the reactor operating lic~nse, their plans for managing spent fuel at their site until title to the spent fuel is transferred to the Department of Energy {DOE).
These plans are to include plans for funding of spent fuel management before transfer to DOE.
On June 27, 1988, the Commission promulgated its final*
decommissioning rule (53 *FR 24019).
Section 50.82 of this rule p~ovides*that licensees of all power reactors that permanently*
c~ase operation after July 27, 1988, including those that shut down prematurely, must apply to the NRC to decommission their facilities within 2 years following p~rmanent cessation of operations.
Section 50.82(b) (1) (iii) further provides that the
- proposed decommissioning plan submit~ed by the licensee should consider factors such as the "unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site specific factors affe~ting the licensee's capability to carry out decommissioning safely *** "
The Commission requires. licensees to submit decommissioning plans in a timely manner after they permanently cea$e operations.
The NRC's regulations rec~gnize a licensee's abi~ity to plan properly' and safely for decommissioning depends on a licensee's ability to dispose of its spent fuel.
Thus, the timing of requirements for spent fµel management and storage should be conpistent with the timing for submission of decommissioning plans, including those
10 for power reactors that have been shut down prematurely.
Therefore, the NRC proposes to amend 10 CFR 50.54(bb) to require each power reactor licensee to notify the NRC of its program to manage and provide funding for management of the irradiated fuel at its reactor either within 2 years after the licensee permanently ceases operation of its reactor or no later than 5 years before its reactor operating license expires, whichever occurs first.
Although the timing of preparation and submission of plans for management and funding of spent fuel would be formally advanced for licensees that shut down their power reactors prematurely, these licensees would be required to incorporate the same consideration of spent fuel management and funding in their decommissioning plans required to be submitted under 10 CFR 50.82.
The proposed regulations merely make 10 CFR 50.54(bb) consistent with 10 CFR 50.82.
Thus, there should be no substantive impact on power reactor licensees.
The proposed rule would not create substantial costs for other licensees.
The proposed rule also will not significantly affect state and local government and geographical regions, or the environment, or create substantial costs to the NRC or other Federal agencies.
The foregoing discussion constitutes the regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.
11 Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant impact upon a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed rule would potentially affect approximately 115 nuclear power reactor operating licenses.
Nuclear power plant licensees do not fall within the definition of small businesses as defined in section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 u.s.c. 632, the Small Business Size Standards of the Small Business Administrator (13 CFR Part 121),
or the Commission's Size Standards (56 FR 56671; November 6, 1991).
Backfit Analysis The NRC has determined that this proposed rule does not impose a backfit as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a) (1).
Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation
12 protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and record.keeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 u.s.c. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 50.
PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES
- 1.
The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
Authority:
Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 938, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201 as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242 as amended 1244, 1246 (42 u.s.c. 5841, 5842, 5846).
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 u.s.c. 5851).
Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat. 955, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2131, 2235);
sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 stat. 853 (42 u.s.c. 4332).
13 Sections 50.13, 50.54 (dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939 as amended (42 u.s.c. 2138).
Sections 50.23, 50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 stat. 955 (42 u.s.C.2235).
Sections 50.33a, 50.55a and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 stat. 853 (42 u.s.c. 4332)., Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 u.s.c. 5844).
Sections 50.58 -
50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 stat. 2073 (42 u.s.c. 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 stat. 939 (42 u.s.c. 2152).
Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 u.s.c. 2234).
Appendix Falso issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 u.s.c. 2237).
- 2.
Section 50.54 is amended by revising paragraph (bb) to I
read as follows:
§50.54 Conditions of licenses.
(bb) For nuclear power reactors licensed by the NRC, the licensee shall, within 2 years following permanent cessation of operation of the reactor or 5 years before expiration of the reactor operating license, whichever occurs first, submit written notification to the commission for its review and preliminary
14 approval of the program by which the licensee intends to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor following permanent cessation of operation of the reactor until title to the irradiated fuel and possession of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy for its ultimate disposal in a repository.
Final Commission review will be undertaken as part of any proceeding for continued licensing under Part 50 or Part 72.
The li'censee must demonstrate to NRc*
that the elected actions will be consistent with NRC requirements for licensed possession of irradiated nuclear fuel and that the actions will be implemented on a timely basis.
Where implementation of such actions requires NRC authorizations, the licensee shall verify in the notification that submittals for such actions have been or will be made t9 NRC and shall identify them.
A copy of the notification shall be retained by the licensee as a record until expiration of the reactor operating license.
The licensee shall notify the NRC of any significant changes in the proposed waste management program as described in the initial notification.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this
/ {pfh day of <JiZ'H gr::'
1993.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
s L. Blaha ing Executive Director for Operations