NUREG-1221, Summary, Analysis and Response to Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72 Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities.

NUREG-1221, Summary, Analysis and Response to Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72 Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities.

ML18073A149
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1988
From:	NRC/RES/DE
To:
References
NUREG-1221
Download: ML18073A149 (744)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:NUREG-1221 Summary, Analysis, and Response to Pub:ic Comments on Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72 Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Fac;lities U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

NOTICE Availability of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:

1. The NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W.;

Washington, DC 20555

2. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082

3. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investigation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correapondence. The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission Issuances. Documents available from the National Technical 'Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries. Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited. Single copies of N RC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Division of Information Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. ~des and standards are usually copyrighted antf may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

NUREG-1221 Summary, Analysis, and Response to Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51,, 70, and 72 Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities Manuscript Completed: May 1988 Date Published: June 1988 Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20556

ABSTRACT On February 11, 1985, the NRC issued for public connnent proposed rules on decommissioning of nuclear facilities (50 FR 5600). Comment letters were received from 143 organizations and individuals. This report provides a summary and analysis and response to the public comments received. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS This Table of Contents lists the major sections contained in this report. Section A.2, "Index of Issues," lists the breakdown of each section by page number according to the issue addressed. Section Title Page A Introduction A-1 B Decommissioning Alternatives ............................... . B-1 C Planning ................................................... . C-1 D Financial Assurance ........................................ . D-1 E Residual Radioactivity Limits .............................. . E-1 F Environmental Review Requirements .......................... . F-1 G General Comments G-1 H Comments Outside Rule Scope ................................ . H-1 I References ................................................. . I-1 J Comment Letters ............................................ . J-1 V

Sunvnary, Analysis, and Response - Public Comments on Proposed Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72: Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities A.1 Introduction On February 11, 1985, proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72 on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities were published for public comment in the Federal Register (50 FR 5600}. The original comment period expired May 13, 1985 but was extended to July 12, 1985. In response to this request for comments, the NRC received letters from the individuals and organizations listed in Section A.2. } All of the comments received were considered with respect to improving and revising the final text of the amendments. This document presents the NRC staff's analyses of these comments. As outlined in Section A.3, Sections B through H contain a summary, analysis, and response to all comments received. To reduce repetition in Sections B through H, similar comments were combined. As indicated in Section A.3, the comments, and the staff analysis and response to the comments are arranged according to the general subjects treated by the proposed rule and Supplementary Information to the proposed rule. The source of each comment is identified by the number given to each comment letter as it was received by the Commission 1 s Public Document Room. A.2 Comments Received on Proposed Rule The following commenters responded to the Federal Register Notice: Docket No. Commenter

1. Ecology Alert

2. United States Department of the Interior

3. State of Oregon, Department of Energy

4. State of Minnesota, Department of Public Service

5. John P. & Helene J. Forst

6. Martin J. Dreyfuss

7. Yale Maxon

8. Kermit F. Cuff Jr.

9. Public Citizen/Environmental Action

10. Harriet Pellar

11. Hannah L. Katz

12. Ray F. Smith

13. Barbara Levy

14. Jerry Depew

15. Peter R. Mitchell

16. Mary L. Steketee

17. Constance G. Weeks A-1

Docket No. Commenter

18. North Carolina Public Interest Research Group

19. University of Virginia, Department of Nuclear Engineering and Engineering Physics

20. Mercy Medical Center

21. Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission

22. San Diego Gas & Electric

23. Yankee Atomic Electric Company

24. Department of the Army, Department of Defense

25. General Electric

26. Detroit Edison

27. Mary Z. Skorapa

28. Cerac Incorporated

29. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

30. Sacramento Municipal Utility District

31. Northeast Utilities

32. Philadelphia Electric Company

33. Ohio Citizens for Responsible Energy

34. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nuclear Reactor Laboratory

35. The Penns:,~vania State University

36. Safe Power for Maine

37. Educational Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia

38. State of Michigan, Department of Commerce

39. Lois M. Barber

40. United States Environmental Protection Agency

41. Patricia T. Birnie

42. Aileene Gauntt

43. FMC Wyoming Corporation

44. Kershaw County Safe Energy Project

45. Martha Drake

46. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.

47. Governor's Special Committee on Decommissioning Maine Yankee

48. County of Santa Cruz, Board of Supervisors

49. Mr. Alva Morrison on behalf of Maine Nuclear Referendum Committee

50. County of Bedford, Pennsylvania, Commissioner's office

51. Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety

52. Virginia McGowan

53. Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., Committee on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals

54. Bi 11 Schwarz

55. Gary P. Proctor

56. Citizens Association for Sound Energy

57. ~:aomi Jacobson, LAND, Inc.

58. Bedford County Conservation District

59. Citizens Opposed to Radioactive Pollution

60. Pacific Gas and Electric Company

61. Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell, & Reynolds

62. Spiegel and McDiarmid

63. LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae

64. The Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee on Nuclear Technology & Law

65. Mallinckrodt, Inc.

A-2

Docket No. Commenter

66. Iowa Electric light and Power Company

67. California Public Utilities Commission

68. Mike Andrews

69. Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Emergency Services

70. University of Missouri, Research Rear.tor Facility

71. Russell M. Maynard, MD

72. The Conservation Council of North Carolina

73. American Electric Power Service Corporation

74. Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety

75. Houston Lighting and Power

76. E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co, Biomedical Products Department

77. Carolina Power & Light Company

78. Bedford County Environmental Committee

79. Dale Saltzman

80. Seacoast Anti-Pollution League

81. David S. Pate

82. Lakeland Audubon Society, Inc.

83. Utility Ratecutters of Kentucky

84. Coalition for the Environment

85. State of Rhode Island. Departm2nt of Health

86. Minnesota Public Interest Research Foundation

87. Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company

88. Portland General Electric Company

89. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board

90. State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

91. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation

92. Sierra Club

93. M. I. Lewis

94. Charles C. Williams

95. Redwood Alliance

96. Texas Department of Health

97. Omaha Public Power District

98. Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation

99. Southern California Edison Company 100. Georgia Power Company 101. Alabama Power Company 102. Duke Power Company 103. Nuclear Information and Resource Service 104. Arkansas Power & Light Company 105. Duquesne Light Company 106. Baltimore Gas & Electric 107. Consumers Power Company 108. Public Service Company of New Mexico 109. Iowa State Commerce Commission 110. State of Washington, Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council 111. Public Service Electric & Gas Company 112. GPU Nuclear Corporation 113. Arizona Public Service Company 114. Long Island Lighting Company 115. Kerr-McGee Corporation 116. Washington Public Power Supply System A-3

Docket No. Convnenter 117. GA Technolog;es 118. Duke Power Co. 119. Minnesota Department of Health 120. Ecology Center of Southern California 121. Henry Peck 122. Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety 123. Virgfoia Power 124. 3M Company 125. State of Maine, Senate Chamber 126. Atom;c Industrial Forum, Inc. 127. Northern States Power Company 128. Amer;can Electric Power Serv;ce Corp 129. State of Illinois, Attorney General 130. Dairyland Power Cooperat;ve 131. Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 132. Florida Power & Light Company 133. Public Service Company of Colorado 134. Wisconsin Electric Power Company 135. Department of the Army 136. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board 137. State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Pr~;Pct Office 138. TLG Engineering 139. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 140. State of Oregon Department of Energy 141. State of New York Department of Public Service 142. Labros E. Pilalis 143. Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds A.2 Index of Issues The analysis of the individual issues raised by the commenters is structured, to the extent practical, according to general subjects treated by the rule and discussed in the Supplementary Information to the rule. The section numbers are indicated as part of the summary and analysis of and response to the public comments. Section No. Issue B Decommissioning Alternatives B-1 B.1 Definition of decommissioning B-1 B.1.1 Clarify use of word decommission B-1 B.1. 2 Clarify what facilities are covered B-2 B.1. 3 Requirements for unrestricted use as part of definition of decommissioning B-3 B.2 Definition of alternatives B-4 B.2.1 Clarify definition of alternatives B-4 B.2.2 Use of acronyms B-5 8.3 Choice of alternative B-6 B.3.1 Criteria used for choice of alternative B-6 A-4

Section No. Issue B.3.2 Difficult to choose alternative due to lack of sufficient information on occupational exposure 8-8 B.3.3 NRC should control choice of alternative B-9 8.4 Use of DECON and SAFSTOR 8-10 . 8.4.1 Rule appears to favor DECON B-10 8.4.2 Advantages and disadvantages of the DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives B-10 8.4.3 Time limit on SAFSTOR B-11 8.4.4 Bankruptcy during SAFSTOR B-12 8.4.5 SAFSTOR for materials facilities B-13 8.5 Use of ENTOMB B-13 C Planning C-1 C.l Clearer guidance for decommissioning process C-1 C.1.1 Licensing scheme governing decommissioning unclear (for reactors) C-1 C.1. 2 Clarifications concerning 11 permanent end of operation" C-2 C.1. 3 Criteria for decommissioning activities and license termination C-3 C.1.4 Framework of safety goals C-7 C. l. 5 Major decommissioning activity C-8 C.1.6 Requirements applicable to "possession-only license" C-9 C. l. 7 Total exposures and releases C-9 C.1.8 Occupational exposure during decommissioning C-9 C.1. 9 Standards for radiation monitoring and protection C-11 C.1.10 Registry of workers c-11 C.1.11 Methods of blasting and cutting of components c-11 C.1.12 Safeguards and other specific areas C-12 C.1.13 Packaging, shipping, and burial of wastes c-12 C.1.14 Decommissioning plans and waste disposal and ALARA C-12 C.1.15 Delays in shipping wastes C-13 C.1.16 Criteria for decontamination under

                 §  30.36(c)(l)(i)                             C-13 C.1.17          Accidents                                     C-14 C.2           Timing of plan submittal~                       C-15 C.2.1           Preli1ninary plar,->                          C-15 C.2.2           Timing of final decisions                     C-15 C.2.3           Timing of final plans                         C-16 C.3           Previous approvals                              C-17 C.4           Decommissioning plans                           C-17 C.4.1           Quantification of criteria for submitting decommissioning plans for Parts 30, 40, and 70 licensees                              C-17 C.4.2           Separation of decommissioning plan and application for termination of license        C-17 C.4.3           Different plans for decommissioning           C-18 A*5

Section No. Issue Page C.4.4 Need to demonstrate safety of decommissioning C-18 C.4.5 Decommissioning plan-condition of license C-19 C.5 Provisions if decommissioning plan not approved C-19 C.6 Quality assurance during decommissioning C-19 C.7 Recordkeeping c-20 C.7.1 Need for recordkeeping C-20 C.7.2 Recordkeeping as license condition C-21 C.7.3 Records made public c-21 C.7.4 Indexing of records c-21 C.7.5 Records during SAFSTOR c-22 C.8 Facilitation c-22 C.9 Shutdown reactors C-23 C.10 Advanced planning for deferred dismantlement C-24 C.11 Consolidated plans for multiple licensees C-24 0 Financial Assurance 0-1 0.1 Cost of decommissioning 0-1 0.1.1 Costs of power reactor decommissioning D-1 0.1.2 Costs of test reactor decommissioning 0-9 0.1. 3 Costs of post-accident cleanup and decommissioning D-9 0.2 Use of certification and funding plans 0-10 0.2.1 Use of certification of a specified amount and funding plans for power reactors D-10 0.2.2 Use of certification for R&T reactors D-15 0.2.3 Use of certification for small power reactors 0-16 0.3 Funding methods 0-16 0.3.1 Flexibility of rule D-16 0.3.2 Funding method acceptability D-17 0.3.2.1 Use of internal reserve as a funding method 0-17 0.3.2.2 Use of other funding methods D-24 0.3.2.3 Funding methods for publicly owned power reactors 0-27 0.3.2.4 Funding methods for research and test reactors D-27 0.3.3 Specific comments about the mechanics of funding methods 0-28 0.3.3.1 External funding methods D-28 0.3.3.2 Multi-asset utilities D-28 0.3.3.3 Internal reserve 0-29 0 3.3.4 Prepayment D-29 0.3.3.5 Costs of funding methods D-30 0.3.4 Funding requirements during periods of safe storage or long-term surveillance 0-30 0.4 Funding plans D-31 D.4.1 Timing of funding plan submittals D-31 0.4.1.1 Time period for submittal 0-31 D.4.1.2 Effect of funding plan submittal requirements on pending licenses 0-32 A-6

Section No. Issue Page D.4.2 Clarification of funding plan requirements 0-32 D.4.3 Funding plan updates D-33 D.4.4 Requirements of funding plan as a condition of license D-33 D.4.5 Co-owner planning D-34 D.4.6 Collection of funds 0-35 0.4.6.1 Collection of funds for existing licensees 0-35 D.4.6.2 Collection of funds with more than one facility at a site 0-36 0.4.6.3 Shutdown plants 0-36 0.5 Effect of taxation policies on D-37 funding methods D.6 Funding requirements for materials licenses 0-37 0.6.1 Exemptions 0-37 D.6.2 Funding plans D-38 0.6.3 Cost estimates D-39 0.6.4 Funding methods 0-42 0.6.4.1 Use of financial tests, guarantees, internal reserve 0-42 0.6.4.2 Other funding methods providing comparable assurance D-44 0.7 Funding for federal licensees D-45 0.8 General Comments on Financial Assurance D-46 0.8.1 Need for funding requirements D-46 D.8.2 Liability/responsibility for funding and decommi ss ioni ng D-48 D.8.3 Relationship of rule to other agencies D-51 E Residual Radioactivity Limits E-1 E.1 Need for residual limits E-1 E.2 Need residual limits prior to E-2 issuance of this rule F. Environmental Review Requirements F-1 F.1 Environmental Review Requirements F-1 and Environmental Impact Statements F.2 Costs included at construction permit stage F-2 F.3 High level waste disposal problems F-2 G General Comments G-1 G.1 General reaction G-1 G.2 Coordination with state agencies G-2 G.3 Applicability of regulation to different licensees G-2 G.4 Unresolved waste disposal issues G-4 G.5 Inadequate GEIS G-4 G.6 Exemptions G-4 G.6.1 Rule should exempt medical licensees G-4 G.6.2 Exemption from rule for reactors D-5 A-7

Section No. Issue Page G.7 Waste disposal facilities G-5 G.8 Procedural G-5 G.9 Clarification of aplicability G-6 G.10 Compilation of existing information G-6 G.10.1 Index of applicable regulaticns G-6 G.10.2 Compilation of decommissioning experience G-6 G.11 Post-Accident decommissioning G-7 G.12 Decommissioning archives G-7 G.13 Offsite liability G-7 G.14 NRC takeover G-8 G.15 Resident inspectors during decommissioning G-8 G.16 Independent study G-8 G.17 Revised Regulatory Guide 1.86 available before rule G-8 G.18 Section 50.33(2) on financial qualifications G-9 G.19 Basis of costs of rule implementation G-9 G.20 Incorporation of DGEIS comments G-10 G.21 Criteria for spent fuel storage G-10 G.22 Definition of 11 site 11 G-10 G.23 Reference to Section 50.54(bb) G-10 G.24 DOE taking possession of spent fuel G-11 G.25 Radiation lethal G-11 G.26 Sociopolitical problems G-11 H Comments Outside Rule Scope H-1 H.1 Criteria for waste disposal H-1 H.1.1 Consider waste disposal criteria H-1 and decommissioning waste classification H.1. 2 Concerns with disposal of chemical wastes H-5 H.2 Other energy sources H-6 H.3 Reduce worker dose H-6 H.4 Enforcement H-7 H.5 Number of copies of ER supplement H-7 A-8

B. Decommissioning Alternatives B.l Definition of decommissioning 8.1.1 Clarify use of word decommission

1. Comment Summary Commenter indicated that there is no commonly accepted definition of decommissioning since three different decommissioning methods, DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB are allowed. (9)

Comment Analysis and Response The commenter indicates that three very different methods have been described by the nuclear utilities and the government and then provides the descriptions of each of these methods, namely DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB. However the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule (Ref. 1) and the rule text itself make it clear that although there are three approaches to accomplishing the decommissioning, each of them con-forms to the definition of decommissioning as contained in Section 50.2 which is 11 to remove a facility safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unre-stricted use and termination of license. 11 While each decommissioning method may entail different activities and lengths of time to complete, they all result ultimately in termination of license and release for unrestricted use.

2. Comment Summary Commenter indicated that the definition of decommissioning was too restric-tive and that it should be revised to clarify that decommissioning only refers to the process of getting to the end point of termination of license.

The actual end point of termination of license with unrestricted use should be separately stated. (126) Comment Analysis and Resp'nse The definition of decommissioning as expressed in the rule provides a description of the process in a regulatory framework. Specifically .~ is the process of removing a facility safely from service and reducing resid-ual radioactivity to a level which permits release of the facility for unrestricted use and termination of the license. This definition expres-ses the complete process of decommissioning and puts it into the context of reaching a safe point. 8-1

B.1.2 Clarify what facilities are covered

1. Comment Sununary Six commenters indicated that the rule needed to provide clarification as to what facilities are covered by the decommissioning rule. These conunen-ters indicated that there appeared to be a discrepancy between proposed Section 50.2 which defined decommissioning as removing a facility "safely from service and reducing residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license" and the Supplementary Information which indicates that decommissioning means to remove "nuclear facilities" from service including "the site, buildings and contents, and equipment associated with any licensed NRC activity." The commenters indicated that it appeared that the definition in the statement was too broad and not within the generally understood scope of decommissioning. Two comments indicated that the rule should clarify that it does not apply to the nonradioactive portion of the facility. (32, 61, 102, 123, 126)

Comment Analysis and Response The definition of decommissioning in Section 50.2 clearly defines what is intended by this rul emaking, namely that decom**d c:s i n~i ng i nvn l ves those activities necessary to remove a facility safely from service and to reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license. Section 50.82 indicates that a licensee must provide NRC with a plan indicating how these activities will be carried out and that this plan will be approved if it demonstrates that the decommissioning will be performed in a safe manner. Section 50.82(f) indicates that the NRC will terminate the facility license if the terminal radiation survey demonstrates that residual radioactivity has been reduced such that the facility and site are suitable for release for unre-stricted use. The definition of decommissioning in Section 50.2 is general and its application in any given case will depend on specific circumstances. The decommissioning rule applies to the site, buildings and contents, and equipment associated with a nuclear facility that are or become contaminated during the time the facility is licensed, and to activities related to the definition of 11 decomrnission 11 in the amended regulations. The decommission-ing rule will not apply to the disposal of nonradioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the NRC license. Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste not necessary for NRC license termination is not covered by these regulations but would be treated by other appro-priate agencies having responsibility over these wastes.

2. Comment Sununary One commenter questioned whether the process of decommissioning deals with pools of spent fuel rods now in temporary storage at reactor sites. One commenter indicated that spent fuel storage facilities and other storage facilities are licensed under Part 72 whereas power stations are licensed under Part 50, and the rule should be specific as to what is addressed.

(41, 123) B-2

Comment Analysis and Response Decommissioning deals with pools of spent fuel rods in temporary storage at reactor sites only in the sense that a licensee which must maintain these storage pools after the facility permanently ceases operation must consider what decommissioning alternatives will be used in this situation. A licensee in this situation cannot use the DECON alternative but would have to use the SAFSTOR or ENTOMB alternative. This is discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule and in more detail in two PNL studies, NUREG/CR-0130, Addendum 2, (Ref. 2) and NUREG/CR-0672, Addendum 1 (Ref. 3) both of which are subtitled "Effects on Decommission-ing of Interim Inability to Dispose of Wastes Offsite. 11 The actual safety aspects and costs associated with storage of spent fuel on an interim basis after shutdown would not be dealt with as part of a licensee's actual planning of decommissioning activities or in the decom-missioning plan which he would submit to the NRC under Section 10 CFR 50.82. These items are treated in the existing regulations in 10 CFR 50.54(bb) in which it is indicated that, for operating power reactors, licensees are to submit written notification to the Commission for its review and prelimi-nary approval of the pru~,,am by which the licensee intends to mandge and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor upon expiration of the reactor operating license until the fuel is trans-ferred to DOE for ultimate disposal. Since the storage of spent fuel at a reactor is outside the scope of this rule, the proposed decommissioning rule does not address whether the stor-age of spent fuel at a reactor is licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 or 10 CFR Part 72. B.1.3 Requirements for unrestricted use as part of definition of decommissioning Comment Summary Two commenters indicated that requiring unrestricted use as part of the definition of decommissioning is too restrictive. One comment indicated that the rule should be careful to avoid inhibiting site uses that cannot be construed as unrestricted especially since the plant sites are improved private property. One comment suggested that no reference to unrestricted use be contained in the definition since this would preclude alternative decommissioning methods which provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety without releasing the site for unrestricted use. In contrast, four commenters stated that decommissioning should clearly result in safe unrestricted use of the site. (5, 18, 22, 78, 82, 104) Comment Analysis and Response It is the Commission's belief that there is nothing in the definition which would inhibit future use of the site once the license is terminated. According to amended Section 50.2 (and related sections in the other parts) decommissioning is defined as removing a facility safely from service and reducing residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. The Commission's objective is that decommissioned facility sites would ultimately B-3

be available for unrestricted use for any public or private purpose. Unrestricted use refers to the fact that from a radiological standpoint, no hazards exist at the site, the license can be terminated, and the site can be considered an unrestricted area. This definition is consistent with the definition of an unrestricted area as it exists in 10 CFR 20.3 as being 11 any area access to which is not controlled by the licensee for purposes of protection of individuals from exposure to radiation and radioactive materials and any area used for residential quarters. 11 The alternatives for decommissioning provide different ways to accomplish decommissioning as defined in the rule, i.e., alternative ways to reduce residual radioactivity to a level permitting release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license. These alternatives are DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB which are discussed in more detail below but which primarily consist of activities which either result in prompt dis-mantlement of the facility or which permit a storage period during which radioactive decay can occur prior to dismantlement of the facility. Each of the alternatives includes all those activities necessary to lead to termination of the NRC license. Once the license is terminated, the facility buildings and site can be used for any other non-nuclear purposes, including industrial purposes. The use made of the facility after termination of the NRC license is independent of the alternative used to decommission the facility. With regard to reuse of the site for nuclear purposes, there is nothing in the rule preventing such reuse. As indicated above, reuse of the nuclear facility for other nuclear purposes is not considered decommissioning. Therefore, a licensee would not be required to submit a decommissioning plan or apply for termination of license. As noted in Sections B.3 through B.5 of this report, the rule considers the use of alternative decommissioning methods which delay the completion of decommissioning thereby not releasing the site for unrestricted use during a period of ra9ioactive decay. The definition of decommissioning as well as the definitions of the alternatives contained in the Supple-mentary Information to the Proposed Rule indicate that, if permanent cessation of nuclear activity occurs at the facility, the licensee is to propose to NRC the method that it intends to use in decommissioning the facility in a manner ultimately leading to the return of the site to an 11 unrestricted area 11 according to the definition of 10 CFR 20.3 and the termination of the facility license. In determining whether a partic-ular site is free from radiological hazards, the Commission will take a hard look at the extent to which the site has been previously used to dispose of low-level radioactive wastes by land burial and will decide what remedial measures, including removal of such waste offsite, are appropriate be~~re the site can be release1 for unrestricted use and the license terminated. B.2 Definition of alternatives B2.l Clarify definition of alternatives Comment Summary Five commenters indicated that the decommissioning alternatives are vaguely defined and hence meaningless. Thus comparison of alternatives in terms of B-4

costs and benefits is difficult since the rule does not give a fair picture of the complexities involved in the different alternatives. (5, 18, 57, 93, 103) Comment Analysis and Response In the proposed rule each of the alternatives is defined in the Supplemen-tary Information. The definitions provide a description of DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB and the Supplementary Information indicates the acceptability of the alternatives based on the costs and benefits of the alternatives. This evaluation is based on an extensive information base developed for the NRC by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL) and by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) (Refs. 2-19). These reports are listed in the reference section of the Federal Register Notice in which the proposed rule was published (Ref. 1) and in Section I of this report. The PNL and ORNL reports represent the best information currently available with regard to decommissioning and are based on decommissioning and decontami-nation experience at a number of facilities. The PNL and ORNL reports contain detailed discussions of the technology, safety, and costs of each of the alternatives considered for decommissioning in the proposed rule. In particular, the reports analyze the work activities involved in each of the alternatives, the labor necessary to complete the work activities, associated costs, waste disposal quantities, an~ rad!dtion exµosures to plant workers and the public. Based on the PNL and ORNL reports, the NRC prepared the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, NUREG-0586, (Ref. 20) which summarized the data in the PNL and ORNL reports and which provided an analysis of the costs and bene-fits associated with each of the alternatives. This analysis is summarized in the Supplementary Information to the pro-posed rule. Further guidance on the decommissioning alternatives will be found in revisions to Regulatory Guide 1.86. B.2.2 Use of acronyms Comment Summary One commenter objected to the use of the acronyms DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB in the rulemaking since it causes confusion preferring instead the nomenclature of Regulatory Guide 1.86. One commenter considered the categories and their definitions appropriate but recommended that ordinary phraseology be used in lieu of acronyms and that these definitions be included in the regulation. (104, 134) Comment Analysis and Response The purpose of the acronyms is to reduce confusion and misunderstanding. In the past, the nomenclature to describe the alternatives has not been consistent. In particular, the discussion in the Supplementary Information to the Proposed Rules which describes the terms DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB clearly indicates the activities involved in carrying out decommissioning and clearly states that they all satisfy the definition of decommissioning as stated in 50.2 which is to remove a facility safely from service, to reduce radioactivity to a level which permits unrestricted use of the B-5

facility, and to terminate the license. Earlier terminology contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86 (Ref. 21), such as mothballing and in-place entomb-ment, was vague as to the ultimate disposition of the facility and not consistent with the amended 50.2. The amendments themselves do not use the acronyms, however, they are considered sufficiently Glear and flexible in dealing with decommissioning plans. B.3 Choice of alternative B.3.1 Criteria used for choice of alternative

1. Comment Summary A number of commenters indicated that the rule does not contain sufficient criteria that a utility can use in choosing which decommissioning alterna-tive should be used and that can be used in the review and evaluation of that choice. Some of these commenters pointed out that these criteria

• should factor in important considerations to be made in the choice, includ-ing clarifying what is sufficient benefit for delaying decommissioning, and that the choice of alternative be based on a detailed assessment demon~

strating that the health and safety of the public is protected. These commenters indicated that better criteria on sufficient benefits should be included in the rule, specifically the degree of reduction in occupational radiation exposure, generation and disposal of waste, assur-ance that decommissioning will take place, radiation doses to the public, and quality of decommissioning operations. Other commenters mentioned that economic or other factors should also be included as being sufficient bene-fit, including comparative cost of alternatives, presence of other facil-ities at the site, development of new decommissioning techniques, and need to store wastes or spent fuel at the site. Some commenters indicated that it was not satisfactory to include criteria on acceptable alternatives in regulatory guides as is proposed in the supplementary information while other commenters indicated that it is. (5, 33, 41, 44, 49, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 68, 72, 73, 78, 82, 86, 88, 92, 93, 95, 101, 103, 126, 128, 132, 137) Comment Analysis and Response It should be noted that the intent of the rule is to provide the necessary guidelines with regard tc use~~ decJmmissioning alternatives in a manner which protects the public health and safety. Specifically, the rule includes requirements that, at the time of termination of operations, licensees sub-mit a decommissioning plan to the NRC which contains an indicatio.1 of the decommissioning alternative to be used and a description of the activities involved and the controls and limits on procedures to protect occupational and public health and safety for that alternative. Discussion of how the deconvnissioning plan and the chosen alternative are evaluated in terms of protecting health and safety is contained below in Section C.1.3. In addition, §50.82 of the proposed rule stipulated that alternatives which significantly delay completion of decommissioning, such as use of a stor-age period, will be acceptable if sufficient benefit results. This section of the proposed rule has been modified in two ways. The first is B-6

to be more definitive in terms of acceptable decommissioning alternatives by permitting power reactors to use alternatives which provide for comple-tion of decommissioning within 60 years. This is consistent with the technical data base developed as part of the rulemaking (Refs. 2 and 3) and with the conclusions of the Supplementary Information to the Proposed Rule. In the Supplementary Information, it was indicated that DECON or SAFSTOR for up to 50 years are reasonable options for decommissioning a light water power reactor. The reason for both of these alternatives being acceptable is that both have benefits and both are capable of being carried out in a manner which protects public health and safety. In selecting 60 years as an acceptable period of time for decommissioning of a nuclear power reactor, the Commission considered the amount of radio-active decay likely to occur during an approximate SO-year storage period and the number of months expected to be needed to dismantle the facility (Refs. 2 and 3). In addition to this change, the modified rule also states that consideration will be given to a decommissioning alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years for power reactors only when necessary to protect public health and safety. Factors, set out in the modified rule, which would be considered in evaluating an alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and other site specific factors affecting capability to carry out decommissioning safely, including presence of other nuclear facilities at the site. Section 50.82(b)(l) of the proposed rule has also been modified for non-power reactors. Because of the variety of type of these reactors, spe-cific criteria on time periods for completing decommissioning, such as indicated above for power reactors, are not included for non-power reac-tors. However, the proposed rule has been modified to provide additional detail on the factors affecting acceptability of decommissioning alterna-tives for non-power reactors. These factors include considerations affect-ing waste disposal for the different alternatives and other site-specific factors affecting capability to carry out decommissioning operations safely, such as presence of other nuclear facilities at the site and reduction of occupational and public radiation exposures associated with the different alternatives. Other factors not related to protection of health and safety are not included in the consideration of alternatives in the modified rule. In addition, Regulatory Guide 1.86 will be revised to provide additional guidance on the decommissioning alternatives, specifically guidance on the factors affecting delay in completion of decommissioning. Use of the modified rule in conjunction with the regulatory guidance will provide for an expeditious licensing procedure. A licensee's proposed decommissioning alternative will be reviewed based on the criteria and guidance discussed h~re and in Section~ 1.3 for acceptability in terms of completing decom-missioning and protecting public health and safety.

2. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that in making the choice of alternatives that, provided a licensee observes its statutory and common law obligations to protect the public health and safety, it is improper to use the NEPA concept of cost-benefit balancing in making NRC staff licensing decisions on decommissioning alternatives. (117)

B-7

Comment Analysis and Response As stated in amended Section 50.82(e), NRC staff licensing decisions with regard to decommissioning alternatives are that the decommissioning plan demonstrates that the decommissioning be performed in accordance with the regulations and will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. The NRC's evaluation of a licen-see's proposed use of a certain alternative will be based on the evaluation of that alternative in terms of protecting public health and safety. More detail on this is contained in Section B.3.1 in response to Comment Summary No. 1 and in Section C.1.3. B.3.2 Difficult to choose alternative due to lack of sufficient information on occupational exposure Comment Summary One commenter noted that neither the NRC nor the licensees can properly assess costs and benefits attributable to different alternatives due to the lack of sufficient information on occupational exposure. The commenter noted that NRC had no experience with decommissioning large, aged reactors and that, for example, the experience at the cleanup at TMI-2 had shown the workers were being exposed to radiation levels six times higher than expected. Thus, it is likely the decommissioning estimates of exposure are gross underestimates. In addition the commenter stated that there is much uncertainty with regard to radiation effects on human health, indicating that some of his information sources say limits should be raised and others say they should be reduced ten-fold. Furthermore the commenter indicated that the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning (NUREG-0586), (Ref. 20), which provides a basis for this rulemaking, does not adequately address health and genetic effects. Hence the commenter noted it is difficult to assess the proper alter-native and that, in any event, in making assessments NRC should use conservative estimates. (103) Comment Analysis and Response NRC has had Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) prepare detailed analyses of the technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning (Refs. 2-15). These reports were prepared for a number of nuclear facil-ities and are listed in the Reference section of the Federal Register Notice and in Section I of this report. The PNL reports contain estimates of expected occupational radiation exposures based on an analysis of work activities involved in decommissioning and radiation levels expected at the end of reactor life. While it is true that no large, aged reactors have been decommissioned, the PNL reports represent a reasonable analysis of the occupational dose which would be incurred at decommissioning. They provide sufficient information so that assessment of the different alternatives can be made, specifically that DECON can be carried out while maintaining occupational exposures at reasonable levels while SAFSTOR and ENTOMB can result in reduction in occ~pational exposures. Thus, choice of the alternative can be made. B-8

It should be noted that for any of the alternatives, occupational exposures will be limited by the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and that, in particu-lar, licensees should maintain exposures to workers to as low as reasonably achievable levels. Thus, radiation exposure to workers will be kept at acceptable levels for any of the alternatives used. The health impacts of radiation and concerns over whether limits on exposure should be raised or lowered are outside the scope of this rulemaking and are the type of issues being addressed currently in a separate rulemaking that proposes to amend 10 CFR Part 20. The allowed occupational exposures during the decommis-sioning period will conform to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NUREG-0586) (Ref. 20) analyzed the occupational exposures which would be received during decommissioning and found that over a 4-year decommissioning period they would be similar to that which would be experienced at an operating facility on a yearly basis. Thus, NRC determined that the health impact of decommissioning did not add significantly to the operating plant impact. In summary, the information currently available provides NRC with area-sonable understanding of the safety aspects involved in decommissioning and also provides sufficient information to evaluate alternatives. As more information becomes available, NRC will factor it into the decision-making process. It is not feasible to compare the increases in the esti-mates at TMI-2 to decommissioning since the TMI-2 estimates were for a post-accident situation where there was significant contamination and the situation was initially uncertain with regard to contamination levels and cleanup procedures. When licensees prepare their decommissioning plans for submittal to the NRC for approval under the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82, they will have more information about the conditions in the reactor and will provide more up to date information about occupational exposures during decommissioning. At that time NRC will be able to evaluate the choice of decommissioning alternative for the specific facility. B.3.3 NRC should control choice of alternative Comment Summary Commenters indicated that the choice of the decommissioning alternative should not be left to the discretion of the utility but that the NRC should choose the alternative to be used. (18, 39, 48, 92) Comment Analysis and Response The choice of an alternative depends on a number of factors. These include factors which have safety implications such as reduction in occupational exposure and radioactive waste volume, and availability of waste disposal capacity, and the presence of other facilities on the site. Choice of an alternative can also depend on factors such as the economics of one alter-native versus another and the expected ultimate use of the site. These factors are not safety-related and hence are not part of NRC 1 s decision-making responsibility. Thus a licensee makes a decision regarding the decommissioning alternative based on a number of both safety-related and nonsafety-related factors. If the alternative proposed by a licensee results in decommissioning being carried out in a manner which protects 8-9

the public health and safety it will be acceptable to NRC. Amended Sec-tion 50.82 requires that, following permanent cessation of operations, a licensee submit a decommissioning plan to the NRC. This plan must contain a description of the decommissioning alternative, including a description of the controls and limits on procedures and equipment to protect occupa-tional and public health and safety and a description of the planned final radiation survey. Section 50.82(b) contains requirements on the decommis-sioning alternatives which may be used and Section 50.82(e) states that if the decommissioning plan demonstrates that this chosen alternative is such that decommissioning can be carried out safely that the Commission will allow it to be used. Thus the NRC has approval control over any alter-native chosen with respect to its safety. 8.4 Use of OECON and SAFSTOR 8.4.1 Rule appears to favor DECON Comment Summary Three commenters noted that the rule seems to favor use of prompt decom~ missioning or DECON for reactors, because the rule requires a detailed plan 5 years prior to projected end of operations and because the statement of considerations neglects the benefits of the other alternatives. (22, 104, 134) Comment Analysis and Response The amendments do not contain a preference for OECON for reactors and, as noted in Section B.3.1, the modified rule specifically allows SAFSTOR for up to 60 years. The preliminary decommissioning plan which is required 5 years prior to projected end of operations does not itself favor or necessitate use of DECON. It only requires submittal of an up-to-date cost estimate and a current assessment of major factors which could affect planning for decommissioning. For example, if a utility were planning to use SAFSTOR, that could be indicated in the preliminary decommissioning plan submitted 5 years prior to shutdown. Amended 50.82(d) indicates that for decommissioning plans in which it is intended that there be a storage period, that planning for these delayed activities may be less detailed. With regard to indication of benefits for other alternatives besides DECON, the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule discussed the fact that SAFSTOR or ENTOMB will have benefits in reduction of occupational dose and radioactive waste volume and, in addition, may have advantages where there are other operational nuclear facilities at the same site, and may be necessary in other cases if there is a shortage of radioactive waste dis-posal space offsite. B.4.2 Advantages and disadvantages of the DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives Conunent Summary A number of commenters expressed opinions on the rule with regard to allow-ing use of DECON and SAFSTOR. Some commenters favored the use of DECON, B-10

one in particular noting that it should be used at a site of high poten-tial for a seismic event. Other commenters noted the problems associated with OECON including the higher occupational exposure involved and prob-lems associated with inability to dispose of wastes. Some commenters noted that site specific factors should come into play and that either OECON or SAFSTOR should be possible. Some commenters noted that because of problems associated with DECON, that SAFSTOR was the best option. (9, 30, 42, 44, 51, 54, 58, 59, 78, 80, 82, 92, 95, 100, 101, 104, 112, 123, 126, 137) Comment Analysis and Response The NRC is aware of and has considered the issues related to the advantages and disadvantages of the DECON and SAFSTOR options. The studies done for NRC by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) considered factors such as cost of the alternative and occupational exposure and waste volumes associated with each alternative. The PNL studies also considered the effects on decommissioning of interim inability to dispose of wastes off-site. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (NUREG-0586) (Ref. 20) prepared oy NRC also addressed the advantages and disadvantages of DECON versus SAFSTOR including the fact that DECON releases the site for unrestricted use in a much shorter time period than SAFSTOR, whereas use of SAFSTOR would reduce occupational exposures and waste volumes. Both of these alternatives satisfy the def-. inition of decommissioning in Section 50.2. Based on the documents indi-cated above and on the discussion in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, the conclusion of the Supplementary Information regarding these two alternatives is that DECON or 30- to 50-year SAFSTOR are reason-able options for decommissioning light water power reactors. As indicated in Section 8.3, the proposed rule has been modified to permit use of DECON or SAFSTOR for up to 60 years as long as it is demonstrated that they will be performed in a manner which protects public health and safety. Use of the 60-year time period in the modified rule is not intended to mean that if OECON is selected that it would be acceptable for it to last that long; periods of 5-10 years would be more reasonable for DECON. B.4.3 Time limit on SAFSTOR Comment Summary Several commenters stated that the rule should contain requirements that if the SAFSTOR alternative is chosen, reactor decommissioning be completed following storage periods of a maximum of 30-50 years because after this time period there will be little ber.2fit in dose or waste volume reduction. In contrast, four commenters stated that even a 100-year period was too restrictive because periods of over 100 years are allowed in waste disposal facilities. Four commenters indicated that the rule should provide criteria by which the appropriate length of time for the storage period of SAFSTOR can be determined, balancing site-specific costs and benefits. (9, 40, 49, 52, 53, 71, 86, 95, 102, 103, 117, 126) B-11

Comment Analysis and Response The Commission does not believe it necessary for the rule to contain an absolute time limit on how long SAFSTOR can last. Instead, as noted in Section B.3, modified Section 50.82(b) indicates that a power reactor licensee 1 s decommissioning plan must indicate a choice of decommissioning alternative, that DECON or 60-year SAFSTOR is acceptable, and that consid-eration will be given to alternative methods for decommissioning which provide for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years when necessary to protect public health and safety. Factors considered in evaluating an alternative which provides for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years include lack of waste disposal capacity or other factors affect-ing safety, including presence of other nuclear facilities on the site. The rule does not contain a specific limitation on the length of time for SAFSTOR beyond the time period indicated in the modified rule. The case-by-case considerations, such as shortage of radioactive waste disposal space offsite or presence of an adjacent reactor whose safety might be affected by dismantlement procedures, or other similar site specific con-siderations, mean that the appropriate delay for a specific facility must be based on factors unique to that facility and could result in extension of completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years. Based on this, the NRC considers the setting of an absolute time limit on SAFSTOR to be imprac-tical and unnecessary. In addition, the expected revisions to Regulatory Guide 1.86 setting out guidance on the factors discussed above will provide the NRC the flexibility to consider specific cases while still providing assurance that the health and safety of the public is protected. Although the final rule does not contain specific restrictions on the time period involved for delay in completion of decommissioning, the Supplemen-tary Information to the proposed rule does indicate that this period should be on the order of 100 years because this is considered a reasonable time period for reliance on institutional control. Although commenters refer to longer periods of storage for waste disposal facilities there are some differences between these two situations which must be considered, includ-ing the fact that, in the case of the waste disposal facility, the NRC transfers the license for the facility to the State or Federal government agency that owns the disposal site following satisfactory site closure whereas the reactor facility would remain licensed by a private organiza-tion, and that there are only a small number of disposal facilities com-pared to possibly over 100 reactor facilities. B.4.4 Bankruptcy during SAFSTOR Comment Summary Two commenters expressed concern over the use of SAFSTOR as an alternative since a utility could very well go bankrupt during the safe storage period especially if it is as long as 100 years. (81, 82) B-12

Comment Analysis and Response This rule requires licensees to have a funding plan that provides reason-able assurance that funds wi1l be available for the completion of decommis-sioning. Section 50.B2(c)(l) requires that if a licensee proposes to use an alternative for decommissioning that delays completion of decommission-ing by including a period of storage or long term surveillance that funds needed to complete decommissioning be placed into an account segregated from licensee assets and outside its administrative control during the stor-age period. Review and adjustment of the funding level will also occur over the SAFSTOR period. With these provisions it is expected that there will be reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommis-sioning following the storage period of SAFSTOR. 8.4.5 SAFSTOR for materials facilities Comment Summary One commenter stated that short-term SAFSTOR should be indicated as a viable option for materials facilities due to the short half-life of materials handled at the facility. (65) Comment Analysis and Response The amendments do not prohibit short-term SAFSTOR for materials facilities. Amended Section 30.36(c) indicates that upon termination of licensed activi-ties, the licensee submit a decommissioning plan which includes, among other items, a discussion of planned decommissioning activities, and that upon approval of the plan the licensee is to complete decommissioning in accord-ance with the plan. The Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicates that although DECON is the most likely option (because occupa-tional exposures are quite low in most cases), SAFSTOR is possible for short-lived materials, although extended delay would rarely be justifiable. If, after disposing of inventory and some preliminary decontamination, con-tamination from relatively short-lived materials is reported, the Commission will determine whether allowing a period for decay is an appropriate means of completing decommissioning. Hence a licensee should provide these details in his decommissioning plan. Further guidance in this area will be contained in a regulatory guide on termination of licenses for materials facilities which is under development. B.5 Use of ENTOMB

1. Comment Summary A number of commenters indicated that the rule should expressly prohibit the use of ENTOMB as a decommissioning alternative for reactors. Several reasons were advanced for this statement including the following: the ENTOMB alternative could cause environmental damage due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides which would be radioactive beyond the life of any concrete structure; the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicates ENTOMB is not viable yet the rule does not ~xplicitly prohibit B-13

it; ENTOMB is inconsistent with the definition of decommissioning requir-ing release for unrestricted use; and some reactors are located in highly populous areas. One comment indicated the utilities wanted to retain this alternative since it is cheaper than the others. One comment indicated that the use of ENTOMB should be prohibited for test reactors as well since they are generally in highly populous areas. In contrast, several commenters stated that the ENTOMB alternative should be left as a possible option and that in addition the 100-year period discussed in the Supple-mentary Information as the time period in which ENTOMB should be completed was too restrictive. Some commenters indicated that ENTOMB had certain advantages including reduced occupational exposure and waste volumes while some noted that no options should be precluded at this time due to the developing nature of decommissioning technology. (5, 9, 15, 17, 41, 44, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 71, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 92, 95, 101, 102, 103, 104, 117, 123, 126, 134) Comment Analysis and Response The ENTOMB alternative for decommissioning has not been specifically precluded in the rule because there may be instances in which it would be an allowable alternative in protecting public health and safety and common defense and security. By not prohibiting ENTOMB the rule is more flexible in enabling NRC to deal with these instances. These instances mig~t include smaller reactor facilities, reactors which do not run to the end of their lifetimes, or other situations where long-lived isotopes do not build up to significant levels or where there are other site specific factors affecting the safe decommissioning of the facility, as for example presence of other nuclear facilities at the site for extended periods. In addition there is potential for variations on the ENTOMB option where, for example, some decontamination has already been performed, thereby making the ENTOMB option more viable. Analysis of the ENTOMB alternative in the PNL reports (Refs. 1, 2) and in the GEIS (Ref. 20) indicates that it can be carried out safely and that it can have some benefit in the reduction of occupational exposure and waste requiring disposal. As noted above, concerns were expressed by the commenters that the ENTOMB option would cause environmental damage due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides which would be radioactive beyond the life of any con-crete structure, that it is inconsistent with the definition of decommis-sioning requiring unrestricted release, and that some reactors are located in highly populous areas. In addition, commenters noted that the Supple-mentary Information to the proposed rule indicated, in general, that there may be difficulties with the use of ENTOMB, in particular in demonstrating that the radioactivity in the entombed structure had decayed to levels permitting unrestricted release of the property in a period on the order of 100 years. In response, the rule contains requirements that a licensee must submit an alternative for decommissioning to the NRC for approval and that consideration will be given to an alternative which provides for com-pletion of decommissioning beyond 60 years only when necessary to protect health and safety. This provides the Commission with both sufficient leverage and flexibility to ensure that if the ENTOMB option is chosen by the licensee it will only be used in situations where it is reasonable and consistent with the definition of decommissioning which requires that B-14

decommissioning lead to unrestricted release. As indicated above, analy-sis of ENTOMB indicates that it can be carried out safely and with minimal environmental effect for the time periods presented in this NUREG and in the guidance under preparation. However, based on the difficulties with ENTOMB described in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule and by the commenters, use of ENTOMB by a licensee wJuld be carefully evalu-ated by NRC according to the requirements of the rule before its use is permitted. Re~ulatory guides currently in preparation will provide more guidance in this area. One commenter indicated that the utilities wanted to retain this alterna-tive because of its economics, however the NRC has evaluated ENTOMB with respect to protection of public health and safety and the relative economics of the utility is beyond the scope of this rule.

                               ~-15

C. Planning C.l Clearer guidance for decommissioning process C.1.1 Licensing scheme governing decommissioning unclear (for reactors) Comment Summary Several commenters found the proposed rule vague in the areas of what type of license is in effect during reactor decommissioning, how Part 70 applies to reactors during decommissioning, when the license terminates, definitions of terms, and procedural criteria for the termination process. Some of these commenters indicated that clarifications in these areas were important to assure meaningful public participation. One comment indi-cated that there might be loopholes which would be exploited by the indus-try resulting in adverse impacts to the public and the environment. One comment indicated the~ explicit procedural criteria would remc1e a need-less burden on applicants and result in a more cost and time effective licensing process. (18, 33, 45, 49, 86, 92, 103) Comment Analysis and Response In response, it should be noted that application for termination of license occurs at the time of initiation of decommissioning which may be many years before actual termination of license is granted, that decommissioning is carried out under an amended license in accordance with the terms of a decommissioning order, and that the license is terminated only after the Commission is satisfied that decommissioning has been properly completed. Normally, an amended Part 50 license authorizing possession only will be issued prior to the decommissioning order to confirm the nonoperating status of the plant and to reduce some requirements which are important only for operation prior to finalization of decommissioning plans. The authority to possess radioactive materials under Parts 30, 40, and/or 70, as appropriate, continues to be incorporated in the modified Part 50 license, as it is during operation. Subsequent license amendments will be issued as appropriate. The Commission will follow its customary proce-dures, set out in 10 CFR Part 2 of the NRC Rules of Practice, in amending Part 50 licenses to implement the decommissioning process. In the past, the period of safe storage or that following entombment has been covered by an amender:' "possession-only" Part 50 licen'."~ which does not authorize f aci 1ity operation, with the term II order" used only in the case of a dis-mantling order, due to the more active nature of this stage of decommis-sioning. Except for the use of the term "decommissioning order,U there has been no change from past practice. The term "decommissioning order" is used in lieu of the term "dismantling order" because, according to the amendments, the overall approach to decommissioning must now be approved shortly after the end of operation rather than an amended "possession-only" Part 50 license being issued without plans for ultimate disposition. C-1

As with any license, the authority to operate or to carry on licensed activities ceases at the expiration date unless the license is being renewed. However, the license and the responsibility to protect health and safety and promote the common defense and security continues until the Commission terminates the license. Section 50.82 (f) clearly indicates that the license is terminated by a determination of the Commission after the decommissioning has been performed and it has been adequately demon-strated that the facility and site are suitable for release for unrestricted use. Because the decommissioning, including any change from the original operating license, requires Commission approval, there are no "loopholes" which would allow adverse impacts to the public or environment. The staff believes that the public will have adequate opportunity for meaningful participation; all guidance documents used in rule implementation are also available to the public.

     "Decommission" is defined in§ 50.2 of the amended rules (and in similar sections of Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72); all other words used in the amendments conform to their dictionary definition and need not be defined in§ 50.2 or elsewhere.

For clarification, it is noted that the term "decommissioning plan" refers to the plan submitted at the time the licensee decides to terminate the license, while the term "decommissioning funding plan" refers to plan submitted early in facility life which indicates the licensee's financial assurance provisions. C.1. 2 Clari fi cations concerning "permanent end of ope rat i on 11

1. Comment Summary One commenter was concerned that a reactor licensee would defer decommis-sioning after shutdown by continuing to renew the operating license unless the Commission were to specify criteria for permanent cessation of operations. (40)

Comment Analysis and Response It would be difficult if not impossible to specify criteria on what con-stitutes permanent cessation of operations, e.g., it would be unreasonable to put an arbitrary time limit on how long a reactor could be shut down before restarting. Any such action on the part of the Commission should be based on a case-specific determinat~1n concerning the safety of oper-ating. Although some delay is possibl~, there are disincentives to any prolonged delay ~ .. ch as the cost of mainta.in:ng and renewing the license past the original expiration date and possible technological disincentives. With the financial assurance requirements of this rule in place, any extended delay would be even more unlikely, especially in conjunction with the regulation of funds by the State Public Utility Commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Finally, the use of SAFSTOR probably would eliminate any incentive to maintain an operating license unless possible future operation is anticipated. C-2

As discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, the amendments require decommissioning plans to be submitted by reactor facili-ties within two years following permanent cessation of operation or one year prior to operating license expiration. The decision as to whether a shutdown will be permanent is, of course, the licensee 1 s. These amendments do not limit how long a licensee may have a facility shut down under its operating license but require only that when a facility is permanently removed from operational status, plans need to be made as to how the ulti-mate termination of license will be attained.

2. Comment Summary One commenter suggested that the requirement for submission of decommis-sioning plans after the 11 permanent end of operation 11 should be modified in the case of where one license is expiring and another is still active at the same site. (126)

Comment Analysis and Response Although it may be desirable to await completion of all site 11 operations 11 before completing decommissioning of facilities on the site that cease operating earlier, as suggested by the comment,er, t,he staff believes it is appropriate to consider the overall approach to decommissioning at the time each facility stops operating. The existence of another operating facility on the same site will frequently make SAFSTOR the most desirable alternative, but a decommissioning plan must be submitted so that the approach can be considered on a case-by-case basis and so that preparations for safe storage and procedures for safe storage are adequately planned. The details concerning the dismantlement may be deferred according to

    § 50.82(d) and§ 72.38(c) and when determined appropriate on a case-by-case basis under Parts 30, 40, and 70.

C.1.3 Criteria for decommissioning activities and license termination Comment Summary Many commenters were concerned with the lack of specific requirements applicable to the process of decommissioning, particularly in the case of reactors, and suggested that strong guidelines on requirements for con-ducting and evaluating decommissioning plans and activities and terminating licenses are necessary to protect public, occupational, and environmental safety. Some suggest that the rule establish certain safety criteria and the ways in which the utility will meet these criteria. A few commenters were specifically concerned with clarifying requirements during the 11 safe storage 11 period, such as those for security, inspection, reporting, and monitoring. Many were not clear as to whether the suggested "guidance" should be in the rule or if Regulatory Guides would be considered appro-priate. Two comments indicated that without more specific criteria for acceptability of decommissioning plans, the Commission would exercise little authority over licensee actions during decommissioning. They indicated that because Regulatory Guides are not binding, they would be inadequate to deal with specific safety issues. One comment indicated that the licensees could conduct decommissioning with 11 virtually complete C-3

independence." Two comments indicated that the rule 11 assumed 11 that utilities would follow basic safety criteria. Two comments gave specific examples of requirements which should be included. One comment indicated more specific regulations were needed in order to evaluate whether or not a licensee complies with the law. One comment suggested that the Commission has been too apt to find exceptions to rules and that this has a negative effect on public confidence. (5, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18, 33, 39, 41, 47, 49, 51, 56, 57, 60, 72, 78, 79, 82, 86, 103, 119) Comment Analysis and Response Continuing authority to possess a reactor in a decommissioned status is governed by the provisions is 10 CFR Part 50 governing operating licenses, as appropriate. As discussed earlier, it is the intent of the rule to provide the necessary guidelines to assure that decommissioning is carried out in a manner which protects the public health and safety. To this end, the rule contains requirements that a decommissioning plan contain a de-scription of the following: the choice of the alternative for decommis-sioning and the activities involved; the controls and limits on procedures and equipment to protect occupational and public health and safety; the planned final radiation survey; technical specifications anci quality assurance and safeguards provisions in place during decommissioning, if appropriate; and a plan for assuring the availability of funds for decom-missioning. Based on this requirement the licensee submits the necessary information to the NRC in the decommissioning plan. The NRC's evaluation of the information contained in this plan and the licensee's subsequent conduct of decommissioning activities is based on existing regulations applicable to reactors and other facilities undergoing decommissioning. These regulations include 10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 61, 70, 71, and 73. Part 20 contains the basic standards for protection against radiation and is applicable to all licensees during operation as well as decommissioning, including the storage period. Part 20 contains requirements for limits on both occupational and public exposure, including limits on radiation expo-sure and concentrations of radioactive material in both restricted and unrestricted areas. In addition to the general limitations on exposure contained in Part 20, 10 CFR 20.l(c) indicates that radiation exposures, and releases of radioactive materials in effluents to unrestricted areas, should be as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). Part 20 also contains, among other things, requirements on radiation monitoring, personnel mon-itoring, precautionary procedures, and reporting. Part 50, Appendix B contains broad requirements on quality assurance provisions which can be used as appropriate, to t~e extent commensurate with the safety functions to be performed by facility structures, systems, and components during decommissioning activities. Part 50 also contains guidelines on radio-active waste system design. Part 61 contains requirements on land dis-posal of radioactive waste including criteria for classification and characteristics of waste acceptable for disposal. Part 71 contains requirements for the packaging and transportation of radioactive material. Parts 70 and 73 contain requirements for physical protection of plants and materials. Although all of these parts do not specifically mention decom-missioning activities, the criteria of these parts would apply, as appro-priate, to decommissioning. In addition, regulatory guides, many of which C-4

already exist and some of which are under consideration, can provide additional guidance for planning and conducting decommissioning in accor-dance with the applicable regulations. For example, Regulatory Guide 8.8 (Ref. 22) provides guidance on ensuring that occupational exposures are ALARA and Regulatory Guide 1.143 (Ref. 23) provides guidance on radio-active waste treatment systems. Also, as noted below in Sections B.4 and B.5, guidance is being considered on safeguards and on quality assurance provisions during decommissioning and on procedures to be considered for facilitating decommissioning by reducing radiation dose based on NUREG/ CR-3587 (Ref. 24). The primary means of protecting the health and safety of the public and workers during decommissioning is through implementation of the decommis-sioning plan. The decommissioning plan would contain the licensee's means for complying with parts of the regulations discussed above which are applicable to non-operating facilities. All amendments to the operating license which the licensee holds at the time the decommissioning plan is submitted are subject to Commission approval. Amendments to the license are needed because many of the pre-scriptive requirements of an operating license are for the purpose of assuring safe operation and are no longer necessary during decommission-ing. The decommissioning plan and the associated approval process provide an adequate legal framework for the regulation of facilities undergoing decommissioning. Therefore the licensee would not have independence in conducting decommissioning. The Commission does not merely assume the utilities will follow basic safety criteria. The licensing offices will review decommissioning plans based on the applicable criteria and guidance and the inspection and enforcement staff will monitor the carrying out of the plans. This approach should provide enough flexibility to accommodate the varied nature of activities which are possible. The proposed rule has been modified to provide some additional detail on the scope of decommissioning plans in the final rule. A proposed Regula-tory Guide on contents of decommissioning plans for materials facilities has been published; a similar Regulatory Guide for reactors is being devel-oped to provide guidance on the information which should be submitted to conform to the rule. In addition, Regulatory Guide 1.86 provides guidance on conducting decommissioning activities, including storage periods, in a manner to meet applicable requirements. This Regulatory Guide is cur-rently being revised to be fully consistent with the regulations. Regu-latory Guides have been used successfully to provide uniform application of requirements while affording Commission staff flexibility to consider unique factors in any situation. In addition, the staff would use stan-dard review plans (SRPs) which contain review procedures and the accep-tance criteria used in evaluating licensee applications, including decom-missioning plans. These SRPs would be available and contain the bases for the acceptance criteria. A standard review plan for review of reactor decommissioning plans is under development. The specific procedures suggested in comment letters No. 47 and 103 need not be detailed in§ 50.82, but are either required under Part 20 or considered "good practice 11 under the ALARA principle. Such procedures C-5

will in any case be reviewed in decommissioning plans. (Some of these specifics are also discussed separately in other sections.) A regulatory guide detailing procedures to be considered for facilitating decommission-ing, based on NUREG/CR-3587, is also being considered and would further contribute to minimizing doses. Based o~ the above, the staff believes that the regulations provide adequate opportunity for informed public participation in decommissioning decisions and that more prescriptive regulations are not necessary. All important relevant information is available to the public. In reference to the comment about exemptions, the need for an exemption often arises because a regulation was too prescriptive; since it is impos-sible to foresee all factors that may be relevant to a decision in the future, a too detailed rule may include specifics which are not appropriate to all situations; thus, an exemption becomes appropriate. Avoiding this need for requesting exemptions is desirable; one reason being that too many exemptions may indeed have a negative impact on public confidence as the commenter suggests. C.1.3.1 Separate license, regulations, or regulatory department Comment Summary A few commenters suggested a new "decommissioning license" to cover facil-ities undergoing decommissioning. One said that this license would specif-ically address the utility's proposed plan for decommissioning and require NRC approval in a formal manner. Another stated that this license should require an application, an Environmental Report, a PSAR, and an FSAR. Four commenters suggested a new regulatory section to deal with all matters related to decommissioning in one comprehensive treatment so that the regulations applying to decommissioning would be clearly defined. Two referred to the Commission action of creatir.g a separate part for well-logging operations and also indicated that the same approach would provide better guidance to licensees and to NRC staff. Another suggested a separate department charged just with decommissioning so that there isn't confusion with the regular licensing process. (45, 49, 72, 80, 86, 92, 103) Comment Analysis and Response An amendment to the Atomic Energy Act requ1r1ng Congressional action would be needed to institute a separate "decommissioning license. 11 This legisla-tive action would be of little value because the Commission already has the authority to regulate decommis:ioning with0ut such a statutory change. An application to terminate a license and commence decommissioning and an Environmental Report (in the form of a supplement to previous ER's) are required. As part of the decommissioning plan a safety analysis will be done. However, this safety analysis need not be in the form of changes to the FSAR because the FSAR deals primarily with the safety of operation. A PSAR is done only for a construction permit. As discussed in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommis-sioning, NUREG-0586, (Ref. 20) development of a separate regulation C-6

which specifically addresses decommissioning was considered in the rule-making. However, such a separate regulation covering different types of licensees would be cumbersome and confusing because it would need to con-tain many of the requirements already presented in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72. Since decommissioning requirements are an integral con-sideration in nuclear facility licensing and operation, it is appropriate in terms of simplicity, efficiency, and reduction of regulatory burden, to amend the pertinent parts of the existing regulations to explicitly include appropriate decommissioning requirements. This rulemaking involves a very different situation than the well-logging rule which was referenced. That rule put all licensing requirements for one type of operation or licensee into one part which otherwise would be regulated by a number of parts. This decommissioning rule contains requirements for many types of licensees for various stages of licensing. Putting these requirements on decommis-sioning into the appropriate sections for each type of licensee consoli-dates the licensing requirements for these licensees. Hence it was decided to amend the existing regulations rather than prepare a separate regulation covering decommissioning. Matters of the division of responsibilities within the Commission staff are not appropriately dealt with in the regulations. However, it is expected that the organizational structure at NRC licensing offices will adapt to deal with decommissioning reviews satisfactorily. For example, NRC has reorganized to deal with its changing function of formerly being an agency which primarily licensed new reactors to one now engaged primarily in the review and oversight of operating reactors and, in addi-tion, has formed the Division of Low-Level Waste and Decommissioning in its Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. C.1.3.2 Addressing Wastes Comment Summary One commenter suggested that in writing more specific guidance for decommissioning planning in Section 50.82, mention should be made of the need to assess the impacts and risks associated with the radioactive wastes generated in the decommissioning process. (119) Comment Analysis and Response Although the decommissioning plan describes how the decommissioning is proposed to be carried out and this planning must consider the minimization of impacts and risks from d~commissioning, the specific requirements for estimating impacts and risks, including those from wastes, are covered for all actions in Part 51 and thus need not be addressed in Section 50.82. The licensee's assessment of impacts is contained in the separate document, the environmental report, submitted along with the decommissioning plan. C.1.4 Framework of safety goals Comment Summary Three commenters indicated that there should be a 11 framework of safety goals 11 for decommissioning paralleling existing regulations for nuclear C-7

power plant operations, which could be met by a variety of means. Two of them indicated that this approach could provide flexibility in dealing with specific problems and that means of meeting goals could be suggested in Regulatory Guides. One specifically referenced Part 50, Appendix A. (56, 86, 103) Comment Analysis and Response This 11 framework of safety goals" has to do primarily with the safe opera-tion of the reactor; Appendix A contains general design criteria which, when met, assure that a reactor is designed for safe operation. When operation has ceased permanently, all of these considerations do not apply. The facility becomes similar to any facility where large amounts of radio-active material are confined. The general framework of requirements to. protect workers and the public from exposure to radioactive material still apply and are discussed above in Section C.1.3. C.1.5 Major decommissioning activity Comment Summary One commenter noted that it was unclear whdt activities should not be started prior to approval of decommissioning plans. Other commenters requested that the regulations be clarified in order to delineate those activities related to decommissioning that could proceed without approval of the decommissioning plan if those activities are allowed by the operat-ing license and§ 50.59. (60, 61, 104, 123, 126). Comment Analysis and Response It is assumed that the first commenter was also primarily or exclusively concerned with a clarification in Part 50. Parts 30, 40, and 70 contain more specific criteria in this regard. In response it should be noted that§ 50.59 permits a holder of an operating license to carry out certain activities without prior Commission approval unless these activities involve a change in the technical specifications or an unreviewed safety question. However, when there is a change in the technical specifications or an unreviewed safety question,§ 50.59 requires the holder of an operat-ing license to submit an application for amendment to the license pursuant to§ 50.90. Section 50.59(a)(2) contains criteria as to what is deemed to be an unreviewed safety issue. The amendments contained in this rulemaking do not alter a licensee's capability to conduct activities under§ 50.59. Although the Commission must approve the decommissioning alternative and major structural changes to radioactive components of the facility or other major changes, the licensee may proceed with some activities such as decontamination, minor component disassembly, and shipment and storage of spent fuel if these activities are permitted by the operating license and/or§ 50.59. These matters will be further discussed in a revision to Regulatory Guide 1.86 under consideration. C-8

C. l. 6 Requirements applicable to "possession-only l icense 11 Comment Summary One commenter suggested that clearer guidance was needed on what restrictions and requirements apply to a "possession-only license." Two commenters specifically recommended codifying the "possession only" lic-ense in the regulations so as to clarify the timeframe for reducing such requirements as Security Plan, Emergency Plan, and Operator Requalifi-cation Training. (60, 98, 112) Comment Analysis and Response As discussed above in Section C.1.3, certain requirements such as the radia-tion protection requirements of Part 20 apply to all licensees and the requirements of Part 50 and all parts containing requirements pertaining to nuclear reactor operating licenses are applicable to "possession-only licenses" except that many of these are relevant only to actual operation which is no longer permitted. The extent to which specific license condi-tions and technical specifications will be reduced under a possession-only license will continue to be determined on a case-by-case basis depending on the planned condition of the facility during any storage period within the context of the applicable regulations and regulatory guidance. C.1.7 Total exposures and releases Comment Summary One commenter was concerned because there are no standards for total worker exposure, total public exposure, and total amount of releases. (93) Comment Analysis and Response Specifics regarding radiation standards are outside the scope of this rule-making. The approach to radiation and environmental protection used in the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20 and 50 is to put limits on individual doses and consider total impacts when considering the total cost and benefit of a particular action. Total impacts of decommissioning are considered by the NEPA process as delineated in Part 51. These impacts are minimized through the detailed planning required by§ 50.82. C.1.8 Occupational exposure during decommissioning

1. Comment Summary Many commenters emphasized the importance of worker protection. Many of these suggested more specific criteria to minimize worker exposure. A number were concerned that the rule did not specifically address radiation monitoring. One indicated that reporting of all phases to NRC should be required. One felt that strict enforcement of safety standards should be required, and also indicated that experience at TMI and Shippingport would indicate that total occupational exposures are apt to be substantially C-9

higher than estimated. Another believed that exposures during decommis-sioning will be substantially higher than from operations. One commenter was concerned about the problems of "sponges" or "jumpers." One commenter (as discussed under C.1.3) suggested specific requirements such as train-ing of workers prior to work in highly radioactive areas. (5, 15, 18, 39, 41, 44, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 57, 72, 79, 80, 82, 86, 92, 103) Comment Analysis and Response Minimizing worker exposure during decommissioning is one of the main goals of this rulemaking and of the guidance being developed in connection with this rulemaking. Detailed plans for decommissioning are the primary means of minimizing worker exposure. Procedures for carrying out decommissioning will be evaluated by NRC staff for adequacy of occupational exposure con~ trol; plans for appropriate training are an area of review. Basic radia-tion protection, monitoring, and reporting requirements need not be devel-oped specifically for decommissioning because generally applicable criteria are already contained in 10 CFR Part 20. The radiation levels to which workers will be exposed will be similar to levels of major maintenance activities conducted during operations. If total exposures prove to be higher than estimated, this could be factored into decisions concerning alternatives and approaches in the future. Also contributing to the mini-mization of worker exposure are the recordkeeping requirements of this rule. Other aspects of facilitation of decommissioning will be considered in the review of license applications. With regard to recordkeeping, consideration of these comments has resulted in modifying the proposed rule to clarify that drawings be kept of restricted areas when radioactive materials are present and that records of spills at material facilities be limited to instances where contamination remains after cleanup procedures. The regulations provide a legal basis against which enforcement can be carried out.

2. Comment Summary Two commenters suggested that NRC should require that representatives of workers be involved in the creation of the decommissioning plans and procedures. (86, 103)

Comment Analysis and Response Engineers with knowledge about the types of work required for decommission-ing will be involved in the planning. Some of these also will probably be involved in the execution of the plans. It is not practical nor neces-sary for actual representatives of workers to be involved in developing decommissioning plans. Overall plans probably would be developed before staff selection, especially in the case of contractors. The regulations, such as 10 CFR Part 20, and the planning process include a program to assure adequate training and provide for the protection of workers. C-10

C.1.9 Standards for radiation monitoring and protection Comment Summary One commenter suggested that strict standards for radiation monitoring must be established until it is clear that releases wi11 be as low as anticipated. Another suggested that new security and radiation monitoring systems should be installed for decommissioning. (49, 103) Comment Analysis and Response As indicated above, generally applicable radiation protection and monitor-ing requirements are contained in Part 20. Any modifications to existing security and monitoring systems which may be appropriate will be proposed and reviewed in the decommissioning plan. C.l.10 Registry of workers Comment Summary A number of commenters suggested that a registry or recordkeeping system be established to keep account of exposures of decommissioning workers. One suggested specifically that a retrievable history be recorded under the individual's social security number to prevent another 11 sponge 11 controversy. Two commenters indicated that such records were also impor-tant for compensation purposes arising from wrongful death suits in the future. (9, 15, 18, 39, 41, 48, 52, 55, 57, 71, 86, 92, 103) Comment Analysis and Response Such a registry of workers would not be valuable unless it recorded expo-sures from all types of work not exclusively those from decommissioning work. Reporting and recordkeeping requirements designed to minimize possible overexposure are contained in 10 CFR Part 20. Consideration of a more comprehensive recordkeeping system is outside the scope of this decommissioning rulemaking. C.1.11 Methods of blasting and cutting of components Comment Summary Some commenters were specifically concerned that appropriate procedures be used for such activities as blasting, cutting, and waste packaging. (9, 47, 79, 103) Comment Analysis and Response Although not specifically required by NRC, blasting would have to be done by people qualified for such activities. The licensee would have to meet any applicable requirements other than those of NRC, such as the require-ments imposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). All major activities will be reviewed by NRC with regard to adequate control C-11

of radioactivity. Also, the deconunissioning plan must include appropriate training programs about radiological safety for workers involved in decommissioning. C.1.12 Safeguards and other specific areas Comment Summary One commenter pointed out specific requirements whose applicability to decommissioning is unclear, namely: safeguards, site emergency planning, operator training, and plant staffing requirements. (60) Comment Analysis and Response As noted in Section C.1.3, the existing regulations on safeguards for nuclear facilities are considered to contain criteria applicable to the decommissioning process. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to amend those regulations. However, the Commission has modified the proposed rule to indicate that safeguards provisions during decommissioning are to be described, as appropriate, in the decommissioning plan. In addition, appropriate guidance documents will be issued identifying which of the current operating requirements on safegJards are to apply during decom-missioning. Also as noted in Section C.1.3, other applicable regulations will apply to other areas discussed. C.1.13 Packaging, shipping, and burial of wastes Comment Summary A few commenters were particularly concerned with standards for packaging, transportation, and burial of radioactive wastes. One of these indicated that packaging and shipment should be conducted to minimize occupational exposures and reduce cross contamination of clean areas. (41, 79, 103, 119) Comment Analysis and Response Although requirements for packaging, transportation, and burial of wastes are highly important to decommissioning, there is no need for additional specific requirements specific for these procedures when connected with decommissioning. These matters are already covered by existing NRC and DOT regulations (see, for example, 10 CFR Parts 60, 61, and 71) which have been determined to be adequate to protect public health and safety. Relevant parts of the requirements in Parts 60, 61, and 71 are applicable for the decommissioning as well as the operational phase. (See Section H.~ of this NUREG) In regard to the specific comment, the concept of ALARA in 10 CFR Part 20 would be applied in both the development and review of decommissioning plans. C.1.14 Decommissioning plans and waste disposal and ALARA Comment Summary One commenter suggested that licensees should be required to minimize waste quantities to levels 11 as low as reasonably achievable 11 and to show that the wastes will be accepted at appropriate disposal sites. (86) c-12

Comment Analysis and Response The decommissioning plan will be reviewed as to the adequacy of plans for waste handling and disposal based on criteria in 10 CFR Parts 60 and 61 and existing disposal capacity. More details regarding this comment are contained in Section H.l. C.1.15 Delays in shipping wastes Comment Summary Two commenters indicated that the decommissioning plan should show how the decommissioning activities would be affected should there be a delay in the shipping of wastes. (86, 103) Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, the decommissioning plan would have to describe procedures for handling and disposal of waste which would consider any delays which could be foreseen such as delays caused by the unavailability of disposal facilities. The plan would include the safe handling and control of the wastes on site; such controls would remain in effect until the wastes are disposed. Thus, the plan would protect public health and safety in the event of unforeseen delays, especially in the short term. Long term unforeseen delays are unlikely, but, if they occur, the decommissioning plan could be modified as appropriate. C.1.16 Criteria for decontamination under§ 30.36(c)(l)(ii) Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the words 11 remove contamination to the extent practicable 11 in§ 30.36(c)(l)(ii) and comparable sections in Parts 40 and 70 are not adequate to quantify the extent to which decontamination should be performed. A limit or standard such as 100 dpm/100 cm 2 is suggested. (119) Comment Analysis and Response If the commenter is concerned with the lack of specific residual radio-activity limits in the reJulat!-1s, .his subject is discussed in Section E of this NUREG. However, the reference to Section 30.36(a)(l)(ii) (and com-parable sections in Parts 40 and 70) is not intended as a standard for termination of license. The standard for termination of license (contained in§ 30.36(d)) is that the premises be suitable for release for unrestricted use and that the information submitted be adequate to demonstrate that fact. Although a quantification of this standard in the regulations has yet to be developed, some guidance exists in this area as discussed further in Sec-tion E. Paragraph 30.36(c)(l)(ii) requires the licensee to decontaminate to the extent practicable prior to expiration of the license. In most cases, this will mean completion of decontamination so that the survey required in§ 30.36(c)(l)(v) may serve as the final radiation survey. If, C-13

instead, the licensee were required to complete decontamination prior to license expiration, the licensee might be forced to cease licensed activi-ties sooner than desired even though the license has not yet expired and also the licensee might end up in violation of the requirement even though a conscientious attempt had been made to complete decontamination. For those cases where a decommissioning plan is required,§ 30.36(c)(l)(ii) serves to tell the licensee to proceed with any decontamination activities which are practical and not covered by§ 30.36(c)(2)(i) rather than wait for approval of the decommissioning plan. C.1.17 Accidents

1. Comment Summary Three commenters were concerned about the handling of decommissioning at*a plant after an accident. Two commenters indicated that the rule does not establish any special requirements for decommissioning after an accident where the work is most dangerous and costly. One commenter indicated that accident situations must be handled on a case-by-case basis. (86, 92, 103)

Comment Analysis and Response The rule provides a framework for the regulation of decommissioning which is adequate for decommissioning after normal operations or after an accident. This flexibility allows for case-by-base considerations which are especially important in dealing with an accident situation. The funding assurance requirements do not address accidents because they are covered by existing

    § 50.54(w) (and were noted as being under consideration in a separate rulemaking for materials licenses). Section 50.54(w) requires electric utility licensees to obtain onsite property damage insurance and stipulates the levels of insurance coverage to be obtained. The purpose of that insurance is to cover decontamination and cleanup costs associated with the property damage resulting from an accident and is expected to cover the accident cleanup during which the major portion of contamination resulting from the accident is cleaned up and the associated wastes are processed. As discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, a study done by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (NUREG/CR-2601, Ref. 7) indicated that, once the accident cleanup activities are completed, the technology exists to accomplish the decommissioning and that safety and costs of decommissioning following the accident cleanup do not vary significantly from that following normal operations. The accident cleanup period itself is outside the scope of this rulemaking.

2. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the impacts and risks of accidents related to decommissioning need to be addressed. (119)

Comment Analysis and Response The impacts of potential accidents during decommissioning have been evaluated in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommission-ing (NUREG-0586) (Ref. 20) developed in connection with the rulemaking. C-14

These impacts will be considered further by the licensee and NRC on a case-by-case basis as appropriate under 10 CFR Part 51. C.2 Timing of plan submittals C.2.1 Preliminary plans Comment Summary Some commenters indicated that it was important that there be preliminary planning for decommissioning at an early stage. One commenter mentioned some specific facilitation techniques. One commenter thought that prelim-inary planning should begin immediately following commencement of operation; the others that it should be done at the design stage. One commenter noted that the "preliminary plan" is properly limited in scope to funding. (18, 22, 30, 95, 103, 110) Comment Analysis and Response Preliminary planning is important and should be appropriate for each stage of licensing. Some consideration of decommissioning should take place in developing designs prior to issuance vf OL; this is discussed fu~ther under C.8. C.2.2 Timing of final decisions Comment Summary One commenter gave a general comment that maximum flexibility should be provided so that decisions on decommissioning can be made near the end of operation. Another commenter was very concerned that the updated cost estimate required 5 years before the projected end of operation would require much more detail than an assessment of the technical situation could reasonably provide at that time and such plans would involve pre-mature commitments. One commenter specifically indicated agreement with the scope of both preliminary and final planning. (22, 30, 105) Comment Analysis and Response The staff agrees that the rule should provide flexibility; the amendments require no final decisions or commitments concerning approaches to decom-missioning until submittal of decommissioning plans at the end of operation. Section 50.82(b) requires that the decommissioning plan indicate the choice of decommissioning alternative to be used. The purpose of the cost estimate submitted in the preliminary decommissioning plan 5 years prior to the projected end of operation is to provide an up-to-date cost estimate on which to base financial assurance so that the amounts being assured by the funding method will reach a level at the end of life which is approximately equal to the actual cost of decommissioning. In particular, this submittal would be based on an up-to-date assessment of the major technical factors that could affect decommissioning planning and would assure that licensees consider relevant up-to-date information which could be important to adequate planning and funding for decommissioning well before decommissioning actually begins. The factors to be considered in submitting this information include C-15

the deconvnissioning alternative anticipated to be used, major technical actions necessary to carry out decommissioning safely, the current situa-tion with regard to disposal of radioactive wastes, residual radioactivity criteria, and other site specific factors which could affect decommissioning planning and costs. As discussed in more detail in Section D.2 of this NUREG, this requirement is an important part of providi~g reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for dec.ommissioning. This require-ment serves to assure that financial assurance will be based on cost estimates whlch have been estimated on the basis of a technical review while a few years remain to make adjustments and that preliminary planning is adequate to avert potential problems. C.2.3 Timing of final plans Comment Summary A few commenters were concerned about the timing of decommissioning plans. One commenter questioned the meaning of the recommendation to submit plans in a timely way prior to initiation of major activities to avoid delays. One commenter recommended requiring plans one year prior to planned ter-mination. One commenter was concerned that too long a time- would pass while no plan had been prepared because planning is triggered by the licensee's decision to terminate operation. Another commenter suggested that up to 5 years after the end of operation be allowed for submittal of plans so that more complete information can be obtained after shutdown and more effective plans developed. (81, 95, 110, 132) Comment Analysis and Response The concerns of these commenters were considered in developing the proposed rule and the staff still believes that the requirement that decommissioning plans be submitted two years after shutdown is appropriate. It would be desirable to have plans submitted one year before shutdown, but it is not always possible for final shutdown to be anticipated. One comment suggested that the unprogrammed shutdown was overlooked. On the contrary, unprogram-med shutdown was the primary consideration in choosing the two-year time limit. In addition, however, a submittal one year before shutdown is recommended, so that the review process will be unlikely ta delay imple-mentation. The question of which activities would continue and which should await approval was discussed under Section C.1.5. A reasonably complete overall plan for decommissioning can be developed before shutdown, or within two years if shutdown were not anticipated. It is expected that, particularly in the case of plans developed b2fore shutdown, additional information will be submitted to supplement or modify the decommissioning plan; for example, some of the sampling to determine levels of contaminants can only be done after permanent shutdown. The proposed rule has been modified to specifically require that about 5 years prior to projected end of operation a licensee must submit a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up-to-date assessment of the major technical factors that could affect planning for decommissioning. C-16

C.3 Previous approvals Comment Summary One commenter suggested that the description of "controls and limits on procedures and equipment to protect occupational health and safety" (pro-posed 50.82(b)(2)) should only have to address those required or changed as a result of decommissioning, that is, that programs or procedures in place which will continue should require no further review and approval. (60) Comment Analysis and Response Whether or not the regulations request only changes to a program or proce-dure, the licensee may use references, if they are clear and specific, to previous submittals to avoid repeating information. Some parts of the decommissioning plan will change existing procedures or programs. Pre-viously approved procedures, programs, and equipment which remain unchanged during decommissioning will not undergo further review and approval. C.4 Decommissioning Plans C.4.1 Quantification of criteria for submitting decommissioning plans for Parts 30, 40, and 70 licensees Comment Summary One commenter suggested quantification of the term "significantly greater" used in the criteria for which Parts 30, 40, and 70 licensees must submit a decommissioning plan in§ 30.36(c)(2)(i) and comparable sections of Parts 40 and 70. (119) Comment Analysis and Response Although the criteria for determining which Part 30, 40, or 70 licensees should submit a decommissioning plan do not contain numerical guidelines, the proposed rule has been modified to stress the need for a plan submittal if procedures not applied routinely during maintenance or cleanup operations are used. If a licensee desiring to terminate his license is unsure as to whether a decommissioning plan should be submitted, he should consult with the licensing staff. The large majority of Parts 30, 40, and 70 licensees will be able to proceed with decommissioning without NRC approv~l. In all cases, the Commission will review information on residual radio-activity and make a determination on terminating the license based on existing criteria for residual radioactivity. (More detail regarding residual radioactivity is contained in Section E of this NUREG.) C.4.2 Separation of decommissioning plan and application for termination of license Comment Summary One commenter suggested that a decommissioning plan should be allowed to be submitted independently from an application for termination of license. (132) C-17

Comment Analysis and Response The commenter does not indicate the purpose of this suggestion or how the licensing process might proceed in this case. Thus, an explanation of why the regulation is written as it is, is presented here. The proposed decommissioning plan essentially constitutes the initial application for termination of license. Consistent with the definition of decommissioning, the licensee is applying to carry out those procedures necessary to obtain termination of license. In fact, at least one submittal, the final survey report, will have to be made after this initial application prior to the Commission granting termination of the license. Although, the terminology "application to decommission" may have been somewhat clearer, the termi-nology 11 application for termination of license 11 has been retained at the time of submittal of plans rather than at the time of submittal of survey reports in part to be consistent with previous usage and to be consistent with the use in Parts 30, 40, and 70 where such terminology is essential to the structure of the termination sections. If the commenter is concerned with being able to take a facility out of service without terminating all licensed activities, this is possible under the regulations. As explained in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, such action is not considered full decommissioning; submittals would consist of applications for amendment of license or for a new license. C.4.3 Different plans for decommissioning Comment Summary One commenter suggested that the individual licensee be allowed to submit different plans for decommissioning to NRC for approval. (97) Comment Analysis and Response The intent of the commenter is not clear. Each licensee (for reactor or other major facility) must submit a decommissioning plan to NRC for approval. The selection of a decommissioning method is the responsibility of the licensee. If the licensee finds it necessary to change the decommissioning plan, a substitute, revised, or amended plan should be submitted for review. Independent of this, the method for decommissioning must be consistent with the definition of decommissioning in the regulations, that is, the method would have to ir-:lude ~,,ent ,al decontamination to levels suitable for release for unrestricted use. C.4.4 Need to demonstrate safety of decommissioning Comment Summary One commenter suggested that reactor licensees should not have to demon-strate that decommissioning can be accomplished safely in the decommis-sioning plan. (99) C-18

Convnent Analysis and Response The general standard for acceptability of decommissioning plans (for reactors) is contained in§ 50.82(e). The licensee need not demonstrate that in general decommissioning can be carried out safely but that this particular decommissioning will be carried out safely, that is, the licensee must describe his plan for decommissioning sufficiently that the Commission can judge whether reasonable approaches to assuring safety are planned. C.4.5 Decommissioning plan - condition of license Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the decommissioning plan should not be a license condition but submitted subsequent to issuance of the operating license. (99) Comment Analysis and Response The decommissioning plan is not a condition of license of the operating license because the plan is not required until ~ne e11d of operation. As noted in amended 10 CFR Section 50.82, a licensee is required to submit a decommissioning plan following permanent cessation of operations. Once the Commission approves the plan, it will issue an order authorizing the decommissioning. C.5 Provisions if decommissioning plan not approved Comment Summary One commenter was concerned about what would happen if the decommission-ing plans were not approved. (60) Comment Analysis and Response If the decommissioning plan is not approved the licensee cannot proceed to decommission the facility. The facility would remain under license and be subject to continuing NRC regulation. It is expected that in all cases it should be possible to work out an acceptable decommissioning plan in consultation with Commission staff. As with other submittals of informa-tion, the Commission may request additional information if that submitted does not satisfy the requirement. If necessary, modifications might be required. Planned regulatory guidance which is being developed would reduce the need for redrafting plans. C.6 Quality Assurance during decommissioning Comment Summary Many commenters were concerned that the proposed regulation did not include mention of quality assurance and/or quality control for decommis-sioning. Some of these indicated that QA/QC requirements need to be clearly specified. A few commenters indicated the need for a separate or C-19

independent QA/QC staff. Two commenters suggested some specific procedures which should be subject to Q/A. Two others refer to problems with decon-tamination activities at Saxton because of lack of QA. (5, 13, 18, 33, 44, 51, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 72, 78, 80, 82, 86, 92, 103) Comment Analysis and Response T~e ~ommission agrees that quality assurance is important for decommis-s1on1ng. The intent to include QA in decommissioning plans was mentioned in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, but the scope of plans in the regulation itself was very general. The final rule indicates that QA provisions during decommissioning are to be described, as appro-priate, in the decommissioning plan. A large part of the QA program for operating reactors pertains to equipment and procedures necessary for the safe operation of the plant; the equipment and procedures requiring QA procedures during decommissioning is much more limited. It is not con-sidered necessary to detail these requirements in the regulations because of the limited nature of the QA requirements. As noted above in Sec-tion 8.2 information in the decommissioning plan would describe QA provi-sion as they comply with 10 CFR 50, Appendix B to the extent commensurate with the safety functions to be performed by facility structures, systems and components during decommissioning activities. Guidance is being con-sidered to assist in the development and review of the quality assurance provisions of the decommissioning plans. C.7 Recordkeeping C.7.1 Need for recordkeeping Comment Summary Commenter opinions concerning the recordkeeping requirements proposed was mixed. A few thought it was important enough to include specific support for the requirements as proposed indicating why such records were impor-tant. Other commenters indicated that existing recordkeeping requirements are sufficient. Many of these felt that the proposed requirements were redundant or too specific, or both. One commenter suggested that records might be limited to those events resulting in the spread of contamination outside of radiologically controlled areas identified in the updated FSAR. (22, 29, 31, 53, 76, 95, 96, 103, 104, 105, 123, 126) Comment Analysis and Response The Commission is retaining 1ecordkeeping requirements for decommis~ioning. Experience has shown that incomplete knowledge of facility design and history can result in significant difficulties and greatly underestimated costs at the time of decommissioning. Although many of the records, par-ticularly in the case of reactors, would be kept for other purposes, it is expected that an improvement in assurance of availability of the records will result from the amendments. The amendments have been written to minimize the additional effort required, that is, requiring only centralized reference to pertinent records and their location rather than duplication of the records, and not requiring that each relevant document be indexed individually. As noted in Section C.1.8.1, the proposed rule has been c-20

modified to ~larify that drawings be kept of restricted areas where radioactive materials are present and that records of spills at materials facilities be limited to instances when contamination remains after cleanup procedures. C.7.2 Recordkeeping as license condition Comment Summary A number of commenters were concerned that requ1r1ng recordkeeping as a condition of license would cause problems and that it was not necessary for it to be a license condition for reactors since such a requirement was not important to safe operation. Some thought that a change to recordkeep-ing procedures could be construed as an amendment of the operating license. A few indicated that there would be problems if the Commission chose to modify the requirement referring to the case of changing the compliance deadline for environmental qualification. Many pointed to the fact that Commission enforcement authority would not be reduced if such requirements were regulations but not license conditions. Some suggested eliminating the requirement, possibly including it in guidance; others, that it be in the regulations but removed from§ 50.54 for license conditions, or that it be clarified that changes to the program would not constitute a license amendment. (23, 31, 61, 102, 104, 105, 114, 118, 132, 134) Comment Analysis and Response The Commission has considered these comments in the light of the need to provide protection of health and safety during the decommissioning process and, in response, in order to build flexibility into the rule has modified the proposed rule to make the recordkeeping requirements a specific regula-tory requirement in Section 50.75 instead of a license condition. Adequate enforcement capability is retained since records will have to be available for inspect ion. C.7.3 Records made public Comment Summary One commenter suggested the records important to decommissioning be made public. (95) Comment Analysis and Response A large portion of the records would be available to the public in the Commission's public document room to the extent they have been submitted as part of an application or under any reporting requirement such as reportable occurrences or as part of a decommissioning plan. C.7.4 Indexing of records Comment Summary One commenter suggested that the indexing of documents be required to enhance the goal of accessibility. (95) c-21

Comment Analysis and Response The amendments require licensees to keep records important to decommission-ing. These records include records of spills or other unusual occurrences and also include as-built drawings and modifications of structures and equipment. The amendments indicate that if required drawings are refer-enced, each relevant document need not be indexed individually. This means that a licensee can reference a category of drawings of a particular area for example and need not index each one separately. Considering the very large number of drawings at a facility such as a power reactor, this provision is considered to provide reasonable capability of retrieval and accessibility at the time decommissioning is being planned without impos-ing undue burden. Some filing system would likely be necessary in prac-tice in order that drawings of various portions of the facility can be located. C.7.5 Records during SAFSTOR Comment Summary One commenter suggested that the regulation should be more specific so that the information continues to be available at the time of deferred dismantlement in the case of SAFSTOR. (103) Comment Analysis and Response Because the facility maintains a modified Part 50 license, the requirement for recordkeeping applies until termination of license and records would have to be maintained and updated as appropriate during SAFSTOR. Revised Regulatory Guide 1.86, being developed, will include reference to these requirements. C.8 Facilitation Comment Summary Some comments were submitted concerning facilitation of decommissioning. The commenters favored consideration of facilitation except for one who indicated that additional plant design requirements and operating pro-cedures to facilitate decommissioning are not necessary. One commenter indicated that techniques for worker protection such as robots and remote devices should be developed. Another commenter discussed how design facilitation and improvements in the technology of decommissioning (such as robots and remote devices) can reduce the c0sts, time, and exposures at decommissioning; this was as part of discussion arguing that the rate of escalation used in the certification option for utilities was too high. Two commenters recommended that specific requirements for facilitation of decommissioning in design and operating procedures be included in the regulations. (41, 56, 61, 103, 142) Comment Analysis and Response In preparing the proposed rule, the Commission did not conclude that addi-tional plant de~ign requirements and operating procedures to facilitate C-22

decommissioning are unnecessary but rather that, other than recordkeeping, no specific design feature nor operating procedure need be required speci-fically for all licensees at this time. As noted in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, although no specific requirements are being imposed at this time, the effects of facilitation on design of facil-ities and operational procedures can be considered under general criteria contained in existing regulations in 10 CFR Paris 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and

72. To the extent that design features or operational techniques are of known value in facilitating decommissioning, the Commission staff may con-sider these factors in reviewing applications for construction permits or operating licenses under the more general criteria contained in the regu-lations. The remarks of commenter 142 would support the view that the industry has an interest in the development of improved designs and tech-niques for decommissioning because of the economic benefits. The Commis-sion has completed some preliminary studies to identify possible benefi-cial features and techniques (NUREG/CR-3587).

C.9 Shutdown reactors Comment Summary A number of commenters were concerned about the exemption of reactors permanently shut down prior to issuance of the rule from the requirement to submit decommissioning plans. Some thought that this would mean a lower level of protection for the public living near such a plant. One commenter suggested that those licensees be required to review their plans within a set time after the effective date of the rule and submit any revisions necessary to make their plans consistent with the new regu-lations. Two commenters suggested an exemption procedure in the regula-tions would be better than a blanket exemption. (40, 51, 56, 58, 67, 78, 81, 86, 95, 103) Comment Analysis and Response Reactors which are permanently shut down prior to the effective date of this rule, have had their status reviewed by applying for a possession-only license (a few had obtained a materials license only). These plants are being adequately controlled under their modified license and license condi-tions to protect the health and safety of the public while in this decom-missioning mode. Any further delay in completion of decommissioning would have to be considered formally if an extension is requested beyond the expiration of the possession-only license. Detailed plans for ultimate dismantlement of reactors currently in safe storage would be deferred under the provisions of this rule. Requiring a decommissioning plan ;or these reactors at this time, or an application for exemption, would all involve administrative efforts on the part of these licensees with no significant impact on health and safety. Funding and recordkeeping requirements in the amendments apply to these reactors since they possess an "operating license" albeit modified. Details concerning financial assurance, primarily the time period for accumulating funds not set aside during operation, would be decided on a case-by-case basis. C-23

C.10 Advanced planning for deferred dismantlement Comment Summary One commenter recommended that advance planning for delayed dismantlement should be required in the case of SAFSTOR. The primary concern appeared to be the need to adjust funding levels. (95) Comment Analysis and Response The rule provides that planning for deferred dismantlement at the time of cessation of operations may be less detailed with detailed planning to occur at the appropriate time. This initial planning would be sufficient to establish reasonable assurance of funding during the storage period. Cost estimates and funding levels are required to be reviewed and adjusted as necessary over the storage period. This level of advance planning is' considered appropriate. C.11 Consolidated plans for multiple licensees Comment Summary One commenter was concerned that, in the case of licensees having materials licensed under more than one part of 10 CFR and used within common facil-ities, the rule would require a separate decommissioning plan for each license and recommended that a consolidated plan be allowed. (53) Comment Analysis and Response In some cases where byproduct, source, and/or special nuclear material are used in the same facilities, it would be very difficult to develop separate decommissioning plans for terminating each license, in particular where there is interdependence of facilities, operations, or projected decommis-sioning activities. Consolidated plans based on a combined analysis of the facility decommissioning would be permitted. This would also be the case for some funding plans. If a licensee operates multiple independent facil-ities and/or sites under a single license, a consolidated decommissioning plan or funding plan would have to delineate procedures and cost estimates for each facility/site. The regulatory guides currently under considera-tion would include further details concerning these situations. The rule is broad enough to encompass these situations. C-24

D. Financial Assurance D.l Cost of decommissioning D.1.1 Costs of power reactor decommissioning

1. Comment Summary A number of commenters questioned the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) estimates of the cost of decommissioning as discussed in the Supple-mentary Information to the proposed rule while a few agreed with the level of funding indicated in the rule. A variety of alternative estimates and reasons for questioning the estimates were given. A summary of these listed below. (1, 9, 11, 14, 15 18, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 44, 45, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 68, 72, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 88, 95, 103, 111, 126, 129, 131, 138, 140, 141)

(a) Commenters indicated that other estimates have been made which make the PNL studies appear to be too low. Commenters from the nuclear industry indicated costs are more likely in the range of $126 to

         $178 million. Other commenters cited estimates which range from
         $600 million to as high as $3 billion. The variety of estimates are cited by some commenters as being indicative of the uncertainty of estimates. One commenter indicated that the estimates in the PNL studies were high.

(b) The data base of the PNL reports is limited because the reports are based on small research reactors and on the Elk River reactor. In particular, Elk River and Saxton operated at low power loads and for only a very short time, not long enough for long-lived radionuclides to build up. Thus, necessary experience to make accurate cost esti-mates does not exist and commenters quote the PNL reports as stating that 11 extrapolations from these experiences to large commercial reactors are considered to be generally unreasonable. 11 Moreover commenters stated that the PNL studies are outdated. Some commenters point out that certain necessary data for estimating costs does not exist. These data include information on concrete contamination, activated vessel components and biological shield and soil contamina-tion and uncertain status of requirements regarding occupational dose, waste disposal, and residual radioactivity. (c) Shippingport, a 65 MWe reactor, has been estimated to cost $98 million to decommission. Larger reactors would likely cost significantly more than this, perhaps more than three times as much. In addition, Shippingport cost estimates are probably lower than typical because the reactor vessel will be removed intact and the wastes will be dis-posed of in a Federal Repository. Other estimates at Saxton and Humboldt Bay (which the commenters indicated as being $600 million in 2015 dollars) indicate PNL estimates are too low. D-1

(d) Estimates of costs of other activities such as reactor construction, TMI-2 cleanup, and Saxton decommissioning have been greatly under-estimated. Costs of decommissioning will likely escalate much higher than estimated today. (e) The commenters indicate that decommissioning is a "first of a kind" technology and cite a Rand Corporation study which considers such technologies to be subject to large unanticipated cost overruns, as much as 400 percent. (f) The cost of decommissioning a reactor will likely equal the cost of construction of the plant. (g) The decontamination of Dresden 1 cost about $40 million for the decon-tamination activities alone, while the cost of cleanup at TMI-2 will be about $1 billion. In addition, commenters claim that experience with decommissioning test reactors and similar facilities has shown the need for repeated cleanups and higher costs. Thus, commenters dispute the PNL decommissioning cost estimates as being too low. (h) The PNL reports h~ve received no formal criticism or reviPW from individuals outside the nuclear industry and the NRC. In addition PNL has nuclear industry ties. Comment Analysis and Response NRC, as part of its efforts on rulemaking for decommissioning, contracted with Battelle Pacific Northwest labs (PNL) to develop an analysis of esti-mated costs of decommissioning various nuclear facilities, (Refs. 2-15) including PWRs and BWRs, on a generic basis, based on an engineering evaluation of activities involved in decommissioning. As indicated above, certain of the commenters disputed the accuracy of the PNL studies to varying degrees. The PNL reports on decommissioning a reference PWR and reference BWR are detailed engineering studies of the conceptual decommissioning of a large PWR (the 1175 MWe Trojan Nuclear Plant is used as the reference plant) and a large BWR (the 1150 MWe WNP-2 plant is used as reference). The PNL reports consider: (1) the detailed plant design and layout of the refer-ence plant; (2) estimated conditions in the plant at the time of shutdown (just prior to decommissioning) including estimates of radionuclide inven-tory and radiation dose rates; (3) techniques for decontamination and dis-mantling which are current and proven; and (4) radiation protection requirements for workers and the public. Based on these conditions, the PNL reports present detailed work plans and time schedules to accomplish decommissioning, including those for planning and preparation, decontam-ination, and component disassembly and transport. In making cost esti-mates of decommissioning, the PNL reports include work scheduling esti-mates, staffing requirements, specialty contractors, essential systems, radioactive materials disposal, supplies, etc. D-2

The PNL reactor decommissioning studies were performed during the period 1976-1979 and PNL has since prepared updates of the original PWR and BWR studies (NUREG/CR-0130 (Ref. 2) and NUREG/CR-0672 (Ref. 3), respectively) in which the earlier estimates were adjusted for inflation due to increases in labor costs, waste disposal charges, and other general cost increases since the original studies. In addition to inflation, several aspects not r.onsidered in the original studies were examined: the use of a general decommissioning contractor in place of the utility acting as its own con-tractor; the use of an external engineering firm to develop the detailed plans and procedures for accomplishing decommissioning; and the addition of sufficient staff to assure that radiation doses to decommissioning workers do not exceed 5 Rem per year. Based on the above factors and adjustments, PNL estimates of decommission-ing in January 1986 dollars are in the range of $105 - $135 million. A breakdown of these costs is contained in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (Ref. 20). The PNL costs do not include the cost of demolition and removal of noncontaminated structures, storage and shipment of spent fuel, or restoration of the site. Although it may be difficult to make simple comparisons between different cost estimates for different plants because of site-specific considerations it can be said that the PNL estimates rep.*esent a reasonable a~proximation of the range of decommissioning costs, in particular because they use engi-neering assumptions and are based on decommissioning experiences. Other estimates made independently from PNL and made using engineering assump-tions are in the same general cost range as PNL. Estimates in the range of $600 million to $3 billion appear to be unreasonably high. The $600 million figure is for decommissioning Humboldt Bay and is in year 2015 dollars and hence includes the assumed effects of price escalation between 1984 and 2015 which could be substantial. No specific bases or data are presented by the commenter to justify the $3 billion figure. It may be based on comparisons of construction and decommissioning costs. However, this is not necessarily a valid comparison as discussed below. Explanation of differences between the PNL cost estimate range and that cited by the nuclear industry of $126 to $176 million rests partly with site specific differences and partly with differing assumptions regarding labor necessary to complete certain decommissioning tasks and differing assumptions regarding waste disposal volumes and charges. These different assumptions come about based partially on the uncertainty inherent in making these cost estimates a~ this time. Further analysis in revisions to the estimates to account for recent technical information obtained since the original PNL studies were prepared may well reduce the diffnr-ences in the assumptions and estimates. For example, the NRC has research programs underway to obtain data from the decommissioning of the Shipping-port reactor. The rule amendments provide for these differences by allow-ing the use of site-specific cost estimates in financial assurance provisions. The commenters in (b) above questioned the PNL data base because it used small reactors as a basis. As discussed below, the primary use of informa-tion from earlier decommissionings of small reactors like Elk River was to D-3

gain a perspective on the types of operations necessary and the types of tooling appropriate to accomplish dismantlement. The fact that the activation levels experienced in Elk River were lower than those anticipated in a reactor after a full lifetime of operation has little effect on the PNL analyses, because components that are highly activated are generally disassembled under water. With water shielding, still higher activation levels will not influence the approach and methods of disassembly and packaging in any significant way. With respect to the lack of data on contamination and activation levels throughout the plants at the end of life, the activation levels were cal-culated using well-proven methods and the contamination levels were based on data from actual operating plants after 3 to 6 years of operation. These values are not unreasonable estimates of end-of-life conditions because current operating practice is to perform system and surface decontaminations periodically as required to keep occupational radiation doses to operations personnel within reasonable bounds. The quotation from the PNL report to the effect that 11 extrapolations of these experiences to large commercial reactors are considered to be unreasonable 11 needs to consider the remainder of the discussion contained in the PNL report for the proper context. The statement 1n the PNL report was not intended to imply that reasonable analyses could not be made for the large reactors. The statement was intended instead to discourage persons from performing linear extrapolations of the Elk River decommissioning costs to a large power reactor by using the ratio of their power levels. In fact, the PNL studies go on to state in Section 4.3 of NUREG/CR-0672 that 11 the primary value of past decommissioning experience is in identification of the methods and technologies of decommissioning. 11 In Section 4.3.3, NUREG/CR-0672 describes some of the lessons learned from past decommission-ings, including the fact that 11 Past decommissionings have demonstrated some of the aspects of the practicality and acceptability of the various decom-missioning approaches. The necessary technology not only exists, but has been safely and successfully applied numerous times to a wide variety of nuclear installations. 11 As can be seen in Appendix G of NUREG/CR-0672, information on techniques and methods from earlier decommissionings, gathered from various sources, is used in considering which techniques are applicable to larger facilities. Some examples are decontamination, physical cleaning, removal of structural material, and equipment disas-sembly. Thus, as discussed in NUREG/CR-0672, direct extrapolation or comparison of decommissioning the small facilities is not used by PNL in evaluating costs of decommissioning for the larger reference facilities, but ~ather the usefulness of the earlier decommissionings is in their demonstration of available and successful decommissioning methods and techniques to accomplish specific tasks. PNL utilizes this information, where applicable to large reactors, and also considers the design and plant layout of the large reactors, and the esti-mated conditions in the reactor at the time of 5hutdown, including estimates of radionuclide inventory and radiation dose* rates, as well as decontamina-tion techniques and radiation protection measures more appropriate for large reactors. Based on these considerations, the PNL studies developed detailed work plans and time schedules to accomp1 i$h decommissioning which D-4

are described in more 'detail in Sections 4.2 and 9 and Appendices F and G of NUREG/CR-0130 and Sections 3 and 9 and Appendices G, H, and I of NUREG/CR-0672. The commenters in (c) questioned the PNL estimates due to the costs of the Shippingport decommissioning. In response, first it should be noted that the Shippingport reactor has all of the components of a large commercial reactor, and, in addition, the ratio of the physical size of components at Shippingport compared to the physical size of components at a large commercial reactor is much larger than the ratio of power levels. Thus, the kinds and numbers of operations required to accomplish dismantlement are very similar. The cost of assembling and paying a crew for the decommissioning is high and makes up a large fraction of the cost of decommissioning. Even for smaller facilities, a crew must still be assembled and must perform a number of tasks similar to those in large reactors such as decontamination of piping loops, decontamination of concrete surfaces, vessel and pipe cutting, etc. The costs of staff labor for these activities is significant in each case. Second, the specific situation at Shippingport must be considered. In particular, the Shippingport dismantlement is being conducted as a learning exercise and an information/technology transfer opportunity for the nuclear industry. More time and effort are being devoted to planning, executing, and documenting each task than would otherwise be necessary during a com-mercial reactor decommissioning project. Thus, the costs should be greater than expected for a plant of that size. In addition, the Shippingport cost estimate is escalated to real dollars spent during the active decom-missioning period up to 1990 which is a reasonable estimation method because DOE needs to project actual year dollar costs for budget purposes. However, this is different from the method used in the PNL estimates which was to use constant 1984 dollars in the proposed rule. To make a valid comparison, both estimates would have to be in the same year dollars. Inflation over this period may also be an important factor. Another factor in the differ-ence in cost is that the Shippingport estimates include cost of demolition of certain facility structures and site restoration, which are not included in the PNL estimates. In addition to these factors, DOE indicated the exis-tence of certain unique items in the Shippingport decommissioning including: the testing of certain decommissioning methods to determine if they fit particular applications; efforts involved to share technology with utilities; and efforts involved in considering the presence of the nearby operating Beaver Valley plants during decommissioning. The commenters in (d) questioned the cost estimates due to earlier under-estimates of nuclear plant construction costs and of cleanup costs at TMI-2. In response, while there is no doubt that decommissioning costs will con-tinue to escalate in step with general price increases, it does not follow that because reactor construction costs exceeded original estimates, decom-missioning cost estimates will also be greatly exceeded. Cost overruns in the construction of nuclear plants reflected the regulatory requirements necessary to license a reactor for construction and operation, the cost of interest to borrow money during protracted delays, and other site-specific problems rather than a basic inability to project the technological costs. Decommissioning cost estimates do not include a number of the factors D-5

involved in obtaining an operating license and should not necessarily be subject to such increases. The cleanup at TMI-2 is a first of a kind endeavor with potential for increased costs. The initial cost estimates were based on very limited knowledge of the actual conditions to be over-come and in addition, there were delays in the program caused by technical and regulatory problems. The cost estimate for cleanup at TMI-2 has not increased appreciably since 1981 due in part to a better understanding of the work scope. The cleanup following an accident is not comparable to a normal decommissioning in terms of either technology or cost, and the con-ditions for a reactor decommissioning can be much more sharply defined than could the conditions for TMI-2 cleanup. Also, the activities needed to decommission are not first-of-a-kind, but reflect direct applications of developed techniques and equipment. Thus, cost increases of the magnitude experienced by the TMI-2 cleanup effort are unlikely to occur ~or a normal decommissioning effort. The commenters in (e) questioned the accuracy of decommissioning estimates s i nee decommi ss i oni ng is a II first of a ki nd 11 technology. However, it is not an accurate statement that decommissioning of large power reactors represents first-of-a-kind efforts and is likely to incur unanticipated large cost overruns. As discussed above, decommissioning employs known methods and technologies and should not experience significant cost over-runs for technical reasons. As noted in the PNL reports, decommissioning activities have been carried out at a large number of facilities and are currently being conducted at Shippingport. Activities similar to decommis-sioning have been carried out at operating reactors including a large number of primary system decontaminations. The commenters in (f) indicated that the cost of decommissioning would likely equal the cost of construction of the plant, i.e., with costs of construction running at $3 billion, the cost of decommissioning would be $3 billion. First, there have been no detailed analyses presented to indicate that decommissioning costs will equal construction costs and, in fact, there is not a specifically defined or fixed relationship between these two costs. The PNL studies on decommissioning (NUREG/CR-0672 and NUREG/CR-0130) have not identified a specific relationship between con-struction costs and decommissioning costs. As can be seen in Section 10 of NUREG/CR-0672, decommissioning costs depend on various specific factors such as costs of staff labor to accomplish decommissioning tasks, costs of disposal of waste, special tools and equipment, miscellaneous supplies, etc. Cost of construction includes several items which have little or no effect on decommissioning costs such as licensing, extensive quality assur-ance procedures during construction, site preparations, installation and testing of instrumen_Qtion, control and electricdl systems, the cost of interest on the money used during construction, etc. This discussion does not attempt to define or provide costs of these and other items, but to point out the differing nature of many of the construction costs versus decommissioning cost items, and, why there was no identification of a defined relationship between them in the Battelle-PNL reports. Secondly, in any comparison of costs it is necessary to place the costs in the same year 1 s dollars in order to have a meaningful basis for comparison. Certainly in about 30-40 years when the reactors are decommissioned, inflation may well drive the decommissioning costs towards the current 0-6

cost of construction. However, the NRC decommissioning rule amendments, which will require maintenance of funds in methods which keep pace with inflation and which requires periodic adjustment of funds to account for effects of inflation, will provide assurance that funds are available to pay for decommissioning when needed. The commenters in (g) disputed the costs of decommissioning due to the high cost of decontamination at Dresden Unit No. 1. However the Dresden facility is a very atypical situation. The Dresden 1 project was a research and development study for the purpose of demonstrating the feasibility of decontaminating plant systems to reduce occupational exposure prior to a plant resuming further operations. When returning a plant to field service, great care has to be taken to ensure that the decontamination solutions and procedures used do not adversely affect the plant's systems. Therefore the procedure used at Dresden was relatively costly since it was highly controlled as a research project. Conversely, decontamination solely for the purpose of reducing the worker dose prior to the initiation of decom-missioning would not require the same level of system protection since the systems would never be intended for further use. The system at Dresden consisted of a much larger, more complex set of systems than the portable systems employed today for primary system decontaminations by several nuclear service companies. The costs of a single prim*.y sy~tem de:0ntamination are estimated by the service companies to be in the range of $1 to

  $3 million, depending upon site-specific circumstances. The system decon-tamination described in NUREG/CR-0130, including waste treatment but excluding waste disposal, was estimated to cost about $484,000 in 1978 dollars. When escalated to 1984 dollars, that cost becomes $1.07 million, in reasonable agreement with prices quoted by nuclear service companies.

Finally in (h) some commenters indicate there has been no formal review of the PNL reports and that PNL has nuclear industry ties. The PNL studies have been available in the open literature for several years. A variety of other studies employing engineering assumptions and analyses have been conducted since that time with results in a range similar to those in the PNL studies considering the impact of site specific factors. Although a DOE laboratory, PNL's primary function is to perform independent technical studies.

2. Comment Summary Three commenters expressed concern that underestimates of decommissioning costs could cause rate shocks years from now when the true costs of decommissioning would become known, that it could cause delays in or rede-fining of decommissioning by utilities who haven't accumulated sufficient funds, and that it could also cause negative environmental and health effects. (9, 18, 86)

Comment Analysis and Response The costs of decommissioning are based on the best engineering judgement available at this time. The accuracy of this information is discussed in detail in Section D.1.1. As indicated in that section, these estimates are considered to represent a reasonable representation of the range of D-7

the cost to decommission in today's dollars and are not gross underesti-mates of the true cost. In addition, there are provisions incorporated in the amendments for adjustment of financial assurance provisions, including the provision that, 5 years before the projected end of operations, licensees submit prelim-inary decommissioning plans containing a cost estimate for decommissionin~ based on current conditions and, if necessary, plans for adjusting levels of funds provided for decommissioning. These provisions are intended to take into account the decommissioning alternative anticipated to be used, major technical actions necessary to carry out decommissioning safely, the current situation with regard to disposal of waste, residual radioactivity criteria in effect, and other site specific factors which could affect decommissioning costs. With these requirements there is reasonable assurance that a licensee's provisions should result in a level of funds close to the true cost of decommissioning at the time of termination of

• operations. Based on this, we do not expect that there will be rate shocks, delays or redefining of decommissioning or negative environmental health effects if licensees follow the provisions of the rule amendments.

A consideration which is equally important as rate shocks years from now is the problem of collecting too much money from early ratepayers if the* higher estimates of, for example, $3 billion suggested by Commenter 9 proves to be a serious overestimate. If this should be the case, which appears likely based on our engineering studies to date, these ratepayers will have been unfairly overcharged when it becomes clear that too much money has been accumulated.

3. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the extra revenue requirements associated with unrecovered fuel costs should be added to the total costs of decommissioning.

One commenter indicated that salvage value of certain components in the facility should be deducted from decommissioning estimates. Also credit should be taken for useful fuel remaining in the core at shutdown which could be used in another facility and thus deducted from the cost. (9,22) Comment Analysis and Response The definition of decommissioning in the amendments (see for example 10 CFR 50.2) indicates that rlecow,issioning includes those activities associated with removing a racil1~y safely from service and reducing residual radioactivity to a level permitting release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license. Activities related +o fuel remaining at the facility are not considered part of decommissioning since they are similar to operational activities and- the associated costs are not considered part of decommissioning costs. Salvage value of components are considered to be too uncertain and too small to be considered in the estimated cost of decommissioning.

4. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the 25% contingency factor proposed in the regulations is unnecessary, is excessive and has been disallowed in a rate D-8

case. The commenter indicated that as additional experience is accumulated actual decommissioning costs will be reduced below the level anticipated. (29) Comment Analysis and Response The prescribed amounts in the rule amendments include a 25% contingency factor. In addition, the reports on decommissioning technology, safety, and cost prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) for NRC include a 25% contingency factor in the estimate of decommissioning cost. The inclusion of this factor in prescribed amounts provided for early in plant life seems reasonable based on the fact that the estimate is being made for an activity that will occur approximately 30 years in the future and there are uncertainties involved, in particular waste disposal. In the cost estimate submitted in the preliminary decommissioning plan five years prior to the end of operations and in the cost estimate submitted as part of the decommissioning plan at the time of termination of operations, when more information about the decommissioning is known and actual planning is being done, the contingency factor necessary could be considered for the particular situation. D.1.2 Costs of test reactor decommissioning Comment Summary One commenter stated that many non-power reactor facilities are licensed pursuant to Parts 30 and 50 while a few are licensed pursuant to Parts 30, 40, 50, and 70 and that the cost of total decommissioning will be less than the costs of decommissioning piecemeal. Thus the rule should allow licensees to adjust cost estimates accordingly. (21) Comment Analysis and Response It is not the intent of the rule that costs be overestimated for a particu-lar facility. In the funding plan submitted by a licensee, costs for a particular facility should be carefully estimated to provide a reasonable estimate based on the actual decommissioning situation. If a facility has diverse parts licensed under different sections of 10 CFR, the cost may be estimated to reflect this. Regulatory guidance will provide additional detail in this area. D.1.3 Costs of post-accident cleanup and decommissioning

    ~omment Summary One commenter disputed.the estimates for post-accident dismantlement made by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) in a study for the NRC.

The commenter's source indicates that a cost of $3 billion is a more likely figure for post accident decommissioning. Another commenter expressed concern regarding paying the costs of accident cleanup (9, 140) 0-9

Comment Analysis and Response There is no specific requirement concerning a post-accident cost for decom-missioning in the rule amendments. If a licensee were to experience an accident, financial assurance provisions that funds will be available to decommission the facility based on the changed condition of the plant would likely need to be altered. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) has prepared a report on the technology, safety and costs of decommissioning reactors following postulated accidents, NUREG/CR-2601 (Ref. 7). In that report they analyze a number of accident scenarios and estimate the cost of the post-accident cleanup as well as the decommissioning which would occur following that cleanup. The costs of the cleanup would be covered by the insurance requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w). Following accident cleanup, a facility may either be recovered for reuse or be decommissioned. If the facility is decommissioned, NUREG/CR-2601 estimates that the costs of decommissioning following the accident cleanup do not vary significantly from that following normal operations. D.2 Use of certification and funding plans D.2.1 Use of certification of a specified amount and funding plans for power reactors Comment Summary The proposed rule contained provisions that a utility applicant or licensee may submit a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in a prescribed amount stipulated in the regulations as $100 million (1984 dollars). The proposed rule also indicated that this value is to be adjusted annually for inflation using an inflation rate twice that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index. The following were comments received on this issue. (a) A number of commenters objected to the use of certification or the inflation factor for the general reasons listed below. (1, 9, 14, 22, 23, 26, 29, 31, 38, 47, 51, 56, 61, 62, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 87, 88, 91, 92, 95, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 105, 107, 108, 111, 118, 123, 126, 127, 131, 132, 133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143) (1) The use of site specific estimates is preferable to a prescribed amount because they will be more realistic and accurate and able to account for site-specific factors. (2) Commenters generally felt that, because of the wide range of site-specific cost estimates, any one value would not be accurate and not be representative of most plants and therefore the number of licensees using certification would be low. Most commenters argued that $100 million was too low while a few argued that it was too high. (3) The use of a prescribed amount will not decrease utility efforts because they will still have to prepare site specific cost studies for tre rate regulators regardless of the certification procedure. Commer.~:rs noted that the use of the $100 million figure or other 0-10

similar prescribed amount will be viewed by state and Federal rate regulators as a limiting value, thus placing a burden on utilities to justify to the rate regulators an alternative funding level even if site specific studies show the prescribed amount to be inappro-priate for that plant. Some commenters noted that this situation had already occurred in specific situations. (4) The use of a specific prescribed amount as stated in the certifi-cation was seen by some commenters as setting a revenue require-ment which is a function for state and Federal rate regulators. (5) A utility corporate officer will not certify or guarantee a certain rate of recovery over the life of the plant since he cannot certify to the future actions of rate regulators. (6) The inflation factor contained in the proposed rule was considered to be inaccurate because of the different elements involved in the decommissioning cost estimate. There is no historical or other basis for the escalator used, and there is no basis to expect the decommissioning cost to increase at twice the CPI in the future. In particular, commenters noted that future increase in waste disposal costs, which have been the cause of major increases in the decommissioning cost estimate to date, are uncertain and hence difficult to tie to a predetermined escalator. The use of such a factor may cause problems as noted in (3) above; if it were too high could cause an unfair burden, and could create built-in obsolescence for the rule. (b) Some commenters indicated that if certification is retained that it should be revised and clarified. The suggestions listed below were made as to what should be done if certification is kept. (23, 26, 29, 30, 31, 61, 62, 66, 67, 73, 75, 87, 88, 91, 97, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107, 108, 111, 123, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 138, 139, 141) (1) The certification requirement should be clarified to indicate that it is not intended to and does not represent the actual cost of decommissioning, that it is not fixed but is for refer-ence purposes only, that it is only intended to insure minimum financial responsibility and that it is not intended to bind regulatory ratemaking bodies to that figure either as a minimum or maximum. (2) The amount should be increased so that it is sufficiently high to include realistic decommissioning costs, although one commenter indicated the amount was satisfactory. (3) Indicate that, despite the allowance of certification, use of a site specific study is preferable and should be used if available. Only allow use of certification in certain cases when it can be shown that costs are less than $100 million. 0-11

(4) There should be consideration given to including means to adjust the certification numbers to account for such things as plant size, design, other site specific factors, BWR vs PWR, pre- or post-TM! units, decommissioning alternative, two-unit site savings, etc. (5) Clarification should be included as to what the $100 million includes, namely whether it covers both radioactive and nonradio-active structures, whether it includes contingencies, whether it is per unit. (6) A more explicit definition of "certification and criteria which must be met under a "certification should be included. (7) The use of the inflation factor should be clarified, in partic-ular that it is not intended to reflect the actual rate of increase of decommissioning costs, and the inflation factor should be modified using other escalators, for example a combina-tion of use of Handy-Whitman indexes for labor and materials and published tariff sheets and burial rates for waste disposal. Other commenters suggested various other escalators including the Gross.National Product, Implicit Price Deflator, Chase Econometrics, and Consumer Price ~ndex (without any multiplier) while others suggested use of periodic review and update. One commenter indicated that if decommissioning costs are found to differ significantly in the future from that approximated by the prescribed amount then action can be taken to modify the regulation. (c) With regard to funding plans, several commenters indicated that there needed to be more specific or quantitative description of NRC's crite-ria for approval of power reactor funding plans with some indicating it could be in regulatory guides and some not expressing an opinion. One commenter indicated that it is not clear that the proposed rules are intended to provide for the necessary supervision and regulation of proposed utility decommissioning estimates and that some matters would not be subject to review at all. Lack of criteria could result in confusion and potential miscollection of funds. Commenters indi-cated that better criteria were needed for funding methods and cost estimates. (18, 30, 49, 60, 62, 73, 103, 128, 141) Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, the intent of the use of certification is to minimize the administrative effort of licensees and the Commission while still providing reasonable assurance that funds will be available to carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety. The certification amount was based on the significant data base on decommissioning developed as part of the policy evaluation. The intent sxpressed in the proposed rule remains valid, however it appears from the comments that the intent and proposed use of certification has been misunderstood. Thus, the retention of certification requires clarification and adjustment for it to be useful D-12

in the manner it was intended. These points are discussed in the following paragraphs. First, it is still expected that a proper certification method would provide clear criteria and would minimize the amount of administrative effort that the NRC and licensees must expend in establishing reasonable financial assurance for decommissioning. The certific~tion would also minimize NRC involvement in the rate regulatory process which is an area outside of NRC's jurisdiction. The fact that site specific cost estimates may still have to be prepared for rate regulators is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Second, the comments that a site specific cost estimate is preferable as noted in (a)(l) above, that the prescribed amount in the certification is not representative of most plants as noted in (a)(2) above, and that the use of the prescribed amount will be viewed as a limiting upper value by rate regulators as noted in (a)(3) above, indicates the certification method in the proposed rule has been misunderstood. The proposed rule stated that a utility could submit a certification that financial assur-ance for decommissioning will be provided in an amount at least equal to $100,000,000. (Emphasis added). Accordingly, the proposed rule did not intend to prevent site specific cost estimates from being done and amounts greater than the prescribed amount being estimated and used for financial assurance planning as long as the estimate exceeded the prescribed amount. Under the provisions of the proposed rule, licensees could prepare a site specific cost estimate and if it exceeded the prescribed amount, which would be acting as a threshold review level, the estimate would not be a matter for NRC consideration. The amount listed as the prescribed amount does not represent the actual cost of decommissioning for specific reac-tors but rather is a reference level established to assure that licensees demonstrate adequate financial responsibility that the bulk of the funds necessary for a safe decommissioning are being considered and planned for early in facility life, thus providing adequate assurance at that time that the facility would not become a risk to public health and safety when it is decommissioned. It is not intended to bind ratemaking bodies to that specific figure. The text of the final rule states that, if a site specific cost evaluation is prepared, it can form the basis for the certification and the licensee may indicate that provisions are being made for an amount greater than the prescribed amount. Use of the certification approach is a first step in providing reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning from the Commission's perspective. The second step is that the amendments require the licensee, five years prior to the expected end of operations, to submit a cost estimate for decommissioning based on an up-to-date assessment of the actions necessary for decommissioning and plans for adjusted levels of funds assured for decommissioning. As noted in the Supplementary information to the proposed rule, this estimate would be based on a then current assessment of major factors that could affect decommissioning costs and would include relevant, up-to-date information. These factors could include site specific factors as well as then current information on such issues as disposal of waste, residual radioactivity criteria, etc., and would present a realistic appraisal of the decommissioning of the specifi~ reactor, taking into D-13

account actual factors and details specific to the reactor and the time period. Combination of these steps, first establishing a general level of adequate financial responsibility for decommissioning early in life, followed by periodic adjustment, and then evaluation of specific provisions close to the time of decommissioning, will provide reasonable assurance that the Commission's objective is met, namely that at the time of permanent end of operations sufficient funds are available to decommission the facil-ity in a manner which protects public health and safety. More detailed consideration by NRC early in life beyond the certification is not consid-ered necessary because of the steps discussed above. In addition, because public utility commissions are to set a utility's rates such that all rea-sonable costs of serving the public may be recovered and because NRC requirements concerning termination of a license are part of the reason-able cost of having operated a reactor, it is reasonable to assume that added costs beyond those in the prescribed amount could be obtained if the latter were too low as suggested by the commenters. Based on the above discussion, the level of review contained in this decom-missioning rule provides reasonable assurance for funding. In response to those commenters who were concerned that the criteria for evaluation of power reactor funding plans were not sufficiently specific or quantitative, the certification process provides clear requirements and will achieve the objective of reasonable assurance of funding while minimizing associated administrative effort. Therefore, the amendments do not contain require-ments for a cost estimate early in reactor life. The more detailed review 5 years prior to end of life is consistent with the requirements for nonreactor facilities who are required to submit updated plans at the time of license renewal (which occurs every five years). As discussed above, the intent of the amendments is that there be reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning. Other issues normally outside NRC 1 s jurisdiction such as rate of collection and whether a funding method is equitable should be considered by utilities and their ratemaking bodies. For example, to be more equitable to rate payers, the utilities and rate-making bodies may want to consider whether amounts should be collected based on a site-specific cost estimate which exceeds the prescribed amount rather than the stepwise approach discussed above. The final rule contains text recognizing that funding for decommissioning of electric utilities is also subject to the regulation of agencies having jurisdiction over rates, and that the NRC requirements are in addition to and not substitution for, other requirements, and are not intended to be used, by themselves, by other agencies to establish rates. Hence, NRC will not become involved in the rate regulation process as it relates to decommissioning. Based on these considerations, the certification requirement has been retained. However, it has been modified in several ways to incorporate public comments to clarify its purpose and use. First, as noted above, the text of the rule has been revised to indicate clearly that a licensee may use a site specific decommissioning cost estimate to indicate that provisions are being made for an amount greater than the prescribed amount and to delineate the correct usage of the certification. Second, as indi-cated in Section 50.75(c), the amount has been increased. The revised D-14

amount is based on recent evaluations done for NRC by its contractor Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. As discussed in Section 0.1, these estimates are considered to represent a reasonable engineering estimate of the range of decommissioning costs. In preparation of the final rule, the original PNL estimates were reevaluated and compared with other estimates and updated estimates were developed based on recent information. Third, in response to the public comments, the rule text has been revised to clarify what would be covered by the prescribed amount and provisions have been included in the rule to adjust the amount for such factors as plant size and reactor type. The adjustment for plant size is based on PNL's generic evaluation of the effect of plant size on decommissioning cost and overall reviews of a number of plant cost estimates. An indication of the bases for the prescribed amounts and for the adjustment is contained in addenda to NUREG/CR-0130 and NUREG/CR-0672. The final rule text also indicates that amounts are based on activities related to the definition of "decommission" in 10 CFR 50.2 and do not include the cost of removal and disposal of spent fuel or of nonradioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the NRC license. Costs of disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste not necessary for NRC license termination are not included in the prescribed amounts. In addition, in response to a number of comments, the escalation factor contained in the proposed rule has been revised to better account for fac-tors affecting increases in decommissioning cost. The factors for labor, energy, and waste burial are indicated separately and are based on the addenda to NUREG/CR-0130 and NUREG/CR-0672 and on NUREG-1307 (Ref. 30). D.2.2 Use of certification for R&T reactors Comment Summary One commenter stated that appropriate levels of assurance should be speci-fied in the rule for research and test reactors so that organizations will have the option of providing assurance in that amount or in some other amount based on a deconunissioning funding plan, i.e. the same option afforded most other licensees. (34) Comment Analysis and Response The use of a certification prescribed amount was not included in the pro-posed rule for research and test reactors. The Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicated that for research and testing facilities a specific amount is not set due to the large diversity of facility types. As discussed in NUREG/CR-1756, Addendum, (Ref. 4) prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory for NRC, it is difficult to establish the effect of plant type in costs of decommissioning with any reasonable degree of confidence. Hence, the proposed rule has not been modified in this regard. Other efforts have been made in the rulemaking to minimize the burden on these licensees including use of a statement of intent by federal, state, or local licensees of availability of funds. In addition, the proposed rule has been modified to permit use of financial tests in certain circumstances as was done for materials facilities. D-15

D.2.3 Use of certification for small power reactors Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the use of a prescribed amount for decommis-sioning is inappropriate specifically because it does not take into account the much lower decommissioning costs which would be incurred by a small power reactor. The commenter indicates that a small power reactor should be permitted to accumulate a lesser amount and specifically requests that the proposed rule be modified to allow small power reactors of under 100 MW to provide a fund in the amount of $20 million in 1985 dollars. (130) Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in Section 0.2.1, use of the certification approach is intended to minimize licensee and NRC administrative effort in providing reasonable assurance that funds are available for decommissioning. As noted in that section the amended rule contains provisions for funding amounts which can vary depending on reactor size. Based on information from Battelle PNL the amounts in the rule are considered reasonable for the reactor sizes indi-cated in the rule. For very small power reactors an exemption to the certi-fication could be considered in a manner similar to the exemptic~s taken from 10 CFR 50.54(w) on property damage insurance. D.3 Funding methods 0.3.1 Flexibility of rule Comment Summary Several commenters indicated that the rule should provide flexibility and continue to allow a range of options for the acceptable funding methods so that the decision as to specifically which method to use can be made on a case by case basis. (25, 38, 65, 87, 102, 104, 106, 108, 111, 132) Comment Analysis and Response As the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicates, the NRC is allowing some latitude in the use of funding methods. The basis for this latitude is the two criteria discussed in the Supplementary Informa-tion. The first and most important criterion from the Commission s stand-1 point is reasonable assurance that funds will be available in a timely manner for a safe decommissioning. Based on this criterion, certain f 11d-11 ing methods are deemed acceptable in the proposed rule for providing reasonable assurance of funds. Latitude for choosing among these methods is permitted by the amendments to take into account other issues which are normally outside NRC's jurisdiction including rate collection, rate-payer cost, taxation effects, whether a method is equitable to ratepayers, and other local concerns. 0-16

0.3.2 Funding method acceptability 0.3.2.1 Use of internal reserve as a funding method 0.3.2.1.1 Principal reasons presented for agreeing or disagreeing with inter-nal reserve as an acceptable funding method. Comment Summary The proposed rule lists internal reserve as one of the funding methods considered acceptable in providing assurance of funds for decommissioning. In internal reserve, funds are placed into an account or reserve which is not segregated from licensee assets and is within the licensee 1 s adminis-trative control. A number of commenters either disagreed wit;1 or favored the inclusion of internal reserve as an acceptable method. (a) A number of commenters disagreed with inclusion of internal reserve for the general reasons listed below. (5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15 16, 18, 27, 29, 33, 36, 37, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 71, 72, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 92, 93, 94, 95, 103, 120, 121, 128, 129) (1) There may be problems with liquidity of the internal reserve if the acquired assets and investments do not preserve value over time and there may be problems in issuing bonds against these assets to pay for decommissioning. In particular, funds could be used for new nuclear construction or other uses such as accident cleanup. With this method one cannot insure that money taken from customers will be available in the future for decom-missioning. This could cause serious cash flow problems at the time of decommissioning, especially if utilities are replacing old plants with new ones at the same time decommissioning takes place. (2) The future financial viability of utilities cannot be assured and the potential exists for utility instability and insolvency. The commenters expressed concern that the utilities could not raise funds for decommissioning if they were having severe financial problems or were facing insolvency resulting in possible health and safety problems or the need to re-fund the decommissioning. Commenters cited examples of potential situations. (3) The level of assurance provided is inadequate and the generation of insufficient funds could compromise safety, cause delays, and cause rate boosts. Nuclear power should pay its way fairly. In addition by not requiring external funds NRC has not responded to the petition for rulemaking made by the Public Interest Research Group in 1977 or to GAO's concern that decommissioning costs be paid by current beneficiaries, not future generations. One commenter indicated that internal reserve costs exceed external reserve costs when they are adjusted to equalize relative risk with respect to the availability of funds. D-17

(b) A number of commenters agreed with the inclusion of internal reserve as an acceptable funding method for the general reasons listed below. (4, 26, 30, 31, 38, 61, 63, 87, 88, 100, 101, 104, 106, 108, 109, 111, 113, 114, 118, 123, 126, 127, 131, 132, 134, 140) (1) The use of internal reserve would enhance utilities' financial positions by reducing external finar.cing needs. In addition, utilities have investments, cash flow, and annual earnings which are large compared to decommissioning costs. (2) The likelihood of instability and insolvency is remote and util-ities are good investments and have large assets. Commenters noted that utilities whose rates are regulated are essentially guaranteed a minimum return on investment and have an obligation under the ratemaking system to pay for decommissioning. Commen-ters also noted that in times of financial difficulty, an internal reserve is sufficient because even utilities with severe financial problems have assets which are large compared to the cost of decommissioning, and it is unlikely that electric generation service would pnt be provided. Even in the case of insolvency there will be a successor to the insolvent utility who would retain the obligation to decommission. One commenter (38) indi-cated that the state public utility commissions were in the best situation to judge the solvency of a utility and to evaluate warning signals of a potential problem. (3) Several commenters supported internal reserve because it can earn a higher rate of return, reduces revenue requirements, and provides a reasonable balance between cost and assurance. Also, some commenters noted that there are financial risks associated with external reserve. Comment Analysis and Response In developing the Proposed Rule, the Commission considered the question of the use of internal reserve in several documents. These include NUREG-0584, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, 11 (Ref. 25) NUREG/CR-1481, "Financing Strategies for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning, 11 (Ref. 26) and NUREG/CR-3899, "Utility Finan-cial Stability and the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning" (Ref. 27). In addition, the Commission held a meeting soliciting public and industry views on decommissioning on September 19, 1984, and the NRC staff reviewed comments in the :rea of financial assurance submitted on NUREG-0586 "Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facil-ities.11 These reports and meetings considered several factors regarding availability of funds for public utilities in the United States. One fac-tor is that utilities are economically large, very heavily capitalized enterprises whose rates are comprehensively regulated by the State Public Utility Commissions (PUC) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). This factor permits utilities to charge reasonable rates subject to reasonable regulation and rules. In addition, the NRC has taken action in the promulgation of 10 CFR 50.54(w) to set requirements to establish onsite property damage insurance for use after an accident. Although D-18

these insurance proceeds would not be used directly for decommissioning, they would reduce the risk of a utility being hit by a large demand for funds after an accident. Most utilities are now carrying insurance well in excess of $1 billion. Other factors considered are the long time period before decommissioning takes place during which time reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning must be maintained, as well as con-cerns regarding utility solvency and potential problems regarding avail-ability of funds which may occur as a result of bankruptcy. Before publication of the proposed rule, the NRC evaluated the adequacy of various funding methods in light of financial problems encountered by some utilities which, faced with lower growth in electricity demand than they projected and rapidly increasing costs of construction, had been forced to cancel nuclear plants in advanced stages of construction and the ramifi-cations these conditions, as well as issues related to bankruptcy, could have on a utility's ultimate ability to pay for decommissioning. Details of this evaluation are contained in NUREG/CR-3899, prepared by an NRC consultant, Dr. J. Siegel of The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Based on the results of NUREG/CR-3899 in which it is indicated that internal reserve can be a valid funding method and on the considerations discussed in the Supplementary Informat1on tc the Proposed Rule, t~e proposed decommissioning rule permitted a range of options, including internal reserve, for providing assurance that sufficient funds are available for decommissioning. However the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule noted that the regulatory approach for assuring funds for decommissioning had been particularly difficult to resolve and specifically requested additional information and comments in this area. In particular the Supplementary Information noted that:

    "More specifically, Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal continue to be concerned about the vulnerability of the internal fu~ding mechanism for decommissioning funds, particularly where the funds are used to purchase assets or reduce existing debt. 11 Based on this concern, Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal requested "public comments on the need to consider the possibility of insolvency and its impact on the continued availability of decommissioning funds."

Although commenters did not generally refer specifically to the separate request for comment by Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal, a number of comments, noted above, were received in this area. Those who disagreed with the inclusion ~f in:erna~ ese vein the rule cited problems with liquidity of the internal reserve and with the future financial viability of utilities, with resultant problems in providing decommissioning funds. and stated that the level of assurance is inadequate. In contrast, other commenters agreed with the use of internal reserve citing the fact that the likelihood of instability and insolvency is remote, that utilities have investments, cash flow, and annual earnings which are large in comparison to decommissioning cost, and that the internal reserve does provide reasonable assurance. As part of the review of the comments, NRC has had NUREG/CR-3899 updated to consider the current situation in the utility industry. This analysis is contained in NUREG/CR-3899, Supplement 1 (Ref. 27), which reviewed six utilities which have been subject to severe financial distress. Based on D-19

the analysis, NUREG/CR-3899, Suppl. 1, indicates that, since NUREG/CR-3899 was published in 1984, the financial health of the nuclear utilities has improved, with the exception of Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH), and that from a financial standpoint, use of internal reserve currently provides sufficient assurance of funds for decommissioning. The basis for this conclusion is the fact that the likelihood of future crises developing, although not impossible, is extremely remote; that the total market value of the securities of each of the six utilities studied substantially exceeds its decommissioning costs; that it is not necessarily true that bankruptcy of a utility is tantamount to default on decommissioning obligations; and the potential that the costs of decommissioning would be recognized as a prior obligation with regard to creditors. Despite these conclusions, NUREG/CR-3899, Supp. l, notes that PSNH has said that, unless it undergoes financial restructuring and gets the rate increase it is seeking) it probably would become the first major utility** to seek protection under the Bankruptcy Act in nearly 50 years (subse-quent to the preparation of the analysis of NUREG/CR-3899, Supplement 1, PSNH has filed a petition in bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bank~* ruptcy Code). In addition, Supplement 1 notes that if PSNH's Seabrook plant becomes operational the prospects for PSNH greatly improve although* bankruptcy still cannot be precluded as a possibit~ ~.,~ to th~ potential for large rate hikes and resultant defections from its electric system. Hence, Supplement 1 concludes that internal reserve should not be allowed for Seabrook until the financial prospects of the utility are clarified and the viability of the corporation insured. In addition, NUREG/CR-3899, Supp. 1, noted that it is imperative that, in the case of the sale or other disposition of utility assets, no monies are distributed to any security holders until a fund is established to assure payment far decommissioning. Supplement 1 also recommended changes in Federal and State bankruptcy laws relating to utilities and the inclu-sion in the prospectus of newly issued securities of an explicit state-ment of the utility's financial obligations to provide adequate funds for decommissioning. Further, Supplement 1 noted that because of changing economies and financial conditions, the NRC should conduct periodic reviews of the overall financial health of utilities with ongoing and prospective nuclear facilities. If such a review indicates the financial condition of utilities taken as a whole or individually is such that internal reserve does not provide reasonable assurance of funds for decom-missioning, then additional rulemaking or other steps should be taken to insure availability of these funds. The Commission has considered the conclusions in NUREG/CR-3899, Supp. 1, as well as the public comments received on the issue. The Commission's review in this area is confined to its statutory mandate to protect the radiological health and safety of the public and promote the common defense and security which stems principally from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. In carrying out its licensing and related regulatory responsibilities under these acts, the NRC has determined that there is a significant radiation hazard associated with nondecommissioned nuclear reactors. The NRC has also determined that the public health and safety can best be protected if its regulations require licensees ta use methods which D-20

provide reasonable assurance that, at the time of termination of opera-tions, adequate funds are available so that decommissioning can be carried out in a safe and timely manner and that lack of funds does not result in delays that may cause potential health and safety problems. Although the Atcmic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act do not permit the NRC to regulate rates or to supersede the decisions of State or Federal agencies respecting the economics of nuclear power, they do authorize the NRC to take whatever regulatory actions may be necessary to protect the public health and safety, including the promulgation of rules prescribing allowable funding methods for meeting decommissioning costs. (See Pacific Gas & Electric v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190, 212-13, 217-19 (1983}; see also United Nuclear Corporation v. Cannon, 553 F. Supp. 1220, 1230-32 (D.R.I. 1982) and cases cited therein.) For the foregoing reasons, the Commission continues to be concerned with the use of an internal reserve. The Commission notes the concerns expressed in NUREG/CR-3899, Supplement 1, regarding bankruptcy of PSNH as well as the changing economic and financial conditions discussed in NUREG/ CR-3899, Supplement 1. The Commission also notes that many utilities are engaging in diversified financial activities which involve more financial risk and believes therefore it is increasingly important to provide that decommissioning funds be provided on a more assured basis. In addition, to the extent that a utility is having severe financial difficulties at the time of decommissioning, it may have difficulty in funding an internal reserve when needed for decommissioning. The Commission recognizes that the market value of the stock of those util-ities studied in NUREG/CR-3899 has exceeded decommissioning cost. However, although the law in this area is not fully developed, in the event of bankruptcy there is not reasonable assurance that either unsegre-grated or segregated internal reserves can be effectively protected from claims of creditors and therefore internal reserves cannot be made legally secure. In addition, because of the nature of the internal reserve, the funds collected are not isolated for use for decommissioning. Instead the utility may use the funds for other unrelated purposes. For the above reasons, the Commission concludes that the internal reserve does not provide reasonable assurance that funds will be available when needed to pay the costs of decommissioning and hence does not provide reasonable assurance that decommissioning will be carried out in a manner which protects public health and safety. Accordingly, the proposed rule has been modified to eliminate internal reserve as a possible method of providing funds for decommissioning. In reaching its conclusion regarding use of internal reserve for decom-missioning, the Commission believes it is important not to impose inordinate financial burdens on licensees. The modification to the proposed rule is not expected to impose such a burden for several reasons. First, licensees have two years from the effective date of the final rule before they have to submit information regarding financial assurance. Second, the external reserve is a sinking fund accumulated over a period of time. Third, a number of States (accounting for almost 50% of power reactors) already D-21

require external funding methods. Fourth, recent changes in the tax laws allowing current deductions for external reserves may reduce the cost differential between internal reserve and external reserve. Finally, the rule does not require funds accumulated to date in internal reserves to be transferred to external reserves, however those existing funds if left in internal reserves would not be acceptable for use in meeting the require-ments of§ 50. 75(e)(l) and (3). D.3.2.1.2 Other reasons presented for disagreeing or agreeing with the inclu-sion of internal reserve as an acceptable method Comment Summary Several other comments were received giving reasons for eithe~ disagreeing with or agreeing with the inclusion of internal reserve as an acceptable funding method. These comments are summarized in this section. Three commenters indicated that the primary concern of this rule should be assurance. One stated that other criteria such as cost of funding methods and equity are inappropriate considerations for NRC. The commenter notes that cost is of minor importance anyway because the variation in cost among the funding methods is small. One commenter indicated that use of internal reserve would limit the extent of public input. One commenter felt that internal reserve should not be permitted because when a plant is shut down there is a high probability for dereliction and delinquency on the part of utilities leaving long term care to be added as a national burden, while another commenter is concerned that there may be a large scale closedown of the nuclear industry which would put a large financial burden on the utilities and raised the question of whether it would be possible to ask Congress to provide a federal bailout which could help utilities to stay solvent long enough to complete decommissioning. One commenter discussed the fact that most utilities are currently using internal reserve which the commenter felt showed that the less desirable a funding method in terms of ratepayer fairness and assurance the more likely it is to be used. Also, the commenter indicated that there has been a case where a utility using internal reserve raised its estimates substantially to get greater use of funds. One commenter was concerned that use of internal reserve would result in licensees defaulting on their commitment and taking advantage of the SAFSTOR option, while another com-menter stated that the requirement of external reserve during SAFSTOR will have no real effect since licensees will use internal reserve anyway during plant life. Three commenters proposed limiting the use of internal reserve to certain situations, such as where the liability is small in relation to the company, the company has a strong financial position, the relevant state commission has a demonstrated history of preserving the financial strength of all regulated companies Nithin its jurisdiction, where the licensee has shown it is unable to get a government agency to agree to act as trustee of an external fund and there is no external fund otherwise available which generates nontaxable income. Conversely, two commenters noted that the Supplementary Information discusses the fact that the prepayment method provides the greatest assur-ance because the entire amount required is deposited at startup. The com-menters indicated, however, that one method of internal funding, namely 0-22

straight line depreciation, is structured so that the size of the decommis-sioning reserve is almost always larger than that which would be in the fund if the prepayment method were used. Thus the commenters state that this method provides the highest level of assurance given the same ability to turn the fund into cash. Other commenters presented the following reascns for agreeing with the inclusion of internal reserve as an accept-able funding method: (1) the periodic reviews required by the regulations will provide an even greater level of assurance that the funding methods and amount are adequate; (2) most state PUCs favor this method and have allowed it so that switching now from the internal reserve methods currently in use to external reserve would be disruptive; and (3) no new information opposing internal reserve has been presented to the Commission since the Commission briefing on September 20, 1984, and therefore these objections were already considered by the Commission in developing the proposed rule. One commenter indicated that in the internal reserve method, funds are invested in other assets and ultimately bonds are issued against these assets to pay for decommissioning, making the assurance of availability of funds dependent on the bonding capability of the licen-see's assets. Therefore the comment suggests that the rule require licen-sees maintaining internal reserve to periodically report to the NRC on their bonding capability. This would provide added assurance that funds would be available at the time of decommissionina. (9, 30, 41, 56, 59, 61, 63, 73, 86, 95, 100, 101, 103, 104, 128, 129, 131) Comment Analysis and Response Based on the evaluation presented in Section 0.3.2.1.1, the Commission concluded, for the reasons noted in Section D.3.2.1.1, that internal reserve does not provide reasonable assurance that funds will be available for decommissioning and, accordingly, the proposed rule has been modified to eliminate internal reserve as a possible method of providing funds for decommissioning. Based on that evaluation, the additional points raised in this section do not alter the decision. However certain items should be noted in response to the questions raised by the commenters. With regard to the comment which indicated a concern over dereliction by utilities, it appears that the comment has overstated the concern in this area. While the Commission does not believe that internal reserve provides reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning, licensees do have the responsibility to carry out decommissioning safely under the regulations. Similarly, the issue of a large scale close-down of the nuclear industry is beyond the scope of this rulemaking which is limited to providing reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning. Further, the NRC has no plans for seeking legislation establishing Federal guarantees for decommissioning of privately-owned facilities. With regard to the comment which referred to current usage of internal reserve by utilities and its relation to fairness to ratepayers, it is noted that the rulemaking only considers funding methods based primarily on the criteria of assurance. Current funding method usage and fairness of methods and potential unfair increases in estimates are outside the scope of NRC 1 s jurisdiction. Comments which connected funding methods allowed during the D-23

plant operating lifetime to use of SAFSTOR, or funding methods allowable during SAFSTOR, appear to misunderstand what the rule amendments permit. The funding method used during plant operations to assure funds for decom-missioning is independent of the decommissioning alternative chosen at the time of termination of operations and is independent of the method of funding used during a SAFSTOR period. With regard to the comment which preferred use of internal reserve because it can provide higher levels of assurance than even prepayment, the staff disagrees with the analysis of the comment. First, the prepayment method itself can vary according to whether the deposit includes expected infla-tion in decommissioning cost or relies on interest earnings to increase the initial deposit. If a deposit includes expected inflation, it would always be higher than an internal reserve. Furthermore, a deposit held by a third-party trustee invested in a diversified portfolio of low-risk instruments would provide greater assurance than an internal reserve, which is by definition limited to investment in the licensee's assets. Regarding the comment that no new information opposing internal reserve has been presented to the Commission since the 9/20/84 Commission brief~ ing, it is noted, as discussed above in Section 0.3.2.1.1, that even in-the issuance of the proposed,rule the Commission expressed concern over use of internal reserve. In response to the comments which are concerned that switching to external reserve would be disruptive, the last paragraph of Section 0.3.2.1.1 discusses reasons why the modification to the pro~ posed rule is not expected to impose a burden. In particular, the third and the fifth reasons given address the concern of the comment in this section. Finally, comments suggesting periodic evaluations of use of internal reserve do not present sufficient assurance of availability of funds to alter the Commission decision made as discussed in Sec-tion 0.3.2.1.1. 0.3.2.2 Use of other funding methods

1. Comment Summary In a comment related to 0.3.2.1 several commenters discussed the funding methods they preferred over internal reserve. These included principally the use of prepayment of the funds or the use of an external fund coupled with insurance against premature decommissioning. Principal reasons for favoring these methods include the fact that there may be shutdown of a reactor before the date of its exr~cted end of life due to either an acci-dent or problems with reacto1 agi11~ or obsolescence. Consequently, suffi-cient funds for decommissioning might not have been collected by a method which accumulates funds over projected reactor life. Conversely, sev~ral commenters indicated that it is appropriate to rely on the property damage insurance requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(w) to supplement decommissioning funding methods. They argue that, with the substantial amount of property insurance required, even in the highly improbable event of an accident-related, premature decommissioning, the utility will still have sufficient resources available after the decontamination process to carry out decom-missioning. Some of the commenters recognized the possible difficulties in obtaining nonaccident premature decommissioning insurance. One com-menter stated that surety bonds or insurance are not viable alternatives for normal decommissioning or premature decommissioning not associated 0-24

with an accident. The commenter noted that nuclear property insurance would be available only if an insured event necessitated premature decom-missioning and only in the amount necessary to repair the plant for damages caused by the accident. Premature decommissioning due to regulatory man-date would not be covered. The commenter also noted that surety bonds in the amount of $100 million are not generally available. (6, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 27, 36, 37, 39, 42, 44, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 61, 68, 71, 78, 79, 80, 82, 86, 88, 92, 95, 100, 102, 103, 104, 113, 132). Comment Analysis and Response The Commission notes that these comments must be considered within the context of Commissioo requirements for onsite property damage insurance, the proceeds from which could be used to decontaminate a reactor after an accident. Although these insurance proceeds would not be used directly for decommissioning, they would reduce the risk of a utility being subject to a tremendous demand for funds after an accident. The Commission has implemented its proposed requirement in 10 CFR 50.54(w) for slightly over

  $1 billion of insurance. An important consideration in selecting on acceptable method for providing funds for decommissioning is that the method be reasonably cost effective. Prepayment of funds has been recog-nized by several studies as being significantly more costly than the other methods. In view of the unlikely nature of the events and the potential problems being considered, prepayment generally has a cost too high for the benefit that would be realized. Use of insurance for nonaccident related decommissioning was found in an earlier study performed for the NRC, NUREG/CR-2370 (Ref. 28), to have potentially serious problems of insurability and moral hazard and is not currently available. (Moral hazard is a term used in the insurance industry to indicate a situation of laxity with respect to loss prevention or loss control where those insured have access to risk prevention.) Finally, earlier studies in NUREG-0584 found that surety bonds were not generally available in the amounts necessary for decommissioning power reactors.

In light of the factors considered, including the assurance provided by the various methods, the unlikely nature of the various events and the cost and practicality of providing more absolute assurance by certain methods, the Commission has concluded that the funding methods listed in the rule as modified by the exclusion of internal reserve are adequate.

2. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that prepayment or external sinking funds should be in accounts th2t ar overseen by some governmen: entity. (80) 0 Comment Analysis and Response NRC has considered reasonable assurance as its criterion in evaluating funding methods. With regard to oversight of funding methods by govern-ment entities, regulatory guidance under consideration in support of the rule amendments will likely advise that, if a licensee uses a prepayment or external sinking fund method, the institution in which the fund is D-25

placed should be an entity whose trust operations are regulated or examined by a federal or state agency. This is considered to provide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds.

3. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that external funding is preferable because it is the traditional method of providing for pension fund obligations. In pension funding for utilities money is collected through utility rates, is tax deductible, and is invested in external trust accounts. The com-menter indicated that coverage for premature decommissioning should be provided through use of the external fund coupled with insurance provided by either the government or the utility industry. The commenter believes that this pension funding provides a role model for decommissioning funding. (46)

Comment Analysis and Response Since the establishment of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (PL93-406), government insured pensions liabilities must be funded externally. However, the funds collected for decommissioning are not directly insured by any governmental agency. Although both decommission-ing.and pension funding are designed to meet a future obligation for which revenues are no longer received, the obligation to fund decommissioning is similar to the obligation to fund safe operation of the nuclear plant. Therefore, the parallel between funding of pensions and decommissioning is limited.

4. Comment Summary Some commenters had comments on equitableness of funding provisions to the ratepayers. One commenter noted that external reserve is preferable because it assures the regulator that the customers who use the service from the power plant will pay the cost of decommissioning and that it should be during the useful life of the plant. Another commenter noted that prepayment and external funding are the most equitable funding arrange-ments for ratepayers assuming that cost estimates are accurate and a straight-line amortization schedule is used. Also the commenter's opinion was that prepayment and external funding are more flexible and responsive to change than internal reserve. One commenter indicated that state public utility commissions must allow proper recovery of costs incurred to ensure equity to the utility (9, 46, 91, 100).

Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in Section 0.3.2.1.1, the proposed rule has been modified to eliminate use of internal reserve based on the criteria of providing reasonable assurance that funds will be available at the time of shutdown of the facility for decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety. Apart from this criterion, questions on ratepayer equity, amortization schedules, and responsiveness to change are outside of NRC's jurisdiction and outside the scope of this rulemaking. 0-26

5. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that although the rule permits internal reserve funding methods, it includes an explicit preference for using external funding. In particular Commissioners Bernthal and Asselstine clearly favor external funding. (102)

Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in Section 0.3.2.1.1, the Commission, in reviewing the issue of financial assurance in preparation of the final decommissioning rule, concluded that the internal reserve does not provide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning. Accordingly, the pro-posed rule has been modified to eliminate internal reserve as an acceptable method of providing funds for decommissioning thus making the point raised by this comment moot. D.3.2.3 Funding methods for publicly owned power reactors Comment Summary Two commenters indicated that applicants and licensees of publicly owned power reactors should be permitted to use the provisions of proposed Sec-tion 40.36(d)(4), specifically that they can certify that the appropriate government entity is guarantor of decommissioning funds. (62, 126) Comment Analysis and Response Considering the larger amounts of funds needed for power reactor decommis-sioning, a similar provision for State or local government owned power reactor licensees is not included in 10 CFR Part 50. D.3.2.4 Funding methods for research and test reactors Comment Summary Two commenters stated that well capitalized, firmly established private organizations operating research and test reactors should be allowed to guarantee compliance with financial assurance requirements by use of the certification process which is permitted for government entities. (21, 34) Comment Analysis and Response Certain government licensees are permitted in the amendments to meet ~he funding requirements of the rule by submitting a statement of intent that the appropriate government entity will be guarantor of decommissioning funds. Private organizations were not afforded that option in the pro-posed rule. The different treatment arises because there is reasonable assurance that the appropriate government entity, which has the power of taxation, will provide adequate funding in the future to decommission the facility in a manner which protects public health whereas this is not necessarily the case with private organizations even if they are currently D-27

adequately capitalized. If they have no funds for decommissioning there can be problems with completion of decommissioning. As noted in Sec-tion 0.7.4.1 use of parent company guarantees backed up by financial tests will be permitted for private organizations operating research and test reactors. 0.3.3 Specific comments about the mechanics of funding methods 0.3.3.1 External funding methods

1. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the rule should not limit external funds to a sinking fund methodology but should also permit other methodologies such as an external fund maintained on a constant dollar basis and that*

the proposed rule should be expanded to allow the maintenance of an exter~ nal fund utilizing any fiscally responsible funding basis which achieves the stated objective. (32) Comment Analysis and Response The term external sinking fund has been used in 1 broad sense to cover any fund set aside in a periodic manner segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control in a manner that the total amount of funds is sufficient to pay for decommissioning at the time term-ination of operations is expected. The rule does not preclude the use of various approaches including the method discussed by the commenter. The exact approach would be a matter for the rate regulator and utility to determine. The rule has been modified to clarify this. 0.3.3.2 Multi-asset utilities Comment Summary Three commenters raised questions regarding the prov1s1on in the proposed rule that internal reserve is only acceptable for only utilities "owning more than one generating facility." One commenter indicated that the rulemaking should distinguish between the ability of diversified utilities and single asset utilities to provide financial assurance. The other two commenters indicated that the diversity in partial ownership and multiple licensee situations makes this phrase ambiguous and that the term "generat-ing" facility should be defined. Also one commenter indicated that it was not explained why this provision would provide assurance from an internal reserve. (88, 104, 123) Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in Section 0.3.2.1.1, based on a criterion of providing reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning, the Commission has modified the proposed rule to eliminate internal reserve as an acceptable method for providing funds for decommissioning. A general standard of acceptable funding methods for all utilities holding power reactor licenses is contained in§ 50.75(e) of the amendments. 0-28

0.3.3.3 Internal reserve Comment Summary Two commenters took issue with the statement in the proposed rulemaking that utilities who use internal reserve would issue bonds against utility assets and use the funds raised to pay for decommissioning. The commenters pointed out that there are various other modes available to pay for the decommissioning from internal funds and that any suggestion that a bond issue is a regulatory requirement should be deleted. Another commenter identified three separate internal funding methods and indicated they can have varying effects on ratepayers. The commenter indicated that since the proposed rule mentions only sinking fund depreciation, it appears that the NRC may be limiting licensees to this one method of internal funding. The commenter recommended that the rule not single out any of the three internal funding methods. One commenter indicated that the NRC requirement that any internal funding option be supplemented by additional guarantee or surety would negate the cost effectiveness of this option and that if a state public utility commission finds that internal reserve is acceptable for reasonably assuring funds for decommissioning, additional surety should not be required. Another commenter expressed concern that unless the NRC modifies its proposed amendments to 10 CFR 50.54(w) along the lines the commenter previously recommended, reliance on the property damage insur-ance for use with internal reserve may be misplaced. (31, 38, 63, 64, 104) Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in Section D.3.2.1.1, the proposed rule has been modified to eliminate use of internal reserve as an acceptable funding method thus making the point raised by this comment moot. D 3.3.4 Prepayment Comment Summary One commenter stated that if a licensee uses the prepayment method the accumulated earnings in the decommissioning fund will reach a level larger than required to reflect the annual adjustment for inflation because the proposed rule does not recognize that the accumulated earnings will con-sist of an inflation adjustment component, a pure interest rate component, and a premium-associated-with-risk component. The commenter recommended that the proposed rule be modified to permit a licensee to withdraw the pure interest rate component and the premium-associated-with-risk compo-nent periodically from the prepayment fund. (133). Comment Analysis and Response The amendments indicate that in prepayment, at the time of decommissioning, the funds are in such amount that the principal plus accumulated earnings would be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs. There is nothing in these requirements which is intended to prevent a licensee from making sure that the fund dces not reach a level higher than required. Measures D-29

which licensees may take to prevent that occurrence are outside the scope of this rule. The rule has been modified to clarify this. D.3.3.5 Costs of funding methods Comments Summary Some commenters indicated that the proposed rule does not go far enough in considering costs of funding methods. One commenter indicated that the proposed rule does not consider the differences in cost of funding methods between public and investor-owned utilities in that the cost of funding methods for the former are lower because of their tax-exempt status. The other commenter indicated that the rule does not require utilities to use the least-cost funding method based on such factors as favorable tax treat-ment. (30, 62, 104) Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in Sections 0.3.1 and D.3.2, the objective of this rule is that there is reasonable assurance that funds are available when necessary for decommissioning. Issues such as differences in costs between various licensees, taxation effects, and consideration of least-cost funding methods are outside NRC 1 s jurisdiction. D.3.4 Funding requirements during periods of safe storage or long-term surveillance. Summary of Comments Proposed 50.82(c)(l) would require a licensee planning to delay completion of decommissioning by including a period of safe storage or long-term sur-veillance to place funds into an external fund or use a surety or certifi-cation method. Three commenters misunderstood or requested clarification of part of this requirement with regard to use of certification. Four commenters indicated agreement with the need to require an external fund. One of the commenters indicated that neither a surety or certification should be allowed. Other commenters disagreed with the proposal indicat-ing that utilities should not be required to shift to external funding. One commenter who prefers external funding both during the reactor operat-ing life and the SAFSTOR period, questioned whether the NRC had considered the problems that a utility may encounter in switching from an internal reserve (which the utility can use during the reactor operating life and which may consist of utility investments in utility assets) to an external reserve and how to handle possible lack of available utility funds at that time. The commenter is concerned that NRC may be too late in beginning to worry about assuring funds for decommissioning if they wait for SAFSTOR to begin and that this will result in shifting burdens from current benefi-ciaries to future generations. In a related comment two commenters indi-cated that similar requirements for external funding should also be placed on utilities when DECON is being used in certain situations. (9, 30, 38, 44, 49, 61, 95, 104, 128, 129, 134, 143). D-30

Comment Analysis and Response In response, as noted in Section D.3.2.1.1, the proposed rule has been modified to delete internal reserve as an acceptable funding method. Because there is as great or greater need for assurance of funds over the extended timeframe involved with a facility in SAFSTOR when the facility is no longer a revenue producing asset, the proposed requirement in

    § 50.82(c)(l) for external funding during SAFSTOR remains.

With regard to the requests for clarification by the three commenters, as used in proposed section 50.82(c)(l) the term fund certification refers to certification described under proposed Section 50.33(k)(3)(iv) (which in the final rule is Section 50.75(e)(3)(v)) and only applies to those government licensees who are permitted by Section 50.33(k)(3)(iv) (which in the final rule is Section 50.75(e)(3)(v)) to use that method. This has been clarified in the final rule. Use of a specific funding method is not required during DECON due to the short period of time involved and the fact that the decommissioning process is underway. Reasonable assurance of availability of funding for decom-missioning does not appear to require use of a prescribed funding method by utilities during the DECON period. D.4 Funding plans D.4.1 Timing of funding plan submittals D.4.1.1 Time period for submittal Comment Summary One commenter agreed with the requirement of a two year time period for submittal of funding plans while two commenters indicated that funding activities should be on a shorter time scale than that and two others felt that it was too short. Three commenters felt that the timing of submittal of the funding plan should be tied to the date of issuance of the regula-tory guide which is to be prepared rather than issuance of the effective rule. (30, 61, 95, 103, 104, 107, 123, 128). Comment Analysis and Response The two year time period for demonstration of funding assurance was set as a reasonable period for submitting of information on funding provisions without imposing undue administrative burden related to other activities involved in continued plant operations while at the same time providing that plans for assurance of funds will be established well before decommis-sioning is to take place. It is expected that regulatory guidance will become available for use in preparation of information on funding provisions. D-31

0.4.1.2 Effect of funding plan submittal requirements on pending licenses Comment Summary Four comme~ters expressed concern that the requirement for funding plan submittals could have an effect on utilities whose applications for operat-ing licenses are still pending when the rule becomes effective. These commenters point out that this effect could result in introduction of sub-stantial new contentions and delay in operating license proceedings and in issuance of operating licenses. The commenters stated that the language of Section 50.33 of the amendments should be modified to clarify that the proposed revisions are meant to apply to applications for operating licenses filed after the effective date of the rule and not to applications currently under review. (61, 75, 87, 126) Comment Analysis and Response Based on modifications to the proposed rule discussed in 0.2.1, it is not expected that the rule amendments will affect pending operating licenses. 0.4.2 Clarification of funding plan requirements 1 Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the rule should make clear that utilities should collect funds towards total decommissioning of the facilities, not just decontamination of the nuclear parts. (123) Comment Analysis And Response Decommissioning is defined in amended Section 50.2 as those activities necessary to remove a facility safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level permitting unrestricted use and termination of license. NRC's responsibility with respect to funding of decommissioning is limited by that definition. Funding for activities (such as demolition of nonradioactive structures) not necessary for termination of the license is outside the scope of NRC's authority. The proposed rule has been modi-fied to indicate this more clearly.

2. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that there is no consideration given for alterna-tive actions to be taken if the financial plan is not approved or if a utility is unable to establish a decommissioning fund as required. (~u)

Comment Analysis and Response The amendments indicate that an applicant or licensee is to provide infor-mation on how assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the facility. If either this information is unacceptable or if the applicant or licensee is unable to establish a decommissioning fund in accordance with the information provided, then either of these situations will be a matter of noncompliance with NRC regulations and appropriate measures taken. 0-32

0.4.3 Funding plan updates Comment Summary A number of commenters indicated that it was important for the funding plan to be updated over the operating life of the facility because there would be increases in costs over facility life. Some commenters indicated that there should be periodic adjustments of the funding level, and most said there shuuld be a specific frequency indicated in the regulations with most saying frequencies of 5 years and some indicating it should be more frequent. Three commenters noted the updates should be based on more than just inflation, but include technical data as well, while one com-menter noted inflation adjustments were adequate. The commenters indicated that the funding levels should be adjusted at the time of the updated cost estimates. One commenter indicated that the rule should clarify the means by which changes and updates in the plan are to be made. One commenter indicated these adjustments should be submitted to NRC for review while another indicated this was unnecessary. (6, 9, 18, 36, 39, 42, 44, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 78, 80, 86, 88, 92, 95, 97, 103, 108, 123, 127, 140) Comment Analysis and Response The Commission agrees with the importance of updating the funding plan over the operating life of the plant. This is recognized in the proposed rule which requires that a funding plan include 11 means of adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels over the life of the facility 11 and which also requires each reactor licensee to submit a preliminary decom-missioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning 5 years prior to the projected end of operation. In order to clarify that the updates should take place over the course of the facility lifetime, the proposed rule has been modified to indicate that a funding plan include means of adjusting cost estimates and asso-ciated funding levels periodically over the life of the facility. The frequency for these updates is not included in the rule but would be included in regulatory guidance under consideration. This will provide more flexibility in dealing with different types of licensees and finan-cial considerations. It is expected that regulatory guidance will indi-cate the frequency of adjustment for the cost estimate and funding levels. 0.4.4 Requirements of funding plan as a condition of license Summary of Comments A number of commenters objected to the requirement in the rule that sub-mittals of reactor funding plans be a condition o~ license. The commenters indicated that by doing so any change in the funding plan could be inter-preted as a license amendment. The commenters argued that this was unnecessary since the funding requirements do not have a direct impact on the safe operation of the plant. This could have a negative effect on continued plant operations even though there was no safety concern. Most commenters argued that the requirements would be better promulgated as regulations which would not decrease NRC 1 s enforcement authority. Three commenters noted if the requirement were left in as license condition they D-33

should make clear that changes to a funding plan do not constitute license amendments. (22, 23, 26, 31, 61, 75, 102, 104, 105, 114, 118, 123, 126, 132, 134) Comment Analysis and Response The Commission has considered these comments in the light of the need to provide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommission-ing and, in response, in order to build flexibility into the rule, has modified the proposed rule to make the reactor funding requirements a specific regulatory requirement in§ 50.75 instead of a license condition. Adequate enorcement capability is retained since funding provisions will be submitted to NRC and records of the funding provisions are required to be kept and to be available for inspection. 0.4.5 Co-owner planning Comment Summary Four commenters raised concerns regarding development of funding plans in situations where licensees share ownership interests in a nuclear facility. Two commenters noted that if the co-owners are all investor-owned utilities that consistent state regulatory treatment may be an issue while if the co-owners are municipalities, cooperatives and investor-owned utilities that regulatory treatment or absence thereof may be an issue. Hence these commenters suggest that regulatory guidelines indicate that co-owner licensees adopt different funding methods and amounts based on their per-cent ownership. A third commenter agreed with this approach while another commenter indicated however, that the majority utility should be respon-sible for developing decommissioning plans. One commenter indicated that if these rules are promulgated that the proposed rules should be substan-tially amended to provide for appropriate challenges to utility selected decommissioning plans and estimates, in particular to provide for a reasonable procedure for resolving utility disputes regarding decom-missioning estimates. The commenter indicates that it is not clear that NRC has considered or devised efficient and fair procedures for handling challenges to utility decommissioning cost estimates and funding plans. (38, 46, 62, 100, 101) Comment Analysis and Response The staff agrees that multiple plant owners can complicate development of financial assurance provisions. Nevertheless, various regulatory environ-ments, cost recovery philosophies, or other areas of potential disagreement are not insurmountable. Although the staff cannot accept the use of different cost bases or decommissioning modes by multiple owners of the same plant, we see no regulatory barrier to allowing each owner to make its own funding arrangements based on its own regulatory/ratemaking environment for its share of estimated decommissioning costs as long as all owners have agreed to the same decommissioning cost estimate, alter-native, and timing. In any case, the licensee is the responsible unit for submitting integrated financial assurance provisions and the actual 0-34

mechanics of development of the provisions among multiple owners is out-side the scope of the NRC 1 s regulatory jurisdiction (see Pacific Gas and Electric v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190 (1983)). The staff agrees in principle with the issues raised by the comment on challenges and it is hoped that funding provisions could be worked out equitably among co-owners, although it is recognized that in certain situations challenges to a lead licensee's estimates may occur which can-not be resolved satisfactorily for all parties. The staff disagrees, how-ever, that additional procedures are necessary for handing challenges to such estimates and plans. If issues of health and safety or antitrust are raised, the Commission's rules of procedure in Part 2 and other parts would apply and should be sufficient. D.4.6 Collection of funds 0.4.6.1 Collection of funds for existing licensees Comment Summary One commenter pointed out that to date utilities have not gathered funds at a rate proportional to the total sum lhat will eventually ta required. Five other commenters addressed the issue of the rate at which funds should be collected by existing licensees. The proposed rule does not contain specific requirements regarding this rate. However the state-ment of considerations suggests that the fund be built to an acceptable funding level in 5 years or one-third of the remaining license period whichever is greater. One commenter wanted to know if this requirement applied to electric utilities, if it was a condition of approval of the plan and what was considered by NRC as an acceptable or adequate funding level. One commenter indicated that if an internal fund is used that any requirement to catch up on funding should recognize that the amount to be made up may properly take into account a lower level of payments for the first years of facility life. Three commenters expressed concern with inclusion of any requirements of this type indicating that NRC had no authority to regulate rate collection, that it was more appropriate for state PUCs to determine this "make whole 11 rate of collection, and that there could be taxation problems associated with the stipulated mode of rate collection. (38, 46, 63, 103, 104, 128) Comment Analysis and RespJnse The NRC staff has considered its jurisdicticnal responsibilities with respect to assurance of the availability of funds as well as the jurisdic-tional responsibility of other regulatory bodies involved in decommission-ing funding, specifically the State public utility commissions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Based on those considerations the discussion of "make whole 11 rate of collection has been deleted from the revised Supplementary Information. Existing licensees who submit finan-cial assurance provisions should indicate how these funds will be accumu-lated over the remaining years of plant so that there is reasonable assur-ance of the availability of funds at the time of decommissioning. The D-35

rule amendments require that for an external sinking fund that there be a "periodic" accumulation of the necessary funds. The exact rate will be worked out with the appropriate rate regulatory body but it is expected that it will likely be prorated over the remaining life of the plant. D.4.6.2 Collection of funds with more than one facility at a site Comment Summary One commenter indicated that multi-unit facilities can have individual oper-ation dates separated by a number of years and in such cases decommissioning would be impractical prior to termination of operation of the last unit at the site. Hence the commenter suggested that the rule be modified to allow for the collection of the total decommissioning cost for all units at one site to be complete with the termination of operation of the last generating unit at the site. (32) Comment Analysis and Response The staff recognizes that multi-unit facilities can have individual opera-tion dates separated by a number of years and that in such cases decom-missioning may be impractical prior to termination of operation of the last unit at the site. The proposed rule recJ,dzc::; this .:;ituation as a basis for the use of SAFSTOR at a site where more than one facility exists. However the purpose of the financial assurance provisions as stated in the Supplementary Information is to have reasonable assurance that at the time of termination of operations of each facility adequate funds are available so that decommissioning can be carried out in a safe and timely manner. Delay in completion of funding beyond the end of termination of operations when a facility is no longer producing revenue raises questions regarding assurance and, accordingly, amended Sections 50.82(c) and (d) indicate that, while planning for delayed dismantlement activities may be less detailed, funds needed to complete decommissioning are to be set aside. D.4.6.3 Shutdown plants Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the rules should not allow for collection of money in rates for plants no longer operable since this should be the stockho 1ders I duty. (83) Comment Analysis and Response The amendments require that licensees inform NRC of their arrangements for demonstrating that there is reasonable assurance that funds will be available to cover the costs of decommissioning. The source of these funds, whether collected from ratepayers or stockholders is outside NRC's jurisdiction and is a matter for the state public utility commissions and the utilities to decide. D-36

0.5 Effect of taxation policies on funding methods

1. Comment Summary Some commenters pointed out that the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 allows tax deductions for external funds but not for internal reserve although their value to utilities has been diminished by two provisions. Other commenters pointed out that the Deficit Reduction Act does not change the conclusion under the current tax laws that internal reserve costs less than external reserve. Other commenters stated that the tax deductions contained in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 should continue to be allowed only for external funds with no investment allowed in holding company assets. One commenter noted that another bill now in Congress would further liberalize the tax treatment of decommissioning funds even when established internally. One commenter suggested that the proposed amendments should specify a NRC policy that funds for decommissioning be subject to favorable tax treatment or else NRC should explicitly state that nothing in the proposed amendments is meant to prevent favorable tax treat-ment for decommissioning. Another commenter indicated that there is a need to encourage the Secretary of the Treasury to make the Tax Code clearer in particular in regard tu the amount of funds, referred to as th~ ruling amount 11 which can be deducted. One commenter indicated that NRC should work with other agencies on appropriate tax treatment of decommissioning funds. (6, 9, 38, 46, 52, 67, 71, 100, 104)

Comment Analysis and Response The NRC's statutory concerns extend only to the protection of public health and safety and promotion of common defense and security. The purpose of the amendments is to provide reasonable assurance that funds are available for carrying out decommissioning in a safe manner. Although NRC is some-what concerned with the relative costs of funding methods, the issue of taxation policy is tangential to assuring the availability of funds. Thus, this rulemaking is neutral on current and proposed tax legislation. There is nothing in the rulemaking which could be interpreted as affecting the tax treatment for any of the funding methods. D.6 Funding requirements for materials licenses D.6.1 Exemptions Comment Summary Two commenters indicated that they support the half-life and q~antity exemption provisions as relieving the burden that would otherwise be imposed. One commenter however discussed the fact that as the rule now stands licensees using Co-57, of which there are a sizable number of medical licensees, would not be exempt and would have to demonstrate financial assurance or apply for license amendments to reduce their possession of limit for Co-57. The commenter urged NRC to consider the ramifications of increased administrative burden as well as the possibility of unwarranted hardship placed on these licensees. (53, 65, 85) D-37

Comment Analysis and Response Since the major impact regarding the use of natural and accelerator-produced radioactive material rests with the States, the appropriate State Agencies should be consulted. General questions on exemptions for medical facilities licensed by NRC are discussed in Section G.6.1 of this NUREG. 0.6.2 Funding plans

1. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that it is not clear in the proposed rule whether financial assurance requirements apply to each license, each licensee, or each facility. The commenter requested that the unit requiring d~monstra-tion be clarified and recommended that the licensee be specified as the responsible unit. (76)

Comment Analysis and Response The amendments require that each holder of a specific license provide finan-cial assurance for decommissioning thus specifically indicating that the licensee is the responsible party for financial assurance. Section C.11 discusses the fact that consolidated funding plans and decommissioning plans may be submitted where there are multiple material licenses.

2. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the cost associated with submittal of funding plans by materials licensees should be avoided for the benefit of the l i censee and the NRC. ( 53)

Comment Analysis and Response As part of the effort involved in preparation of the proposed rules, NRC prepared a Regulatory Analysis which evaluated the benefits and costs associated with the requirements contained in the proposed rules. The Regulatory Analysis indicates that the large majority of NRC licensees are exempted from the specific requirements on demonstrating financial assurances, although they are nevertheless financially responsible for paying for decommissioning as well as carrying out decommissioning. In addition, for many of those remaining licensees who must demonstrate fund-ing assurance, a certification of an amount and funding method as pre-scribed in the rule would be sufficient. For t,1ose remaining licensees who must submit a funding plan, the plan would only be required at the time of license renewal at which time it is much more efficient for the licensee and staff to implement as part of the overall renewal effort. The regulatory analysis evaluated the costs associated with submittal of these funding plans. Based on these costs and on the number of exempted licensees, the regulatory analysis concluded that the moderate increase in overall costs to the NRC and the industry is balanced by the important increase in the effectiveness of decommissioning activities that will assure that impacts on health, safety, and the environment are minor. D-38

As an additional effort to minimize impacts while maintaining reasonable assurance that funds are available for decommissioning, the proposed rule has been modified to permit certain financial tests for licensees. See Section D.6.4.1 for more discussion of this issue.

3. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that the rule should not require collection of funds over too short a time period since this would provide an unreason-able burden for certain licensees without associated benefit. The com-menter indicates that the time period mentioned in the proposed rule is unreasonable and inappropriate and that a more satisfactory collection period is that contained in EPA regulations for hazardous waste facilities. (25)

Comment Analysis and Response The amendments in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 70, and 72 list four acceptable methods for providing assurance of funds for decommissioning. These include the following: prepayment; surety, insurance or other guarantee method; external sinking fund coupled with a surety method or insurance; and a statement of intent that an appropriate government entity will be guarantor of decommissioning funds. None of these methods places a specified time period on licensees during facility operation for collec-tion of funds. The guarantee methods are continued over the life of the facility while the prepayment method is a deposit of funds prior to start of operations which should be sufficient to pay decommissioning costs when operations are discontinued. In addition to these methods, Section D.6.4 discusses the inclusion of financial tests as a method. These methods are considered to provide reasonable assurance of funds and are consistent with previous Commission actions. D.6.3 Cost estimates

1. Comment Summary For material licensees, the proposed rule contained prov1s1ons that an applicant or licensee may submit a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in a prescribed amount stipulated in proposed 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70. The amount is dependent on the quantity of licensed material which the licensee possesses.

Two commenters indicated that the cost amounts prescribed in the regula-tions for 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 licen~P.es are too high for the quantities of material listed and that the prescribed cost amounts should be set more realistically or the prescribed radioactivity levels should be increased. One of the two commenters who felt the estimates were too high noted that the multiples of Appendix C quantities prescribed in the rule for some isotopes amount to absolute quantities of less than a curie and the commenter did not think that the decommissioning costs for such a license would amount to the sums prescribed in the proposed rule. The other commenter indicated as an example that the amount of A-241 in unsealed form requiring a decommissioning cost of $500,000 is 10 milli-curies. Four commenters felt that the prescribed amounts appeared to be D-39

too low and specific examples were cited to support their claim. These included the following: cleanup of a U.S. Army building which had burned cost over $300,000; cleanup of the extensive contamination at a USAEC con-tractor facility at Weldon Spring cost $200,000,000; cleanup of four igloos at the Seneca Army Depot by the U.S. Army cost $300,000 to $1,000,000; cleanup and storage of contaminated soil by DOE in the vicin-ity of the W. R. Grace and Stepan Chemical facilities cost $2-4 million; and cleanup at Shieldalloy where there is 50,000 cubic yards of slag. In addition, one of the commenters pointed out that use of contractors to perform the work could increase costs. (18, 53, 81, 90, 96, 135) Comment Analysis and Response In response to the commenters who felt the estimates were too high, it is the opinion of the Commission, that data base cited in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, that the prescribed amounts are reason-able estimates and that it is not the rule's intent that the indicated costs be used in every situation. The purpose of setting the amounts is to provide an approach which minimizes the burden on the majority of licensees and on the NRC while providing assurance of funds for decommis-sioning. If, in a particular case, the prescribed cost amounts are too high, the licensee has the option of submitting a funding plan with a facility specific cost estimate. In response to the commenters who felt the estimates were too low, certain points must be considered in assessing the comments and the examples cited. Some of the examples appear to be cases where there was accidental spread of contamination beyond that normally encountered. The funding assurance provisions of the proposed rule are not intended to address the costs of cleanup resulting from an accident. Provisions for funding of cleanup of accidental releases of radioactive material were noted as being under consideration in a separate rulemaking (Ref. 29). Another point to consider is that certain facilities contain larger quanti-ties of radioactive material than are specified in the sections of the rule amendments (i.e., Sections 30.35, 40.36, and 70.25) permitting use of a prescribed funding amount. Licensees of these facilities would be required to submit a decommissioning funding plan containing a cost estimate specific to those larger facilities. Under the provisions of the appropriate sec-tions, licensees of these larger facilities would be permitted to initially use a prescribed amount of $750,000 in t~eir financial assurance planning. However, use of this prescribed amvunt .~ only a temporary action which is intended to reduce the administrative effort associated with implementa-tion of the rule amendments ana these licensees are required by the i,,di-cated section of the rule to eventually submit a funding plan (with the facility decommissioning cost estimate) at the time of application for license renewal. Finally, in preparation of the final rule, we are considering the adequacy of the prescribed amounts listed in the proposed rule based on current cost information. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) analyzed the technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning for a number of D-40

nuclear facilities for the NRC and the results of these analyses are con-tained in a series of reports listed in the Reference section of the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule and in Section I of this NUREG (Refs. 2-15). The amounts prescribed in the proposed rule are based on these reports. PNL has provided updated values of decommissioning cost estimates to NRC for use in the Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Ref. 20). Appropriate information has been taken from those updates for use in the final rule to account for factors such as inflation. The cost estimates for materials licensees do not specifically include the assumed use of contractor costs because, based on the PNL studies, the prescribed amounts listed in the rule are considered reasonable in provid-ing adequate funds so that a facility does not become a concern to public health and safety. The additional expense associated with requiring all material licensees to set aside in their funding method the added costs of assuming use of a contractor is not justified compared to the small number of licensees expected to have to use contractors. Based on consideration of these comments, as well as the comments regarding responsibility for decommissioning in Section 0.8.2.3, the proposed rule has been modified to indicate that combinations of isotopes are to be considered in determining levels of decommissioning cost. The estimated cost of decommissioning is based on activities related to the definition of 11 decommission 11 in 10 CFR 30.2 (and similar sections in other parts) and does not include the cost of removal and disposal of non-radioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the NRC license. Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste not necessary for NRC license termination is not covered by these regulations but would be treated by appropriate agencies having responsibility over these wastes.

2. Comment Summary rwo commenters stated that the prescribed amounts of financial assurance contained in the proposed rule should be adjusted for inflation. (18, 90)

Comment Analysis and Response An inflation adjustment has not been included in the proposed rule for adjusting the certification amounts in proposed 10 CFR Parts 30, 40 and

70. The reason for this was that the amounts specified in those parts was considered sufficient to cover decommissioning costs for most licensees in the *1isted categories while minimizing administrative effort of the licensees and the Commission of obtaining financial assurance. Inclusion of an inflation factJr may not be sufficiently ctccurate to be useful due to the large variety of material licensees and the potential for additional administrative burden without compensating benefit. It is expected that the specified amounts in the rules could be easily revised without significant expenditure of resources.

D-41

0.6.4 Funding methods 0.6.4.1 Use of financial tests, guarantees, internal reserve

1. Comment Summary The proposed rule listed funding methods that 10 CFR Part 30, 40, and 70 applicants and licensees may use and that are considered to provide reason-able assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning. Five commenters indicated that this list was to6 restrictive and that financial tests of licensees should be utilized in determining acceptable funding methods for materials licensees. These commenters argued that use of financial tests on a case-by-case basis would improve the degree of finan-cial assurance and eliminate unnecessary cost burdens for many non-utility, non-government entities. As precedents and examples of tests which could be used by NRC, the commenters generally referred to the financial tests contained in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 for hazardous waste facilities regu-lated by EPA. The commenters indicated that these tests could be used alone or combined with licensee guarantees of funds, with self-insurance or with internal reserve as acceptable methods for assuring funds for decommissioning. The commenters argued that use of the financial tests should be permitted because the methods currently listed as acceptable were either too burdensome or not viable. In particular, prepayment was seen as being too costly, external funding of reserves was viewed as using capital ineffectively, insurance was deemed to be unnecessary and costly, and no current competitive market for sureties or insurance exists. A commenter suggested that a licensee should be exempt from any financial bond posting if the company is small and the company has an active pro-gram to control spills and is subject to periodic NRC inspections. One commenter indicated that letters of credit provided a cost-effective method for his operations. (25, 28, 53, 65, 124)

Comment Analysis and Response The Commission did not include the financial test as an acceptable funding method for materials facilities in the proposed rule. It was felt that because of the potential for changing licensee financial conditions and the fairly lengthy time period involved before decommissioning would take place that the financial test would not provide sufficient assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning. Also, additional staff time could be necessary to monitor the financial status of a number of licensees. This position and the funding methods listed in the proposed decommissioning rule were consistent with the funding methods listed in earlier NRC promulgated rules in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, regarding requirements for funding the decontamination and decommissioning of uranium mills and tailings, and in 10 CFR Part 61 regarding funding for 'Closure of low-level-waste burial grounds. The commenters point out that the Environmental Protection Agency permits the use of financial tests when accompanied by corporate guarantees for its hazardous waste facilities and recommended that the NRC use similar finan-cial tests for meeting financial assurance requirements. The staff recog-nizes that fin~ncial tests may be useful in certain situations and can 0-42

minimize impacts on licensees. Hence, the regulation has been modified in the final rule to specifically indicate that licensees may use parent company guarantees with accompanying financial tests to meet the financial assurance requirements of the regulation. The use of the parent company guarantee and financial test is taken from the U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency's regulations 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. Use of the parent company guarantee and financial test provides assurance in that the company will provide an independent commitment beyond that of the licensee to expend funds. This requirement is consistent with the NRC's Policy Guidance Regarding Parent Company and Licensee Guarantees for Uranium Recovery Licensees issued in December 1985. A parent company guarantee may not be used in combination with other financial methods to satisfy the require-ments of the rule. Other funding methods, including letters of credit, will continue to be acceptable for providing assurance of funding. Use of prepayment or other external trust funds is different in approach from use of a surety bond, insurance or other guarantee method. With prepayment, the licensee is actually using the instrument to pay for decommissioning of the facility, while with the second approach, a financial instrument is used as backup to pay for decommissioning in the event that the licensee is unable to complete these activities. If a surety, insurance, or other guarantee method is used to actually pay for decommissioning, the licensee is still fully responsible for all of its decommissioning requirements. The funding methods and the exemptions for small materials quantities allowed by the amended regulations are considered to provide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning. NRC intends to periodically review the overall financial status of licen-sees to assess the effectiveness of the funding methods permitted in the regulations.

2. Comment Summary One commenter suggested that its current method of decommissioning funding which involves use of a reserve account in the amount of the estimated decommissioning cost which is updated annually should be considered an acceptable funding method under the proviso of 11 other methods providing comparable assurance. 11 (115)

Comment Analysis and Response Use of a reserve account unless it is segregated from the licensee's assets and outside the licensee's administrative control is not permitted by the regulations. As discussed in Section D.3.2.1.1, internal reserve does not provide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommis-sioning. The modifications to the regulations discussed in D.6.4.1 in response to Comment No. 1 above permit use of financial tests in certain circumstances. 0-43

3. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that materials licensee should be permitted to use the option of certifying the availability of funds for decommissioning as is permitted for government licensees. The commenter argues that a 11 cer-t1fication11 from a large private organization may have more value than that from a government organization especially since federal, state, and local governments cannot commit funds beyond the current fiscal year.

(117) Comment Analysis and Response See the Comment Analysis and Response to 0.3.2.4. Although certification is not permitted, financial tests may be used with parent company guaran-tees. (See 0.6.4.1) 0.6.4.2 Other funding methods providing comparable assurance Comment Summary As noted above, the list of acceptable funding methods in the proposed rule includes several principal funding method5 and also includes "other funding methods which are demonstrated by the applicant or licensee to provide comparable assurance to the (principal) methods listed. 11 Two commenters requested that additional detail be provided on these other methods and the specific criteria for evaluating comparable assurance. In particular one commenter suggested that use of financial tests would pro-vide comparable assurance. (25, 115) Comment Analysis and Response 11 0ther methods of funding 11 were permitted ill the proposed rule sections 30.35(e), 40.36(d), and 70.25(e) if they were 11 demonstrated by the appli-cant or licensee to provide comparable assurance to the (principal) methods 1i sted ," and thus were to be capab 1e of providing assurance to the same level as the specific methods listed in those sections. In general, the criteria used are that the funding method is capable of providing funds for decommissioning at any time in the facility life and that the licensee does not control use of the funds as in the case for the listed methods. Because there could be confusion in the use of 11 other methods 11 and because the listed methods (or combinations of those methods) appear to encompass the potential range of funding methods, the "other methods of funding" provision has been deleted. As noted in section 0.6.4.1, it is indicated that financial tests may be used in certain circumstances because finan-cial tests can provide comparable assurance to the listed methods. This is discussed in more detail in that section. The proposed rule has been modified to indicate the inclusion of such tests. 0-44

0.7 Funding for Federal licensees Comment Summary Comments were received indicating that the proposed requirements for Federal agencies, specifically proposed sections in Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, requiring a certification that the appropriate government entity will be guarantor of decommissioning funds, appear inconsistent with Federal statute. One commenter suggested either NRC should spearhead statutory relief or establish a Federal agency funding strategy in order to satisfy the intent of the NRC proposed rule. (126, 135) Comment Analysis and Response The commenter bases its comments on the provisions of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341. The Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits the creation of an obligation or the expenditure of funds in excess of appropriations unless the contract or obligation is authorized by law. The purpose of the Act is to 11 keep all departments of the Government, in the matter of incurring obligations for expenditures, within the limits and purposes of appropriations annually provided for conducting their lawful functions. 11 42 Comp. Gen. 272, 275 (1962). The Act app.lies to transactions among government agencies as well as transactions between the government and the private sector. See 59 Comp. Gen. 386, 389 (1980). While the Anti-Deficiency Act might prohibit the expenditure of funds for decommissioning in the absence of an appropriation, nothing in the Anti-Deficiency Act prevents a government agency from seeking appropriations for future obligations. Nor is there anything in the Act that bars a government agency from obligating appropriated funds for the purpose of complying with rules imposed by other government agencies at the time those rules require an expenditure of funds. Thus, in practice, use could be made of other funding methods besides the certification option such as external funding. As discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, the purpose of the proposed sections with which the commenter is concerned to permit licensees to obtain a guarantee that a government agency will assume financial responsibility for decommissioning the facility. This would most likely be possible when the licensee is a state or Federal agency or a state-affiliated organization such as a university or hospital. This provision of the proposed rule recognizes that these licensees should be capable of providing funds for decommissioning. The intention of the proposed rule is that these state and Federal licensees should, early in their facilities' lifetime, be aware of the eventual decommissioning of the facility, specifically its cost, and make their funding bodies aware of those eventual costs. The provisions of the rule requiring naming of a guarantor of funds may be subject to misinterpretation. Accordingly, the proposed rule is being modified to indicate that Federal and State licensees should provide a statement of intent that they have an estimate of the cost to decommission their facilities and that they will obtain funds when necessary for decommissioning. This modification should satisfy the need for a~surance from these facilities while making complying with the regulationc asier within the constraints of agency budgetary policies. 0 D-45

0.8 General Comments on Financial Assurance 0.8.1 Need for Funding Requirements Comment Summary A number of commenters disagreed specifically with the need for the fund-ing provisions contained in the proposed rule for electric utilities. The primary reasons cited by the commenters for the disagreement were the following: Utilities are regulated by state and Federal rate regulators who are bound to set a utility's rates such that reasonable costs of serving the public are recovered; NRC has recently eliminated financial qualifications requirements for reactors and this is a similar situation; most utilities already recover decommissioning costs in rates; utilities recognize that those who benefit from the plant should pay for decommis-sioning; and that the proposed rule will impose a financial penalty on utilities, and will complicate the existing process. In contrast, a number of other commenters indicated that there was a need for rules in this area because they had several concerns over whether adequate funds will be available for decommissioning. (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 46, 49, 56, 61, 62, 63, 67, 73, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 86, 88, 95, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111, 114, 118, 123, 126, 128, 130, 132) Comment Analysis and Response The Commission's statutory mandate to protect the radiological health and safety of the public and promote the common defense and security stems principally from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended. In carrying out its licensing and related regulatory responsibilities under these acts, the NRC has deter-mined that this regulation is needed because there is a significant radia-tion hazard associated with nondecommissioned nuclear facilities. The NRC has also determined that the public health and safety can best be protected by promulgating a rule requiring reasonable assurance that at the time of termination of operations adequate funds are available so that decommis-sioning can be carried out in a safe and timely manner and that lack of funds does not result in delays that may cause potential health and safety problems. Although these Acts do not permit the NRC to regulate rates or to interfere with the decisions of State or Federal agencies respecting the economics of nuclear power, they do authorize the NRC to take whatever regulatory actions may be necessary to protect the public health and safety, including the promulgation of rules prescribing allowable funding methods for meeting decommissioning costs. (See Pacific Gas & Electric

v. State Ener Resource Conservation & Oeveloment Commiss1on, 461 U.S.

190, 212-13, 217-219 1983; see also United Nuclear Corporation v. Cannon, 553 F. Supp. 1220, 1230-32 (D.R.I. 1982) and cases cited therein). The fact that these regulatory actions may have an economic impact does not mean that they lie outside NRC's jurisdiction. Based on the previous paragraph, the Commission approved publication of the proposed rule. Commissioner Bernthal included separate comments (dis-cussed in more detail below) stating that there is a difference between D-46

the elimination of financial qualifications requirements for construction and operation and the decommissioning funding requirements, and expressing the specific need for this rule. Some of the commenters indicated that there is no need for the rule because there is rate regulation by federal and state agencies. The NRC staff recognizes the role which these agencies have in this area. The NRC staff has had contact with staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and with State agencies. These agencies indicated that they recognize the NRC 1 s role in setting standards with respect to health and safety and, in particular, that they support the rule as it was promulgated with certain modifications as long as it is understood that states may choose among the funding alternatives based on their specific responsibilities for protect-ing the interests of consumer by developing reasonable rates for providing public utility services. NRC 1 s rule amendments permit a State or Federal rate regulatory agency to choose from among the funding alternatives listed in the final rule and to choose levels of funding based on specific con-siderations related to their ratemaking responsibilities, as for example cost and equitability for early ratepayers versus later ratepayers. Under the existing statutory scheme the NRC has the authority to base specific funding arrangements on protection of public health and safety whereas the other agencies do not. In addition, FERC and the state PUCs do not have regulatory responsibility over all utilities. Publicly owned or rural electric cooperatives which set their own rates generally do not come under the jurisdiction of FERC or the state PUCs and would not, absent NRC oversight, be subject to review of their decommissioning funding methods. In response to comments that there should not be funding requirements for decommissioning because financial qualification requirements for construc-tion have been eliminated, it is NRC 1 s view that the elimination of finan-cial qualifications requirements does not eliminate the need for providing reasonable assurance of funds for decommissioning. When the rule on elim-ination of financial qualifications was proposed, the Commission stated that decommissioning was more properly dealt with in the separate rulemak-ing then underway. In promulgating the proposed rule on decommissioning, Commissioner Bernthal drew the distinction between decommissioning assur-ance and the rule on eliminating the financial qualification review at the licensing stage. Factors cited by the commenters, such as the presence of rate regulators or recognition that those who benefit from plants should pay all costs, do not provide reasonable assurance in and of themselves that health and safety will be protected. Some commenters stated that the proposed rule would impose a financial penalty on utilities and complicate the existing rate regulatory process. The NRC staff does not believe that this will occur. The proposed rule has the narrow focus of protecting public health and safety by having in place basic minimum standards for funding methods which provide reasonable assurance of funding for decommissioning in a safety and timely manner. The methods allowed include a variety of methods currently available to licensees. As noted in Section 0.3.2.1.1, the proposed rule has been modified to delete internal reserve as an acceptable funding method, how-ever, this is not expected to add significantly to licensee's burden for the reasons discussed in Section 0.3.2.1.1. As noted in Section 0.2.1 the certification of funding levels which may be more than but not less 0-47

than amounts prescribed in the rule is included as a means for minimizing licensee burden is complying with the amended regulations. The rule, and the NRC 1 s implementation of it, does not deal with financial ratemaking issues such as rate of fund collection, procedures for fund collection, cost to ratepayers, taxation effects, equitability between early and later ratepayers, accounting procedures, ratepayer versus stockholder considera-tions, responsiveness to change and other local concerns. In addition, the rule does not deal with costs of demolition of non-radioactive struc-tures and equipment or with site restoration after termination of the NRC license. These matters are outside NRC 1 s jurisdiction and are the respon-sibility of the State PUC 1 s and FERC. As noted above, the amendments permit a state to choose from among the funding alternatives for specific cases which they are considering related to their ratemaking responsibil-ities within the content of the general standards. As outlined here, considering the distinct roles that the NRC and the ratemaking agencies have, NRC will not become involved in the rate regulation process as it relates to decommissioning. Based on the above discussion, the Commission believes that the rule is an equitable means of requiring reasonable assurance of funding for decommis-sioning without imposing an undue burden on licensees. 0.8.2 Liability/Responsibility for Funding and Decommissioning

1. Comment Summary Seven commenters expressed concern that there must be a clear statement with regard to the responsibility for decommissioning and that utilities should not be able to evade liability for funding of decommissioning costs.

A commenter indicated that any licensee that fails to fund or carry out its decommissioning activities should lose or have suspended any other license which it holds until it properly carries out its duties. Another commenter indicated that a utility could avoid liability for decommission-ing by forming "holding companies 11 which would protect assets from the liability of a shutdown reactor. The commenter indicated that these hold-ing companies could diversify into new ventures outside the scope of Federal and State regulation, could take funds from the power company, and thus leave the electric utility portion of the company in a financially weak condition. This financially weak utility might find it very diffi-cult to fund decommissioning and therefore become a threat to public health and safety. The commenter indicated that the rule should provide guidelines to address these issues otherwise ratepayers would be stuck with this problem and radiological hazards may exist. If the rule does not address this question then commenter~ suggested federal legislucion to strengthen utility liability, including repeal of the Price-Anderson limit. (6, 9, 16, 17, 18, 49, 52, 71). Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in Section D.3.2.1.1, based on its review of the issue of financial assurance in preparation of the final rule, the Commission con-cluded that the internal reserve does not provide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning. Accordingly, the proposed D-48

rule has been modified to eliminate internal reserve as an acceptable method of providing funds for deconunissioning. This would alleviate much of the concern expressed in this comment. The commenters express the concern that there is a possibility that a licensee could form a holding company to separate assets from liabilities. However, the concern of the commenters can be alleviated by appropriate action by the NRC. The NRC could condition the approval of the decommis-sioning plan by requiring the licensee to include sufficient funds in the establishment of the holding company. In other words, the NRC would not approve the decommissioning plan unless the holding company had sufficient assets to meet its obligations pursuant to the decommissioning plan in addition to its normal obligations. Thus, the licensee could not sequester assets and liabilities in a manner which would defeat the decommissioning plan. The NRC would have sufficient authority under the Atomic E~ergy Act and its existing regulations that, if a utility were to try to reorganize in order to evade its decommissioning obligations, the Commission would be able to take action to prevent any adverse health and safety impacts. The commenters also indicated that there must be a clear statement with regard to the responsibility for decommissioning and that there should be potential for suspension of other licenses. The Supplementary Information to the proposed rule states that 11 The licensee is responsible for complet-ing decommissioning in a manner that protects health and safety. 11 In addi-tion throughout the Supplementary Information and the text of the rule make clear that the licensee must take responsibility for planning for decommissioning by considering levels of radiation exposure, decommission-ing alternatives, waste disposal issues, funding, and conducting termina-tion surveys prior to termination of the license and release of the facil-ity for unrestricted use. The amendments indicate that the licensee must provide a reasonable level of assurance that funds are available for decom-missioning and, at the time of permanent termination of operations, must submit a decommissioning plan which addresses the choice of decommission-ing alternatives, methods to control occupational and public health and safety, the planned final radiation survey, and funding for decommission-ing. These provisions make clear that the licensee has the legal respon-sibility to plan for and accomplish decommissioning of the facility and preparing the property for release for unrestricted use and that this responsibility cannot be evaded. As noted below in Section H.4, com-pliance with the regulations is the responsibility of the licensee and the Commission holds licensees responsible for its actions. If violations occur, the licensee would be subject to appropriate enforcement action such as corrective actions and payment of civil penalties assessed by the Commission. The combination of the specific requirements in the amended regulations for funding and for carrying out decommissioning safely and the enforcement action which the Commission may take against a licensee in violation of the regulation may make it unnecessary for the carrying out of the actions suggested by the commenter.

2. Comment Summary Some commenters indicated that utility stockholders should be responsible for any decommissioning costs not collected from ratepayers during reactor life and that no funding method which results in costs exceeding those D-49

estimated should be allowed. The commenters indicated that, if necessary, the states should take action to make utility stockholders responsible for decommissioning costs not collected from ratepayers during the operating life of the plant. One commenter raised the question of how much of the financial burden will fall on the taxpayer, the ratepayer, and the investor, respectively. One commenter indicated the government should share in the decommissioning costs since the government has promoted nuclear power. (6, 9, 41, 42, 49, 52, 79) Comment Analysis and Response As stated in D.8.1, the issue addressed by the proposed rule is the assur-ance of funds for decommissioning and that is the issue considered by NRC. The questions raised by the commenters, such as stockholder versus ratepayer responsibilities and how the burden will be distributed are out-side the scope of NRC's jurisdiction. As discussed above in D.8.1, the responsibility for decommissioning, including the funding of decommissioning costs, belongs to the licensees who own, operate, and derive benefit from their facilities. The govern-ment is not responsib~~ for these privately-owned facilities. It is expected that with implementation of the requirements contained in the proposed rule that funds will be available for decommissioning and that the funding levels should be adequate. *

3. Comment Summary One commenter expressed the concern that there exists the potential for reducing material licensee's liability for decontamination activities should the NRC approved funding plan be inadequate. Poor judgment in evaluating funding plans and difficulty in forecasting economic conditions may result in having drastically reduced funds available at decommission-ing. (90)

Comment Analysis and Response Amended 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 require that each holder of a specific license provide financial assurance for decommissioning thus specifically indicating the licensee is the responsible party for financial assurance. It is expected that the requirements contained in amended 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, and 70 will provide reasonable assurance that funds are available for decommissioning nuclear facilities. Specifically, Section 30.35 (and related sections in other parts) requires submittal of a funding plan containing a.. estimate of the cost of decommiJsioning or use of a certifi-cation of an amount prescribed in the regulations. The cost estimate contained in the funding plan will be based on site conditions and can use, as a base, information developed by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) in a series of reports on technology, safety, and costs of decommis-sioning nuclear facilities (Refs. 2-15). NRC's review and evaluation of the estimate can use not only the PNL reports but experience gained at other materials facility decommissionings. Section 30.35 also provides that the licensee include provisions in the funding plan for adjusting decommissioning cost estimates and associated funding levels over the D-50

life of the facility to take into account changing economic and technical conditions. Even in the event that these efforts result in a shortfall of funds at decommissioning, a matter which concerns the commenter, the regulations specifically state that it is the licensee 1 s responsibility to fund and carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety. Accordingly, the licensee would be under a continuing obligation to fund the means for completing decommissioning. Based on consideration of this comment, as well as the comments regarding the cost of decommissioning of materials facilities in Section D.6.3.1, the proposed rule has been modified to indicate that combinations of isotopes are to be considered in determining levels of decommissioning cost. D.8.3 Relationship of rule to other agencies

1. Comment Summary Several commenters addressed the issue of the proper roles of NRC and state and federal ratemak1ng agencies in establishing funding methods.

Some commenters indicated that the rule as presented is satisfactory as long as it is clear in allowing other invo:ved state and federal authori-ties to decide issues related to the ratemaking impact of decommissioning fund accumulation. The commenters also stated that the rule should not go any further in applying more prescriptive requirements or pre-empting State laws and that the specific funding method should not be prescribed by the rule but should be determined by the ratemaking authorities because they are in the best position to determine the most effective and economic method to arrive at the least cost option, taking into account taxation, accounting, financial and other local considerations. One commenter indi-cated that the rule should explicitly permit state and Federal ratemaking agencies to apply more stringent funding requirements. Commenters indi-cated that NRC 1 s jurisdictional responsibility and therefore its principal concern should be that decommissioning is carried out in a safe manner and that ratemaking bodies should have responsibility for choosing cost-effective funding methods. One commenter expressed concern that there may be serious jurisdictional problems and disputes with NRC's rule in that NRC is seeking to exercise control over the economic matters related to decommissioning expense. The commenter indicated that the NRC should make it clear what functions of other ratemaking agencies it intends to supplant and how its regulations will fit with existing state and federal regulation of decommissioning cost~ On commenter questioned how NRC will implement the rule in the case of a licensee whose rate regulator does not allow the licensee to recover fuids in its rates and set u,. a decommissioning fund. (4, 9, 22, 26, 29, 38, 46, 52, 61, 62, 63, 67, 87, 88, 100, 101, 104, 105, 118, 123, 125, 128, 129, 131, 132, 134, 140, 142) Comment Analysis and Response In this rulemaking, the Commission has considered the roles of the state Public Utility Commissions (PUCs) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commis-sion (FERC), as well as the NRC in establishing acceptable methods avail-able to nuclear power reactor licensees for accumulating funds for decom-missioning. Each of these agencies has a role in this area. The Federal D-51

Energy Regulatory Commission has the responsibility for setting rates for the transmission and sale (wholesale) of electricity by investor-owned utilities in interstate commerce and authorizes the conditions, rates, and charges for interconnections among electric utilities. The sales of elec-tricity for which FERC would set rates are small, comprising about 13 per-cent of total U.S. electricity sales. State public utility commissions have the responsibility for setting rates for retail sales of electricity to homeowners and companies doing business in their states. NRC is respon-sible for protecting the public health and safety during the construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. As part of assuring public health and safety, the NRC has issued a number of rules in the general area of financial criteria: Part 40 Appendix A, Criterion 9 (on assuring that sufficient funds will be available to carry out decommission-ing and decontamination of uranium mills and for reclamation of any tail-ings or waste disposal areas); Section 50.33(f) (on demonstrating to the

• Commission the financial qualification for certain licensed activities);

Section 50.54(w) (on obtaining onsite property damage insurance to assure adequate funds for decontamination after an accident); Part 61, Subpart E, Section 61.62 (on providing assurance that sufficient funds will be avail-able to carry out closure and stabilization of low level waste disposal facilities); and Section 72.18 (on the decommissioning plan and financial arrangem~nts to provide reasonable assurance that decontamination and decommissioning will be carried out for inaependent spent fuel storage installations). The NRC's authority to regulate the hazards of nuclear waste and protect the public health and safety is derived from the Atomic Energy Act and the Energy Reorganization Act. These acts do not permit the NRC to regulate rates or interfere with decisions of State or Federal agencies with respect to the economics of nuclear power. However, the NRC is the sole authority with respect to health and safety regulation. The questions raised by the commenters include whether the funding requirements are purely economic or are in some way connected to the protection of the public health and safety. In general, licensees do experience increased costs because of regulatory requirements imposed by the NRC. For example, an emergency core cooling system is required before a plant is permitted to operate and it is very expensive. This increase in cost certainly can be viewed as a form of ratemaking because a state utility commission must include the costs of the cooling system in the utility's rate base or authorize the utility to recover the costs as an operational expense. However, the requirement for an emergency core cooling system is also a valid exercise of the NRC's regulatory authority to protect the public health and safety. The pro-pJsed decommissioning rule is only differant in degree and not kind. There is a significant radiation hazard associated with nondecommissioned nuclear facilities. This safety determination is clearly within the scope of the NRC's authority, see Pacific Gas & Electric v. State Energ~ Resources Conservation & Development Commission, 461 U.S. 190, 212, 217-19 (1983), and none of the commenters takes issue with the NRC's power to make that determination. To protect the public health and safety, the NRC has developed this rule which will provide protection to the public health and safety. The development and implementation of this rule also is within the scope of NRC's authority. See id. at 212-13; see also United Nuclear Corporation v. Cannon, 553 F. Supp. 1220, 1230-32 (D.R.!. 0-52

1982) and cases cited therein. Therefore, the difference between the decommissioning rule and the requirement for an emergency core cooling system is the cost associated with the two rules. However, a difference in cost does not transform a valid exercise of regulatory authority into an impermissible intrusion into the ratemaking powers of the states or other federal agencies. Thus the basis for setting allowable funding methods is that NRC's statu-tory responsibility to protect the health and safety of the public requires reasonable assurance that at the time of termination of operations ade-quate funds are available so that decommissioning can be carried out in a safe and timely manner. However, it is also clear that state PUCs and FERC have jurisdiction and responsibility with regard to financial rate-making issues including such matters as rate of fund collection, procedures for fund collection, cost to ratepayers, taxation effects, equitableness, accounting procedures, ratepayer versus stockholder considerations, responsiveness to change, and other local concerns. NRC's rule amendments do not attempt to interject NRC into those areas. As discussed in D.8.1, NRC's rule amendments permit a State or Federal rate regulatory agency to choose from among the funding alternatives listed in the final rule and to choose levels of funu;ng based on specific considerations related to their ratemaking responsibilities indicated in this paragraph. Under the exist-ing statutory scheme the NRC has the authority to base specific funding arrangements on protection of public health and safety whereas the other agencies do not. The general standards listed in the amendments include funding methods currently under consideration by State and Federal rate-making agencies. The rule establishes requirements for indicating to NRC how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available for decommission-ing. Specific financial and local issues identified by the commenters wi~l not be addressed by NRC but will be left to state PUCs and FERC to determine. As discussed in Section D.2.1, the final rule contains text recognizing that funding for decommissioning of electric utilities is also subject to the regulation of agencies (e.g., FERC and state PUCs) having jurisdiction over rates, and that the NRC requirements are in addition to, and not substitution for, other requirements, and are not intended to be used, by themselves, by other agencies to establish rates. As discussed in D.8.1, considering the distinct roles that the NRC and the ratemaking agencies have, NRC will not become involved in the rate regulation process as it relates to decommissioning.

2. Comment Summary One commenter indicated that they supported the transfer of the decommis-sioning responsibility to the federal agency as this would provide maximum assurance for decommissioning. The commenter indicated that funds must be collected in a manner similar to that for the nuclear fuel disposal provi-sion (38).

Comments Analysis and Response The rule does not propose that decommissioning responsibility be shifted to the federal agency or that NRC be involved in fund collection. The D-53

Supplementary Information to the proposed rule stated that the licensee is responsible for completing decommissioning in a manner that protects health and safety. The amendments indicate how the licensee can demon-strate to the NRC reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decommission the facility in a safe manner. Licensees have this respon-sibility and with existing methods can provide reasonable assurance of funding for decommissioning. Responsibility for the carrying out of decom-missioning of facilities or for administering decommissioning funds is outside of NRC's jurisdiction. D-54

E. Residual Radioactivity Limits E.1 Need for residual limits

1. Comment Summary Commenters expressed concerns about the absence of residual radioactivity limits, and urged the NRC to develop such levels as quickly as possible.

Reasons given were health and safety concerns, difficulty of decommission-ing planning, and commonality of objectives concerning waste burial and decommissioning requiring a de minimus level. Several commenters made specific comments on the numerical value of the residual limit and how it should be chosen. (9, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 33, 42, 51, 52, 58, 60, 71, 73, 78, 95, 101, 105, 119, 126, 128, 129, 134) Comment Analysis and Response The Commission is participating in an EPA organized interagency working group which is developing Federal guidance on acceptable residual radioac-tivity levels which would permit property to be released for unrestricted use. Proposed Federal guidance is anticipated to be published by EPA. The selection of an acceptable level is outside the scope of this rule-making. Currently, criteria for residual contamination levels do exist and research and test reactors are being decommissioned using present guid-ance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86 for surface contamination plus case-by-case considerations for direct radiation. As an example, NRC pro-vided such criteria in letters to Stanford University, dated 3/17/81 and 4/21/82 providing 11 Radiation criteria for release of the dismantled Stand-ard Research Reactor to unrestricted access. 11 The NRC is currently devel-oping interim guidance with respect to residual contamination criteria.

2. Comment Summary Commenter feels that survey criteria should be provided in the rule, even on an interim basis and that the final rule include clarification of when information other than a final radiation survey is adequate to allow termination of license. (40)

Comment Analysis and ~esponse Survey criteria should depend on the residual radioactivity level chosen. It is intended that development of such information in a regulatory guide would be more appropriate. Such development in the proposed rule is inappropriate and too detailed. Submission of the decommissioning plan to the NRC for approval, however, does require a detailed description of the survey plan. E-1

E.2 Need residual limits prior to issuance of this rule Comment Summary Comments expressed concern that this rule should not be issued until the rule on residual radioactivity level is issued because without it one can-not plan or estimate cost and entirely satisfy financial assurance require-ments and must assume Regulatory Guide 1.86 values are acceptable. In addition, establishment of a limit could eliminate needless litigation. Commenters also indicated that the value of residual radioactivity limits will impact cost for non-power reactors. (19, 21, 22, 25, 80, 90, 105, 112, 117, 136) Comment Analysis and Response It is imperative that decommissioning regulations in 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72 be issued at this time because it is important to establish financial assurance provisions, as well as the other decommissioning plan-ning provisions of the rule, as soon as possible so that funds will be available to carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety. As noted in Section E.1 criteria for residual contamination levels cur-rently do exist and research and test reactors are currently being decom-missioned using present guidance contained in Regulatory Guide 1.86 (Ref. 21) for surface contamination plus case-by-case considerations for direct radiation. As an example, NRC provided such criteria in letters to Stanford University, dated 3/17/81 and 4/21/82 providing 11 Radiation crite-ria for release of the dismantled Stanford Research Reactor to unrestricted access. 11 (As discussed in E.l, development of interim guidance to formal-ize NRC criteria is under consideration.) The cost estimate in a funding plan can be based on current criteria and guidance regarding residual radioactivity levels for unrestricted use. The information in the studies by Battelle Northwest Laboratory (Refs. 2-15) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Refs. 16 and 17) on decommissioning have indicated that in any reasonable range of residual radioactivity limits the cost of decommission-ing is relatively insensitive to the radioactivity level and use of cost data based on current criteria should provide a reasonable estimate. Even in situations where the residual radioactivity level might have an effect on decommissioning cost, with the update provision in the rule it is expected that the decommissioning fund available at the end of facility life will approximate closely the ar.tual cost of decommissioning. Based on the need for the decommissioning rule to supplement provisions currently existing with those contained in the rule amendments, and on the discussion in E.1, the Commission believes that the rule can and should be issued now. E-2

F. Environmental Review Requirements F.1 Environmental Review Requirements and Environmental Impact Statements Comment Summary A number of commenters were concerned that the proposed rule would not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) in con-nection with each decommissioning of a reactor but would require only an environmental assessment (EA) unless the assessment showed that an EIS should be prepared in a particular case. In contrast, some comrnenters made specific comments supporting this aspect of the proposed rule. Of the commenters opposed, some thought that this would not allow for public input which they felt was important and several thought that the proposed rule violated the National Environmental Policy Act; the rationale of two of these was that the GEIS was not adequate. One commenter felt that there needed to be more successful experience of decommissioning various types of reactors before it could be decided that an EA was sufficient. Another suggested that an EIS should be prepared for major facilities such as power reactors and fuel fabrication facilities but an EA would be appro-priate for smaller facilities. One commenter suggested that there should be be an EIS but that reference to the GEIS could be allowed if careful study or testing or both at a given facility showed that the generic approach was adequate. In a related comment, a few commenters stated that the categorical exclusion of funding plan approvals from environ-mental review requirements was appropriate while one commenter felt it was not. (1, 2, 8, 9, 14, 22, 31, 33, 37, 40, 42, 50, 51, 54, 55, 58, 61, 63, 68, 71, 78, 80, 81, 86, 92, 95, 101, 103, 104, 123, 126, 129, 136) Comment Analysis and Response A number of co1M1enters who opposed the elimination of the requirement for a site-specific EIS argued that the EIS at licensing could not adequately estimate impacts in detail because much could change in the 30 to 40 years before decommissioning. Although the proposed rule discussed the fact that EIS's at licensing should address the impacts of decommissioning, the analyses of those impacts at that time is not considered to take the place of evaluating environmental i~~acts at the time cf decommissioning. At the time of decommissioning, a large quantity of waste must be handled and disposed of; this waste is essentially a result of having operated. The NRC action to be taken at the time of decommissioning is to approve an appropriate method of handling this waste. Alternative methods of handl-ing this waste will have different impacts which can be systematically assessed. The Commission's primary reason for eliminating a mandatory EIS for decommissioning is that the impacts have been considered generically in a GEIS. The Commission determined that examination of these impacts and their cumulative effect on the environment and their integration into F-1

the waste disposal process could best be examined generically. A final, updated GEIS has been issued (Ref. 20). The GEIS shows that the differ-ence in impacts among the basic alternatives for decommissioning is small and the dose impact of decommissioning is small, whatever alternative is chosen, in comparison with the impact accepted from 40 years of licensed operation. The relative impacts are expected to be similar from plant to plant, so that a site-specific EIS would result in the same conclusions as the GEIS with regard to methods of decommissioning. Although some com-menters correctly point out that an EA is much less detailed in its assess-ment of impacts than an EIS, if the impacts for a particular plant are significantly different from those studied generically because of site-specific considerations, the environmental assessment would discover those and lay the foundation for the preparation of an EIS. If the impacts for a particular plant are not significantly different, a Finding of No .

• Significant Impact would be prepared. In answer to the comment concern-ing violation of NEPA, the Commission 1 s rules concerning EA 1 s and EIS 1 s comply with case law and Council on Environmental Quality regulations.

In response to the concern that decisions on decommissioning will be made without public input, decommissioning involves amendment of the operatirig license and the NRC rules provide an avenue for public input with respect to license amendment. With regard to categorical exclusion of funding plans, based on discussions in Sections 0.2.1 &nd 0.4.4, this area is removed from consideration. F.2 Costs included at construction permit stage Comment Summary One commenter indicated that costs of decommissioning should be included in the EIS prepared at the time of construction as well as when the decom-missioning plan is submitted. (71) Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in the Supplementary Information to the proposed rule, the overall impacts of decommissioning should be included at the time of licensing. At that time, however, it is only possible to consider major impacts such as waste disposal. A detailed analysis would be impractical, and would have no impact on the decision since decommissioning costs and impacts are small compared to the total cost and impacts of building and operating a major facility such as a reactor. F.3 High level waste disposal problems Comment Summary One commenter was concerned about the problems of decommissioning if there is no high level waste repository at the time power reactors are ready for decommissioning and noted particularly that the impacts of this would not have been considered in the EIS 1 s at licensing. (137) F-2

Comment Analysis and Response As discussed under F.l, inclusion of decommissioning impacts in the EIS at licensing does not substitute for environmental review at decommissioning. The rule and the GEIS did not assume, as the commenter suggests, that all high level waste will have been removed at the end of operation. Although decommissioning begins following the permanent end of operation, the license will not be terminated until all wastes have been removed from the site. The analysis of the rule and the GEIS has considered the neces-sity of using a SAFSTOR option if wastes cannot be removed because of lack of disposal capacity. The impacts connected with the storage of spent fuel onsite after the end of operation have been considered in the waste confidence proceedings. Decommissioning plans, environmental reports and assessments, and EIS's if necessary, will address the storage of waste and spent fuel during the decommissioning phase. (More detail on waste dis-posal issues is contained in section H.1 of this NUREG). Section 51.53 requires a supplement to the environmental report address-ing the storage of spent fuel at a power reactor after the expiration of the operating license. Section 51.95 covers the supplement to the EIS or the environmental assessment for the postoperating license stage. F-3

G. General Comments G.l General reaction Comment Summary A number of commenters specifically expressed support for the rule in general (or that no comment was needed), although some of these made suggestions for improvements. One commenter explained how the rulemaking was similar to what they as a state government were requiring in the area of assuring funds for reactors. One commenter indicated that "the pro-posed amendments will provide a foundation from which acceptable decommis-sioning planning and implementation programs can be developed." Another commenter stated that "the Commission 1 s assumptions underlying the pro-posed rule are reasonable and fair." Many specifically commented on the need for rulemaking. For example, one commenter stated that although some states have begun developing regulations, their efforts are hampered by the lack of Federal guidelines; one commenter urged the Commission to quickly promulgate a comprehensive set of regulations governing the plan-ning, safety, and financing of decommissioning. Others implied the need for rulemaking but felt that the proposed rule was inadequate to satisfy its intent and generally recommended stricter, more detailed regulations. A few of these suggested the rule be redrafted and republished for comment and that public meetings be held. The specific concerns have been addressed in other sections according to the particular issues. In con-trast, some commenters argued that existing rules were adequate and that this rule was unnecessary, overly prescriptive, and burdensome. For example, one commenter indicated that there is no evidence from experience with power reactors that there would be any adverse impacts in the absence of this rule and that this rule represented an unfair burden to nuclear power facilities compared to other public risks; one commenter pointed out that decommissioning methods are regulated by public utility commissions and that NRC should only step in to ensure safety. Another commenter suggests that the rule is in conflict with the 1985 Policy and Planning Guidance which indicates the Commission 1 s intent to have less prescrip-tive regulations. Two commenters suggest that these issues could best be handled by regulatory guidance. (1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 22, 25, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 58, 61, 62, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 72, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 110, 111, 118, 123, 125, 126, 128, 129, 132, 137) Comment Analysis and Response The detailed rationale presented by the comments has been discussed in the other sections of this NUREG. Although modifications have been made as a result of some of the more specific comments, the NRC believes that the rule 1 s approach presents the best available method for assuring that licen-sees develop plans sufficient to carry out decommissioning in a manner which protects public health and safety and is not inimical to the common G-1

defense and security. In the development of this rulemaking, public meet-ings have been held. In addition, further opportunities have occurred for the public to become informed and express their views through the notice and comment process prescribed by the Administration Procedure Act. This process produced numerous publicly available documents including the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Draft GEIS, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and the NUREG and NUREG/CR reports referenced in Section I. G.2 Coordination with state agencies Comment Summary Two commenters suggest that there should be consultation with the states in the decommissioning process. One was particularly concerned with possible disagreement between the states and NRC over adequacy of decontamination limits and residual radioactivity levels. (90, 110) Comment Analysis and Response This rule has not addressed such consultation, however, Section 50.91(b) requires licensees to notify the state any time an amendment to license is requested and provides for NRC and state consultation. Because decom-missioning involves amendment of the operating license, Section 50.91(b) applies. G.3 Applicability of regulation to different iicensees

1. Comment Summary Some commenters were concerned that the regulations may have been drafted with power reactors in mind and applied to non-power reactors without adequate realization or consideration of the differences in the level of difficulty in decommissioning between these classes of facilities. They suggested that the rule should distinguish between reactor types and make requirements appropriate for non-power reactors. One commenter pointed out that the costs of decommissioning research reactors are considerably less than those for power reactors and that it might be on the order of one or two years operating budgets. This commenter also pointed out that there was considerable experience in decommissioning research reactors and that there were no real uncertainties and suggested that there may not have been comparable input from the research reactor community as there was from utility organizations in developing the proposed rule. Another commenter indicated that adequate budgets were difficult to obtain, th~~

the 11 existence of research reactors at universities hangs on a thin thread," and that the burden of additional requirements could cause these threads to be cut. One commenter suggested that the health and safety of the public is better protected if research reactors are operating and effective rather than to have them shut down or made ineffective and that additional rules which result in 11 nonproductive 11 work and costs take resources needed for effective research centers. Another commenter was concerned with our lumping together power and non-power reactors as "major facilities" even though research reactors are simpler and less costly to G-2

decommission and suggested that the cost will in many cases be manageable within a licensee's normal financial planning and budget. (19, 21, 25, 35, 70, 117) Comment Analysis and Response The Commission has not drafted the rule amendments for power reactors and then applied to non-power reactors without taking into consideration the differences. The data base included a contractor study addressing the technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning research and test reac-tors. The comments concerning lower costs, more experience, fewer hazards, and open-ended operating life are true, however, these factors have been considered. The rule does distinguish between power and non-power reac-tors in the methods allowed for financial assurance. The methods allowed for non-power reactors are the same as for materials licensees and require commitment or guarantee at startup of the total amount of funds needed for decommissioning, whereas power reactor licensees have the option of building up the fund over facility life. As a means of minimizing the burden, Federal or State government licensees may provide a statement of intent indicating that funds for decommissioning will be obtained when necessary. The burden of providing financial assurance in the case of private non-power reactors is unavoidably greater, but will be in line with the projected costs for the particular reactor. Power and non-power reactors were lumped together for discussion pur-poses as major facilities only to the extent that no classes of reactors were considered appropriate for exemption from provisions for financial assurance and decommissioning planning. The comment regarding the exist-ence of research reactors hanging on a thin thread, in fact, supports the conclusion that financial assurance is needed in the case of research reactors. In regard to decommissioning plans, non-power reactors were never exempted from submitting dismantlement plans. The rule sets out the contents of decommissioning plans with no distinction for classes of reactors. However, the level of effort in developing plans and in the amount of material submitted will vary in practice commensurate with the level of effort required for the decommissioning. The Commission has attempted to minimize the burden of complying with these rules to the extent possible.

2. Comment Summary One commenter was concerned because the preamble to the proposed rule did not discuss the distinctions between Part 50 and Part 72 installations and suggests that the level of effort for decommissioning would be signi-ficantly different. The commenter also sugge~ts that this lack of explana-tion, especially because of the one step licensing process in Part 72, could result in licensing confusion. (126)

Comment Analysis and Response Part 50 and Part 72 facilities were called major facilities and combined for discussion in some parts of the Supplementary Information for the sake of brevity, because both types of facilities would be subject to financial G-3

assurance and decommissioning planning requirements. It is argued that the level of effort for decommissioning is different between the two facil-ities. However, the requirements for reactors and ISFSI 1 s are clearly spelled out in the text of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 72 and there appears no reason for confusion in the actual licensing process. In addition, a regulatory guide on decommissioning plans for 10 CFR Part 72 facilities is being developed. G.4 Unresolved waste disposal issues Comment Summary One commenter expressed the opinion that because of unresolved issues on availability and cost of disposal, these items should be excluded from decommissioning plans and financial assurance. Another suggested that the rule should not be made effective until these issues are resolved. (25, 76) Comment Analysis and Response While there may be uncertainty regarding the cost and disposal of decommis-sioning waste, such uncertainty is all the more reason to consider this in the decommissioning activities. For example, choosing the SAFSTOR alter-native instead of DECON may be reasonable for waste disposal reasons. More detail regarding waste disposal issues is contained in Section H.1. G.5 Inadequate GEIS Comment Summary Commenters expressed the concerns that the DGEIS is out of date and -~ incomplete in areas of cumulative impacts, waste disposal, accident. and, alternative selection. (72, 86, 103) Comment Analysis and Response An FGEIS will be issued at the time of issuance of the final rule. Major changes in the DGEIS are not expected, but additional elaboration as well as discussion of bases for appropriate rule modifications will provide the necessary basis for final rule promulgation. G.6 Exemptions G.6.1 Rule should exempt medical licensees Comment Summary One commenter suggested that all 2500 medical licensees be exempt from this regulation on the basis that generally decommissioning for medical licensees can be accomplished without significant time, risk, or expense. They suggest that at least in their case, inclusion would be unwarranted and counterproductive to the goal of health care cost-containment. (20) G-4

Comment Analysis and Response The Commission agrees that for the majority of medical licensees decommis-sioning presents little difficulty because the materials used are almost exclusively short-lived or sealed sources. Under the requirements of 1mended Parts 30 and 40, very few, if any, medical licensees would be included in either the financial assurance or decommissioning plan require-ments. A few medical licensees may need to amend their licenses to avoid unnecessarily being included in financial assurance requirements if their licenses are written more broadly than is necessary for the actual use of materials. An amendment to reduce possession limits may be readily obtained. The one requirement that will apply to medical licensees is the recordkeeping, however the burden will be limited by the limited information which i~ applicable. G.6.2 Exemption from rule for reactors Comment Summary One commenter was concerned about the possible exemption of a reactor from the rule which could be granted if a utility could prove undue hardship or extreme circumstances, indicating also that this request would a~low greater Commission control of the decommissioning process. (72) Comment Analysis and Response The rule has been written to allow flexibility in meeting the requirements. It is unlikely that any utility could justify an exception to any part of the regulation. However, requests for exemption of a reactor from any requirement would be decided by the Commission in accordance with exist-ing procedures in 10 CFR 50.12 of the Commission's regulations. G.7 Waste disposal facilities Comment Summary Two commenters agreed that the decommissioning of nuclear waste disposal facilities be covered in other rulemaking actions. (40, 137) Comment Analysis and Response The requirements for waste disposal facilities, including decommissioning, have previously been previously adopted and are incorporated in 10 CFR Parts 60 and 61. G.8 Procedural Comment Summary Four commenters requested that comments submitted after the close of the comment period be considered. (89, 95, 139, 140) G-5

Comment Analysis and Response All convnents received including those submitted after the close of the comment period have been fully considered and the analysis and response to these comments is included in this document. G.9 Clarification of applicability Comment Summary One commenter was confused because the background to the proposed rule indicated that the rule applied to any NRC license although the commenter had been informed by the Regional Office this was not the intent of the rule, and suggested that a clarification be made. (43) Comment Analysis and Response The rule applies to all NRC licensees (except waste disposal facilities and uranium mill and mill tailing facilities). The specific application of the rules to a particular licensee can be determined by reading the provisions of the rule. In some instances, the licensees will be required to provide detailed funding and decommissioning ~~2n~ In other instances, the requirements needed for compliance are minimal. G.10 Compilation of existing information G.10.1 Index of applicable regulations Comment Summary Two commenters suggest that NRC should prepare an index of existing regu-lations applicable to decommissioning and also that these should be incor-porated by reference into a separate set of rules that specifically govern decommissioning. (86, 103) Comment Analysis and Response Although such an index might be useful as regulatory guidance, it would not be necessary or appropriate to incorporate such an index by reference into the regulation since the individual requirements are already in the regulations. The possibility of a separate set of rules is discussed under C.1.3.2. G.10.2 Compilation of decommissioning experience Comment Summary One commenter suggested that the NRC should compile, organize, and evaluate all available information and experience on decommissioning and then develop recommendations and guidelines for the DECON and SAFSTOR methods of decommissioning. (15) G-6

Comment Analysis and Response During the development of this rulemaking, the NRC has been involved in compiling, organizing, and evaluating available information and experience on decommissioning. In addition to developing this regulation, several regulatory guides are being developed which could provide recommendations and guideiines for decommissioning methods. G.11 Post-Accident decommissioning Comment Summary Three commenters endorsed the distinction between decommissioning and accident-related decontamination even though decommissioning may follow accident cleanup. (61, 104, 123) Comment Analysis and Response The final rule has not changed the separate treatment of these two activ-ities. Further discussior. is contained in Section C.1.17. G.12 Decommissioning archives Comment Summary One commenter noted that documentation of decommissioning should be archived. (90) Comment Analysis and Response It is recognized that this is an important aspect of decommissioning and it is expected that relevant information will be stored on microfiche. It is not the responsibility of the licensee after license termination and need not be addressed by these amendments. G.13 Offsite liability Comment Summary One commenter suggested that the licensee's liability for decontamination should include offsite contamination. (90) Comment Analysis Jnd Response Significant offsite decontamination has not been assumed for decommission-ing planning and funding purposes because controls during operation would be expected to keep offsite contamination to a minimum. However, the Commission has the authority to order the licensee to clean up offsite contamination at any time during operation or at the time of decommission-ing if necessary. G-7

G.14 NRC takeover Comment Summary Two commenters would like the NRC to take over actual decommissioning responsibility rather than licensee. (11, 38) Comment Analysis and Response The NRC has no statutory authority to undertake decommissioning. NRC licensees have the responsibility for decommissioning their facilities. It is expected that compliance by licensees with applicable portions of NRC regulations will result in decommissioning of facilities in a manner which protects public health and safety. G.15 Resident inspectors during decommissioning Comment Summary One commenter requested that NRC inspectors should be assigned to a facil-ity undergoing decommissioning. (15) Comment Analysis and Response Decommissioning operations are of a routine nature and do not involve as potentially serious a health and safety situation as facility operation. Commensurate with this situation, NRC inspectors will visit facilities being decommissioned as deemed appropriate. G.16 Independent study Comment Summary Three commenters stated that decommissioning costs should be studied by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) because among other things Battelle Pacific Northwest is biased. (9, 17, 54) Comment Analysis and Response The NRC believes that the studies prepared by Battelle on the technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning (Refs. 2-15) were done in a profes-sional manner and produced quality results. These studies are discussed in more detail in s~ction 0.1. The NRC has r.o ~pecific objection to another study, however OTA is an arm of Congress and not subject to the jurisdiction of NRC. G.17 Revised Regulatory Guide 1.86 available before rule Comment Summary One commenter would like to review the revised Regulatory Guide 1.86 before the rule is finalized. (21) G-8

Comment Analysis and Response Because procedural aspects concerning decommissioning in the rule can change, it is difficult to issue a draft Regulatory Guide 1.86 before the rule is finalized. However, it is intended that a draft of revised Regu-latory Guide 1.86 will be issued for comment as soon as practical. G.18 Section 50.33(2) on financial qualifications Comment Summary One commenter requests that requirements in 50.33 (2) with respect to reactor operational aspects should not be part of rulemaking. (102) Comment Analysis and Response Proposed modifications to Section 50.33(2) were made only to include the word 11 decommissioning 11 in the existing terminology. G.19 Basis of costs of rule implementation Comment Summary One commenter questions the staff evaluation of the costs of implementing the proposed rule contained in the Regulatory Analysis, and notes that proceedings on financial assurance in the State of California by the util-ities and the public utility commission have already exceeded staff cumulative estimates. (22) Comment Analysis and Response The staff's evaluation of costs of implementing the rule amendments repre-sents an estimate of the difference in costs between applications of the rule requirements currently existing and those additionally proposed. While the staff recognizes that there can be many contingency situations, it is possible to deal with these on a case-by-case basis. In regard to financial assurance, it is clear that the NRC always required the cost of decommissioning to be borne by the licensee. Originally, assurance of funds was handled through financial qualification requirements. When these requirements were eliminated for power reactors, the Commission requested that development of the decommissioning rule amendments contain financial assurance requirements. It was expected that the amendments, by being more explicit in the parti-culars required, would result in a more direct and implementable situation than had been the general situation in the past. Consequently latitude in the areas of funding estimates and assurance methods was provided for in the rule. Moreover, a draft regulatory guide in this area is intended to provide for additional guidance in licensee development of funding provisions. G-9

G.20 Incorporation of DGEIS comments Comment Summary One commenter wants to incorporate the comments he made concerning the DGEIS as relevant to the proposed rule. (104) Comment Analysis and Response The rule as well as the FGEIS must be consistent. Accordingly, response to comments in either the FGEIS or final rule should be very similar. Comments on the DGEIS were considered in developing the proposed rule. However, the formal analysis of those comments will appear in the FGEIS and therefore are not repeated in this document. G.21 Criteria for spent fuel storage Comment Summary One commenter suggests that there should be criteria for storage of spent fue 1. (103) Comment Analysis and Response Storage of spent fuel is currently performed under either a Part 50 or 72 license (independent spent fuel storage). Existing 10 CFR 50.54(bb) requires licensees to submit to the Commission written notification of the program by which the licensee intends to manage and provide funding for the management of all spent fuel at the reactor upon expiration of the reactor operating license until its ultimate disposal. Criteria for such storage is outside the scope of this rulemaking. G.22 Definition of "site" Comment Summary One commenter requests that a definition for "site" be given so that release of uncontaminated areas can be more easily allowed. (67) Comment Analysis and Response The NRC license defines the boundary of the site. Anything outside this boundary is unrestricted. T~ release the site it must be shown to be at an acceptable residual radioactivity level such that the license can be terminated. If a licensee wishes to release portions of the original site, he must obtain a modified license. G.23 Reference to Section 50.54(bb) Comment Summary One commenter indicated that NRC should reference the licensee require-ments for spent fuel 50.54(bb) in the rule. (140) G-10

Comment Analysis and Response The rulemaking consists of amendments to existing rules including amend-ments to 10 CFR Part 50. Reference to Section 50.54(bb) in the amendments themselves is unnecessary. G.24 DOE taking possession of spent fuel Comment Summary One commenter indicated that NRC should encourage DOE to take possession of spent fuel as soon as possible so as not to delay decommissioning. (140) Comment Analysis and Response The disposition of spent fuel is covered by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended (NWPA). As discussed in Section H.1.1, disposal of spent fuel is outside the scope of this rulemaking. However, alternative methods of decommissioning are available under the amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, including delay in completion of decommissioning during which time there can be storage of wastes. Delay in decommissioning can result in a reduction of occupational dose and waste volume due to radioactive decay. In addition, provisions are made in the amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 to assure adequate funds for the completion of decommissioning. G.25 Radiation lethal Comment Summary One commenter stated that the effects of radiation from a nuclear reactor can be l etha 1. ( 7) Comment Analysis and Response Protection of the public health and safety from the effects of radiation is the reason why reactors are regulated. If the reactor activities are handled properly, and in accordance with NRC regulations, then no signifi-cant adverse radiation effects should occur. G.26 Sociopolitical problems Comment Summary One commenter noted an 11 unfounded concern for sociopolitical problems 11 in the Regulatory Analysis and indicated that this was not the NRC respon-sibility under the Atomic Energy Act. (22) Comment Analysis and Response The impetus for rulemaking by the Commission must always be related specifically to its responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act such as the health and safety of the public. However, a cost-benefit analysis such as appears in the Regulatory Analysis appropriately considers all Lypes of costs and benefits including sociopolitical ones. G-11

H. Comments Outside Rule Scope H.1 Criteria for waste disposal H.1.1 Consider waste disposal criteria and decommissioning waste classification

1. Comment Summary Commenters indicated that NRC must carefully study wastes resulting from decommissioning and provide proper classification of these wastes. Decom-missioning standards should include clear definitions of high-level (including spent fuel), low-level, and "intermediate level" wastes. Con-sideration should be given to means of transport and proper disposal for different types of decommissioning wastes so that wastes are not placed into burial grounds for which they are not suited. Also, consideration should be given to availability of disposal capacity for the different classes of decommissioning wastes.

In particular, long lived activation products, such as Ni-59 or Nb-94, should not be classified as low-level waste nor buried at LLW disposal sites. Commenters suggested that long lived wastes and wastes containing intense emitters be classified as high level waste. Also "intermediate level" wastes containing long lived isotopes should not be buried in low-level waste disposal sites. Concern was expressed by the commenters that without availability of disposal capacity there could be problems with carrying out decommissioning, in particular, lack of high-level waste dis-posal sites could cause problems. (5, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 25, 41, 42, 44, 49, 52, 57, 71, 82, 86, 103, 137) Comment Analysis and Response Criteria for wastes needing to be disposed of at the time of decommission-ing are contained in existing regulations and are beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. Disposal of spent fuel will be via geologic repository pursuant to requirements set forth in NRC s regulation 10 CFR 1 Part 60. Disposal of low-level wastes is covered under NRC's regulation 10 CFR Part 61. Because low-level wastes cover a wide range in radionu-clide types and activities, 10 CFR Part 61 includes a waste classification system that establishes three classes of waste generally suitable for near-surface disposal: Class A, Class 8, and Class C. This classifica-tion system provides for successively stricter disposal requirements so that the potential risks from disposal of each class of waste are essen-tially equivalent to one another. In particular, the classification system limits to safe levels the concentrations of both short- and long-lived radionuclides of concern to low-level waste disposal. The radionu-clides considered in the waste classification system of 10 CFR Part 61 include long-lived activation products such as Ni-59 or Nb-94, as well as 11 intense emitters 11 such as Co-60. H-1

Wastes exceeding Class C limits are considered to be not generally suitable for near-surface disposal, and those small quantities currently being generated are being safety stored pending develo*pment of disposal capacity. The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-240, approved January 15, 1986, 99 Stat. 1842) provides that disposal of wastes exceeding Class C concentrations is the responsibility of the Federal government. These wastes may be considered to basically corres-pond to the "intermediate-waste" designation suggested by commenters. As far as decommissioning wastes are concerned, technical studies coupled with practical experience from decommissioning of small reactor units indicate that wastes from future decommissionings of large power reactors will have very similar physical and radiological characteristics to those currently being generated from reactor operations. Two of the studies performed by NRC include NUREG/CR-0130, Addendum 3 (Ref. 2), and NUREG/ CR-0672, Addendum 2, (Ref. 3) which specifically address classification of wastes from decommissioning large pressurized water reactor (PWR) and large boiling water reactor (BWR) nuclear power stations. These studies indicate that the classification of low-level decommissioning wastes from power reactors will be roughly as follows: Waste Class PWR (Vol.%) BWR (Vol. %) A 98.0 97.5 B 1. 2 2.0 C 0.1 0.3 Above C 0.7 0.2 As shown, the great majority of the waste volume from decommissioning will be classified as Class A waste. Only a small fraction of the wastes will exceed Class C limits. Transportation of decommissioning wastes will involve no additional tech-nical considerations beyond those for transportation of existing radio-active material. Existing regulations covering transportation of radio-active material are covered under NRC regulations in 10 CFR Parts 20, 71, and 73 and Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR Parts 170-189. Disposal capacity for Class A, Class B, and Class C wastes currently eYists. Development of new disposal capacity under the State compacting process is covered under the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act referred to above. This Act provides for incentives for development of such capacity, as well as penalties for failure to develop such capacity. NRC staff expects that Congress will provide guidance for development of disposal capacity for wastes exceeding Class C concentrations. Disposi-tion of spent fuel, which although not included as a decommissioning activity could nevertheless impact on the decommissioning schedule, is covered by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. Licensees will have to assess the situation with regard to waste disposal as part of the decommissioning plan which they submit according to the requirements of 10 CFR 30.36, 40.42, 50.82, 70.38 and 72.38. In addition, H-2

the rule amendments require that at or about five years prior to the pro-jected end of operation, each reactor licensee submit a preliminary decom-missioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up-to-date assessment of the major technical factors that could affect plann-ing for decommissioning. The Supplementary Information of the proposed rule indicated that this requirement would assure that consideration be given to relevant, up-to-date information which could be important to adequate planning and funding for decommissioning well before decommission-ing actually begins. These considerations would likely include an assess-ment of the current waste disposal conditions. If for any reason disposal capacity for decommissioning wastes were unavailable, there are provisions in Section 50.82 to allow delay in completion of decommissioning which would permit temporary safe storage of decommissioning waste. In addition, Section 50.82 contains requirements to ensure that adequate funding is available for completion of delayed decommissioning. The Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicated that the DECON decommissioning alternative assumes availability of capacity to dis-pose of waste. Alternative methods of decommissioning are available including delay in completion of decommissioning during which time there can be storage of wastes. Delay in decommissioning can result in a reduc-tion of occupational dose and waste volume due to radioactive decay.

2. Comment Summary Two commenters stated licensees should be required to show that the wastes they produce will be accepted by appropriate waste disposal sites. (86, 103)

Comment Analysis and Response As discussed in H.1.1.1, legislation is in place that addresses the avail-ability of disposal capacity. The legislation is as follows: (1) the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended, and (2) the Low-Level Radio-active Waste Policy Amendments Acts of 1985. In addition, as also dis-cussed in H.1.1.1, NRC regulations already provide that the licensee ensure that the waste when shipped is properly classified and acceptable for LLW disposal. Licensees will have to assess the situation with regard to waste disposal as part of the decommissioning plan which they submit according to the requirements of amended 10 CFR 30.36, 40.42, 50.82, 70.38, and 72.38. In addition, amended 50.75 requires that at or about five years prior to the projected end of operation, each reactor licensee submit a preliminary decommissioning plan containing a cost estimate for decommissioning and an up-to-date assessment of the major technical factors that could affect planning for decommissioning. This requirement assures that considera-tion be given to relevant, up-to-date information which could be important to adequate planning and funding for decommissioning well before decommis-sioning actually begins. These considerations would likely include an assessment of the then current waste disposal conditions. H-3

The Supplementary Information to the proposed rule indicates that the DECON decommissioning alternative assumes availability of capacity to dis-pose of waste. However as noted in H.1.1.1 there are provisions in amended Section 50.82 to allow delay in completion of decommissioning which would permit storage of decommissioning wastes. Amended 50.82 also has require-ments to assure adequate funding is available to complete decommissioning.

3. Comment Summary Two commenters suggested that shallow land burial of all radioactive wastes from decommissioning be banned. (5, 18)

Comment Analysis and Response The low-level waste rule, 10 CFR Part 61, was promulgated in December of 1982 to ensure protection of public health and safety. The rule specifies performance objectives, licensing procedures and minimum technical require-ments for suitability; site design; facility operations; site closure; environmental monitoring; waste classification; waste characteristics; waste labeling; land ownership; and institutional controls. The rule covers areas of concern regarding decommissioning wastes. In addition to the rule, there has also been over 40 years of experience in low-level waste disposal at both government and commercial disposal sites. This experience, plus several studies such as those discussed earlier (Refs. 2-15), indicate that wastes from future decommissioning activities will be very similar to those wastes which are currently being generated by operating facilities. NRC staff concludes that there is no health and safety basis for requir-ing different disposal practices for decommissioning wastes than those required for existing wastes of comparable hazard.

4. Comment Summary Concern was expressed by some commenters that it was unlikely that a high-level waste disposal site would be available in the near future, some men-tioning 2010 or later. Without this availability there will be problems with carrying out decommissioning. (9, 42, 59, 80)

Comment Analysis and Response The 11 Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 11 as amended, outlines the schedule for development of a geologic repository and monitored retrievable storage for high-level waste. I Alternative methods of decommissioning are available under the amendments to 10 CFR Part 50, including delay in completion of decommissioning during which time there can be storage of wastes. Delay in deconvnissioning can result in a reduction of occupational dose and waste volume due to radio-active decay. In addition, provisions are made in the amendments to 10 CFR Part 50 to assure adequate funds for the completion of decommissioning. As discussed in Section H.1.1.2, plans submitted by licensees five years H-4

prior to projected termination of operations will assess relevant up-to-date information which could be important to adequate planning for decom-missioning well before the decommissioning actually begins and these considerations will likely include the then current waste disposal situa-tion as it affects the decommissioning.

5. Comment Summary Two commenters stated that the rule should require licensees to m1n1m1ze the amount of waste produced, holding them to an as low as reasonably achievable" standard. In addition, the commenter indicated that waste packages should be required to meet material integrity requirements to prevent them from falling apart due to corrosion, improper packing, effects of chemicals, and exposure to the elements. (86, 103)

Comment Analysis and Response In 1981, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the establishment of a policy that addresses the need for waste generators to minimize the quantity of waste produced. This policy also states that NRC will take expeditious action on requests for licensing of volume reduction systems. Decommissioning wastes will be required to be packaged in accordance with applicable packaging requirements, and packaging of these wastes is beyond the scope of this rulemaking action. H.1.2 Concerns with disposal of chemical wastes

1. Comment Summary Some commenters were concerned over the disposal of chelating agents which are present in the chemical solutions used in system decontaminations dur-ing decommissioning. The commenters indicate that the chelate agents may cause enhanced migration of radionuclides at low-level waste burial grounds and that insufficient research has been done to establish safety of dis-posal. Comment suggestions for alleviating the problems include (1) exclu-sion of these wastes from LLW sites without full assurance that migration problems will not occur, (2) use of physical barriers in the burial grounds, and (3) incineration of the chelating agent and disposal of the product.

A commenter was concerned over disposal of non-radiological wastes. (9, 18, 52, 57, 71, 86, 92, 93, 103) Comment Analysis and Response Considerable research has been done on the interactions between chelating agents and radionuclides, most notably by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. According to 10 CFR Part 61, the methods to be employed in handling chelating agents must be described in a license application. Treatment and disposal of decommissioning wastes containing chelating agents will be required to be in accord with applicable regulations. Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous waste not necessary for NRC license termination is not covered by these regulations but would be treated by other appro-priate agencies having responsibility over these wastes. H-5

2. Comment Summary Two commenters indicated that in order to better evaluate the disposal of chelating agents that the rule should require a licensee to make public the chemical formulas used in decontamination solutions. (86, 103)

Comment Analysis and Response The chemical formula of a decontamination solution containing chelating agents can be released to regulatory agencies and to waste disposal opera-tors. Under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 2 pertaining to proprietary information, some of that information may not be subject to public disclosure. H.2 Other energy sources Comment Summary Two commenters expressed concern with nuclear power. One commenter suggested that the U.S. should turn to environmentally safe sources of renewable energy. (42, 79) Comment Analysis and Response The purpose of this rulemaking activity is to assure that decommissioning of nuclear facilities is carried out safely. This comment is outside the scope of this rulemaking and outside the scope of the NRC's jurisdiction. H.3 Reduce worker dose Comment Summary Three commenters suggested that the permissible level of radiation expo-sure to nuclear workers should be reduced at least ten-fold. One commenter indicated that this would be consistent with recommendations of a number of health experts, including Dr. Edward Radford and that it is a long over-due action to protect workers' health and safety, especially at this time as NRC establishes decommissioning regulations. (9, 52, 71) Comment Analysis and Response Establishing permissible levels of radiation exposure for nuclear workers is outside the scope of this rulemaking effort. Protection of workers during decommissioning is an important consideration which is addres~~d by these amendments. The Supplementary Information to the proposed rule views this as an important aspect of both preliminary and final planning. The amendments require licensees to facilitate decommissioning by main-tenance of adequate information over the facility life on the design and current condition of the facility and site. Section 50.82 of the amend-ments requires that the decommissioning plan submitted at the time of the application for termination of license contain a description of controls and limits on procedures and equipment to protect occupational and public health and safety. H-6

Although the amendments address worker protection in these ways, specific establishment of permissible levels of radiation exposure to nuclear workers is outside the scope of this rulemaking effort. Amendments to 10 CFR Part 20, currently underway at NRC, are a more appropriate means of addressing these concerns. H.4 Enforcement Comment Summary One commenter indicated that any necessary enforcement actions would likely be unfair and misplaced. Specifically NRC civil penalties for violation are not directed at the actual person or manager involved but are ultimately paid by the ratepayer, taxpayer, or stockhold~r. Also in the case of decommissioning the commenter states that the perpetrator of the act may be removed from the discovery of his violation by as much as 30 to 40 years. (93) Comment Analysis and Response Compliance with regulations is the ultimate responsibility of the licensee and the Commission holds licensees responsible for the acts of its employees and other agents. If violations occur, the licensee would be subject to appropriate enforcement action. The licensee is responsible for the costs of corrective actions and payment of civil penalties assessed by the Com-mission, but the source of the funds is not regulated by NRC. Even if a period of time passes prior to discovery of the violation, enforcement action against the licensee can still be taken at that time, particularly if necessary to abate continuing harm from a violation. H.5 Number of copies of ER supplement Comment Summary One commenter suggested that the requirement for an applicant to retain an additional 109 copies of an envi~onmental report or supplement is exces-sive, arbitrary, and without basis. (105) Comment Analysis and Response Section 51.55 containing this requirement covers all environmental reports and supplements to environmental reports for power reactors, testing facilities, fuel reprocessing plants, and isotopic enrichment plants. This section was not modified substantively by this rulemaking, but is contained in the amendments only because of a minor conforming amendment. The number of copies of ER's retained by the applicant is outside the scope of this rulemaking and any change would have to be considered separately. H-7

I. References

1. 50 FR 5600, February 11, 1985.

2. R. I. Smith, G. J. Konzek, and W. E. Kennedy, Jr., Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0130, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1978, Addendum 1, August 1979, Addendum 2, July 1983, Addendum 3, September 1984, and Addendum 4, (to be published).

3. H. D. Oak et al., Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0672, Prepared by Pacific Northwest laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1980, Addendum 1, July 1983, Addendum 2, September 1984, and Adden-dum 3 (to be published).

4. G. J. Konzek, Technology, Safety, anrl Costs cf Decommissioning Reference Nuclear Research and Test Reactors, NUREG/CR-1756, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1982, Addendum, July 1983.

5. Norm G. Wittenbrock et al., Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommission-ing Light Water Reactors at a Multiple Reactor Station, NUREG/CR-1755, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 1982.

6. Emmett B. Moore, Jr., Facilitation of Decommissioning of Light Water Reac-tors, NUREG/CR-0569, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, December 1979.

7. E. S. Murphy, Technolo Safet and Costs of Decommissionin Reference Light Water Reactors Following Accidents, NUREG CR-2601, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1982.

8. K. J. Schneider and C. E. Jenkins, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decom-missioning a Reference Nucledr Fut, Reprocessing Plant, NUREG-0278, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1977.

9. H. R. Elder and D. E. Blahnik, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommis-sioning a Reference Uranium Fuel Fabrication Plant, NUREG/CR-1266, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1980.

10. H. R. Elder, Technolo Safet and Costs of Decommissionin a Reference Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Plant, NUREG CR-1757, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1981.

1-1

11. C. E. Jenkins. E. S. Murphy, and K. J. Schneider, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Small Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Plant, NUREG/CR-0129, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for

   ~Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1979.

12. E. S. Murphy, Technolo Safet and Costs of Decommissionin Reference Non-Fuel-Cycle Nuclear Facilities, NUREG CR-1754, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1981.

13. J. D. Ludwick and E. B. Moore, Technology, Safety, Costs of Decommission-ing Reference Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations, NUREG/CR-2210, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 1984.

14. H. K. Elder, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decomissioning Reference Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Non-Fuel Cycle Facilities Following Postulated Accidents, NUREG/CR-3293, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 1985.

15 H. K. Elder, Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommmissionin~ Reference** Nuclear Fuel Cycle Facilities, NUREG/CR-4519, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 1986.

16. C. F. Holoway and J. Witherspoon, Monitoring for Compliance with Decommis-sioning Termination Survey Criteria, NUREG/Cr-2082, Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1981.

17. J. P. Witherspoon, Technolo and Cost of Termination Surve s Associated With Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities, NUREG CR-2241, Prepared by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 1982.

18. J. C. Evans et al., Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Materials, NUREG/CR-3474, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 1984.

19. K. H. Abel et al., Residual Radionuclide Contamination Within and Around Commercial Nuclear Power Plants, NUREG/CR-4289, Prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 1986.

20. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0586, January 1981, and Final Generic Environmental Impact Stat~ment on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0586, (to be published).

21. Regulatory Guide 1.86, Termination of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1974.

22. Regulatory Guide 8.8, Information Relevant to Ensuring that Occupational Radiation Exposures at Nuclear Power Stations will be As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rev. 4, May 1982.

I-2

23. Regulatory Guide 1.143, Design Guidance for Radioactive Waste Management Systems, Structure, and Components Installed in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission,*October 1979.

24. T. S. LaGuardia and J. F. Risley, Identification and Evaluation of Facili-tation Techniques for Decommissioning Light Water Power Reactors, NUREG/

CR-3587, Prepared by TLG Engineering, Inc., for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1986.

25. Robert S. Wood, Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities Draft Report, NUREG-0584, Revision 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, March 1983.

26. Financing Strategies for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning, NUREG/

CR-1481, Prepared by Temple, Barker, and Sloan, Inc., for the New England Conference of Public Utilities Commissioners, Inc., for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, July 1980.

27. J. J. Siegel, Utility Financial Stability and the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning, NUREG/CR-3899, Prepared by Engineering and Economics Research, Inc., for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, September 1984 and Supplement 1, (to be published).

28. P. L. Chernick et el., Design, Costs, and Acceptability of an Electric Utility Pool for Assuring the Adequacy of Funds for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Expense; NUREG/CR-2370, Prepared by Analysis and Infer-ence, Inc., for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 1981.

29. 50 FR 23960, June 7, 1985.

30. Re ort on Waste Burial Char es, NUREG-1307, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to be published.

I-3

J. Comment Letters This section contains copies of the original comment letters received. Each letter is cross-indexed in the margin to the appropriate subsection in sections B through Hof this NUREG where comment summaries and staff responses are con-tained. The subsection number contains the comment summary number where appro-priate. Background documents referred to by comments are not included but can be obtained from the Public Document Room (under Federal Register Notice Number 50 FR 5600) where the original versions of the letters are kept. J-0

                                                   ........ rn-..:,wq ~o,~,, 10, /,t.,

(So Ff,l.. 6'fldo] r 1 o -E ~ .:. l.e~et,.v; .!Jec'y Be CI V - r nC 1*. 2 ite: Fronosed Ru} e (f) "" sr., .... .; 2C555 .Jee ~missior ir.g ~riteria

                                .      ;r-*C-.i,'. 3C.:, *.,;.
                              .;, __ r., * '.i.. ~"""-' ..r.
                                                                    )  3 :to        Fer' ilsg - ieb 1 >E5 - ~ "600 1zer. tlel!'er =
   ~r.e "lrcrose<' !"U:e sre-nii='--to,'(.~~;lJeet Eru;:r.tfuJly W<":rJ.:er' r-ut.

.6ut we'<' lHe to co11rr.e*~*~* ~r>1~:; noirts. I G-. I ] - Tt_e fi~t:re of .,.}rr r.illjcrs ir fir.::r~i~] <1ssur::r.ce" ,.er de-co:-rissicr.jr6"' rePctor give2 vs a ~ee:!ir.g of deja vu. '::wo e>2.!'"nles: Ir. 197C, .fil's ir.itial "bFllnP.rk" esti-ete - to buC'..d tteir D.1.1. l Susqueher.r.a reectors wes *5C'C' l"'iJlicrs. i3y I ov-E4, fir al ~ost had rerc~ed ~4.1 billicr.s. If rre!"O!'Y s--rves, GH,'s crj~!r.al estirete for cleerur at '.:I..l 2 wcs .. 30C-40<' rr11~1ors. lTl l~E3 it Wc*s il.0~4 bi~linns. lf a c~earuu ~ob car. cost that rru~h, tow could a cor--lcte decr~~issior.ir.g sericusJy be er,visior.ed fer orly ~100 rrillior.s? 1ve su 0 gest 5C.33(lr)(l) be a* enced to re2d " *** ar er.cunt at least ~1cc,000,crc (1940 dollPrs) .** " 2 - '..l.te ge-:-era.l discussion ( P 560C) savs the rra:or environrrental irru::cts einected at decol"'r.iss!or.in~ wcul~ be inclu<'ed ir tte i;IS nren::rec before tl',e "."le~t is li~ensed to ooerete. J\TC therefcre, tr.ere's ro r,eec to deve1on an El.i before c'ecoriris-sicrir.g. ne ouesticr. wtetr.er utilities hire r.ecron,r.ce!'s sJ.:'1 1 1ed er.ot;gh t c ci c t t: s e c cur~ te 1 :v. Ir. f 2 ct, w r.e r: a u : ! } i t v a *- n1 1 e s !' c !' a

      'licer.ee tc b :i} d, tr.ere 's a te-:-dercv to i.;r<'erst<:te note-:tie.l 1

L?ZE!'ds. F.'

           ~JG.r*.-,**<!.e: n2 es er.cJoser frcn: Fil'~ i"'"i'tie.l EI5 of ~u:y -72, er d fir al EIS cf .;ur.e -81.                                  joth deal 'Ni th exrected gasecus .

err.i ssior.s. Ir 1~72 frey listec 12 g?ses with erected to.tal re:ease or 144 curies, T'er reectcr, ner vear. B:v i,e1, tl*e 11 !:'t cf gpses increased to 33, and total relePse st0t ur. to J%A50 c.:,* c~ries rer year, ner reactr,! ~-- r,;:

             'I,:erefore, we strong1v reco!l\r*end a stringen~3erifiable- *EIS
                                                                                                  ~ '!:..    -

be reoui,..ed before a decort:1issioni*g licer:se il;I;i,sue4. _;' S?"' ("" rr. :t

                                                                                                             \£;      .~.: :.:;
                                                                                                    *,r,,...

rofot*c, / ,f ,.-1

                                                                                                    .--~ -
                                                                                                    ~~:
                                                                                                    !"1'!.;

0

                                                                                ~ .. At.at...~~.~-~~

J-1

                                              ,..~~    J TABLE        '

s.;. ... EXPECTED GAS~OUS EMISSIONS TO THE ATMOSPHERE*** U, ~ " t:C.U..'\..U?.4 ANNUAL AVEP.AGE E;-.tISSION RATF PER UN'IT Ci sec) ( 1,...::.0.L~ tt. (.t, a~ Off Gas Trea~~en Isotope Half-life* System Discharge l{r:,pt?G Kr..:S"Jm 1. 86h 0.12 Kr-SSm 4.4h 0.39 Kr-85 10.76y 0.002 Kr-87 76m 0.395 Kr-88 2. Sh 0.96

Xeooa Xe-l3lm 11. Sd 0.085 Xe-133m 2.26d 0.029 Xe-133 5.27d 0.82 Xe-13Sm 15.6m 0.001 Xe-135 9.14h 1.8 xe-138 17.Sm 0 .0014 Ni tr,,gen

?-i-13 ~ Total Per Unit 9.96m

                                                                        -- c~

0 .046

4. 6~/t\ 1~c:-~

Total Both Units 9.3

• Half-life given in minutes (rn), hours (h), days (d), or years (y) based on Table of Isotopes by Lederer, Hollandar, and Perlman

                                                           ~ l2       LA,L~~           /.tvv,-:-.

l~lt Le

       **?t ?m P .*&L' El E,:,vit*~ome,:,tal Impact StatE'r.::.er.t, BSC \.i bt af'Y
                                                                                       / <fr (July -72)

J-2

Table 4.4. Calculated itet..ses of Ridfoactfwe lllter11ls 1n tilsl!!OUS Effluents fro. Susqueh&nn<< 11,clear Power 5Ut1on (Cf/yr per reactor) llute-GH 81and S..1 Ind Of'91s lufldfnq Yentflatfon Necllanfcal YacUIIII llilcltdes Syst* Reactor 11.adwute Turbfne Vent Paap Total Ar-41 & 25 I I I 2S ltr-8le 4 b b b b 4 ,Ir-IS. 1,100 6 b 14 b 1,100

<<r-lS              zfd            fi               6              6                &                zto ltr-87                 b          ti               b            26                 b                 32 ltr-88             llO            I                b            46                 b                660 ltr-89                 I.I        b                b              b                b                  b le-13la             11            b                b              b                b                 71 le-13311            14            b                b              b                b                 14 Je-Jll           10,000         no               10              so           2,:,00           s 12,soo 1e-13s.----~-""~"f,.............,siiz--~----:lof&---------x",iwo-------~~-.,-------..---""!21'9z""o--...
                                                                                                         \b*'"771'l.o~

le-135 b 72 45 130 350 590 Xe-137 b b b b b b ~ le-138 b 14 b 280 b 1-131 b 3.4

• tf*l 5
• 10-2 1.9
• 10-2 3
• 10-2 1,2 ." 10-1 1 \"2" 1,_

f-133 b 1.4 X 1t*l 1.8 X 10"1 7.6 II 10*2 b 3,J II 11)"'1 7 'wt C-14 a.o 1.s b b b t.s Cr-5' a 6

• Hi-' 9
• 10-s 2.6
• 10-s a 1.2
• 10*"

Mn*54 ,I 6 11 10*5 3 11 10-lt 1.2 x to*I I 3,6 11 10*11

• ,e.59 I 8
• 10*' 1.5
• 10*1t 1
• 10*1 a I .6
• 10* 11 Co-sa
• 1.2
• 10-s 4.5. 10-s 1.2. 10*1 a s.a
• 10-s Co-60 I 2 II 10-" 9 ll tO*lt 4
• 10*1 I 1.1 II lO*J Zn-IS 1 4
• 1o*s 1.5
• 10-s 4
• 10-1 a s.s
• 10-s Sr-89 1 1.8
• 10-' 4.5
• 10-, 1.2
• 1o*s I J.S
• 10-s Sr-90 1 1
• 10* 1 3
• 10** 4
• 10** a 3.1
• 10-*

Zr*95 I 8

• 10-1 5
• 10"1 2
• 10*7 I 8.7
• to*&

Sb-124 a 4

• 10** 5
• 10*1 6
• 10*7 1 5.1
• 10**

Cs-134 a a

• 10-s 4.5
• 1o*s 6
• 10*1 3
• 10*' 1.3
• 10*"

Ss-136 1 & 11 10*& 4.5

• 10*& 1
• 10-1 2
• 10-' 1.3
• 10*>

CJ-137 1 1.1 11 10*" 9

• 1o*s 1.2. 10*& 1 "10-s 2.1
• 10*"

aa-140 *1 a" to** 1

• 10-, 2.2,. 10-s 1.1 "to*s 4.2 "10-s Ce-141 1 2
• 1o*s 2.6
• 10-s 1.2
• 10-* a Z.9
• 1o*s
• 1ess thin n of tob 1 nuclide.

II

• less than 1.0 Cllrfe/:,r per reactor for noble gases and carbon-14; less than 10-~ curfe/:,r per re1ctor for fodfne.

J-3

OFFICE OF THE SECUTAlt.Y WASHlNGTON, D.C. 20ffO

                                                           #IR 2 3 \985      DCtKtT(C USNRC Mr. Samuel J. Chill<                                                  15 l'R 25 11 :18 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                   OFF,c,; or- si i:;,t. '"A,..

Washi,vton, D.C. 20555 DOCKi:. TrffG & S£Pv1c,* BRANCH *

Dear Mr,

Chill<: The Department of the Interior has reviewed the proposed rule for Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities as noted in the Federal Register on February 11, 1985. The proposed reduction in environmental review requirements related to decommissioning of nuclear facilities as noted on page 5603 could replace a relatively stringent and in-depth evaluation of potential environmental impacts with a brief and Jes well documented assessment of possible effects on the human environment. In the put, environmental impacts and related documents prepared for the construction and operating license stages have generally touched very lightly on specific decommissioni,w impacts, postponing the detailed analysis of specific effects until later in the life of a givm facility. Decommissioning would be expected to occur usually at the end of F. I facility life-generally at least 20 to 25 years and often 30 or more years following isuance of an environmental impact statement for construction of a plant. Duri,v periods or so many years, decommissioning techniques and alternatives would most probably be modified from those presented in an environmental impact statement for the construction permit or operati,v license stages. We suggest that the proposed aoendments to the regulations should retain the requirement of an environmental impact statement for decommissioning mJClear Cacilities but permit use of reference to the generic environmental impact statement on decommissianing, when careful study and/or testing at a given nuclear facility has demonstrated that the generic approach is adeqw..te. Review by agencies having jurisdiction and special expertise could then be expedited. We hope these comments will be helprul to you. Sincerely,

                                              ~~~..,cL-/

Bruce Blanchard, Director

                                          /    Environmental Project Review J-4

~11*.,,

. . **.....

• 1"* Department of Energy LABOR & INDUSTRIES BUILDING, ROOM 102. SALEM, OREGON 97310 PHONE 378-4040 TOLL FNmll.0-221-8035 USH"C April 11, 1985 15 IMY -1 Ml :32 liFFlt:~ OF SECRt ~I.ti*

DOCKETING' SEPVI( i BRANCH ' Keith Steyer OffAce of Nuclear Regulatory Research US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Steyer:

We have reviewed the draft Federal rules on 11uclear facility decommissioning requirements. The State of Oregon ls very Interested In these rules since they directly affect the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant within the state. Prior to receipt of your draft rules, we had begun a review of Trojan decommissioning plans to determine whether adequate plans and funding exist. Many of the points In your draft rules are similar to the areas we have scheduled for review. These Include:

l. Storage of spent fuel at the plant site after the operating Sc.c..

license has been terminated - Oregon believes It Is desirable to remove spent fuel as quickly as possible after the useful Co"" ""-t operating lifetime to reduce cost to ratepayers and impact upon l.-c.:\\-c. r-the environment and public health and safety. No. ll.\o

2. Decomm1ss1on1ng Finances - A review of utility efforts to accumulate required finances will be Included In the Oregon study. This will also encompass the need for the acquisition of an alternate source of decommissioning funds should the utility default before they are generated.

3. Review of decommissioning plans - The review will consider requirements and scheduling of decommissioning planning. This will Include the need for periodic reviews due to changes in financial and regulatory requirements.

                                                                     - - ., COid ..            :'!!,, :.t  ~,fJ.,,.

The Oregon Department of Energy is an Equal Opportunity Employer J-5

Keith Steyer Aprl 1 11, 1985 Page 2

4. Options for dec011111lsslonlng - A determination will be made on the need for limitations on the method the utility will use for deconrn1ss1on1ng.

We would like to participate In your rulemaklng process. However, our >Co<.. review will include public participation requiring considerable time to C Otv\Ol~*1"t complete. We will not be able to complete our comments by your May 13 L.<1\e..r-deadline. Therefore, we request an extension of the comment period by six months--to November 15. We would then have sufficient time to No. 1"10 complete our public review process and develop meaningful c011111ents. If you have any questions, please contact Mike Alsworth of the Oregon Department of Energy at 503-378-6457.

                                   ?ii]~

William Wiley, Chairman Energy Facility Siting Council MWA:jt 95411 (d6,f1) J-6

i-..ca IUMln p RRF1211 IUI! R<3/J,1.4~, SI, 10, 72-sT A TE OF MINNESOTA ( S'7) F,(l 5'1()q} (j) DF.PART~fF.XT OF PUBLIC SERVICE C/ 7TH FLOOR AMERICAN CENTER BLDG. KELLOGG & ROBERT STS. SAINT PAUL 55101 Apdl 26, 1985 Docketing and Service Branch Secretary of the Co11111ission lluclear Regulatory C011111ission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Proposed Amendments to Parts 30, *o, 50, 51, 71 and 72 of the VRC's Regulations. Gentlemen: The Minnesota Department of Public Service is the administrative agency within the State of Minnesota responsible for enforcing state lava regulating public utilities and for enforcing orders of the Minnesota Public Utilities Co1m1ission. Thia letter is written in response to your call for co11111ents regarding proposed changes to IIRC regulations regarding the deconmisaioning of nuclear power plants. The Minnesota Department of Public Service supports the changes being proposed because they are very similar to the procedure now followed in Minnesota. The state's only nuclear utility, lorthern States Power Company, maintains an internal reserve which has funds devoted to the I D. i. I safe disposal of nuclear waste and contaminated equipment at the end of the useful life of its three nuclear plants. Northern States Power collects revenue according to projected deco11111isaioning coats under the DKCOI alternative. These coats are projected by outside deco11111issioning experts at least as frequently as once every 5 years. The Department of Gr. I Public Service requires an annual review of the internal reserve and reconsideration of the appropriateness of key cost assumptions, such as expected future inflation rates. Also, Northern States Power and the Department of Public Service monitor changes in federal tax lava to review the ratepayer coat of alternative funding methods. The internal reserve method has been preferred because it was substantially cheaper than alternative methods, but because of recent federal tax changes there soon may be a change L~ an external sinking fund. The internal reserve is approximately $50 million, and is projected to grow to about $750 million by the time deconmissioning begins for the three plants in 2005. D.s. 2. 1.1 (b) The Department of Public Service believes that our funding method and review procedures provide a reasonable balance between ratepayer cost, fairness, and future environmental concerns. Current electric rates reflect future decorrcnissioning costs to assure that those who benefit Ar~ EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

~* MY -a e 0~

• L_.'3 Actmowr~ bJ can:t .*** , ... ,. '*T><*~

J-7

April 26, 1985 Paga Two from the provision of nuclear power are paying its full economic cost. State certification of the availability of funds has enhanced the public perception of the safety of nuclear plants in Minnesota, as has lorthern 0. 3, 2. I. I ( b) States Power'* purchase of the lawful maxiama 111DOunt of liability insurance for each of its nuclear plants. W. plan to continue our oversight efforts 10 that the public interest is vall-1ervad. We would encourage the IRC to alter it* rules as proposed while allowing state agencies to continue the certification of the availability of daco11111i1sioning funds. Deputy Director JCBP:IU:md J-8

John P. Forst & Helene Joan ~t.,..11 1 Coronet Lane East Hampton, New York 1193r:,rwtv 111£ PR-34-.11 ~ ,9 r,, l*f

                                                  ~

( 5a FR_ ~"l:) 7~@

                                                    ~

vr.!11ErE:' USIIRC 15 PMY -6 All :08 S<<r~ '-I of I\.~ "'Re Co,-,...,. ss i en CFF!~~ :"!~ ~ .. ,~ :

• r, O~CXET,NG *, ,*c-~,;-,(.

BRA NC.~ .. ., U-S .. k~.c-

  "'-b~.. , 1)-C.. 20S$'S' fflT~: l>oclc~-., .... Sr.,u;teS R ~

M~ h.&~\.o...~ Ard :c "-~

    ~ft\   ,inC..,~J -\\-<<.-1 ~ "-lltC.

(:,.

• l his ~ ...l", ,=,..-<~ 4.- pn,raud ckc.o,nn,a ssi 0~14 r-~ . Urrto,.~(~ ,

 , ... 4~-\,o~                  ina..d~,d<< ~
 \.Ant'Ulli nic.      Y°'4..r      ru.l< cOt,.__in~
                            "t\-,o_.\- ~..<< will ~e                            !~

o<k~ ~i...,

 \i~l< a.ss"rca,q (otw1p~ drco~~si ..'4; Anil ~..\-

n<<esSQ.r"1 ~ 7 i i f D.3.2.1.1 <et.') C.. \. CJ. I U,or\c~ "'->; \\ ~ ~{'f"'j l"nrkctJ . f~ X-1 ~u.s\. a.,so ~ s.\-a.~ci ~~Q+ '\h~ r. rt.Q.ctf,C- "Six \.,A.)~ \I be r-e~~'ffl '\,. ~ J 'S. I. 3 CD "d; i CW\ 4-\ l-, ""';~ ~ "'" r<<' s+.r-t c:~.cJ

• J-9

 ~S(. .

a...-# ---~~ ..... ~ ~ *~ Tine

   ~ ~ l=w. R~

f'u..\e '-VL SbC °' ~\,_ ' ., "1 J-S.

         \~~      ~~C,C)~ S'Y)~   $$;()   ~i~9   IW\~/\c,j.!/

B. 2. \

  ~Lc..'l,. s.."\c'4..r 1 -i- E~-t. ...."-_ ~ . V 4 . . ~
  ~"~~ and ~1::,J cf4....~ (C\~I c ~. 1 r~-'--

rt.C< ~ \.._o '""~ ,,4 ~rLtd Zn~L I ~CO-* ,4 p___.. 1

 '* ~e         f~~rw<< o~ foft't\iv"6 rud;otvJcl~~.

T1,.a.. ~u.1.. ~~ ~~ I\() q ~ 4-A 4c, \.w~ a.. '-A.~ I i~y S"°'---(d " ~

  ~ d,ao; tL Q..S .ah '-.&'>L~              c"' "'1e--\t.od 1-.,               f3.3.l.l
  &_oc,11t. . \he "'-'-'e S~a'-A.lJ ~ptl \ o'-ct s~c~c C r".~r,a b-, c."'7~ic"' Q.. \A.'h I,~'~
~ecisio~              c-o..n C.....     **tli*            -t- rev; .....scJ.
         --rlc. r-..J~         Q. ~   fR)~            o{~.s no
'\u.;6elitte .s         f.o,

• conclu,ft)- i'"9 i-"'< C. \. 3 d.~co'""1.ssicn:"'-' - "cl<< (on1tnAAA~

 ~ea -..+o        mif\iffli~e        '-'Jork.~r ~,po~.

C..\.i.l Th< 'lS\ci.Y~~~~..... C!)(:' ~ ~~fn~ C.G,

~                                       + c.ord-°" l s\..fl

~S ~ b<<. OLSS~ r < - ~ - ~ r~fe, ~u(cl Ic.. ,. ~ J-10

John P. Forst & Helene Joan Forst 1 Coronet Lane East Hampton, New York 11937 sr(t t 0 ""+ bet~~~ ~':)~-~ i1 1.- t:., . *- .(.- -=- ..;_- I C. ,. 3

                                ,s~u.e c-                     me*{.

f lite_ I *

                                                                        '1 ':.~ : '   ,

t\ee:t s. -+o be a..d d__ ':..: $ s: l!r. \4.1.\.l

                                                      ~o        (o~- 1e~~

f \ '1-1.1.3 WO ~ '°"' *_ I ~... ' ;; ** C) '- l ' ( .*

                                                            ~ -

r' '.? ; -* 0. r,

                                                                /k.-.*~-                ,-

T .,

• NOTE: This ~s been typed by NRC because when reproduced it was difficult to read.

       "spell out ba~1c safety practices.

The issue of radioactive waste disposal needs to be addressed. There should be no low-level waste dumps allowed. Please also be certain that there will be adequate funding. Thank you. Sincerely Helene &Jack Forst J-ll

3103 Oavid Avenue Palo Alto, Calif. 94303 Apd 1 30, 1985 Secretary of the Comnhsfan '85 fMY ..6 Al1 :07 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CoR111ission Washington, D.C. 2D555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Si rs:

It has come to my attention that the NRC plans to prom-ulgate a rule wnich will allow for the unsegregated accumulation of decomnissioning funds. Ceco11111isioning is going to be too serious an event in a few short years, both from a safety point and and an economic D.2.1 point of view to leave to more chance than acceptable that the funds that are set aside will really be there when the actual decomissioning takes place. If unsegregated funds are used to acquire assets before the day of dec0111T1isioning arrives, where will the liquidity be in order to assure the availabilty of cash or equivalent to D.3. 2.1. I(~) do the job? Lack of segregation of such funds is an invitation to sudden rate boosts or else delays in actually undertaking proper deconwnissioning. I urge you to include in your rule-m~~ing the segregation of such funds. Funds have to be availahle ~ot only for normal D. ~- '2... 2. l expectations pf shutdown but also to take into account unforeseen contingencies that will result in premature shutdown. Also, unless funds for decommissioning are rigidly segregated, what funds will be available in the case of bankruptcy, a la WPPS'.? In addition, make sure parent holding companies do not IJt>.~.'2....1 i).3. 2. I. I (a.) evade liability for decoR111issioning costs. Also, what the liabilities really may be should be subject to reevaluation by restudying decomnissioning costs at least every five years. ,1).~.'3 Two more provisos are most important in order to establish liability and accountability. Allow not ax dedyctions for funding deconwnissioning costs unless the funds are segregated ID.> and establish a provision that utility stockholders be responsible for any deconwnisioning costs not collected from ti1e rate payers during the operating life ef any plant.

                                                                              ), . . I I!

i)jf. 2.. * '2.. Please give serious consideration to these corrments. Not enough has yet been done. Not to .segregate decommi.ssioning funds.

                                                                                 ~* I ,g. I i),

would only cause further uncertainty as to effective and econo~,c s J o.'3. 2.1.1(4..)

;ction when the day of deco11TTiissioning comes.

Yo~rs ve~y tr~lJ.,,

                                                   ,'**----- r.1 ,,,,,,,
                                                 ,f; *. .--<-->---
                                                            / ~ mt  * ~-(~ -

lf

                                                       - 'Y Martin J. Drey                I J-12

"85 MY -6 P1 :04

 -     . ~: . i. ~ l ..

l,r F *.:-* .. ,.*L <:.[i.; t. QOCl'.L ! tnu,.

• 9RAHC~

G-. 25 D. <ir. ' J-13

00<.KETEO USNAC 15 MY-6 P1

• IUIIIT F. a,r, JI* If MS NISN SOIOOI. IIU -

IIIIMTAll rltll, CA f4DII (<..' .. ,.,,JS ,t*, . o~..... fi:,fl#,

       'l;.,       w,;1-.,.           <.      <,,~-,. *                <*       Ht           ,1/._ **                 ,?, y, vi,*"*' c **~.-,,,-**,, ,~,.,., *-~ -F.,                                                       4***-~:,,.,..,
                                                                                                                             ~
 - *= 1,.. ....                < -h, * ,      l:
 -<']"- lYJI ... *_:"*** f... V.. ,f' Vo,<'"'**
                                                     -f"M    4 .... f ..,.                   <q j          V

• q << <, . ,...

I f'*, . ., l,4 "'~***'$',,, G. I) D. i. \

          -f'**~,. 1"*~ * '"', , '" '* '- ° * -,.                                                                               I r,< .,_,,, ,~ "-*
~,.IJ         "O        lo'>u~        k f*-*        fl~ 1>, S, rC.\v,,<',\      io
                                                                             ' h Ii>;<,

f..C,'*.o,(. *-, f':n '*<<

                                                                                                   ~

4U,, ;,, 'R

                                                                                                                         <c *-*
                                                                                                      .... v.r.., . ..,..,,1-,;/

4 l t>- 3, 2. , I. I ( a:..)

,mp"*

t'4.

               ~r***** *., ...........

f*l:S,lt,1, i:,

>, * "** '"*""' "** "*** II,,

\/(":, O\'lJ

• h

                             '""("*+

i,..1:,1;._ 0'\ 00 *.._, ti\c_

                                                                     ~

t.c .. , .... *. +- flt r,'O,C.s

                                                                                /o,,-c '",
                                                                       '1 V<,, , ~    (,d;~
                                                                                                    '1;;..t
                                                                                                              ~.,.,,.,
                                                                                                                   ~v*,t""J oF .,,.,.

l)°F* "'-<.._,,,_ I r-. I q.j,lt"tJl,(.j_ rn~,r1 ')J\* / D.3, z, I. I (a..) s ...... (~,< ,,., ke .. .,, ,*+- CJ-f{" .,-.,, J-14

Public Citizen Environmental Action May 3, 1985

Dear Commissioner:

i~~l[,i~Gt'it\,Jir.* BRAHC~ We are enclosing a copy of our report, "Dismantling the Myths About Nuclear Decommissioning," which we released earlier this month. We submit this report for the record as partial comment on the proposed rule and urge your consideration of its findings and recommendations, Sincerely yours,

                                                                          ...- ------..,   .     .   /

'-), .. , CC,t~

Joan Claybrook, k President

                                        <                                   /~.-0¢ ,,.;-.:-: -~--

Ruth Caplan, Energy Analyst Public Citizen Environmental Action J-:11,*1ronn11*11trll A, t111n

• 724 ll1q,1111t C:irr I,* ll11ilrli11~. :"- W. w~shington. [) r:. 200:lfi Pul,111 <:111~1*11
• 21HJtl I' Str,,i*t :-- \\' \\'rl,hington. IJC:. 20036 J-15

Public Citizen Environmental Action

---

.iK 1* f *:-r

                                                                                                 ;,*SNR   0
                                                                                                          ~'

IIIIMTA SUET '15 MY-6 P3:01 Footnot** to Chapter 6 are** follova, C,ff,L~ :}  !:r:1.r<t ,:. .. OOCKE TING & SE~'JI(./

1. o.s. General Accounting Office 1977: 25. BRANCH

2. "Dec:oaai*sioning Criteria for "uclear Paciliti***" Pederel Jtagieter, Pebruary 11, 198S: S600-S62S.

3. Chepaan, penonol coaainic:.. t!<..n, """r=h, 1985.

      ,. u.s.      Ganeral Acco\lllti~g Offic* 1977, 25.

5. Pederal 1ta9ieter, Ibi4: 5609.

6. Atoaic tn4uatrial Po,,,,,. 1983.

7 *. 1n9lneerin9...,. llacord 191*:26. Pootnote ... rerenc** for Chapter 7 should be deleted. EnYll'llllll\llltel Action

• 724 Dupont an.le Bul1dlll1. NW.. Wuhlnston. 0.C 200M Public Cih:mn
• 2000 P Slrwt N.W .* Wuhinston. O.C. 2003' J-16

DISMANTLING THE MYTHS ABOUT NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING Sally Hindman Principal Researcher © Public Citizen/Environmental Action 1985 J-17

Copies of this book may be obtained by sending $10 for individuals and non-profit groups. $20 for govcmment agencies and $50 for corporations to eithcr Public Citiz.en, 2000 P Street, N.W. Su;te 605, Washington D.C. 2003~ or Environmental Action. 724 Dupont Circle Bldg. N.Vi. Washin6ion, D.C _J036. Copyright O 1985 by Public Citizen/Environmental Action All rights reserved. No part of this report may be reproduced or utili:zed in any form, or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying. recording or by any other information storage or retrieval system. without written permission from Public Citizen, 2000 P Street, N.W. Suiie 605, Washington, O.C. 20036, or Environmental Action, 724 Dupont Circle Buildi~ N.W. Washington, O.C. 20036. ISBN # 0-937188-16-6 J-18

Acknowledgements We would like to thank the many utility and state regulatory commission staff members who provided state decommissioning policy data which has been used in this report. In addition we thank Federal Energy fU?gulatory Commission staff members /\I Der and Malcolm Bertsch and citizen activists Pat Agnello, Ernest Fuller. Cort Richard-son, and Carl Zichella. for their assistance in providing data. Special thanks to Environmental Action staff members Ruth Caplan for her excellent writing. editing. patience and perseverance throughout this project; Peter Anderson for his invaluable assistance; and Rick Morgan for his technical assistance. and to Public Citizen's Critical Mass Director Michael Totten for supervising and editing the report. We also extend thanks to the following reviewers and advisors: David Albright, Bob Alvarez. David Berick. Jeff Brummer, Frank Cardole, Duane Chapman. Paul Chernick. Joan Claybrook.. Alicia Culver, Kay Drey, Carl Feldman, Steve Fetter, Michael Foley, Carl Goldstein, Keiki Kehoe, Charles Komanoff. Jim Lazar, Gene Mapes. Sheila Mayberry, Fred Millar, Christopher Meyers. Alan Nogee, Elliott Negin. Catherine Quigg. Marvin Resnikoff, Michael Slott, Richard Smith, Richard Udell, and Robert Wood. Sally Hindman was the principal researcher and prepared the initial draft report. Ruth Caplan authored Chapter 6 and was the principal editor for the repo1t. Chapter 8 is based on testimony presented before the NRC by Michael Totten on behalf of Public Citizen and Environmental Action. Bob Bullock co-authored an earlier draft of this report. Andy Feeney assisted with editing. Others contributing to the production of the report include Brian Carney, Jan Pilarski, Christine Beekman, Beth Elliot. Ann Harter. John Kel-ly, Jeanne Lawson, Susan Lockwood. Paul Markowitz. Leslie Milofsky. Liz O'Donnell. Richard Picardi provided equipment used in preparing the report. J-19

Table of Contents List of Tables ............................................................ 3 Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................... 5 Chapter 2. The Experienu: of No Experience ................................... ':J Chapter 3. Unexamined Cost Estimates: The Road to Rate Shock? ................. 19 Chapter 4. Phantom Fundiny; The Latest Utility Gold Mine ...................... 33 Chapter 5. The Myth of Immediate Dismantlement and Site Restoration ............ 45 Chapter 6. National Non-Regulations and Non-Policies .......................... 53 Chapter 7. State Efforts: Too Little, Too Late, But Better Than Nothing ............. 55 Appendix A. Public Citiu1fs 1984 Decommissioning Survey ...................... 58 Appendix B. Licensed Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 1985 .................... 60 Appendix C. Diagram of a Pressurized Water Reactor Vessel ..................... 63 Bibliography ........................................................... 65 J-20

List of Tables Table Name Page Table I. Experimental and Demonstration Reactor Decommissioning lf,story 13 Table 2. Inoperable Nuclear Power Generating Facilities 1985 14 Table 3. Commercial Power Generating Reactor Decommissioning Candidates 2005 15 Table 4. Decommissioning Policy Data for Licensed Commercial N~ckar Power Plants 16 1984 Table 5. NRC Total Estimated Costs of Possible Dccomm1ss1oning Cho,ccs for a P\\'I{ and 25 BWR 1983 Table 6. Ranges of Decommissioning Costs for Four Studies Using lmmcd,atc O,smantlc- 26 men! Table 7. Cost Overruns in Major Construction ProJects Completed Gctwccn 1956-1977 28 Table 8. Generating Lives of Inoperable Nuclear Commercial Power Generating Reactors 28 1985 Table 9. Decommissioning Funding Data for Inoperable Commercial Power Generating 29 Reactors 1984 Table 10. Decommissioning Studies Used in Cost Estimate Formulation 30 Table 11. Total U.S. Utility Estimated Decommissioning Costs 1983 Versus Ahemat,vc Cost 31 Scenarios Table 12 Decommissioning Cost Estimates by State 1983 Versus High and Low Estimates 32 of Potential Costs Table 13. First Year Funds for Decommissioning Collected from Ratepayers 38 Table 14. Decommissioning Financing Methods for Nuclear Power Plants by State 1984 40 Table 15. Decommissioning Funds Collected by Principal Plant Owner Versus Estimated 41 Costs of Decommissioning by State 1984 Table 16. !Jecommissioning Methods Assumed for Raternaking Purposes by State 1984 43 Table 17. Summary of Estimated E;xtemal Occupational Radiation Doses for Decommission- 49 ing a Reference PWR Table 18. Estimated Burial Volumes. Weights, and Truckloads of Radioactive Material Using 50 Dismantlement for a !l,eference PWR Table 19. Radioactivity Levels in Major Activated Components at Time of Reactor Shutdown 51 Table 20. Decommissioning _Alternatives Practical with Onsite Waste Storagc 52 Table 21. External Sinking Funding Policy Initiatives for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 57 1984 3 J-21

Chapter One Introduction It is unthinkable that the Un,:ed States should ccmt1n11e- However, by the following year the electric utilities nuclear power plant constmct,on without a national pro- themselves had begun to develop plans for decommissioning gram of radioactit<e waste disposal und decomm1ss1omn9. funds. subject to the approval of their stale regulatory com-without u clear delineation of Federal. State. uni/ pnwte missions. Unfortunately. the development of slate regulations responsibility for waste disposal and decomm1ss10111n9. has been hampered by the absense of federal guidelines. since und without u sense of urgency and pnonty on the P<Jrt of states are concerned that thc,r polim*s could be subsequently gotoemment to uddress this growing problem overturned by frclr-ral re,zulations. c;_ \ In the absensc of fec1eral gu,ddines. Ille utilities have begun

                                  - U. S. House of Representatives     to address the physical methods to be used in decommission, Committee on      ing. their likely cost and methods of recovering these costs. But I

Government Operations. 197 8, p.4 such laissez-faire development of private decommissioning policies. in the absence or strong government regulations. has created a number or serious problems. For example, the three When Americans first visualized a nuclear future, most of us decommissioning methods currently allowed by the proposed £:. l, 3 didn't think about reactors entering old age. We did not envi- NRC ruling. all have major financial risks associated with sion highly radioactive reactors sitting donnant on thousands them and may ultimately prove to be unsafe. Utility cost It)\.\.\ of acres of land, vulnerable to earthquakes and tornadoes for estimates for decommissioning are also extremely low. Thi]

• generations to come. We did not worry about people slipping may place an unfair burden on future ratepayers and endange 't> \. \. '2.

through the ring of barbed wire that is supposed to surround the financial viability or decommissioning itself. Finally. th ' retired reactors and carrying a burden of radioactivity back to most common methvds of accumulating funds for decommis-the outside world. sioning provide little assurance that the money collected will O,l. '2. I.\ (a.) Now, however, with accounts of children playing in pools of actually remain available for decommissioning. since utilities toxic chemicals at Love Canal and knowledge of the near- are able to use the funds as a source of *internal capital" for ex-meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant, the possible pansion. perils of long-tenn environmental contamination from toxics To further complicate the problem, there is no commonly and radi~ivity have become clear. As a result, citizen accepted definition of decommissioning. because three very organaations across the countJy have begun to grapple with different decommissioning methods have been described by the problem of what to do with nuclear waste. This report nuclear utilities and the government. C:,. I concerns one aspect of the problem: what should be done with "Immediate dismantlement" is the most stringent approach. It highly radioactive reactors which are no longer operating. The involves radioactive decontamination of the site when the reac-process for dealing with this problem is called *decommission- tor is retired, so that the site will meet NRC standards for ing.* general public use. The radioactive components are disman-11-ie first major action by citizens took place in 1977 when tled, including the reactor vessel itself, and are removed from twelve national organizations questioned how utilities would the site. The NRC calls this method DECON. S, l. \. \ fund decommissioning. In a petition to the Nuclear Regulatory "femporary storage* delays decommissioning by taking Commission (NRC). the groups urged that regulations be temporary measures. such as removing the radioactive fuel

      ~eloped to require nuclear utilities to take financial respon- rods and nusl,ing the pipes. which are intended to allow the sibility for decommissioning in order to assure protection of idle reactor to be maintained within acceptable bounds for a Mure generations. The NRC agreed to develop regulations, a- period of years. Significant amounts of radiation cannot be procns which has yet to be completed. In 1978, when Con- removed in this manner, however. because the components gress held hearings on nuclear power costs, the long-neglected themselves become radioactive. as a result of neutron bom-issue of decommissioning came to public attention. The hear- bardment creating *activation products." After temporary ings examined financial costs and technical problems. storage. full dismantlement is to take place. The NCR calls this establishing that inaction could lead to a potential crisis. SAFSTOR Although some members of Congress appeared conce..-ned, no specific action was taken.
                                                                           "Entombment* simply requires that all radio.'lClive com-ponents he encased in a sem1-pc:nnancnl shroud such as steel      I 5

J-22

reinforced concrete. after limited cleanup and decontamination. to provide adequate assurance of t~ availability of funds in B.1.1.1 lne facility would have to be protected from public use for the event of premature shutdown and utility financial crisis. thousands of years while natural radioactive decay takes place. We believe that prepayment held in segregated funds is the on-The NRC calls this ENTOMB. ly funding method which is adequate without decommission-Because some activation products remain dangerous for ing insurance to compensate for possible non-availability of hundreds of thousands of years. far outliving the housing of funds due to premature shutdown or utility financial crisis. ,3:l .l. I 6.~ the reactor itself or an entombment shroud. entombment is not External sinking funding was found by the NRC to provide a satisfactory decommissioning method from the point of view the next greatest assurance of the availability of funds for of public health and safety. Full decommissioning is essential. decommissioning. This method. however. is vulnerable in the How serious is the potential decommissioning problem? By event that premature shutdown is necessary. All five of today's the end of 1984. 89 commercial nuclear power generating inoperable reactors experienced premature shutdown. units have received operating licenses in 28 states. Five of Therefore. the NRC should require that the use of this method G. I these are currently inoperable. Another 36 units are under be coupled with premature shutdown insurance. construction By 2010, almost 70 reactors will be shut down. Internal segregated funding was found to be vulnerable in Given current trends, however. it is likely that many of these the event of utility bankruptcy or other severe financial prob-units will be shut down prematurely. lems. Therefore. we recommend that. if this method is allowed The U.S. has no experience with decommissioning large at all. it should be combined with decommissioning insurance reactors such as those typically ope,~- ng today. Nor have to cover utilities in the event of financial diff1Cul ,;,s including C.1.3 other nations. For this reason. ii is not easy to predict the dif- bankruptcy. as well as coverage for premature shutdown. ficulty of decommissioning. the safety risks involved. or the Internal unsegregated funding has been shown by the NRC 1).1.1.1 costs. The problems yet lo be fully understood include the to provide the least assurance that funds will be available risks of workers being exposed to high levels of radioactivity when needed. According to the NRC. this option is "vulnerable during the decommissioning process and the sheer difficulty to any event or situation that significantly undermines the the industry may experience in breaking up very dense. ex* financial solvency of a utility.*

                                                                                                                                                   .3:2.1.1 {a..)

tremely radioactive reactor vessels. Since no funds are physically set aside for decommissioning The disposal of large quantities of high-level and low-level when this method is used. unsegregated funding should not be radioactive waste material. including spent fuel rods. poses included as a method of financing. Rather. it serves as an ac-another major problem. At present. no permanent facility ex- counting procedure allowing utilities to acquire capital from

~.I.I.I  ists which can safely handle spent fuel from commercial reac*        ratepayers for plant construction. without having to compete
,u.,.'I  tors. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is only at the beginning of a long process required by law to select a perma-in the bond market Utilities using this method hope to raise the funds needed for the task in 60-80 years when decommis-nent site for high level waste. The disposal of low-level waste      sioning takes place. This is clearly not an acceptable financing poses physical and political problems given the expected             option.

volume and difficulty in classifying such waste.

2. Fund a major independent study of decommissioning costs Policy Recommendations end problems by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment Given the numerous unresolved policy issues which sur-round the topic of decommissioning. it is time for an end to the Battelle's study of the costs. safety and technology of decom-j). i.l complacency which has pervaded the utilities, the NRC. and missioning is the only detailed. in-depth work to date on G,.1 the public concerning this important part of the nuclear cycle. decommissioning a reference PWR and BWR It has been Public Citizen and Environmental Action recommend the used. directly and indirectly, by a majority of utilities in following federal policies in order to insure that decommis- developing decommissioning cost estimates.

sioning will be carried out in a safe and equitable manner. Unfortunately, the Battelle study may be heavily biased toward underestimating the costs and problems of decommis-

1. Require prepayment of decommissioning costs held in sioning. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory is a member of segregated funds or external sinking funding with premature the Atomic Industrial Forum. the research and lobbying arm shutdown insurance. Exclude internal unsegregated funds as e of the nuclear industry. and has private contracts with electric Financing option. utilities. Over 86 f",ent of its work is for the Department of Energy, which has actively promoted nuclear power.

1ne NRC in its regulatory role is responsible for "ensuring To date there has been no major independent study of the that decommissioning is carried out so as to protect public costs. technology and safety of decommissioning nuclear health and safety." lne ability of a funding method to provide plants. We believe that a detailed independent study of decom-

         *reasonable assurance* of the availability of funds for decom-       missioning must be carried out in order to more accurately missioning when needed is a key factor in determining which          determine (or verify) the costs and problems associated with financing methods are allowed by the NRC.                            this event The Congressional Office of Technology Assess-In its study of decommissioning financing methods. the           ment (OTA) should be designated to prepare an objective NRC found prepayment of decommissioning funds to provide            assessment of decommissioning costs and risks. assuming the the greatest assurance of the availability of funds for decom-       advisory panel has broad representation including indepen-missioning. It was the only method studied which was shown           dent scientists and environmental and consumer advocates.

J-23

3. lkquire an Environmental Impact Statement as a decom- The NRC has not limited the number of years plants can missioning prerequisite for each reactor, with lull opportunity undergo temporary storage prior to dismantlement in its pro-for public amunmt. posed regulations, even though a 30-50 year limit is suggested in the discussion section. Nor has the EPA set standards Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) an limiting this period to I 00 years, as it had been expected to do.

environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for any The NRC argues that in setting such a time limit utilities w,11 Federal action significantly affecting the quality or the environ- be encouraged to delay dismantlement to meet this ceiling. We Q , 1 menl The decommissioning of a reactor in order to return the believe there is no reason a utility should be allowed to wait 1,),-, .3 land to unrestricted public use is clearly an action with a more than fifty years to dismantle a reactor following its shut-significant impact on the environment Discussion of decom- down. Occupational exposure levels decrease greatly and level mis sioning in an EIS should be required at two stages. orr following a 30 year delay. Low-level waste volume reduc* First, there should be discussion of decommissioning costs lion diminishes with a 50-year delay. Therefore, utilities and available methods in the EIS prepared at the time of the should be required to fully dismantle reactors after a max-construction license, so that potential environmental impacts imum storage period of 50 years. [See Table 19 for half-lives and the full cost of the nuclear alternative can be assessed of radionuclides present in majOf" reactor components.) before irreversible commitments are made to the technology. Second, a full EIS should be prepared at the time a utility 6. Exclude chemical decontamination wastes from low-level submits its decommissioning plan to the NRC for approval. waste burial unless independent research clearly establishes Under the NRC proposed guidelines, this would occur near that low-level disposal is safe. F. \ the end of the operating life or the reactor. The EIS should Decontamination. a process comprised of runn,ng a highly spell out available options regarding methods or decommis-sioning and their environmental impacts. Given the potential corrosive solvent containing chelating agents through rt'actor consequences for public health and safety and the piping systems, has been used in a number or reactors in re* unavailability of the land if the plant is put in temporary cent years to clean out radioactive *crud." Decontamination storage for 30-100 years. public input to the decision-making may be used prior to temporary storage, as well as dismantle-process is essential at this stage. ment 11 The NRC's proposed rule substitutes an environmental Utilities today bury wastes generated by decontamination in ", J. "2. I assessment for an EIS. thus skirting the need to consider low-level waste burial grounds. Yet chelating agents present in public comment in its decision-making process and attempting solvents have been suspected to be responsible for unex-to downgrade the environmental significance of decommis- pectedly rapid migration of radionuclides beyond the burial sioning. Such a policy runs counter to the National En- trenches. vironmental Policy Act Contrary to what the NRC proposes, No study to date has critically examined interactions be* ther, usually will be significant impacts associated with tween chelating agents and other low-level waste products. decommissioning. As such, the NRC's general rule should err The independent research assessment on decommissioning on the side of safety by requiring an Environmental Impact costs and risks called for in recommendation two should in-Statement in order to evaluate the different ways of mitigating clude an assessment of the problems associated with chelating chose impacts. agents. Until more is known about the interactions of chelating agents with other low-level wastes. decontamination wastes

4. Reclassify dcrommissioning waste products and exclude should be excluded from low-level burial grounds. Instead.

components with long-lived activation products from low-level such waste should be stored in easily monitored above-ground nuclear waste sitts. facilities until such time as DOE has established a high-level waste disposal facility or their safe disposal in low-level waste At present, major reactor components have not been sites has been established with certainty. classified as high-level or low-level nuclear waste. Com-pon.!llts which will have to be disposed of after dismantlement inclu :le the core shroud, lower core barrel, thermal neutron 7. Sttmgthen utility liability for dcrommissioning costs shield pads, and upper and lower core grid pieces. All of these through legislation. comp *nents contain riickle-59 >nd niobium-94 with half-lives

~. \. i. \ of 20,000 and 80,000 years respectively. According to the               A strong trend has developed in the last ten years toward NRC, these components do not fall within the definition of           formation of utility holding companies. This could result in the high-level waste.                                                    holding company's assets being insulated from liability for        D, 'i.2, I We believe radioactive wastes resulting from decommis-            decommissioning. Holding companies may also spin off the sioning need to be carefully studied and reclassified Certainly      utility in a weakened state and, thereby, try to avoid liability no wastes containing long-lived activation products such as          for decommissioning. In order to guard against such future nickel-59 or niobium-94 should ever be classified as low-level       problems. federal legislation is needed to make tht" parent waste and permitted to be buried at low-level radioactive            hc:ding company liable for decommissioning costs. regardless waste landfills.                                                     of whether the utility is subsequently spun-off.

13 ,I 3 , 5. Establish a 50 year limit on the temporary storage of reac- 8: Allow current tax deductions only for segregarc<l decomm,s*ll),S-

 ',

• tors prior to dismantlement. s,onmg funds.

7 J-24*

lhc Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 allows utilities lo take a respected and prestigious health experts. including Dr. Ed tax deduction for decommissioning costs only when a ward Radford, former chairman of the National Academy ol segregated fund is used with no investment in utility assets or Sciences' Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing II in associated holding company assets. Normally such deduc- Radiation (BEIR). It is a long overdue action to protect 11, 3 tions arc allowed only when the expense is incurred, in this workers' health and safety. This is an especially timely step to case when actual decommissioning takes place. The utilities take as the NRC moves to establish comprehensive decom-D.> want a tax deduction of unsegregated lunds as well. even though they would use the funds to invest in new utility assets missioning guidelines. such as powerplants. 12. Establish residual radiation levd at a maximum of 10 We recommend that such deductions continue to be al- millimns full body dose at plants released for "unrestricted" lowed only for segregated funds with no investment allowed in use. holding company assets. This protects ratepayers from having lo pay for utility tax expenses on the decommissioning lunds The NRC has not included a residual radioactivity standard when the utility will eventually be eligible for a tax deduction. in the February proposed rule, stating that the standard is be-ing developed in a separate rulemaking action. The Commis- f II

9. Rmse decommissioning rost estimates at least every five sion is expected to propose a 50 millirem full body dose per '

• years. year standard, hoping that. by setting Al.ARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) at a IO millirem level, this is what Present decommissioning cost estimates are extremdy un- will actually be achieved. This is not acceptable. Only when der..tated and are likely to be inaccurate by a large margin The the IO m,llirc"' limit is <;Pt ;,s a federal ~taridard will there be NRC, although encouraging *periodic* update ol cost adequate enforcement ol the standard.

estimates. has established no explicit time frame lor cost estimate revisions. Yet as plants grow closer lo the end of their operating lives and as experience provides more information In addition to these recommendations for federal action. we about decommissioning costs, these estimates are bound to in- recommend the following state actions: crease. We believe cost estimates should be reviewed and updated I. Make utility stockholders responsible for decommissioning on a regular basis, at least every five year... in order to ensure costs not collected from ratepayer.. during t~ operating life of the highest degree of equity to ratepayer.; and to assure that plant adequate funds are being collected. A fundamental principle ol utility regulation is that

10. Prohibit entombment as a decommissioning method ratepayer.. benefitting from the electricity produced by a plant should bear its costs. Yet most utilities accrued few. if any.

Entombment would allow a plant. including its radioactive lunds lor decommissioning during the fir..t ten year.. of plant components. to be covered over with steel enforced concrete operation. Even now the average industry estimated cost of and left for eternity. Studies carried out by nuclear physicists decommissioning is only $66 million Yet the preliminary cost Resnikoff and Pohl found that the nickel-59 and niobium-94 present in reactor vessels would be radioactive for thousands estimates for partially dismantling the 72-megawatt Shipping-port reactor are already $79 million. D.!. ,:z. of years, well beyond the life of any concrete structure. At Humboldt Bay, Indian Point I. Dresden I. San Onofre. Although entombment is no longer deemed a viable decom- and Three Mile Island 2 ratepayer.. never benefitting from elec-missioning alternative for commercial reactor... the NRC has tricity produced by plants already suffer lrom the inequity ol not explicitly prohibited this method in its decommissioning paying decommissioning costs for reactor.; which shut down rule-making. Utilities clearly want this option to remain open prematurely. This will ultimately be the case with every reac-Four plants are currently scheduled for entombment for tor unless costs of decommissioning are soon learned. ratemaking purposes, according to results of Public Citizen's We believe utilities should not be allowed to collect money decommissioning survey.

• in their rates to decommission plants which are no longer We =mmend that the NRC explicitly prohibit the use of operable. Stockholders should be required to pay any decom-entombment in order to assure that utilities will not use this missioning costs not accounted for during the operating life of cheaper method when the true costs of full dismantlement are plants.

known. This would be consistent with the NRC's definition ol decommissioning contained in the proposed rule which re- 2. Require prepayment of external segregated fonds in the quires rel= of the property to unrestricted use. evmt the NRC fails to make this national policy.

11. Reduc:r the maximum permissible le\'d of radiation ex- The proposed rule fails to select the appropriate method of posure to nuclear workers at least ten-fold and establish a collecting decommissioning funds. If the NRC fails to require .i.3.1

    "Orlctt registry that monitors radiation exposures for all reac-   utilities to adopt the most reliable funding methods. state tor workers, both permanent and temporary.                           regulator.. should protect the interest of their ratepayer.. by re-quiring prepayment or external segregated funds for reactor..
~.J f This recommendation is consistent with that of a number of         licensed in their state.

J-25

Chapter Two The Experience of No Experience Beca11se of differences rn reactor s,u. type "'ul cles,g,1. ing. Data from these reactors. along with s1mula1ion models operating time. l,censing req11ireme11ts. motit-e for mstllilll- developed from experiments using shipbuilding equipment. tion of tire facility. and co,rd,tio11s of concern fe.g. costs. have been extrapolated by Battelle for large reactors. sl111tdou.,, radiation lei-els. crmo11nts of mdioacti1-e m1ste). Dr. Duane Chapman. an economist at Cornell University. extrapolations from tlrese experie11ces to large co111111ercwl has pointed out the inadequacy of these data Chapman reactors are considered to be ge11eml/y 11nrellso1111ble. estimat~ tha: Elk River. with a 62.5% utiiization of design capacity. ran for the equivalent of 48 -me,;~*,*att-years: By con-Report of Battelle Pacific trast. a hypo1het1cal l .OOO*megawatt power plan! w11h a 62% Northwest Laboratory, 1978, average capac,ty ut1l1zat1on operating for 30 years will end ils

p. 3-1. (I) useful life after 18.600 -megawa11-vears* of operation. (7)

The length of operation 1s cn11cal to assessing decommis-sioning. Chapman notes: *There would seem to be little basis By 1976. when the data for this Battelle report was for understanding problems related to long-lived radioactive gathered. more than 60 nuclear reactors in the United States isotopes of plutonium. nickel. and niobium [from Elk River! had been decommissioned or were in the process of being because the accumulation of such radioactive materials is decommissioned. While this would appear to provide the in- directly related to length of operations.- (8) Because disposing dustry with substantial experience in decommissioning reac- of these long-lived radioactive isotopes is one of the most tors. the reality is quite different :\lost of these were research troubling problems plaguing the decommissioning process. reactors and all of them were tiny compared with today's Elk River is an unreliable *best modei- for estimating the typical 1.000-megawatt nuclear power plants. In fact. no nation currently has the experience needed to assess the technical future decommissioning costs of todav*s reactors. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. the major NRC con- [). \. I.\ problems of decommissioning large reactors and to estimate tractor studying decommissioning has reached conclusions future costs. that converge with Chapman*s. In a study of pressurized water Table I summarizes this country*s total decommissioning reactors (PWR's). one of the two major reactor designs. Bat-experience to date. Taken from the research of Lear and telle points to the nation's limited decommissioning experience Erickson cited in the Batelle report. the table shows 65 li- during the last two decades. The study notes: -Because of dif-censed nuclear reactors where decommissioning was planned. ferences in reactor size. type and design. operating time. licens-in process or completed. for the period 1960 through ing requirements. motive for installation of the facility. and l>. \. \. \ mid-1976. Of these. 52 are research reactors and another is a nuclear ship. Only five are power reactors. (2) Furthermore. conditions of concerns (e.g_ costs. shutdown radiation levels. amounts of radioactive waste). extrapolations from these ex-the dismantled reactors range in power ratings from less than periences to large commercial reactors are considered to be I megawatt to just 22 megawatts. (31 generally unreasonable: (9) Of the 65 reactors listed in the table. 13 reactors still have One additional nuclear facility. the Saxton Nuclear Ex-not been dismantled. but are instead entombed or in tem- perimental Facility in Saxton. Pennsylvania. was placed in tem-porary storage. (41 Of the 52 research reactors. 42 have been porary storage in 1972. It is scheduled to be dismantled in fully dismantled. while the remaining IO art' either partially 1997 bv its onerator. General Public Utilities Nuclear. the dismantled or still in the planning stage. (5) reluctani owner of the crippled Three :\ lile Island i\o. 2 reac-The 22-megawatt Elk River unit is the largest reactor tor. This 7 megawatt plant operated commercially for only 10 dismantled thus far. It was dismantled in 1974 after onlv four vears. In addition to its small size and short lifespan. Saxton years of operation. IJata on how much power it generaied or used plutonium, rather than uranium, as a fuel. ( 10) These fac* on how much it was running during those four short years and tors make Saxton of little use as a model for estimating future at what power levtl (capacity utilization) are unav~ilable. (6> decommissioning costs. Nevertheless. Elk River serves as our best decommissioning Some utilities have used the ratio of original cost to de.:om-model to date. Its dismantling. along with that of the tiny missioning cost of these small reactors as a hasis for research reactors decommissioned in the 1960s and 1970s. estimating the probable expense of dismantling their much provides our only actual experience with full decommission- larger reactors. This approach is of highly questionahle validi-9 J-26

ty because of wide variation in costs. For instance. Peter Skin- radioactive disposal sites now being established by states. ner. with the New York Office o( the Attorney General. has Such large. highly contaminated units would be candidates for found that the dismantlement costs for Elk River were 28 per- deep geologic waste disposal. but it is doubtful that the 1).1.\.\ cent o( the original facility costs. (11) However. the expected Department of Enerr,y (DOE) will design shafts with such dismantlement costs for Saxton. a S6 million reactor. arc now si,.cs in mind. estimated at around S 12 million - 200 percent of the original At a time when the nuclear utilities are in critical need o( capital costs. ( 12) decommissioning experience. the U.S. government is spending S79 million (S 1987) to decommission a nuclear reactor and Inoperable lkactors employing a method which cannot be used for large reactors. In doing so. DOE is virtually throwing away the opr~rtunity As shown in Table 2. six commercial-scale reactors in the to develop a valid model for future decommissioning efforts. United States are currently inoperable. With one exception. lhc estimated cost of the Shippingport decommissioning is their owners are postponing the day when they will be decom- about 12 percent of its cost of construction during the 1950-s. missioned. Such delay means utilities will not have the ex- according to the Comm1t1ec for Energy Awareness.( 17) CEA D.1.1.2 perience needed to develop sound cost estimates and increases docs not provide a cost estimate if the reactor were to he fully the likelihood that utilities will not set aside adequate funds dismantled. for future decommissioning. Without such information, rate-payers may face a multi-billion-dollar "rate shock: when Humboldt Bay D. \.\. \ decommissioning on a commercial scale actually begins-probably after the tum of the century. The Humboldt Bay No. 3 reactor in California has been closed since July.1976. Its owner and operator, Pacific Gas and Shippingport Electric Co. (PG&E). petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission 1n 1983 for permission to decommission the plant in The Department of Encrgy*s 72-megawall Sh1rpingro,1 1985. reactor in Pennsylvania has been inoperable since October Bui desprtc the demands of local otizcn organizations that 1982. and is the one reactor currently slated for decommis- the reactor be fully dismantled. PG&E plans to put I lumboldt sioning. Both DOE and the Committee for Energy Awareness Bay in temporary storage.( 18) The preliminary cost for this is (CEA). the nuclear industry's public relations agency. arc estimated al $16 million. calculated in 1983 dollars. ( 19) The presenting Shippingport as a model case of decommissioning total expense lo PG&E ratepayers by the year 2000 is which will provide the industry with valuable expcnence estimated to be about $76 million. again in 1983 dollars. (20) needed in future decommissioning efforts.( 13) Shipringpor(s At only 65 MW. 1lumboldt Bay is less than one-tenth the size size-larger than any other reactor yet decommissioned-and of most reactors orcrating today. the fact that work on it will begin in 1985 both add credence to such claims. However, there is evidence that DOE is throwing Dresden away its best chance to learn from Shippingport by choosing a decommissioning method that maximizes short-term economic Commonwealth Edison Co.*s 209-megawatt Dresden 1 efficiency at the expense of long-term information gain. reactor has been shut down since 1978. The plant was Dismantlement of the reactor vessel poses a key cost prob- chemically decontaminated in September, 1984, following D.LI.) lem and technological and safety challenge for decommission-ing teams because it is the most highly radioactive component. Commonwealth Edison*s August decision to retire the reactor. lhe utility is likely to place the unit in temporary storage. until Nevertheless, DOE docs not plan to dismantle the Shipp- its sister units. Dresden 2 and 3. also become inoperable. (21) ingport reactor vessel at all. Instead. the agency plans to cover the relatively small vessel with concrete in order to contain its Indian Po,n/ radiation, then float it by barge to Hanford, Washington for burial. (14) Consolidated Edison Co."s Indian Point No. 1 was shut Unfortunately, the larger reactor vessels of 1.000 MW reac- down in 1974. However, it is not scheduled for full decommis-tors operating today are unlikely to be good candidates for sioning until Indian Point 2 is also decommissioned sometime barge transport or (or burial in radioactive landfills. According around 2006. to an October. 1984, article in E11gi11cenng News-Record. * .. only IO other re;ictors co, ,trl be removed that way. lhe rest 77iree M,le Island No. I and 2 will have to be cut apart remotely and truc"-ed to disposal sites.* (15) The damaged lhrce Mile Island Unit 2 reactor in Peno,- In addition to the cost o( barging the reactor intact (i( indeed sylvania has been closed s'~ce 1979. Its owner, General Public a barge could accomodate the weight), the high levels of Utilities, has no schedule for reopening the plant until the radioactivity generated over the 30-year life o( a large commer- cleanup o( its interior is completed. probably in 1988. Its sister cial reactor would likely cause problems in complying with unit, Three M ilc Island Unit I, has also been closed since 1979 shipping classification standards. probably making barge and remains shut due to questions that regulators have raised transport impossible. ( 16) And even 1( such a vessel could be about management integrit}. barged. it would not qualify for disposal in regional low-level A number of other operating reactors are currently ncanng 10

                                                                           .J-27

the end of their uatful life, and may soon bt candidatn for IOllll communication. 15 August and 13 Dcttmbtr 1983. decommissioning. Table 3 li1t1 tht nation'* okkst racton and 11. Skinner 1977. some ol thdr vital statistics. 12. Bumi and Roe 1981:1-3, Emcsl Fuller (Concerned Ciliztns for SNEC Safety), personal communication, 15 August 1983.

13. US Conunitttt for Entrgy Awattness 1984.

FooCnota. Chapter 2 14. Ibid

15. E,,gin<<ring News-/wcord 1984:27.

I. Smith, d al 1978a:3-l. 16. Physical difficulty in mnoving an intact PWR reactor

2. lbid:3-2-3-3. vesstl: Wittenbrock 1982. Dr. Carl Fridman has dtscribed ex-

3. lbid:3-4-3-5. tremely high radioactivity and cost as making this option dif-

4. U.S. NRC 1978:12, also citn thtst rractors as yet to bt ficult Dr. Carl Feldman (NRC). personal communication. 5 dismantltd June 1984.

5. GPU Nucltar 1983. 17. US Committee for Energy Awareness 1984.

6. Chapman 198Q53. 18. Nuckar Fru 7imu 1983a-9.

7. Ibid 19. Savage 1983:8.

8. Ibid 20. Nudeor Fru Timu 1983b:8.

9. Smith, d al 1978a:3-l 21. Jim Tascas (Common-..Jth Edison Co.), personal com-

10. Ernest Fuller (Concerned Citizens fof' SNEC Safety). ptr- munication, 18 July 1983.

II J-28

J-29 React.oc Reactor Protecta.ve Fac.&.lit.y lleactor Ther-1 Type of Hon.&.torin9 Stoca9e and Location Typ4I Rating. HW (a) DeCOftla.eeiong Syete* Heaeuree CYTR Pree*ure tube 65.0 Hothball1ng Perio(hc suc- Welded clo1uce, P*rr,sc heavy vat.er ve1.llance locked dooc*. ee< uca.t.y fence Pathfinder IIIR 190.0 l1othball1n9 Cont.1.nuous Welded cloauce. Sa.au* f'alle. SD nuclear *uperheat et.ea* plant. aecucity force (bl eecuca.t.y fence convera.1.on Fl!:RKI l Sodiu* cooled 200.(.\ Hot.hba l l .1.n9 Cont.1.nuou* Locked doon, Honroe Co.. Ml laet aecur1.ty force (bl *ecura.ty fence Peach Bott.oat Gae cooled 115.0 Hothbal l1n9 Cont..inuoua Not yet Yock co., PA 9raphite eecucity force (b) e*tabl.a.ahed aoderated VRWR BWR 50.0 Hothba l l 1n9 Continuous Locked door*. Alameda Co., CA w.a.t.h ateam secur1.ty force (bl aecur1.ty fence plant corveraLon NASA Plumbrook 0.1 flothba 11 ing Cont1.nuous Locked door*. Sandusky, OH *ecur1.t.y focce (bl aecuc.1.t.y fence Cl!: EVESR BWR w~th nuclear 17.0 Hot.hball1.n9 Continuous Locked door*. Alameda Co ** CA auperheat. aecur.it.y force (bl *ecur1.ty fence Saxton, PA PWR 23.5 Mothballing Intrusion Welded closure, a.la.ems locked doors, 1ecur1ty fence SEFOR Sodium eooled 20.0 Mothball 1.n9 Int.cu*1.on Welded clo*uce, Strickler, AR faat alarrae locked door*. secur.ity fence Weat.inghou*e Bank 60.0 Mothballing Cont1.nuou1 Locked dooco, Te*t. React.or aecurit.y focce (bl eecurit.y fence Wal't.z. Mill, PA

* .. w                             Pool                                            6.0             Partial                         Not cequ 1. ced        Not. requ 1. red Lynchbur9, VA                                                                                     da.e11W1nt..1.n9 Hall.a*                           SOdiu* cooled                               256.0               Entoabing                       Not cequi.red          Welded cloaure.

Halla*, NB graphite concrete cover. aodecated weatherproofed Piqua Organic cooled 45.5 Entombing Not. requ1.ced Welded cloauce, Piqua, Off and mderat.ed concrete cover, waterproofed BONUS BWR v~t.h nuclear 50.0 Ent.Olllba.ng Not. requ.iced Welded cloaure, Rican. Puerto auperheat concrete cover. R.lCO locked dooco,

                                                                                                                                                           *ecur1.ty fence Elk River                          IIIR                                          58.2              D.1.aaanting       &.          Not. cequa.red          Not requ.1.ced Elk IUver, IOf                                                                                    partial convereion TAIIUl.f-

~ ,_.,.. M!' ~ WI lhmNI fflf'IIIW'llll&. Thtw dwnn.f nwpweU* 1ft ,...i to '9P"O..ffi~J o,w rimncal ~ - ta,_,._. ol a ~ lft'WllJ Sota - * ~ by rtw NRC bec8'MC C'Ol'lllinuow "'8nlWd ~ J - pro,ndrd Sor odwf on4* K1mhn CM Wl'ff ~ 10 ttw ~ ~IC1or If --=- *lofff *

• IIOII p,nNlt. dw NRC ...... haw ........td lftlMllllrd MCVnCJ ., odw, addtcioMI ec'tTa conm,I ~

5ouftoc. ~"-"D t 1.ald~efUCllftN!dllncwP.._._...~iaaNucka'~ ......... bJP&Encli.W1andC.Lnr.U.S.NRC.~ .. C011* lnwllff

• D I ' ~ alld DK ziwiee*'&, ....._ Peh. ldeha. A.... 19-21. 191~ ill WM. NM.I. ~lfflaliOft el Nudnr Po.ff P l a n e * ~ k .... 9M .........

11,1ffl49 a 11-lnnG. PA PUC Tnel Slaft" EqlC'l1 T*IMCNIJ

• lMl-1 Occw ........ 4/ll/ll J-30

Table 2. Inoperable Nuclear Power Generating Facilities 1985 Pecll l tin M.-e

         ... t.oc.tto.

ftaool. ctt a. r J

                                  ~r                 lOl'l'otr
                                                   *tlfll'(llt)c U.J Prl.:lpl.l helflc Ou o.,.erclal
                                                                                  ~ntloa 1H1 Date oC 11/tt/H Mlt11r* ol Pl**t Located ,.

AetlOII 'TWc:a or b:peet.t ia.etar tdtaUnlJ

      ~ldt o,-1 o.,    QI.

I SN.I

                                                                 *ad tlectrlc a..
                                                                 ~,           . ....         It/SI/ti Nt'lhpue f*lt.

Coad to etlldf po1*l*l* -,dltlca-a.dloect I** o*~

                                                                                                                                -**--1         .1. . .

ldMd.aled ** k ....

                                                                                                                                 ** t.-pat&rJ .,.....

0..-lcallJ Ona.it,~ ** IL &fhoa Ch. 11* prodllch ' - " ' ~ II, ltU.

                                                                                                      . . . . . plpl ....       O.Ch loa to P41t I* *--

pofU'J' ., . . . IIC* II, Ill< ,-11,. IIIC -

                                                                                                                                ..... ,-...aua ___..._

I.SI** Potat 1

      ... tcholtotf'      Cl)., IC'l'               '"*'         Cbmlo! ldated Edi*- O:>

• llU U/Jl/U Plut i.ed . .

                                                                                                      ,aierc...:y .,..

core cool I II( *J* 1 la.lar plUNd-1.Slu ta. Pt. 1 a.S t. Plut St&it dOlla lacaapll- *111,....lad*td,ciii,M

                                                                                                      &DC.J W( tb a- ID:,       utll~Hloal*

rculatlOM. of lndlu Pt. t I* HM. Thr<< Nile hlud l Ot"""" Cb **

                           .                        n1.a         Ostu1l P\bl le Utllttln
                                                                 )l,i,c:lffr1 Met ropol t tu Edl,oo 1174    J/11/71  Qoud

• I ~

accldeat at Unl t z. lleltart delayed ct.,c, to IUU'eloll'ed . . . . - -

• Jotecrl tf 1a .....

Thrtt lfih 111.0 ~ncnl P\blk 1911 J/11/79 M&J<< r ..ctor a ~ wtll eocttlrue hl*nd I Ut1iltle11 ae<ldent tllrQl.l(h JtU pie.SJ. ac Dauphin. 0,.

• PA Nucl-r: coalln&Hd fll.lldlnr.

Metrapol I tan

                                                                 £.dl1oa ShlwlrcP<<t                                     n.o         U .s. Dept. of      ltS1    10/01/1% o:£ rese.rch              Uaft .ctwdwled     tor 8--,e:t 0,.

• PA Enero/t)t.quttfte acth*tlfe:-a c~le:t-1. deeG11Dh*IOC'LIII( tort-Lt. Cb. Mo hirthtt a...S C<< trc la ltl5. a.actor plut to ~ale-. ... .. , *111 .... tllt,,c:Nd by barf'e to 1111.t'ord. 11A.

                                                                                                                                ,_ bwlal.
      ,...,      I                    &odli.m        lOOt        Po,,t,tr Re..:t<<    IHC              R.e..:t<< -=:cld<lat.      lkectCM" p,11t I* t ~ a r 7 Monroe Cb., Ml                   cooled.                   0ii:¥elopcRftl Cb.

• touce ta ans.

fut hthtlnde:i' Slour; Palls, SD S~r-H.D t-lorthe:rn Statea Po.tt Cb.

                                                                                     ....             ~tC*llure1.               ae.ctot put I* (~OUl'J
                                                                                                                                *l<<-c'e J* lfts.
                                       "'-tire Peach Botta. t                                40.0        Phllade:lphla Yort Cb., PA                   °

rooled, crq,ht te Electric Cb. 1167 ~ t o r put la,.,_.,.,

• t ouc<< la tfTS.

a;de:nte atCOCt. herto ltco auelear

                                                     ...                             IH4                                        Entcaib9d (ol laarlac abMt&:-1,
                                       *uiper-1wattnc Plq .....                       Orr*nlc                                        lHJ Pt.qua. Of                      cooled         "'                                               Cbohat prabl-.            t a t ~ la lflt, aodcrale:d

()(lJI. PeT"t 1 S:: ...... Prn*ure hea.-y _,er,

                                                     "'                              liU                                        a..ctor r,t la taporu7
                                                                                                                                *lota(e la IN?.

QX)J CGOled ao:S<rrate:d tit Rher Elk Rlw<<, tiltl u.* U.S. Atoal<e ltU a.actor dt*. . thd, foutl ful !ncrn 0-..l**laa Matlac Kall- Crapl\llt Kall--. HI .:ide,'et<ld. aodl\ft

                                                    ""                               lfU              lbkrator el--..t pr.abt-.

Ult...t>ed la lfH. cooled ( - - - ) llldlcetN thll l.t~llon -

• ftoOt obtelned by the author.

J-31

91....,_...eh&r p&.nc* -~ J.-flntd

• th...,.. whtrh ~ bfton no.cod b - CWll' ~ar 1mh fNjor ~ ......... thtw fvt~ oprrac-. << tho- *hd NW'-""' ~ 1 , ....._.

hR* Nucit* R.td ... w_., lvactor P*'"'"'-ltt'd WMff 11<<-actor C'U..1 M'f' ' " ~ n n l ._.,..,.,,. Ul'IW'N lftdcllltd by t. I

• I ~ r,wpw81h. Ont ~ncal ,,...,..,.,, fqUM arr,cnNNildJ l 1frwnnat ff'lt1tol****

Snurn-a. RI s-th. CI. k.onari.. ~ W F_ ICnwwdy lte T << i ~ S4~,-" CIMtl of vat 1.,w-oc,us N.,...,....,......, c-Jon< 191s,_,.. l 1-l lO. n.n.-......., *RI(,,_,.,, r... n,ftl W*lff ~ 1\.-u'"' .S..U.-. NUHF.CICH -01 lO. lac_....,.of~rr.,.,.,."1,lJa,MIS-,.ltlUA..-'.U.S.IJO.FIF-I.A.M95112LIW.......... l>C.:US.°"'*111W'1'11otl.f_...,-F.ftlffDWonnallOll~r* 1-.,.191121. us. Nuc1rw' Rqula,larr C............. Ulff&wJO,.-,,..., Hn,m,r,.-s,.,-s---,.,...,. NURF.G-0020 Vol 7. No. 11.1\\*...........-. nc. U.S. Nein, 11,plalory c..........._~ 1to1.pp. J.._

                    -Nctr.........., C............,,. Rductandr COUKf',s Up Lal of lnkpllJ ' - - IIIWGlftftl CPU."' JW l:Wl'ff n..1~. ,.__... 2.a 1984. p 1
                    -         M K - eo..,.1in.
                                   -.c.-.a .......clJl;!*.,.Co..-..NJ.

Cat.,.,_ Pt,bfic t.111,ht. . c___._

                                                                                                   ...-----lulJ                      11 IIU San Fnnnaco. CA. piN"fOMI ~ - . Dirftfflti<< 1. 19M AndJ Carck. Califonlla f\,MIIC' t.111...ift COIIIIIIINIOft. San Fr.-ncNCO. CA. Pff--' C'GffllllUnlC'ICIIIII. ~ l. 19114 Sur Capn". Pubic A....,.-u.s Nuctc. A<<,.ulacorr c ~ - - . W-"...                             *on. DC'. pn......a C'GIIHIIUIIII...- . * ~ J l'IA4 C...t C<<,r.l. Conao4id-4t'd f.dwton Co of NY, Nc-w Vert. NY. pr,,oNI con'lmUnCIIIUl'l. lk"'R'fflN'f It\ l~I Otnntc Pooltor. Pw.r<< C* .-.d f.l<<enC" Co.. 5-1 francHCo. C A . ~ C"oJfflfflUnc.C.on. Julr 11, 1911 J- T..:--. C°"'"'°""'""h EdelOfl Ca.. (."he.,. IL rrnon-' communoc-ahon. J...&1 II. 1913.
                    ~ 0. Whflt. US. llrper1fflffll o f ~ - Rdtland. WA. penonM C'OfflfflUntealMllfta. Julr 26. IMl.

Table 3. Commercial Power Generating Reactor Decommissioning Candidates 2005 Year of Operating Commercial License Net MDC Reactor Operation ( b) Expiration MWE (c) Net ( d) Shippingport 1957 (e) 72 Dresden 1 1960 1996 207 Yankee Rowe 1961 1997 175 69.7(g) Indian Pt. 1 1962 (e) 275 Big Rock Pt. 1963 2000 63 57.2(g) Humboldt Bay 1963 (e) 65 Conn. Yankee 1968 2004 582 82.4(g) San Onofre 1 1968 2004 436 La Crosse 1969 ( f) 50 47.7(g) Nine Mile Pt. 1 1969 2005 620 58.l(g) Oyster Creek 1969 ( f) 650 58.5(g) Monticello 1971 2002 545 74.6(g) Prairie Island 1 1973 2005 530 76.5(g) Prairie Island 2 1974 2005 530 80.6(g) Three Mile Island 2 1978 (e) 906 To\BLE 1 Foocnocn

      ~ 1ab1r don no1           t.iw lfllO C'ONldcT.. _      the- 1,lict.heod ol fl<<'INUf'J Pft'IN'Uft ....,_.. M         1o IIC'Odcnl* or othff pnllhlNn&. N<< c1ar 4 ~ pokftlial ror opr,11... httNr ffflrWal by.... of COflllnftaal oprrallOfl ta 1hr dale' IN'          un'1 *

• dN:l.arl'd bJ tiw .Cdlfy o.ftft' lo N avaoiaNC' few dw ,..... pn,ductlOII ol rifftntllJ __., rclMcd lo .....t-,ory r~ICNI fzl qual1rllC'aUofl 1n,1s
• lfW'C'trwd "' 1hir ~ con1rw1 and to ~ ... poltC'in *an4 pnchcn ol u1ili1y

      <Nt"I lolWw iii ltw.....,. NC1roc.i ,....,._ Th,.          M  chit nonu,,.,I N1 C'WC1rlC'al OUl(M ol thr un.: tpr('tflC'd ~ 1hr wt!My and .ed lot tlw ""'1'C*' o f ~ ~ "

dwoc M4

• ltw ffllllitnun'I ~ upac.Cy lit-M 1hr ftOr"MII ""'°" Wf'V'(T &o.dt,.

      "Oprt-at~ ll("C"r'IW    ,..,.,-...on d.a4n   etC' tlOC tneiuckd b     un.1s  ..ti.cil ~ ~ l y shucdo.....n
      'nw pt.,,. he. a pn,,,,l'OINI I ~ hul ~~*~a f..,ft tC'ffll ~ * " I I ~                                  l ~ << T . lhc-t'c- t1 no IJf'rl.. ,... IIC"f"IIM' r.r"aftlJn d...-

J.t~ cak'uW1C'd ~"I a WC'll.hl<'d __....., s...,..... t ..rrunl Op,,,v11'"'1 R-.ctun- s,.,,., S..--,,- Rt-,_,,,, NUH.I.C-0010 V<J(I 7 No 12 CWa..hu'lf.htn. I)(.' llS Nuid,*a,, H..,._\,4,li.,n i.:-,~ t ~ n 191U1 "Nvl'IC'* l'owff Plaril*"' 11- UnllC'd St.In.- AIOfflc llldu111r..a furum. Inc 1W.-h,11ttton l>C AtomC' lndu9,lnal l"1ll'UM l11r. ICIN*O 15 J-32

Table 4. Decommissioning Policy Data for Licensed Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 1984 Unit * ~eratlnr Ten tat lvely Flnancltir !atlmated O.t oi Year I Doll ar1 1113 !at lrtaled l'Unda Collected Llcenae Scheduled Method3 Deccmnlsalonlnr In which O>at ot to Date by El<plratlon Decarrnluljnlng (m 111 l on1 of Reported Decarrnl II l onl nr5 Principle Unit Yeu Method dol lara) (mll 11 on* of Omer 1 (mll l lona dollara)

• ot dol lara)

JoHph M. Par I ey I 2012 m:rn Ill!' 37 .o JUI 0.2 I .a Joeeph M. Parley 2 2012 t£aN IUI' 37 .0 1911 0.2 3.4 Brown* Perry I 2010 m:rn ISP 57 .0 1983 57.0 Browna Perry 2 2010 OOa:N ISP 57 .0 1983 $1.0 30.0 33 Browna Perry 3 2010 m:rn ISP 57 .o 1983 51.0 Arkanau Nuclear I 2001 DECIN14 !UP 20 .a 1175 35.7 t.2 24 Arkanua Nuclear 2 2012 m:rnl4 !UP 21.5 1975 38.3 3.424 HWl>Oldt Illy 3 7 TIMPSltJ! tlll'l 7 a2 .020 1983 52. 020 .5 Dlablo Cllnyon 18 Hone 11 IBDI tlll'l 7 123.1 1985 101.0 28 Hone collected Rancho Seeo 1 2001 Undettmtlned ISP lU.O llU lU.O 21.1 San ~tre 1 200f IBDI ttJPl 7 110.5 1984 104.3~; 11. 7 lllll Qiotre 2

               !illn ~tre 3 201!

20U t£aN m:rn 1lll'17 ttlP!T 113.321 130. 7 1984 1184 m::21 1.2 Kone collected c... Pt. St. V?aln 2001 Uncletem,Jned ESP 35 .o 1911 39.1 2.7 I w a . ~ .. 2004 IBDI ltlP 87 .a 1113 n.a 11.1 w Mll lltone 1 Mll l atone 2 2008 2010 DEaN m:rn IUF ltlP 125.5 121. 7 1914 1184 117 118.4

                                                                                                                           .2::             10.1 U.4 Qyltal River 3           2001          recm             ISP            14.4           11183             84.4                 u.s 3 Turke, Point 3           2007          IBDI             ISP            80.3           II~'              80.3                 II .2 3:
               'Ill rkey Pol nt 4       2007          t£aN             ISP            sa.a           195:              u.a                  15.2 St. welt 1               2010          m:rn             ISP            81.a           JU!               as.a                 15.235 St. lJ.,cle 2            2023          IE(I}I           ISP            74.5           1983              14.5
               !<kin I. Hltch 1         2014          m:rn             Ill!'         125.7           1102             133.2                 10.3 Edwin I. HI tch 2        2018          IE(I}I          Ill!'                          1182 Dreaden 17               JIU 12

____ re:n; IUI' la. 42 2 1983 31.422 Dread111 2 C£(DI IUI' 1983 Dretden 3 2008 ca:tN !UP 138 .o 1983 138.o Zion 1 2008 t£aN !UP 1983 Zion 2 2003 m:rn !UF 112.8 1183 112.a Total tor al !a8 QJad attet I 2007 IE(I}I !UF 1183 unlta

• 14.7 Q,ad a lie* 2 2007 ca:tN IUF 103.1 1183 103.1 La Sall* 1 2022 t£aN IUF 81. l 1983 81.1 Duane Arno! d 2010 Uncletennl ned None None None None Kone collected Maine Yankee 2001 ~ ESP 122 .o 1U3 122.0 2.1 a, hert a If fl I 2001 DECill !UF 333 .o 200i u.121 8.2 OIIYert a Ith 2 2001 m:rn !UF 2001 Plier Im I 2008 ~ ESP 17 .l 1983 87.3 2.0 27 Yankee aa...: 1117 w:rn ESP 40. 0 1983 40.0

Bir llock Point Pal l11de1 Dlnald c. ~ 1 2000 200T 2009 D£(IJf

                                        'IDIJlll1'CR Undete1111lned
                                                      !UP IUP Hone 35.0 80.7 155.0 1182 1171 1112 1112 37.1 114.3 3.4
                                                                                               *. ,2*

Donald C. Olok 2 2001 Undetermined Non* MDntloello Pralre hland 1 Pratre hland 2 2002 2005 2005 D£(IJf IBnl D£(IJf

                                                      !UP
                                                      !UP
                                                      !UP 54.1

51. 7 14,8 1171 1171 1971 TJ.7 20,0 u.1 31 14,331

                                                                                               ** 7 31 Grand Qalf 1*

Olaper Pt. Calhoun l 2014U 200& sooa IBnl IJECI}I IBnl

                                                     **** 11 ISi' IBP U.5 II.I 17.4 1111 110 UIS 101.1 17.4
                                                                                           !lone collected Hone collected 1,1

___ 12 0,1ter Chait EN'lt:MI !UP 100.0 2003 15,430 11,T S&ICI 1 1001 Undetermined Ill' 210.0 1111 Ul.4 ---40 ___ 40 Sein 2 200I Undetermined !UP 1111 lndlan Pt, 17 TEMHrnllu Ill' U.7 1110 111,311 Jl,2 IJldlan Pt, 2 .ooa D£(IJf Ill'

        *1ndlan Pt, I J.,.. A, Plt&petrlck 2009 2010 IBXJ(

IJECI}I

                                                      !UP Ill' sa.o 45.0 1110 1110 41.1 51.3           ***

1,1 Mine Mlle Point I 2005 IBnl IUP 57,023 1111 u.o 12,7 Robert B, OIM& 2~oe recrn IIJP 37 .au 1171 sa.o 1G,1 Brumwlck l 2010 Em0,18>30 !UP U,I 1171 51.3 10.1:t Bru119WIOk 2 2010 .l!NltMSt30 IUP 58.4 1971 71.1 1$,3 MaOulre 1 2010 IE:IN IIJP 50.0 1180 12,5 UnknCllfll MoOilre ""11 IJECI}I IIJP 50.0 1980 12.5 Nona coll eel ed Ilavll*Beue 1 lJll EN1tMI+ !UP 53.0 1183 u.o UnknCllfll c... w I -

    -.i Tl'oJan              2011       ano.1B+100    IUP    173.0     2011     33.132         1.2

~ Beaver Va 11 ey I Three Mlle hland 1:

                             "u.O 2011 mm DECIN ESP ESP 64.1 37 .3 24 1183 1883 H,I 37.3          **:;u Undetermined     ESP              **** 24  **** 24       **** 24 Three Ml I* hl&nd 2 Suaqueh&Ma 1         2022      IJECI}I        ESP    229.02 5  1913

• 221.0 25 ,4

                                                                                              **** 27 ,40 Peach Bot tcm 2      2008       mm            ESP    132.0     1882    139.I Paacn Bott cm 3      2001      DECIN          ESP              1982 Shlppl~ort7,10                  oo::o,15              71 .o    1983     79.0      None collected H.B. Roblnaon 2      2007       EN'I0,1S+30   IUP     H.8      1971     10.5          12.,0 0.onee 1             2007    Undetermined      IIJP   so.a     19 80    12.5         Unknc:wn O:lonee 2            2007    Undeterml ned    II.IP   so .o    19 80    12 .5 Oconee 3             2007    Undetennlned      IUP    so.a     19 80    62.5 Sunner I             2013       DECW           ISP    73. 0    1982     77. 4         -*-* 44 2010                      ISP    51. 0    1983     51. 0          L033 Sequoyah I                     DE(Ill Sequoyah 2           2015       ~             ISP     51. 0    1983     51.0 Venront Yankee       2001      [£(Ill         fSp19   72. 7    1911     12.9 Surry   I            2008      "IFMPSltJl     IUP    112.4     19SJ    112,4       Total tor all 4 Surry   2            2008      Tif.lPS'ltR    ltlF             1983                unltl

• 1,1 North Anna 1 2011 'm,U?S'JCR lUP 118.4 1983 111.4 North Anna 2 2011 Tif.lPS'ltR IUP 1983 Hanford-filO None Not Available ---- ---- ---- ......... None collected La Oone Pol nt Beach I

____ u 2007 a:r.n, II.IP 20 .o 10 I. 7 1983 1982 20.0 107 ** None collected 38.0 Point Beach 2 2008 wm !UP 1982

        ~unee                2008      a:r.n,         IUP     43.S     II 83    43.5          23,0

TAHU: 4

 *n..

___ t'ootfl1111N tahk wM <'OfflP'wd f""" cA.t. ~ .. ....,... ._.....'It~"°"*

-.,,rwy ........... -

Sunq fW1 ol Pvbttc Cil..,.'* IN,,,C dt< ohcai,wdf..... .CakcaNMd-...W ~~ ~ tfw C'OWN,y. dNcnbrd .. OIIM~-CWl'lfflC .......... ~ f f l d t K S . . . _ ~

                                                           ~1.         A olth.. ftllOl1.. ~

• A

_,,,... poky

                                                                                                          .._cone..*
                                                                                                                                   * ~ P...i I ;. en ...... lhc NRC """"-
                                                                                                                                   ....._. <<<<ort. ha.w b<<fl wwdt towenf tnlllporWJ . . . . . ~
                                                                                                                                   ~willtw4a:

__ 1o

• 1tw ~ M i r ....... ..-.odr. Ttw. . - . . thee ...w

                                                                                                                                                                                     ,tah.f._. ttw l'NC1ar drf"MWd in Chapko, 2 ol ct. f'rf'0'1.
                                                                                                                                                                                                          , ._. ltw _.. has Mt
                                                                                                                                                                            ..iwloc11d . . . . . tllethod~-l'INCtel°w.dwllltw~-~
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ~ .....,. of It.: pn,*

11,, ,,.....,_,,. .. 1'"""""-w"""......._,,_,,,,, _ _ ..._,Co11_11,,,.w.,.~<1-- E.,i,~rnc1on~~inthia...wy.11MIIIICt..dtdl>>ach~~ . . . . . . ~ . _.,,d_...... ................. d , , , H o o l o r d - N . , , d ~ - - - - ............

...... el ctww ~ iR dw ,....._,.., ,._..,.,... .. ,.... u.-,1 s:.... (()()E/'EIAt ~ dw J'NR. f"tw Mffll. ii . . . anGINII,       ~      . . ,.* ft'C1an      8f'lt nfWdlNI to ...... to lie-"'°"""'     tip~-
                                                                                                                                   "1* """119Un....... - . . r-. _ _ ,_..,,.....,_._ ...... _ _ _

..-. ~th ll,w'fl'O'W'"' * ..... ~~_.,DK.,,. 1913 -=tudtd: CrllN Cue. 0 - - C...,... S... 0.0,,. J.W<Cwc J.,,dlASollr I.Aoall><<. 1. IM4.al- ...,C<-..1Culf.,,d~C_,..t.od- '°" "'c..ifomia. A. o1 ~ 1914 ctw c..iComie NIie Ui:liltN ~ h.t ... MW4 * '"'* P'C' " * ~ ..... ioil. Ol'drr ~ ID thie Mbj<<t. A , . _ . _ . . . ~ ~ - ii nflJf'CWd aoftldNM M 191S.. (-1 ~ ........ - - ...,..;w,&r. e . - . . . - . . - .._,., _ - *l'\llhousfri FERC ftqWlftd nknlal _ . . . fund-.. few dw ... ill ltlC. bw:k -* "°' ~ cvft<<W b Afl,<nd,, dK * ~ ... ~ CWWffial optNIIOn '°"'"'"" iR I Ms.

 '"f---', ....ct wililin. 11

• TEMPSTOR*T._..,. -

ENTOM8-- CM. dlr IIWthod weed lor ~ ~

• ctw a1t wflo tfl11iciN P'-' lo...,.

                                                                                                                                   **~ .t Orr:1obrr         l. IOtl.  *<= .

NC10W eclCOlllit eul ef d w ~ ...... ~ iMfllC'J ~ Willnftl ..... 'Jlw (1MI

                                                                                                                                   -       .......... FERC ......,...tn............ lund"'I fo,V..-
                                                                                                                                  °"""' ............... .............,                  ~            ,,_
                                                                                                                                   .,,_ r.....,.r indwdN NU-.k!d aNe1 ef puCCans <<t'f ..- in ~ .......

• Y--

i:mimi& Nftdt for VeflftOIIII Y-....: ~ brffl ~ illl

• lundl,y-\o INS.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ~

llrtt"""""' ..,_.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ......i;., S,,..,. 1914. Th<

wdl

• d...._..~ It EHTOM8+*~ ...... dc'8ytd ~ doNROlilfldudt~end~coata.

ENTOMB+,0.~ with....,._.""'""- 1n ,0 ,a,.

                                                                                                                                  "Coa o f ~ - . ~ eraa b" ell ffMW .....                                    ~    lllduckd ill lfN9 fi&urc.

ENTOMB+IOO-~ . . d i ~ in 100 JGf'9

   ~ - N o tiped"c: IMdlod .. brine ..... lor                     '* ...... pwpoeN                                               9Tlwe cb.         flOt. wt.le     °"'"' M2 Milton which *

• t. ml<<ttd hM ~ b" ~ - - . -

c.....,.2.t--.w---

                                                                                                                                  -Tlww,._. __ ,,,......,.

Orcadao I. 19'11 .

'F'~wdladaawt11iilit.*----o1 ............ CIIAectrd . . . nlrpaftfflor.cuwusieai:oclM.ift

......... . . . ~~ . . . . . . .._...tied. ....... iNlic:llled 1hr acdlocf MMtd .. wed bJ ell lllCllieiCI "TI,,,..,-., - Wlioo....,. 1980.1--* _..,a..,,.,.,., _ _...,.._..,._,.. lnlltllhiadonM( __ ... . _.... ........... - . ........

                                     ~------att-.driilllll:dlod..Mcihoda

• dw . . . ~ lhe ... it loc:akd. ~ . llinor ~ Mdhodia aft olkft ~ - d'lt "*

a,-erhNiein vtilicJ ..,......1or <I lh< lMI UN< Zd<ao..., . _ . _ . . _ - , S I wM ia ~

• Chel ~ ema to h a w ~ II ..

whcthrr ........... ptNffl(ly inctudea pnwi,l,iona ... *'°' *.iwic.:.i.,;. No,....... ......

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ~ to         tht....,..
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 ~

_ . , , d - - ,_ _

                                                                                                                                  - - - ........ 11,,,-11,,,pe.......-,s.

IUF*.._... ~ fund--c - T b . ~ induda c:o-. ol *<=* ~ b o t h ~ 1 I 2. ISF*-~luod,"I *An inftal:ion n k o( 6Si ptt<,rnC - ~ by ttw 111,lity and ....d to conW11 fll"'" IO I 963 don.,, ESF-=E.aln"nal sinl.S\I f ~

                                                                                                                                   "Tiw authoc- eMUfflC-d

• 6 pnunC inllM.on rac~ "' ~ 1o ~ rll""" to 1983 doHen.. bew:-d on real ....

'11w' Nticnekd co.t of ~

• dw ~ which Uw pnnnpw wctity ownn"" and 1tw ~ ~ in nunC ,-.n No int\ecte)ft nk WM 1.va1labk fnjffl <<t'f utJie,.

~ C'Offlffliaion ilwolwd haw ~

• the baua on wfwcfl lo called __,- fl'Offl rwpey,cn for

                                                                                                                                   *An inll.cion       n4c   of 7 ptt<,rnC * * -.umtd by d'W ut1l1ty end ....d lo conw,rt f...-n, to 1983 dolW..

fvcun:~to1U.Oc::col1 ~ ....... co.t~NUblialwdbJu6hltmM'W't:wecnb-..&.kd - . .

• wtdr ~ of ..,mpeion&. A ~ o f ~ weft' rrporwd in futUIT JftC' do&n.. Ot~ "An ml\.c.ion '9k of S p,mxnc * * ~ b y Che- utility end ll<<d l o ~ f,curn. lo 1983 dollert..

~ttp0f'1Cdtft J'C8f'doin.n*c..-1y* l97S.. Varyinc<OdaCir* a.,m,'ftlanoeand ~ ) ti.w b<<n llldudt,d

• pare of NQffW!tn ~ r e on dw etak .Id dllC apca(Klfy of COM ntnn.c-... Thr ~ did nol

                                                                                                                                  *At1    infl_._, f-'< ol l      (JCflX'N * * ~ b y 1t"C' utilrty and                veed  lo C'Oft¥N'1 ftCU~ &Q    198.l dona,,-.

encmpc lo *Kt out -.di ---.,<<ions btatu<< ol dw ~ ol oo.t Nhfflehon for ~ llfVCc. "An inllation rwcc ol 1.6 pnnnt - - uwd Cor 1961 ~

• l'1IC,c' o( 8 pnn:ne -.,nwd kw CoUow,"I )'NR.
• n.1.-bt~ by ttw Nc-w YOC'i St.r.e f\.blic Srn,,tt C ~

"F"1lpl'ft ha¥t bttn COftw1'1cd 1o 1983 dol&.. 1rl OC'Ckf' tor t..ic        comparw,n      lo tw   ~      bnwttt1       co.u ea:""*'- Con,,,,cnion . . INdie ueinc; i-c...dy-WhittlWI Public Util11y lndn I<< EJ<<tric Licf',t and Powon-;                        aA.n iir"1.,c:MM\     rW" of  6 perornC -       -..med by lhc- wtllt<<y and 1-.:f          lo <'OCtW'f1 f'&""" to 1983 doll.,..

Oq,t.alC-.S..-allnduo<')'_C_R..-.Sq,(.-Oct.19"3.-1978

                                                                                                                                  --Th*~ *C'Ul'T'ffl( 1o Sq,ccmbn" lt.1983. A.o:ord"'C 1o ctw u<<.Wy U4.9m4it.on hM b<<ncolkcwdforaN 11w tndc* .cd far 1983

• bNcd on prcbmiNry dma. Handy-Whiicmlin *
• choem b<<::ecrec tC. * -
• S lVA p&.n(a. llppl"Oaimatd'J S30 mdtion kw- 8t'OWN ""l" I. 2 & land I S - " - f e w ~ I .. 2.

ap<<,(IC ta coau << ~ in the utilrCy induatry ol indlC'n a~t.bk. Since deco. W..OCMOI* h.. """'" bttfl Clllricod out tor* ~ rNdor no OM' knowa wh.ic:11 nk11: wiU be mc)II( aa:UC'Mr 111 "t'flcdttll C'OOltll ol lhia ~ ~JUN ant C\K1'C'l'IC IO 2/84

......                                                                                                                            -OWW r . ~ ant cvm:-ne. dwoucfl Dtc. 31. 1981 In 1983 dw Florida PSC n:'qUlffd u<<i11c-1oco11<<1 IS..S

~ n : f n w l o ~ ~ - ~ ~ - ~ c . ' O l l l .. ~ ~ i p

• r v c
• tniU.onC<<T~Pomt l;S-C.OffliNMfflf<<T~Poa_.;...tlS.0..-.illaoftlorSt.t....-ic l.f".....,....b-1982 tUf'el a.. ~ ..... ...tiYidulll unic ~ nch mn<<t hind* front nlqMJ"" kw OC'Contfflt~ ~ not .,...llih'c. lnlofmalt0n on Cotal fund. colkotd kw- dwtir ~ . . aho flOt. .....a.bk.

tto-nn* .._ p1erw OWftrf'/~ aucfl

• urck 8Md. corponil-... ke,. Vn'ffllOnt YIM\ktt Alom,c

                                                                                                                                  -OW. don ftO( indudt 133..S million coU<<kd & o m ~ * ~ ~ Cot inwrim ck<'on*

Corp.J arl' ~ for coll<<cinc eff dw fund. n<<nMrY I<< ~ n c . Appnld,. 8 l""9 .,. tamin.cKM'-.. dmduak, unic OW1W't'a. Principk OWMn ant ~ by . , Min'Hk.

                                                                                                                                  "Tlw w..-. Oq,c. ol Public Lkal,tin tel July "SJ ~r,ed lhM u..s .nil.on ptf° ~

• coll,<<1,rd - clttomm.*

'This '-C10f .. ~ y inop,eqbk. ._,,.re Pilgrim I. In Ottnnbrr 198l 1hca wouJd ti.w ~ ~1.im.edy tl.O -1110ft.

• 1w, ol Otoe. I. 19&4. tt. UNI had Mt y e t ~ i t . ~ ~ina ~ - k * * ~ r e low* --Thi. '9 ttw ntlfNlkd .nnuei P'O""'°' by lr'ld...-. Publte Senn c ~ end FERC ~ Marc+. 23.

powrr << fua1'0'-ff tntin&,. 1983. No ft.Uld. foe- ~ n c ~ b<<-n <'Oll<<1,ed wt the .cw ol Mdtpn. ~ .. ur..c i& iftopttabw M ol 0cc. I. 1984 It i& ~ ii Of whm dw u1111 might tw ""'*1cd. -n- wluea arT C"UffTfft lo Aue. ll. 1983. Wflw US. 0q,c.. f:nnu ~ th. ""*1<<. Thcmott. the- SoW'ffll"C1'I( wilt fxw" the- COIC* ol ~ - .,._ o(

                                                                                                                                  -f\.tbhc
                                                                                                                                  ~ UM.1:
                                                                                                                                              ~            Ekc1ric atld C.. Co. t- colk-c1cd a loCM ol Ml fl'Ufhon b Sakwn I '- 2 8"d P-cil 8o<<Oft\ I , 2 d<<omnwu--c          .n "" ol 111, "No     ~ ~                    npnliolt d* h.ed bttn Ntaibf..twd tor o..bfo Uft,on         M   ol ,.,._. 19M.                      -n.c- ~ ant CUtTffll lo Man:h 31.                     lg$.t_

d'Jlu. ~ hM * ,,.,,......... GlipC'fWll"'C &.ttnc

• of fvnt 1911-4. No ~ ft9irat*

........ dall: hN bttfl ~ - 4"tl... ~ ctw Pffln.yfvarlia ueilittn . , _ a l . ~ <'041<<1.td tf'Oa f'atp,afff' 1971-IMl.

                                                                                                                                  -ThM foevrc

• cvm:nl co Mudl 31. 19\<I Wf1lt 111.lfly inwofw.d. wtl bl- app,IJ'M'I lor
• opcn,l"'C lia1w- nptn,Ct0n dMc al ?022 * '°°"'
• dw planl

~-~h<<nlt. ~ ~ ~l<<icd ftom ~

• o( Man:fl 198-4. Tlw u<<t --,...,c coR<<wd * ~ -

~ .. d.lta

• C'Utftfll lO 1981.

18 J-35

Chapter Three Unexamined Cost Estimates: The Road to Rate Shock? There is much uncertainty surrounding this subject and basis for utility cost estimates for 13 units and that utilities the accuracy of what is currently projected for future performed "in-house" studies for 24 units. For 15 units utilities deccmmissioning is equioocal at best contracted with engineering firms and other outside con-sultants to develop site-specific decommissioning estimates. R. H. Leasburg. These studies have generally been less thorough than Vice President ,v; Nuclear Operations, Battelle's. (I) The one other engineering stuoy that is widely Virginia Electric & Power Co, used by utilities in developing cost estimates was conducted in March 24, 1982 letter to author 1976 by Manion and LaGuardia for the Atomic Industrial Forum, the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry. This was a The $20 million (estzmate)- the assistant general generic study that was considerably less detailed than manager pulled ,t out of the wall. Battelle's work. (2) In addition. Manion and LaGuardia have also performed site-specific studies for four plants. Richard E. Shimshak, Manager of Special Nuclear Projects, The Problems With Battelle's Research Dairyland Power Cooperative, October 23, 1983, The Battelle studies referred to above include the Battelle personal communication to author pressurized water reactor (PWR) decommissioning study published in 1979, the Battelle boiling water reactor (BWR) study released in 1980, and the BaHelle Multi-Reactor Station While a number of utilities have developed estimates for Decommissioning study released in 1982. These studies were T'\ future decommissioning costs. the basis of these estimates are commissioned by the NRC as part of its research on decom- L,.I, ).f. I shaky at best The results of Public Citizen's survey of cost missioning, prior lo its development of formal guidelines. The estimates for decommissioning by individual utilities is set studies are based on data taken from the 22-megawatt Elk D.I.I.J forth in Table 4. The highest estimate was $122 million for the 825 MW Maine Yankee plant The lowest estimate was $20 River decommissioning experience. various simulation ex-periments concerned with the cutting open of reactor vessels, million for the 50 MW LaCrosse unit run by the Dairyland and the actual operation of reactors. Power Cooperative in Wisconsin. This chapter will examine Table 5 shows the breakdown for Battelle's estimated cost the problems with these estimates. of decommissioning using immediate dismantlement and delayed dismantlement scenarios for a reference PWR and The Battelle Studies BWR Estimated decommissioning costs for PWR's ranged from $61.5 to $75.2 million and for BWR's, from $63.7 to The only significant studies of future decommissioning $86.0 million. with immediate dismantlement being the costs ever done in the United States were carried out by Bat- cheapest ( 1983 dollars) telle Pacific Northwest Laboratory and published between Other estimates of immediate decommissioning costs range 1979 and 1982. Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt their significantly higher. For PWRs. the Atomic Industrial Forum reliability because of the limited data available. ln addition. the has estimated a range of $30. I to 129.3 million. according to Battelle results ha, "eceived virtually no formal criticism from the ~i1e of t' , reactor. Analysis and Inference, Inc. has individuals or institutions outside of the nuclear industry and estimated costs from $173.3 to S694.9 million for a large the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Further, reports by the PWR. in its study of design. costs and acceptability of a utility Rand Corporation and the Department of Energy suggest the self-insurance pool for the NRC. Duane Chapman. an possibility of large cost overruns when actual decommission- economist at Cornell Univcrsity. expects costs on the order of ing takes place. $3 billion for a reference PWR assuming that the reactor is Despite their possible flaws, the Battelle figures are still the completely dismantled. Table 6 summarizes these findings. most detailed that the utility industry has available for &ttelle F11nding and Lack of Peer Ren°ew. In 1984. a full 86 calculating decommissioning costs. The Public Citizen decom- percent of the planning budget for Battelle PNL came from missioni115: survey found that the Battelle studies formed the Department of EnerJl..v con!racts. The other 14 [l('rcent of the 19 J-36

Battelle l'NL budget came from other government agencies (in- vironmcnl Thus, while quality assurance problems that have cluding the Nuclear lkgulatory Commission), from contracts plagued some well-known reactor construction projects with the utility-fonded Electric Power Research Institute should not be a major factor in decommissioning. costs could (EPRI), and from contracts with the electric utilities escalate in response to regulations to protect workers from ex-themselves. (3) In addition, Battelle PNL is a member of the posure to radiation. Atomic Industrial Forum. To protect workers, much decommissioning work is Given Battelle"s links with interests which have been pro- planned to occui- undei-watei-. with submerged ~ r s using moting nuclear po-.- as an important component of our an:-welding equipment combined with carefully timed ex-future energy supplies. the lack of full peei- review of the plosives to cut through thick steel and concrete walls -a fai-studies casts a shadow on the reliability of the studies. Review cry from a demolition crew just coming in with a wrecking of the NRC files on Battelle"s three decommissioning studies crane. (See Chapter 6 for further discussion) These precau-shows that very few comments have been received. With the tions could push decommissioning costs for any gillCfl reactoi-exception of a few letters from state regulatOI)' commissions, as high as, or higher than. the costs incull'Cd during construc-university faculty members and unaffiliated individuals. all the tion. comments in the NRC file are from utilities and their attorneys Decommissioning fits into the "first of a kind" technology and the agency's own staff members. There is no evidence of which could produce large. unanticipated cost overruns. systematic review from the outside. described in a 1979 study by the Rand Corporation. As Obsokscot<<. Originally, the NRCs plans called for the shown in Table 7, such ovei-runs averaged around 400 percent release of decommissioning guidelines to dovetail with the for major construction projects completed between 1956 and release of the Battelle studies, allowing the utilities to use Bat- 1977. TI-.e projects surveyed in the study ralll!ed from energy telle's results in their planning for reactor decommissioning.(4) p"'OCeSs plants to the acquisition of major weapons systems. But the NRCs proposo:1 rule on decommissioning. originally "One of the key factors leading to potential errors in cost scheduled foi- release in Man:h 1980 (5), has just been issued estimation for decommissioning.* Rand Corporation official in February 1985. Thus the data, which was gathered in 1978 Christopher Myers has concluded. "might be the length of for the Battelle studies. were already seven years old by the time the estimation is made (before) the time work is actually time the proposed guidelines were released. to be completed." (10) When Rand looked specifically at cost Recent decontamination estimates for the Dresden reactor estimates for energy process plants. it found that *early highlight the obsolescence of the Battelle estimates. Battelle's estimates and even estimates made well into the definitive {),\.I. \ PWR study estimated the costs of decontamination at a typical design have proven to be poor predictors of pioneer energy PWR nuclear plant as $280,393 to $414,713. (6) However, the process plant cost oi- performance." ( 11) This principle should preliminary estimates for decontamination or the Dresden I have major implications for decommissioning procedures. reactor are already running at more than $50 million since many of the cost estimates which have been made so Far (7)-making Dresden's likely decontamination expense 120 to for decommissioning will not be tested until al least 30 years 180 times highei- than Battelle's estimate.(8) from now. Possibly. the decommissioning of some nucleai-plants will occui- 60 to 80 years after the dates on which such 1).1. \.' Cost Overruns in the Industry cost estimates were developed. {12) Nuclear plant conSIJ"Uct.ion costs in recent years have ex- Scaling Up From Shippingport perienced severe cost overruns. A January. 1984. report by DOE showed that of the 47 reactors surveyed. 36 reactors The Shippingport reactor is supposed to provide a model cost at least twice as much to complete as initially projected for estimating future decommissioning costs by utilities. But and 13 cost at least four times as much.(9) A few units will what is the relationship between decommissioning costs and cost more than lO times the original estimate. the size of a reactor? While the NRC and others have Largely as a result of such major cost overruns. several ma- acknowledged that reactor size is a significant factor in the cost jor utilities-including the Long Island Lighting Company, of decommissioning. available data is sparse. Battelle studied Consumers Power Co. of Michigan. and the Public Service Co. the relationship in a 1979 addendum to its PWR study and of New Hampshire-have become severely overextended and found estimated costs of dismantling a "rderence* are facing the possibility of bankruptcy. This is becoming a 1000-megawatt reactor to be nearly three times greater than major worry for Wall Street investors. 1be recent default of the cost of decommissioning the 175-megawatt Yanke Rowe the Washington Public Po-.- Supply System on its bonds for plant, which was more than five times smaller in si,,._{13) two new nucleai- units. meanwhile, has created complex Since Shippingport is more than twice as small a~ Yankee political and financial problems for the investment community Rowe and more than ten times as small as Battelle's "reference* and some units of go11ff11ment PWR. it is possible to make a conservative predict1011 that the What is to prevent similar cost-overrun problems from af- cost of ~mmissioning the reference reactor would be more flicting the utilities as they go about nuclear decomi:nissioning? than three times the cost of dismantling Shippingport. Assum-The biggest difference between construction and decommis- ing that estimates that have been made of Shippingport's sioning is that new plants must be constructed to strict stan- decommissioning cost totalling $79 million are correct. (14) dards because of the radiation which will be produced, while we can conservatively predict that the costs of decommission-decommissioning itself must take place in a radioactive en- ing a large l.000-megawatt PWR will be well OI/Cf' $240 20 J-37

million. Other factors Causing Under-Estimate Such scale considerations. however. ignore the fact that of Decommissioning Costs Shippingport's decommissioning will remove the reactor vessel intact and transport it in one piece to a remote federally-operated. taJC-subsidized waste-disposal facility. This decom- Tom Robbins and John Vallance, consultants for the utility missioning technique is unlikely to be used on 1.000-megawatt industry, state in a recent paper: "While decommissioning PWRs. so there are serious problems with extrapolating from costs are well recognized and planned for by the utility in-Shippingport's costs to come up with figures that will be rele- dustry, there has been a lack of attention to other costs in-vant for the industry as a whole. herent in plant operations termination.* ( 19) They cite the cost V.l.\.l Another problem with decommissioning cost estimates of writing off the leftover fuel remaining in a reactor and the based on the Shippingport experience involves reactor type. cost of decontaminating the plant for its dismantlement by Like approximately 63 percent of the reactors now licensed, workers. Shippingport is a PWR; but 35 percent of the licensed reactors Robbins and Vallance have shown that the unrecovered fuel 'D.l.l.'3 are BWRs. which experience higher levels of contamination costs associated with decommissioning a mature reactor could than PWRs.( 15) Such BWRs are likely to have higher decon- run as high as 50 percent or more of the cost of decommis-tamination costs than the nation's PWRs. so that basing cost sioning itself. Robbins states: "While decommissioning costs, estimates for them on the government's experience with Ship- for example, are estimated at an average between $ I 00 to pingport is likely to create underestimates of real decontamina- $200 million per plant, unrecovered fuel costs could run as tion expenses. high as $50-$100 million.* (20) Therefore, Robbins and Va:lance rave su112.ested that thes,, extra fuel revenue re-Premature Shutdowns-A Complicating factor quire111<.11ls should oe added lo the totai costs of decommis-sioning. All the cost estimates discussed above concern the expenses The costs of decontaminating a reactor before dismantle-connected with decommissioning a healthy prototype reactor ment (to reduce the dangers of workers being exposed to at the end of its useful life. However, technical problems now radiation) will also add significantly to total decommissioning being experienced at the nation's operating reactors-notably costs, if immediate dismantlement occurs just after shutdown. the development of cracks in BWR plants, the embrittlement For example, the cost of dismantling Dresden I has been of reactor pipes due to high radiation dosages. and the oc- estimated at $38 million. (21) But this figure does not include currence of various mishaps in reactor steam generators-all more than $51 million in additional funds that will be spent in make it likely that many of today's currently functioning reac- 1984 for the decontamination of the unit (22) The technical tors will be shut down prematurely. Our data presented in problems and costs of decontamination will be discussed fur-Table 8 shows that the 18 plants which have been shut down ther in Chapter 5. Many decommissioning cost estimates used had an average operating life of 12 years. by the util.ty industry severely underestimate such future ex-Early shutdowns are already causing problems, as indicated penses or ignore them altogether. in Table 9. The table describes the financing provisions which have been adopted for the six reactors that are presently in- Decommissioning Costs as a Percmtage of Construction Costs operable in the United States. Of the four plants for which financing infonnation has been made available, no funds at all Utilities often express the cost of decommissioning a nuclear D, 1.1.l were collected for two reactors-Indian Point No. I which power plant as a percentage of the cost of building it At least 1). l.3 operated for 12 years and Three Mile Island No. 2 which in part, this is because the Battelle studies arrived at the con-operated for less than one year. for the Humboldt Bay reactor, clusion that future decommissioning costs should amount to only $517.(XXJ was collected through 1983, a small part of the IO percent of the costs of reactor construction. (23)

         $62 million decommissioning costs which have been pro-                  Charle:; Komanoff of KomanofT Energy Associates has jected.                                                               shown that the capital costs for nuclear plant construction To the extent that accidental shutdowns damage reactor             have been badly estimated over the years primarily because equipment or allow for the unexpected escape of radioactivity,        !heir estimates did not account for increasing safety-related they could signif1Ca11tly boost the costs of decommissioning.         design change regulations and quality assurance requirements.

Battelle has examined 'accident scenarios' for both a BWR and (24) for this reason, Kornanoff would not automatically. link a PWR and has estimated the likely decommissioning ex- decommissioning costs and construction costs, although this penses. The findings for the PWR showed that for three pro- could ~ used as a rough first cut, provided that the numbers gressively more serious accidents, the dismantlement costs for. are adjusted for inflation and interest costs for each plant (25) the reactor would range from $120 million to $461 million. Given the extensive uncertainties between construction {16) costs and decommissioning costs, unadjusted construction Chapman estimated in 1980 that for an accident involving cost figures provide an unreliable basis for utilities to estimate the severe radioactive contamination of a PWR. decommis- their decommissioning costs. Yet, as Table 10 indicates. two sioning costs could easily exceed the original costs of plant major nuclear utilities, Commonwealth Edison Co. and Duke construction. ( 17) Hence. the bill for decommissioning a badly Power Co~ estimate that decommissioning will cost IO percent damaged PWR could be as high as $3 billion -or even more. of construction costs. Neither utility has perfonned any site-given the costs of reactors being built today. (18) specific decommissioning studies at each of their reactors. Nor 21 J-38

have state regulators questioned these numbers; instead, they quacy of the funding mechanisms for decommissioning are allowing the utilities to collect decommissioning funds described in the next chapter, electric customers may be in for from ratepayers based on the 10 percent numbers. a "rate shock" when the day of reckoning arrives and the rrac-Most utility executives and nuclear industry consultants tor must be decommissioned. continue to predict that the future costs or decommissioning This violates a fundamental principle of utility regulation will be insignificanl Stone and Webster Engineering Corpora- which is that only those ratepayers benefitting from a power tion has actually estimated that it would cost more than twice plant's operation should have to pay foc the cost of putting as much to dismantle a hal£-built reactor than to decommis- that plant into service and maintaining it in the rate base. Utili-sion a similar plant a£ter 30 years or operation. In the first in- ty decommissioning practices that load the expense of decom-s ~ they were testirying in hearings concerning the missioni~ today's nuclear reactors onto tomorrow's electricity economics or completing a reactor for which they were the customers are unfair and i~uitable and should not be al-enginttr/contractors_ In the second instance, they were pro- lowed by utility regulators_ D I l '2. viding decommissioning estimates roc the Atomic Industrial A decommissioning "rate shock* could have even more * * ' Forum (26) Such inconsistencies further confinn the uncer- serious consequences than those relating to equitable cost-tainty surrounding estimates or future decommissioning ex- sharing between generations. Utilities could press to delay penses made by the nuclear industry. decommissioning for as long as possible in order to ac-cumulate the necessary money. The industry might also decide Aggregate Estimates or Decommissioning Costs to try to redefine what "full decommissioning" entails. in order to minimize expenses-at the expense, of course, of public The total costs or decommissioning currently licensed reac- safety. For example, utilities may push for pennanently en-tors in the U.S. have been estimated by Battelle, the Atomic In- tombing as much of the reactor as possible at the original site dustrial Forum, Rand Corp, Analysis and Inference, and in order to reduce dismantling and shipping costs. economist Duane Chapman for the California Energy Com- There are other problems in the story of how the industry is mission. These estimates are set out in Table 11. A more preparing for decommissioning. In the next chapter, we tum to detailed illustration of the cost estimates is provided in Table problems arising from the ways in which utilities are planning

6. w finance decommissoning.

Battellc's figure for the full dismantlement of the 84 reactors (excluding ShippingporL Three Mile Island No. 2 and Han-D.1.\.1 ford) comes to $5.2 billion. Alf's "high" estimate adds up to nearly S11 billion. Cost overruns equal to those found by the Footnotes. Chapter 3 I. For example, as described in Smiu, et al. 1978:12-5, a study Rand Corporation would put the cost at $22.5 billion. by NUS Corp, San Onofre Nuclear Genuab"ng Stabon Decmn-Analysis and Inference's estimate for the NRC would put the missioning Alternatiues includes. "no detailed analyses and no cost as high as $59.1 billion. The results of the Chapman estimates . . . for occupational radiation exposure or for ex-study would result in a total cost of $255 billion for complete- posure to the public resulting from decommissioning opera-ly dismantled reactors_ Thus, current estimates of decommis- tions.The study also includes little detail of the development of sioning vary by a factor of SO. When the same figures are ex- disposal costs for radioactive materials, just the assumed unit pressed in tenns of dollars per installed kilowatt (kw) of costs and the final totals." nuclear generation in 1983, Battelle's estimate amounts to 2. Manion and LaGuardia 1976:12-4.

         $80/kw. the AIF 'high' estimate to $169/kw and the Chap-                   3. Larry L Rader (BatteUe Pacific Northwest Labs), personal man estimate to $3933/kw.                                                   communication, 27 March 1984.

Table 12 shows total utility estimated costs by state, as well 4. Smith et al 1978a: 1-l. as costs, assuming the high and low range predictions of 5. NRC 1978:MB0-3. Chapman and Battelle. Decommissioning costs by state range 6. Smith et al 1978b:G-25. Costs are cited as ranging between from a high of $618 million for California to a low of $34 192,0SO to 284,0SO in 1978 dollars. This includes an estimated million for Oregon. $23,000 to $115.000 for the decontaminant; $105,000 for elec-The impact of these figures on ratepayers could be con- trical power, and $64,050 for staff labor. siderable. particularly in the event of innation and cost over- 7. Nuckonics Week 1983a6. runs. Tables 11 and 12 indicate the possible eventual size of 8. Dr. Carl Feldman of the NRC's clecommissioning project. the utility industry's decommissioning expense, as well as the when asked about this cost estimate discrepancy, argued that total decommissi<'~ing costs that could face consumers in each this was because of the increased care which was required in state with nuclear power plants. By subtracting the estimates decontaminating a unit which might be restarted. Personal for decommissioning from the state estimates being used to communication, 9 April 1984. collect funds. we can estimate the potential decommissioning 9. Energy Information Administration l 983:7. deficit for states and the country under different scenarios. 10. Christopher W. Myers (Rand Corp.), Personal Com-munication. 17 January 1984. Is '1utte Shock" Next? 11. Merrow et al 1979:v.

12. This calculation assumes that cost estimates are developed

1) f f 2 Given the apparent tendency of the nuclear industry to in the early stages of plant's operation and that they live out

 * *

• underestimate future decommissioning costs and the inade- their full operating lives. If dismantlement is delayed 30 to SO J-39

years, as discussed in Chapter VI, these costs might not be in- estimated tl1*l tnese costs would be S3 billion for a healthy curred for at least 60-80 years. reactor in a "non-ac:cident scenario, with complete dismantle-

13. Smith and Polentz 1979-2-4. ment of the reactor. Personal communication 13 May 1984.

14. U.S. Coovnittee for Energy Awareness 1984. 18. Costs for nuclear plants built today are typically as high as IS. Ac:conling to data found in the Battelle PWR (Smith et al. S3 billion. Stoler 1984: Oiablo Canyon I and 2. for example, is 1978) and BWR (Oak et al 1980) studies, estimated dismantle- estimated to cost S4.4 billion; Shoreham S4 billion; Midland 2 ment radiation doses (not including transportation for a S4.4 billion; and Marble Hill I and 2 S7 billion.

reference PWE are 1,200 person-rems; doses for a BWR are 19. Nuckonit:s Week 1983b:9. 1.865 person-rems. Costs of dismantlement, as pointed out in 20. Ibid. Table 7 are $61.3 and $63.S million, respectively, in 1983 cur- 21. Jim Tascas (Commonwealth Edison), personal com-rent dollars for a PWR and BWR munication. 31 October 1983.

16. Murphy and Holter 1982:ix. The best case accident "is 22. Ibid: 18 July 1983.

postulated to result in I()'lf, fuel cladding failure, no fuel 23. Battelle's estimates For the reference PWR, were in 1978 melting. moderate contamination of the containment structure, S42J million. EIA 1983, cites final costs for Trojan. the plant but no significant physical damage to buildings and equip- used in the study, as S448 million in 1976. U.S. Conunittee for ment.* ~ worst case accident is postulated to result in 100% Energy Awareness 1984, describes these costs as "expected to fuel clodding failure, significant fuel melting and core damage, be less than 10 percent of the cost of building it.* severe radioactive contamination of the containment structure, 24. Charles Komanoff (Komanoff Energy Associates), per-moderate radioactive contamination of supporting buildings. sonal communication, 9 July 1984. and major physical damage to structures and equipment." 25. Ibid

17. Chapman 1980. Prof. Chapman has more recently 26. Percival and Roe, 1981:26.

23 J-40

?d J-41

NH.C Total Estimated Costs of Possible Decommissioning Choices for e PWR and BWR 1983 Decanniss ionl ng Unit Decannissioning Costs (Millions$) M:xle Type Nunber of Years After Reactor Shutd<7Nll Disrmntlement is Deferred It l.!l ~ ail. 1.01 lnmediate IWR 61.5 Di sroon t l enen t BWR 63.7 Preparation PrVR 18.4 18.4 18.4 18.4 for Terfl)orary a\lR. 31.1 31.1 31.1 31.1 Storage Contiooing IWR 0.9 3.2 5.4 11.4 care B'lll 0.9 3.1 5.t 10 .8 Deferred IWR 54.0 54.0 44.5b 44.4~ Di smrn tl enen t B'lll 51.8 51.8 38.5b 38.5 Total PrVR 61.5 73.3 75.6 68.3 7 4.2 Decanniss ioni ng Bil 63.7 84.0 86.0 74.9 80 .3 Cost TABLE 5. Footnotes:

    'BWR=Boiling Water Reactor. The boiling waler reactor rererred to in the ta bit 1s a 1155 MWE reference unit used in the Bauelle study.

PWR=~uriud Waler Reactor. The pressunud water reactor rererred to in the table 1s a 1175 MWE reference unit used in the Battelle study. Valun include a 25% contingency. Constant 1978 dollars have bttn updated lo the nearest hundredth ol 1983 dollars using "Handy-Whitman Public Utility ln<kx for EI<<tric Light and Power,* Dept of Comm<erce, Bureau or Industry Economics. Constrvctron &1,iew. Sept-Oct. 1983. November 1978. The index used for 1983 is based on preliminary data. It is debatable which of the many indices available is most accurate in properly updating decommissioning cost estimates. This is esp<<ially true since' decommissioning costs arc~ unknown. Handy-Whi,man was chosffl as I general in<kx, as reasonable as most ror this type or cost estimate updating.

    ~ ned~ values rNUh from lesStt amounts of contaminated materials for a burial in a lic,nsed disposal site.

Sourer. RI. Smith, G.J. Konuk. W.E. Kmnedy. Jr, Ttchnology. Sa/tty and Cost* of D<<om,n1ss1onin9 A &f,m*a: Pre,**nud Wat<r

               &a,:t,x Powo- S/atic,c, NUREG/CR-0130. Vol. I (Washington, D.Cc U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1978),

Table 2.9-3. H.D. Oak, G.M. Holter, W.E. Kennedy, Jr, G.J. Konuk. Ttchnology. Sa/<ty. and Costs of Otcomm1ss,D11;"9 A R,f,nna: Boilmg Wattr ~cto, Power S/atioN, NUREG/CR-0672. Vol. I. (Washington, D.C U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 1980), Table 210-4. 25 J-42

Table 6. Ranges of Deconunissioning Costs for Four Studies Using lnunediate Dismantlement (In Million $) Uni.1. Im:.

                                                                .m                                                              1ffl Original                    O>st In                              Original                     O>st In O>st                          1983                                O>st                       1983 LYea.r. t}                 ll:lliau                              ft'ear. 1}                 lhllall 42 .I                           61.5                            43.6                         63.7

( 19 78) ( 19 78) Alanic Inwstrlal 23. 7-101.9 30 .1-129.3 29.4-121.8 37.3-154.6 ForumC ( 19 80) ( 19 80)

  .Analys ls & Inference, 152. 4-6 09 .6                                  173.7-694.9 Inc. (NOC)d                               ( 19 81) 100% o!                       up to 3,000 investment cost

( 1979) TABLE 6. Footnotes:

• PWR=Pressuriz.ed Water Reactor. BWR=Boihng Water Rea<:tor. Studies. with the exception of AIF, list costs for large reactors (900-1175 MWE).

Values have bttn updated to 1983 dollars using "Handy-Whitman Public Uulity Index for Electric Light and Power," Depl of Cornme=. Bun,au of In-dustry Economics, Constnact,on &r.nru,, Sept.-Oct. 19832. November 1978. The index used for 1983 is based on pn,l1minary data. bBattdlC"'s figures include a 25 percent contingency factor. Values exclude maintenance surve11lantt and security costs. The study looked at costs for a; reference PWR and BWR. cAIF"s. ranges include costs or small, medium, and large ~actors. Figures exclude escalation, conl1ngency. maintenancr, surveillancr and st'CUrity costs. Estimates att based on engineering studies cartiM oot for a variety of units d Analysis and lnferena, used Battelle's original cost estimates as a base. 1981 casts were assumed to be 32% gn,ater than 1978 costs. Handy-Whitman regional cost inditts for nuclear production plant were 29.7 percent to 34.6 percent higher in March. 1981. than for January, 1978. tin 1980. Chapman ~timated I hat in a ~ve~ accident scenario (hypothetical Three Mile Island) decommissioning costs for a large ~actor could be I 00 percent of the investment cost. More recently, however, he has estimated that decommissioning costs in 1983 would be as high as $3 billion lor complete, dismantling a healthy reactor with a 30 year operating life. although no formal analysis has been performed. Sou=,;: DF. Grttnwood. R.K. Westfahl and J.W. Rymsha. "Analysis of Decommissioning Costs for Nucl,ar Power Reactors," (Boston. MA: Stone and Webster Engr. Corp, 1983), Table 3 and 6. Study performed for the Atomic Industrial Forum. P.L Chernick. W.8. Farley. M.B. Meyer, LC. Scharff, Duig,<. Cost"- a"d Aca,ptab,/ity of a" El<<tnc Ut,l,ty ~/f-/,m,rrma Pool for As.,wn119 tM A,uqwcy of Fwnds for Nwcl,ar Powu Pfa,., Decomm1ss1cmin9 Ex,xn~. NUREG/CR-2370. (Washington. D.Cc U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1981), Table B-12. Duane Chapman. N.,.c/~r Econonucs: Ta.xatimt, Fwl Cost a,cd D<<ommissiOftirrg (Sacramento. CA:. California ~rgy Commission. 1980). Table 14. Duane Chapman, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y, Personal Commun,cation. May 13, 1984. R.I. Smith, G .' * * .nu:k. WE. Kennedy. Jr, T,ch,w/ogy, Safety a..d Costs of f'.,comm,ss,o"'"9 a &f<re>tCt P,..sswriud Water &actor POW<r Su,,;,,.., NUREG/CR-0130. Vol. I. (Washington. D.Cc Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 1978). Tabl< 2.9-3. H.D. Oak. G.M. Holter, W.E. Kennedy. Jr, G.J. Konz.ck. T<ch ..ology. Safety a..d Costs of O.romm,ssio,11"9 a &f<iTNCt Bo,li*g Wat<r Reactor Power Stat,o,,, NUREC/CR-0672. Vol. I. (Washington, D.Cc U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ~omm,ssion. June 1980), Tabl< 2-10.4. J-43

Table 7. Cost Overruns in Major Construction Projects Completed Between 1956-1977 Ratio After Adjustment Compound Annual Initial Estimate Actual Result Unadjusted Rate of Coat Ratio of For For Change Overrun*, After Amount Amount Date Final to Unanticipated in Scope Adjuat-nta Project (millions) Date (millions) Completed Initial Cost Inflation of Project (in percent)* Bay Area Rapid Transit Authority $996.0 1962 $1640.0 5/76 1. 647 l. 297 1.037 0.31 New Orleans Superdome 46.0 1967 178.0 7/75 3.870 3.219 3. 219 15.73 Tol~do Edison's Davia-Besse nuclear power plant, Ohio 305.7 1971 466.0 5/75 1. 524 l.401 1.401 ll.89 Trana-Al ask.a OU Pipeli.,e (Alyeslta) 900.0b 1970 7700.0 C 7 /77 8.556c 6.926 4. 250' 22.96 Cooper Nuclear Station, c... Nebr. Pub. Power Diat. 184.0 1966 395.3 74 2.148 l. 748 l. 748 7.23 I .i::,. Rancho Seco Nuclear Unit ~ No. 1, Sacramento 142.5 1967 347 .o 74 2. 435 2.026 1. 239 3.11 Dullea Airport, Washington, D.C. 66.0c 1959 108.3c 62 1.641c l. 641 d 1.486 14.lO Second Chesapeake Bay Bridge 96. 6c 1968 120.lc 6/73 1.243c l.104 1.104 2.00 Frying Pan Ark.ansaa Project Ruedi Dam 12.8c 1962 22.9 72 l. 789c 1.636 l.145 1.36 Sugar Loaf 6.l 1962 10.2 73 1.672c l. 500 l. 500 3.75 Boustead Tunnel 9.2c 1962 21. 2c 73 2. 304 C 2.078 l.233 1.92 Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C. 64.0c 1956 98.0c 6/66 l. 531c 1. 531d 1. 342 2. 99 W"ighted average 3.93 3.21 2. 21 10.07 TABLE 7 foocncMn

      ~ compound annu.al ratt' nprrNt0n i1 wwd onl7 N

• ccirn,ffllC'ftl mclhod of com~nni 1n11iaJ C'OII nurn.tn *llti the 11,,1m of, c0o,r, not 1ncludC' mtt-rn1 111 anMoal COIi& ac 1hr trrminehon ol 1ht pn,,rc,. Th11 drwia- plffN11
• fOffll)&naon ol owtnH'I on iwwral pro,1<<11 ti ... 1n1 d,f.

dOblC'r*c-d 1nn*tlCk"I . . . In* 1hen en11C1palC'd. lrrrnt conMr"chon ~r.odL SourrC' W11lC"r J Mud. CC'Ot'J,t W Rosr,... ~ R.,rw, Z. Smoh. T""**,ort**1 N..tarwl C.. p,,_. 11t.t .AiJC"f'C'. (W.-hiftak' bin Ma 1 J974. 1ht AITC"9lr.* Pi~linr Sen-Cl' Co. fTfllll'NI~ c;apual C'IMf .c M btll!QI\. lhirn ln Oc-1otJC.r 15174 C'Oall ..-r, *lA*" t>C. ln1111u1t fot PwbllC Pohc:y ~ett"h, 1977t U-H C1tf'd "'- E.dwa.rd MC"rrow. ~ W. Chapat,,, N11rne1td at 1,6 btlllon lor 1ht co,nplirv piprfow. Br Jwnt 197!.. ttw ncll'Nlr *

• niard lo S.0.37) bill.on. In 1969. lhc' lga)

Chr111ophff Wor1h1ns,. A /t,,ww of Ceat t:.,,-,,o- ** Ntw T<<-A..ol"'rfl.. lt11"4,m~ f* t:..,,,. ,.._.., ,S.. m,U~ COM fth"'-Mt IOf "lynlr.* u.wmcd a op*rn7 o( 5,CJl Mb/d. 'TlloC KOpC ,...., ch.ant,rd to perm~

• c*pa,cl\y ol 1 'l m1\h0f'I S.n11 Moo*u. l~nd Cotponhon. July 1979). ll bid Tlw COM ol 1h11 cN* In acopr ...... 1700 """"""",.. ... ,.,ht W1..t cap11M ~ I nl1tNIC' 10 II & b,11"""-

Table 8. Generating Lives of Inoperable Nuclear Commercial Power Generating Reactors 1985 Number of Years Number of Years Reactor Operated (b) Closed Prematurely ( C) Humboldt Bay 3 13 17 Dresden 1 18 12 ( d) Indian Point l 12 18 Three Mile Island 1 5 25 Three Mile Island 2 l 29 Shippingport 25 5 ( e) Average 12 18 TAIILEI.,,__,

  ~ ~ ~ ~ .. unita .hut cto.,n b- ~ I ~ ~lh nu,cw probk1n* h1nde-nnc 1Mr futun!' oP""llfKW\.                            0( thow ,,..tuch h.w: be-nl ~ l y dulf ~

1nopenMt racton dttftwd ~ ~ ~ Fim'nl I. P.ch(indn, PNICh Boctom I. &nu.. Piqc... CVTR. Elli. fti""("f. ~ tWL..n Th .. dot(1nct-.

• 1 ~ br(.,.. punv,i dltc p&.,t,. in* cakp'y ~h o c h e r ~ ~ '""1on '°-n tJw r.'ffag(' numbrr of ,t.n opcn((-d to ~"Chl. and ,...W'S Che-*~ n.umbc-1" oi y,t.aR planta dowd P"fflWIUITfJ 1G 19.S.

bn- * ~ ...... thr (MW dw pa..: .ml ..co comnwt"Clef ~.on. cf"...,a .......

• 30 J'fW" ~ l i l t - I <<
• typ,cal n:w:10r.

e.y. ~ ... ..-,;..fc,rd ~ IO wtwthn ii &iwd ouc a JO.yew lak. 111 functt0n dod noc nc<'C"l,M~

• JO<< mort' ~ ~*nc l,k. *don~_, o1 t o d a y ' * ~ f'NlrtOr'I,.

(,_ fiNI d<<woll hes bN:fl IINdc-

• to wtwthtt M pqna wdf ~~<< rTC~

Sowa: US. ~~~~ ()p,<<a,t"'C Rnc1on-Sc.cu. Summary fvp,:wt. NUR£C-0020. Vat 8. No. 3 (WMh,"l"OI'\. 0 C. US. NRC. M~ 19841. p l-6. J-45

Decommissioning Funding Data for Inoperable Commercial Power Generating Reactors 1984 Unit Eatlmlted PUnds O>llected NUJDer or Years NUJDer of Years O>st of De- Fran Ratepayers Cannerclal (\>era- PUnds O>l lected cannlss I onl ~ Prior to Stl.ltdown tlon before First Prior to Unit (Millions or 1983 (Millions of 1983 PUnds O>l lected Shutda.vn dollars) dollars) Hurboldt s2.od .517 9 4 Bay 3 Dresden 1 95.0C Unit operated {or 18 years. A separate subaccount !or de-cannlss lonl ng was cst<ibllshed 2 years h after plant shutdown. Indian No funds collected Plant operated for 0 Pt. 1 12 years with no funds collected. Three Mlle 37.7 4 Island 1 Three Milg 1000.og No funds collected No funds collected 0 Island 2 Shlppl~ortC 79.7 N/A N/A N/A TA8LE 9. Fooenowc ~ ,nctan ar"< dtfintd * "'** sh,.,.t down lot OW1' onr '/ffl ..Ch tnajor ~ hindtnnc thew tut._. opff*hon. ot t.ho,w whec:h ~ b,;,nt ~ t y U-... dowTL. ThM t&b&c- c:kin noc ~ .._ kw ltw foUuw,na ~ ~ npcri,n,mtai TnC1on; P9thfind<<T. Pttmi 1. Pnch 9ot1offl I. Hali.,n;, ~ CVTR. fJk R,ww,-, 0t &.-.. 1-1 ~ lhM inlomwion WM not~ I\J... 2op<,wd ,.,..., --pri<<IOll><k'<id<ot. llw ,,.;i;,y i--,..-......iwtwo ,i.,....., olda.w,w '*""'"""'"' """°'..,. b<. ~ *owocd by lhoU.S. 0.,,..-ol Enni,.. DK , ...,;,, .;.,.,- ..;11.< pool by lho OOF No lund.t '°' ...__....,. - . . - . - - -.,.,...dunno ........., -...Mr- ~ ...... d o n - - - - - -

• l o r t t . . p l a n l . M I O I J ........... .,...

'11-iocludnbothtt.._" _ _...""",..._n1..-..cl&.250...._"wna"""w"°"' byth< 000.....i " " " ' - - " - """"'..._ 'n. ~ loc..l NliMeilcd d,ccon , "*iOl'IW'C coat. lor h'ldiM ,__ I A 2. ls..c.1990.c:.-.1..--.i-...- .... ."il..-..a1.-*, _."""'-"n.... ..a.-.u..2 .. _....s11,;1io,,.A1Ge0c.....i"""""'.,.01r'""""'-.1""'--.--.i

'"9rt. l-fowcwr, inlonNtiiOII prnc,*d ill 1913 hnrinp brfoft Ow -                    Oft f.llffQ lll'd tht ~ U.S. Hr~ e l ~ " ' " d,d ftOfl Mt "C-S-oltt..llww .. a.lolwwl-~Slol""'u,,;,,1*z:o..n.i,,ti..w...._.llw_ooE,w,vM>dllw-olllwC_oo_

rN(.-( or dee -o-*

• pwt ol ctc-w..

             ..i -        _ _ ., ....... - A p , i 211. 11113.

us.c.-.1-.,.011a.,._. ... c_., _ _ _ _ _ c..-;c _ _ ,.5o1wc...- . -.. n... ..... -.-E.. DIIICCI.CW-o.c, U.S. c-..1 -..,.,. Ollie<."- 211.1\IIIL" US. -- * ......-, ~ - 0 ,_

                                                          ' - - -_        .- -      -    - s-..y "-'* NUREC0020.               voe. 7. No. 12. c w -    o.c, DK. 1!113L p. .>4.
               -c-..
               -                  ,.,........     ,....._ _                    _     CA.l.l!o,2.191-C.
               -_     -_    - *_         *---Yon.S-P\ololcs.mc.c~.......,.NY.Ap,ill.191-C.

_ ,,_.,......_~;..c-....iw.-..,A.Apnl 12.1914.

               ....._..._...,..T_c-i:--c.. ~11..o.-.3c.11111 ia,...-.-....i....,._....,.., .....                          ~-~11.....,!.19&4 29 J-46

Table 10. Decommissioning Studies Used in Cost Estimate Formulation Unit, (Slol*) Porl*J 1,1 (ALI ...., ** o.c,, ..... lludJ, .......

                                                                                                .l*IJ IHI.

01*** a..,.. 10\! 11.11.B. °"11* *baelr IIH.

                                                -ho-(Ot.)                                        lo-flauHltlldJ' IIU.

1111111- 1,11 Q,nn. Tanltee lo-llaulo 1tudy buod Ott Batlell* Cal at.ct, .... *tr-1011 ... t,- other otudl*. Cryo It.I River ( l'L) 11.U.S. O>rp. ln(r. 1tuct, IHI. Dresden l,J,J1 ZJoa l,t1 1011 or the emt ot plul conotn,ell..,

                                               ~ 011* 1,11 IA Salle I                            la cl<l>reelolloa role Cor *clear plent.

(IL) Ao1-II0111 trca llattelle, AlP/111!1',P atudl* and ot1Mr1. lluaa<o Araol d ( IA) llo opee I tie I !>>di*. Graod OIU I (Iii) Olt1lde e-*llul 11u.i,. Ooad Ballelle lludy oNI oilier aludl* 11

• bull.

Pl. 6.J houa (NE) Pldtard, i - aod C.rell did a t a t

• but ao detailed pl-.

                                               ~r(II!)                                          Ja-ilaul* 11u.i, nu. U.od other 1tudl*, nell II lhal clone tor   Pl. a.u......

lndlaa Polol J1 .,.._ A. llotl * * - I t . I Studleo Projoct Fl t&patr ldt (NY)

• r~orto oporwored bJ the Atomic lnduotrlal Por-, Jne.

0.,. hr ONI< (NJ) 10-houH oludy earrled out bJ poreel e - - , Ot-al hbl le Ctl II II a. au a tudf -ICI ed UfllClft ol aludy done pre'IIOUIIJ bJ Paeltle - and !leclrle O>. tor DlobloCII-PllrrLm (11,\J Wlllla* J. Moal*, 11.E.S. lac., oner, aludJ - 1111. Site apeeUle IIUdJ baaed

• Al-le laduatrlol Por- c1ec-111t*lar atudJ.

a.,..*lek 1,1 (IC) 11..!.B. .......... 1t11dJ. Lui t i

• updated I HI.

                                              ~oJ*n Cao                                        IIHIOUH otudy JUI baud other 1111         _,ue oo Bottella 11uct, &od -

1ludJ. McOulre 1,h Ocon.. 1,J,J, Doproelotloa rota ol 411 tor .... .., (S:::) pluil lnelllda IOII prowhloa tor 11oe...11,1aa1nr.* Thoma* L&Ol&rdl* - onrr. oludJ IHI, Olt1lde Oluultul - *nrr* otudJ. Burr, 1,11 llcll'lb MNI 1,1 TUI ac1n-l11C, 11to opecltle (YA) atudJ, l'vlol -

• 1,1 (WI) I ......H lludJ' *ID( other lludl* u
• bulo - IIU, IA0011a (WI)

TABLE IQ. Pootno6ee

• Auorc11na 1o Will_. SI..._ VQ "'"- ol lvaulatory Arr..,..,, Out6 ~ Co.. "Pout pcfflffll
• bAeconlioc ,o R.cfw,d E. Slu,..llok. ~ Sj,<<w N...._ ,,_.._ o..y<.nd ,.,_ C-.

...........,.~C'P&L_.C_Edbolhp>(lou<l><'ff"'I. --.!IOb.*aood* 1bt twttlly lindl- doU.w NIHNk N 1'-& I ~ btctr. c.a .. dw AMMtani ~ Met\llp1' l"f'N * - , , .* Aftfbody cWf'I -,,th'"9 n.t. N*, Ja.i*

• ric1ion . We lr.l'IOW ~ N'1 P"C 10 pull.rd it ou4 ol rtw wall .* - Pnwne, COfflfflWIICllflOI\. R.:twlld E. Sh'-ahe,k. Cxiobtt 24. I Oil

- . * - - c -..... W-S,"-<.O<tobn?:i.191.1 J-47

Total U.S. Utility Estimated Decommissioning Costs 1983 Versus Alternative Cost Scenarios (In Billion $) Source Bas ls 1983 Dec omm l s s l on l ng Potential U.S. Cost Ols t Es tima.ted by Deflcl t (-) or Operatirc Utility Surplus(+) Public Citizen 84 Reactor's 5.6 Survey Results Costs Battelle (1978)b 61.3/uni t 5.2 +.42 Atanic lnd.tstrial Forum ( 19 82 )C Average 69.2/unit S.9 -.25 High 129.3/unit 11.0 -5.4 Rand Cbrp. 400~ Amount 22.5 -16.9 (1979)d Originally Est ima.ted Analysis and In! erence ( 1981 )e Average 405.4/unit 34.5 -28.8 High 694.9/unit 59 .1 -53.4 Olaplllltl (1980)f 3,000/uni t 255.0 -249.4 TABI..£ 11. Foocnocn:

~ - - - unilaMW'bffn included III lhia l.ablr. Tiww ~ac1Dl'II hew bftandudtd. 11wtt Ml.Ir laland Z. Hanlanl-N endSheppenu,ort. C - o l ~ 1tac- Uftlla.,.. IIMftla.bic. t-l 1ft-
~

• rr.- hcR ia not.......-.

Conwneone, 1o 1983 dolt.r. Wll'tff IMOf ...,,. -HandJ*Wl'Mtman f'vba.c Ublitr lndn r<< Omnc Upc Ind Power," ~ ol c ~ . ~ o1 kldt..tnal &onomn. c......,,_.,._ Rn..... S,c,p&.-Od. 1913 ...d ~ 197&. A dncnpbot1 ol MW Iha nir* *

• chowft °" bt ~ in Table 9 ol lh* ffPOf1..

drwlomacdl0_...w,al_..,....__,...._..,_.......,_ ,__......_ - - - -.... T-4liolo..-.,_;(o<do<o ............. OW llaodCa,p. atuct,, ..- coet11 lor ~ __... f'8CIOniF'WIU tHIClt OWl't (SQ pnomt ol lodeJ"* liic:imwd C'Oll'lflWf'Cia lftCton 11ft' dtta type ....ct coela ol ~

• PWR ~ ~..-d lO bC' ~ tt..t

._. ...

• b!M"'I _..,.,. rndor. 11w llllll'WINII' ~ tDECONl option ii& ......ltd lll"ltt owr IO Pffllffll ol lOdl1'1 rac1on 1ft ~ adwdulitd lor,.,.,.,. CNNNltwwnl ~

" ,,,.llondlcPWR...-o1odyr...llw-~C........... CNRC!.-.i-11wac.-d-oldoc                                                      . *, ***-1050MWE_ ..... _ _

11w ................2.1...._,,1mt. en. SloN- 111d W._,,. ~ Corp. lNdJ

• 1tw AIOlllic lnduerill fan.. ntabliehed I to.. Mlfflll' and hisfrl CN1 ntirM1t b Ckfflllnll. . 1 P¥IR b.aild °" _........ 5ot I IIIUINl"f ol ft9C10f"9

.,..,....._~llw......,_~ill
............... _ _ _ _ _ _ _lNl.1                        __     ........ ttudJiwaamedOU1in IN2 . . . . . . . . ........_A1LlfflllFandh.,_r.u,na1t ........ illdaialllblir_drw . . ,....

y..__16U,....lln.D-*llla.-,;,.t,. d"-1111 Carp..__. ille __,, of <'Oal ......lM iRUlllnldllthnolcJpethal tm1 o w m , n e ~ 400,..,.._ llandloollecl II aeeRlf*ofpn>;rct.caTIIIIII.,. ~ IB,lffl. Tllblr Solt"-

~AaalJ- afllll Jnlrt,rncr, INc. -.bliahed CNI nllllllllft

• pan 9' Id<< 111or... ~ ....., ... 1111' NRC, n.

- - - - - - .... PWR"L ... _ _ _ .... _ _ _ .... ...,.,..... ........ _ _ _ _ _ _ ...... - - - U M . 6 . . . i M O H - - *
                                                                                                                           ~ acabliahl'd fipla t. ,._ n11D1 of         ....a  ID nl ........ C'09l9
*...... ....., ...... c.-.....unuc~Ptolo..wa..,,.........,.,..Nll.,J                                            * *, *  ..-rnc1or ...11i.._......._... .,..,..__...._. ..              acri11r1111*

IOOPffft"lolthe ~ c a l l . lflaMe, 19&41ftkTYirw.~n1......tthalllwroetlO..,~ahcllkhy'""1Gl"ollhll._openi1. . lror)Op,Nn,in IMl wou&dkinO. llbdlloft S....- 0 . . . 0 . . - - - T . - . FwlC.... - ' O . . - - I - C A : C - u r , v C - INOU4-56. Tobi, 14. PL aw-+.. WA P-1,y. MA ....... LC. Sd,o,fl.0..,.. C--',._,,.._,.,_ a..-UoJ.,_,S,/f.-A.l /o,.._ .... ,.._.,., F...J.,..N..._ _

                 ,.._, 0..-*,, -, &r,,u,,. ~REC/CR-2370. IW_.,.,.._ O.C, U.S. N-.........., C - 1111~ 1:12. Tobi, 11-12.

DP.0...,,-.llK. Wnllohl ..... JW R,-,..Aool,-.o(O..-----,C-*/*,,_,__--.__.._~A;S-.oodW-..~Ca,p. l'll:lc9. T-l. Uward W. ~.Skplwft W Chapd.afld:Clwwaphft Wor1h..,.A R1*wo/C-,E*___. * /'wu rac,..,.,.ts.n&. Monc.. C~'Tlw Rand COt'p<<911IOI\. 1979t ll. T.._, a IU S-h. CJ. K-'- _.WE."""""'*-"* T.,,__,, S.,.,-,.J C-of 0..-

                 ,w..,~oc,u.s.-..........,c--,m~z-11.T..,..2.1-1 I, R,Je._.   ,.__n,.J       w- - - -

• NUREGICR<IUO. Vol I.

                    - . , D 1......... i,. "9,8o S<<l lO Clonfy Tao S-.0 ol Nu<,_ -                CoolL Jlw ,.,_ Y-' T,-. Apnl :NL 1914. pD<.

0

                    ,..,__. COftlftlunlNIIIOI\. PrQf 0--- C'1'ectffl,lft. Conc41 Un.w,uJ. hhara. NY. W., 11. 1911,t J-48

Table 12. Decommissioning Cost Estimates by State 1983 Versus High and lov* Estimates of Potential Costs (In Billion $) State ~ r A,,uace 'lbtal 'lbtal Deficit (-) << Total Deficit (-) << ot Year of Deecmnl11 lonl nc Decarml u I onl nc Surplul (+) " 0ec011n111lonlnc Surplul (+) If Unlh (\>eratlrg O>st, O>st, Blttelle !Jit !mate Cb1t, Ol&paaa E, t Ima t e Llce111e UtllltJ llllttelle (MC) I* Owreet Olapaan 1, Oarreet 1!11:plratlcinb Ellbalee 1!1tlmalel l!ltlaatea AL 5 I 2011 2010

                                                           .HS
                                                           .OU
                                                                                            .>07
                                                                                            .123
                                                                                                                            -Sl.l
                                                                                                                            -'7.&

IS.O

                                                                                                                                                            ** o
                                                                                                                                                                                  -u.,
                                                                                                                                                                                    -s.*

CA I 200& .121 .361 +uo.* 18.0 -17.4 (D I 2008 .D4D .<<Mil -11.4 J.O -s.o er l 2007 .su .184 +U9.4 9.0 -a., l'L 5 2011 .384 .307 +77.9 15.0 -14.1 G\ I 2011 .1uf .1%3 +10., a.D -s.1 IL IA

• I 2007 2010

                                                           .413 None
                                                                                             .490
                                                                                             .061
                                                                                                                            -17.2
                                                                                                                            -11.3 24.0 J.O
                                                                                                                                                                                  -u.s
                                                                                                                                                                                    -s.o
                                                                                                                                                                                    -1.1 IE               1                2008                  .122                              .061                           +80.T                           3.0 Ill>             2                2009                  ,094                              .123                           -21.1                           6.0                     -s.,

II,\ 2 2003 .121 .1%3 -4.T 6.0 -s.1 Ill 4 2006 .290 .us +44.1 12.0 -11.1 IN 3 2004 .164 .184 -20.4 9.D -a.a Ill I 2014 .101 .061 *45. l 3.0 -2.1 l8 2 2008 .111 .123 +54.4 6.0 -s.a Ml l 200& .%95 .1&4 +110.9 9.0 -1.7 Hr I 2002 .336 .368 -31.4 18.D -17.7 IC 4 2010 ,263 .us +17.9 lZ.D -11.7 or I 2011 .oss .D61 -1.l S.D -z.t Ol I 2011 .034 .061 -27.5 s.o -s.o PA 7 2006 .356' .307 +49,8 1S .0 -14.& IC s 2008 ,325 .307 +18.9 15 .o -14,1

    'IN              2               20U                    .102                              .123                          -20.6                           s.o                      -5,9 vr              1                2001                   ,083                             .061                            +21,6                          3.0                      -2.t VA              4                2010                   ,231                              .24S                          -14.4                          12.0                   -u.a WA               I WI              4                200?8                  .111                              .24S                           -73,9                         12 .o                  -11.1 Total         14
                                 --------                    s.,                               S.2                            +.42 2SS.O
                                                                                                                                                                                  -249.4

'rAILt:12.- .,._ _ _ _ _ .__,..,...__,_., .... _.,_..._......,.,-........,. .. 1NJ........_..__, _ _ _ .... _ _ w_ _ ...,,,_ . ..-=cs191a. 1or _ ...-..,d ......

                                               , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,..,....,__0.,,,-lorCol-EonoC-...-floeo,.a..,,,-_ .... _ . , _

.......... ,,...,_., _ _ _ _ .....,.._-...,. .. __._.,oo_., ... _____ ... _,,... .......... ,..,.a.---., Illa& ill IN3 ~ a:i.r. lcw I llaidtf 1WCW at.. liar opn-aitir,c b' 30 ,ran wou&d bir ill IN' 13 bihion nir'llt*....,.... he tM ructor ia ~ ~ 2010---*---.. . . . ----15-ollOdoy", . ,._ --c_...i . . . . . . . . . .

   . . . . ,w ......  *coa1.---. ... ~__,,fftCWINICitOW1"CS0pcrt"ffltolloday'* '""°"_,,,lm&MiwfJ ldwduWbpn,fflpt ~linnmi( ~ ......... E,IMIMft~"°"*"*

- ...... - ... .-1or-.. ... __ _,_.eo,......o1.........i- .. -.1eoo.1ooo_ct...._ C-.0.*111d-.---..,_,.--~---u.,,,...,-.:o.,c.o1c-......... .,-.-..c--.s.,,c.-0t1. duo--. INlood-.1-,._ A ....... olloowdiio- _ _ _ ... r.u,,,i., T - 4<ltf>i*- T_4 _ _ .<<ifi<_ ... ,....... ..... . . - ........... -

                                                                                                          - - - ............. lor- --

Ofllotl7 _ _ _ _ _ _.14_...._., ......... ~ f P A l .... _-l'l(WAl-.-'"""dwy . . ~ o l E M , g _ - . l _ w , 1 1 ... ,......, .......... _ , , _ _ _ Uoio2(PAl*.......W..,..d<c.., ....... - - - - -... INOC.-.Mf;c:UliUcleo.lfw-,tlfw..._ _...._ ......... llwtablrdailll _.,......11',-tn,cuct ..... W ia .._....lo..,.._.~ dw,_...WmatdJ'ICil:* **hCDatae......~ ill-. ...__,...,.._ _ _ ..fp,d ... _ . , _ _ .... ...._ ............. 11w ............ . . . . - - - - - - - ....... - ec.,i _ _ _ _ . . , _ .... , - . . _ ... _ _ _ .., __ ,.._ _ .. _ .. ,113 ................ "-IJ*-- .................

.,.. ............ - ~ ...... ,.. ____ .. _,._ .... ___ ......... _...,.__..._.u,__.,.._ __ _

_.,..._ ... .._.15_ ........ ____ ..._...,._n....,_

*-2(1l,1.0,.WC-fNJl.ooduC-(Wll _ _ _

_..,....,. ___ _____ lo_lO _ _ _ _ _ _ . , . .

'c-o1                         °"9dnl l .......... lo 19141e ... _ - . , M2-..,(C:-E4ioo,,*,._., ... ....,_, _"'" _.......,"' IM'c-,

I N----*- ltnw _ _ .,. ........... ,._.._, _ _ _ .., ......u;,,...- ....... _...._,_., _ _...l l o _ l O _ .. _ _ _ _ """.*

............. ., *nt-- .............. .-.
-                D.l'.C........11.1(. w...- ... iw. .... - . ....... . , _               ,     c-f,,,,                                      MA: S.- ... w....... E,w-. c~. INlt t. T -   l O-.C1--N""-E-c. T _                             ,,_,c... ~oo.---..,... -.-c11.: Co1<1on,;,                       r-., c
                                                                                                                              . ........   ~ . - * - s--sa. r..... ,._

J-49

Chapter Four Phantom Funding: The Latest Utility Gold Mine Despite its apparent populanty. ,t is so /ro11ght with . - . runds at ,i:).3.i.1. meanw h I*1 e. are not yet cove red b y deco mm1ss1onin& (") I uncertainty as to be of marginal adequacy unless coupled a~ -. - wrth insurance. or other s11rety arrungements. state cer- There is also more fundamental cause for concern regarding hfiaition. or SOmL other mechanism to increase the utilities' financing of future decommissioning; the restructuring assurance proni:kd.(I J of utilities through the creation of "holding companies.* Such restructurfrig allows utilities to diversify into new ventures D.S, Z,. I Robert Wood, "Assuring the Availability out,;de the scope of federal and state regulation. This could of Fun5 units in guarantee that funds equal to the value of the bond would be 17 states-63 percent of all units. A number of publicly-available to pay for decommissioning if the utility defaults in controlled utilities and several private companies are using providing financing through the financing mechanism selected segregated internal funding for 14 units in six slales-16 per-for the individual plant 1ne idea or requiring utilities lo pur- cent of all units. chase surety bonds to cover the costs of decommissioning was External sinking funding was being used for IO units in 4 specifically raised in the 19n public interest petition to the slates-Maine. Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Colorado. In NRC. (8) Subsequently, the NRC surveyed the ten largest Vermont, California. Mississippi and New Hampshire policies surety bonding companies in the U.S. on the feasibility or this had been adopted lo require external funds, but the funds were concept 1ne companies responded that they would not issue not yet in place. In Vermont and Mississippi, the determination surety bonds for the 40-year time periods involved. nor for the was made by the Pederal Energy Regulatory Commission for large amounts of money required. For this and other reasons. Vermont Yankee and Grand Gulf. the NRC has dismissed surety bonding as a feasible method There were no decommissioning financing provisions in of funding future decommissioning efforts. (9) place for five units - Duane Arnold in Iowa. Donald C. Cook I Nuclear Decommissioning Insuranoe. The NRC has ex- & 2 in Michigan. Cooper in Nebraska and LaCrosse in amined the possibility of utilities creating a self-insurance pool Wisconsin. Nor have decommissioning funds been set aside in order lo assure funds for decommissioning. In 1981, the for the DOE's Shippingport and Hanford-N reactors. so that NRC hired the consulting firm of Analysis and Inference. Inc. Congressional appropriations will be required. to study this option. They concluded that insurance is an ac- Table 15 shows the decommissioning funds collected by DJ'.2,1, 'l ceptable option, providing a fairly high degree of assurance the end of 1983 by the primary owners of 87 operating and that funds would be available when needed; but that ii is more non-operating licensed commercial nuclear reactors in the acceptable for accident-related coverage than for routine United Stales. Of the more than $618 million collected from decommissioning.( 10) utility ratepayers lo cover future decommissioning expenses.

v. ~.2:1. \ 1ne insurance industry appeared responsive to this option initially when approached by utilities; but their attention soon just 3% was sci aside in external sinking funds and 13% was collected in internal segregated runds. Together, such internal focused on insuring the cost of decontaminating reactors and external segregated funds total $101.7 million. or 16% of following an accident ( 11) In fact. to the extent that decommis- the total funds collected so far.

sioning is a routine occurrence scheduled for the end of a Internal unsegregated funds accounted for the remaining nuclear plant's operating life. it is not in the traditional sense an $517 million. Thal puts 84% of the total decommissioning

           ~nsurable event' where risk-sharing makes sense. Never-                funds collected in this country in "phantom funds* which theless, Robert Wood, author of the NRC report laying out the          utilities may use for new investment projects. with no need lo decommissioning options, suggests that citizen groups and              insure that the money taken from customers will be available legislators may want to explore decommissioning insurance              in the future for decommissioning.

further. Insurance to cover premature shutdown, where suffi- On a stale-by-stale basis. Illinois had the largest quantity or cient decommissioning funds would not have been collected. "phantom decommissioning funds" collected from utility or an accident requiring decommissioning merits serious con- ratepayers-more than $84 million al the end of 1983. This sideration. figure probably represents the heavy dependence of Illinois utilities on nuclear power so far. the state has eight licensed Existing Utility Decommissioning Funds nuclear plants and another four units under construction. Other stales with impressive totals of "phantom funding" in-Prior lo the accident at Three Mile Island. most utilities did clude New York. with S79.8 million accumulated. and not separate decommissioning monies for accounting pur- Wisconsin, with $61 million sci aside in internal unsegregated poses. instead treating reactors- -as they would their non* funds. nuclear steam generating umls. Table 13 shows the number or Ironically, the results v, our decommissioning survey sug-years units operated before utilities began collecting decom- gest that some utilities with internal unsegregated funds may missioning funds. Eleven units operated for as long as IO years be raising their decommissioning cost estimates in order lo in-without having any fu'lds set aside and 18 units operated for crease their cash flow. In Wisconsin. for example. recent at least five years before funds were collected. developmenrn in the state regulatory climate have appal't'.fllly Our 1984 survey or utility decommissioning financing encouraged the Wisconsin Electric Power Co. lo use very high methods. as of the end of 1983. shows a clear preference for cost estimates for decommissioning. ( 12) In 1983. the utility J-51

'D.~.1.,.2. increased its cost estimales for the decommissioning of the Point Beach No. I and 2 by a factor of seven and is now col-lecting $27 million per year for decommissioning. vulnerable 10 any circumslance which lhrealens the financial health of a utility. They slate: *A bankrupt or seriously trou-bled utility wookl have trouble in raising capital against its F .3_2.1. (.CL) l decommissioning reserve: (22) Detaikd Assessment of rlMncing Methods Costs of Different funding Mechanisms. The NRC exam-The NRC is obliged lo assure that "decommissioning is car- ined the results of five cost studies in determining the cost ad-ried out so as lo protect public health and safety.* ( 13) Which vantages of different financing options. The agency found com-financing method should they choose? parisons difficult lo make because of the large numbers of In developing its proposed rule on decommissioning. re* sometimes conflicting variables affecting cost determinations. leased on February 11. 1985. the NRC was lo examine ,he ex- Such determiniations are sensitive to even small changes in in-tent lo which lhe Commission's regulations and policies terest and discount rates. ft'dt'ral tax policies. rates of inflation. assure that adequate funds will be available to decommission t'xpected plant lives. and amortization in deprecialion a nuclear facility after its operating life has ended: ( 14) schedules.(23) Six major criteria were identified by the NRC for evaluating Slill. a comparison of different financing options does the "plant-specific" financing options: (i) assurance of future disclose several important cost trends. Assuming that all funds availability of funds. (ii) cost. (iii) equity lo ratepayers. (iv) ad- are equally taxable. for instance. prepayment is the most costly ministrative impacts. (v) responsiveness of different method -about three times as expensive as internal mechanisms lo change. and (vi) adaptability to multiple unsegregated funding. Similarly. the NRC found external sink-ownership and multiple jurisdictions affecting a single reactor. ing funding to be twice as expensive as inlernal unsegregaled D, 5' ( 15) The first three criteria are most likely lo affect the ultimate funding. (24) Wood did not rate internal segregaled funding in safety of the decommissioning method chosen and the fairness the NRC study, but claims thal it would generally be about as of rosl allocation lo ratepayers. They are discussed in detail expensivt' as external sinking funding. (25) below. All funds will nol be equally taxable under current law, however. As part of the 1984 Deficil Reduction Act. Congress Assurance of Fund Availability. The NRC has raled decom- disallowed currenl lax deductions for inlernal unsegregaled missioning financing methods according to the *assurance* they funds-a blow lo utilities looking for lax breaks lo help provide that sufficient funds will actually he available for finance lheir plants undt'r conslruclion. While Congress did decommissioning. The Commission found prepayment lo be allow segregated funds lo qualify for lax deduclions. their far the most preferable method. (16) This finding was based value to utihlies has been diminished by lwo provisions. on the assumption that the utility's initial cosl estimates are Treasury is given the authority lo base deductions on the pres-correct-an assumption which is unlikely to describe lhe real ent worth of lhe fund*s assets al lhe lime the plant would be world However. even if such original cost eslimates are not ac- decommissioned. Meanwhile u1ilities musl pay lax on the in-y.?.2.2.I curate. prepayment will provide considerable assurance. since terest earned by the decommissioning funds. (26) The ulililies additional prepayment of funds by lhe utility can be mandated will be fighting lo repeal these restrictions. when new expenses are identified. A study done for the NRC Equity of funding Options. The fairest approach from the t>y Temple. Barker and Sloane has concurred with this finding utility cuslomer's standpoint would be for ralepayers 10 con-on the superiority of prepayment for assurance purposes. ( 17) tribute equal amounts every year. measured in constant External sinking funding provides the next highest level of dollars. for the lifetime of each nuclear planl This would fulfill

           *assurance; according lo the NRC study. The NRC found that                the utility regulatory principle that those benefiting from a external sinking funds would probably nol be vulnerable in                plant's power generation should bear the cost of building and the event of utility bankruptcy-a danger now threatening                 operaling iL some utilities. However. external sinking funds. unlike prepay-              One important romplica1ing factor in the equity issue.

ment of decommissioning costs. were found to be vulnerable lhough. is lhe likelihood that decommissionig cost estimates to the possibility of an unexpected reactor decommissioning will be revised over the vears. Wood observes: caused by an accidenL(18) The NRC ranked internal segregated funding next. It was As costs change. the annual payments embodied in any considered unlikely to provide assurance in the case of a f11nding alternative wrll hat'I! lo be changed com- 3 z'2 ~ deterioration in the ulili1y*s financial condition. particularly mLllSUrotely. If IL'I! USSII~ that cost changes w,1{ in- * * *

• because such funds 111,ghl be made available lo creditors in the et itubly be .,, /he direeh*on of higher costs than estimated event of a utility bankruptcy. (19) lute, customers U'Ould be required to piclr up u propor-Finally. the NRC found internal unsegregated funding lo tionately greater share of the costs. olher things being 1),3.2.1. I provide the least assurance that decommissioning funds will equal. (27}

(<t.) be available as needed in the future. (20) Wood notes: *l)espile its apparent popularity. it is so fraught with uncertainty as lo If cost estimates are accurate. the Temple. Barker and be of marginal adequacy unless coupled with insurance. or Sloane study has found that prepayment will be the most other surety arrangements. stale certification. or some other equitable financing arrangmenl for ratepayers. assuming a mechanism lo increase the assurance provided: (21) The straight-line amortization schedule is used for the plant. Under NRC has also found internal unsegreisated funding lo be the same conditions. exlernal sinking funding is the second 35 J-52

most equitable method The internal unsegregated fund is the decommissioning. Utility interest in diversification into non-least equitable because utility accounting practices would utility enterprises has been increasing recently, in response to result in higher costs for customers in the early years and stagnation in the growth or electric sales and excess revenues lower costs For customers in later years. (28) once new units are plaad in service. (30) Recent examples of Administrative impacts and costs or the various decommis- such diversification include Pacific Power and Light Co.'s sioning finance methods. according to the NRC, are approx- plans to launch its own telecommunications satellite to service imately equal for "plant-specific" financing methods. All would its own telephone subsidiary and power-company involve- .3.2 .\.' require a Fair amount oF administrative work to function prop- ment in such novel endeavors as graphics design. the running erly. oF boat marinas, and the provision chilled water service to (ll.) Studying each method's "responsiveness to change.* or nex- shopping centers. Involvement in highly competitive. risky ibility, the Commission Found that all three oF the plant- new businesses like telecommunications could expose electric specific financing methods could be made responsive to utilities to substantial financial losses. (31) D.3.2.1.~ changes in technology, interest rates. and inOation. The internal A number oF utilities are planning to diversify through the unsegregated Funding and external sinking funding methods use of holding companies, in order to insulate their non-utility were found to be the most easily adapted to change, because operations From utility regulation. This trend may be ac-utilities can easily increase or decrease their contributions to celerated by utilities seeking more lenient FERC regulation. such funds. The NRC Found prepayment to be somewhat less (32) Critics of utility holding companies Fear that once a utility flexible. but noted that it can be modified to iocrease its flex- has Fonned a holding company for non-utility purposes. the ibility. (28) Strangely, the Commission found internal new corporation may first use the old power company as a unsegregated funding. "responsive to change," but also found it 'cash cow' to prov:de capital for unregulated business to be "fraught with uncertainty* and oF "marginal" usefulness in endeavor~. (33) Once the cash cow has been "r.-.:lked.. it may assuring future availability or funds, leaving it uoclear as to then have the electric utility *spun off" in a financially weak how to evaluate "responsiveness* as a selection criterion. condition. The weakened power companies left behind by Similarly, the "less flexible" method or prepayment appears to such successful holding-company maneuvers. or course. might O.</, 2. J be the single best method for assuring the future availability or find it very difficult financially to fund full decommissioning ef. - decommissioning funds. forts. Accordingly. the growth of utility "holding companies" may pose a long-tenn threat to the financial integrity of the The Uncertain Future of Phantom Funds nuclear decommissioning process. Should the Commission fail to provide adequate guidelines Utilities using phantom funding argue that by the middle or for the finaricing or decommissioning which are responsive to the next century, when decommissioning funds are actually legal and financial realities, it is utility ratepayers who will suf-needed. they can raise money for this purpose by issuing fer the consequeoces. As noted earlier, such a finaricial failure bonds backed by the additional assets they financed through could also leave this nation vulnerable to a breakdown in the the use or their internal unsegregated funds. However, while decommissioning process which would pose radioactive bond investors do consider the availability of "first liens* on hazards to untold Future generations. utility property to back up the face value of the bonds, they are more concerned with utility bond ratings in making investment decisions. The financial health of the utility at the time the Footnotes, Chapter 4 decommissioning bonds are marketed will determine the bond I. Wood 1983:49. ratings and. in tum, the marketability or the bonds. 2. Wolf 1983:406. But future financial health or utilities cannot be assured. As 3. Ryan 1983: I. recently as the early 1980s. the utility industry was said by the 4. Wood 1983:1. business press to be entering into a period of serious financial 5. lbid:49. \)_"3.2. ll problems. (29) Today the health or most non-nuclear utilities 6. Chapman 1980:51-52. The letter to the NRC was dated (a..) has improved, but many nuclear-dependent comr~nies in th,. Dcce ,ber 14, 1977. industry are still in trouble. Some are in serious trouble. .. , . 7. V. vvd 1983. duding: Consumers Power in Michigan which was finally 8. See 42 FR 40063 (1977). forced to stop construction or its Midland reactor; Long Island 9.Wood 1983:37. Lighting Company building Shoreham which may nev<"r 10. Chernick et al. 198L operate; Public Service of Indiana which has been forced to 11. Wood l !)83:40. stop building Marble Hill; and three utilities involved in the 12. Anderson 1984:21. Seabrook plant-Public Service of New Hampshire, United Il- 13. Wood 1983:1. luminating in Connecicut and the small Fitchberg Gas and 14. Ibid Electric in Massachusetts. For several oF these utilities the 15. lbid:5-7. possibility or bankruptcy is being seriously discussed. How, 16. Ibid: 11. then, can the financial viability or utilities be assured thiny to 17. Temple, Barker and Sloane 1980:V-L fiFt:y years from now 7 18. Wood 1983:12. Meanwhile, another trend is underway which could under- 19. lbid:13. mine the utility industry's future legal responsibilities for 20. lbid:12. J-53

21. lbid:49. February 1984.

22. lbid:12 28. Wood 1983:3L

23. lbid:13. 29. lbid:31-33.

24. lbid:29. 30. Sec Fenn 1984:95-105.

25. Robert S. Wood (NRC), peraonal communication. 15 31. Wall Strut Journal "Fearing Slower Demand £or Energy, February 1984. Utilities Move Into New Businesses* Sept, 4 1984:31.

26. Deficit Reduction Act or 1984, PL 98-369, Section 468a 32 Pfeffer and Lindsey 1984.

27. Robert S. Wood (NRC), peraonal communication. 15 33. Anderson 1984.

37 J-54

Table 13. Fll'St Year Funds for Decommissioning Collected from Ratepayers TMLIII,

                                                                        ~~~!:',!:':.::.=:i-11****

11,11 a...rclel q,..u ..

                                                -*       ..   .,._.   ....... .........,........... ,.~

PIHtl'_,.,-.,

                                                                    *ieeted , , .
                                                                       *t.-,ert
                                                                                      . . . . . . . I'. . .
                                                                                                ~
                                                                                       *.,... o.e-a,~

CWl*ted flHl l'*r ,-.,. IIIYap:0.ta u.11 q.au*

a. ..........,

Pul-, I lHf t lltl Parle, I P*r, I 1111 llff *II 11n I IHI 1r- Perry I llU lttT I 1r.-. f PttrJ I

                                                                         ""                                            IHI Attca-.aa IINIHt I ltfC                      It             111' ArUMet 9'Nl*r I IIN                                                                      I                IIN ltTI 11 ot***a..- ..

ltM II/A

                                                                                                                                               "'A ms                                                            I
             . . Oltolre I

n. °"°'"

at. t' IIU 14 l lltl ltU II/A I II

                                                                                                    .,.               .,                       M/A vr.11         ltfl               I

a. 11Mk* llfl II

            *n1a1-. I                 111' ltlll*taae I              IHI lttT lltl 11n                         '

I Tlutt., 0,.tol Polat

                       * * -I*

1\uitey Polat , IITI ltTS

                                                        'u 11 It. IMele l              lift              I It. LIICI* I              IIU I

Mi,fa I. *tetl l

            . . . . , *

• 1e1r,1 or_,

zi.., I ZI .. I 11n llfl llfl 1171 11n 111'4 I I II u 11 11 IHO 1114 10 Qled au. 1 1112 11H II Q&adOtl* I lJ 1114 IA *tie I 1111 11n I

                                                      *u 1112
                                                                   .._. eollect:ed                *I           tloN eol lceted ltff                               11n                        11 a.1..-1     au,,    1 Cllhwt Oltfl I PllCTlol I llfS ltTT             f                ""

11n I

r.:=.S"l*t* ....

llfl IHI lJ IS llll ltll 11 lO II lltl IJ 1,n

           -.&dC.CINII"             ltfl                          IIIMeoU<<ted
                                                                                                 *'           .... collct-1                  I
           ..   ,...,a.
           -.&dC.CINII"             IHI                           -.eollcted lbw col lct.d ltfl              u                                                            ltll 10 l'Nlre lal_.1 Pre.Ire lalud I ltTJ ltU II 10 1111 1111                     *

lrud Qall ..

a.op.. ltf4 *10 MIA ltlt II MIA Pt.~1-CWst*O..

          .... 1 1111*1 UTI at*

ltll 11 II llll ltf1 11n 1111 I t II

           . . . . . Pt. l         11n              II                111>                                        llfl                      MIii' llldtuPt. I ladlu Pt. I
                                    &IU ltfl 11                 llTS                     t                  lt'ft I

Pluc,etrtelc I NI* 1111* Pt. L 11* 1171 ltll It 111- llfl II II

          --1 MIO!llre I llaO,IN ,0 11n ltfS
                                   ....          *'I I

11n m* 1111 If/A I I MIA llfl llfl

                                                                                                                  "'A I
                                                                                                                                           "'A Dawh..._H I              llTT            f
          'l'r*J*                  ltTI          I                    llfl                                        1111
          ..... \llll., l
         ,.,.. ....... 1 lltl lttt I

llfl <1 . . . coll.et . . ,.._colleet..S MIA

         *-I                       ltU             I                  ltll                    I
          ..... lottci..'
          . . . . Iott* I
         *1,.1-tl ILi~ . . . . .

IIH UST . 11 II u

                                                                 .._ eolleeted                MIA            .._. eo!lectlfd               MIA IITI                               lits llfl          11                                            '

ltH II I II

                                                  *                  "'"'                     WA                 If/A                      II/A
         .. _      .. I            1111 lib              I 1111 1111 I

I Ifft II IHI II lwf7 I 1111 II 1111 I

         ,.,,, I                   1171            II                IIU                      I IUI IHI I

I llaMnll*ted II/A NocM celleet.cl

t. O*N IS .... eolleeted Noae collcted MIA f'Ql*t hNII l IITI ltll IJ Pol*t ..... I lift IJ ltU 11 117' It 117' J-55

rwiqt41y,,rt"S lfl ffWll' C W . ~ lfw f!f"III ~ IIUCint ~ ~ - ~ alt"°"lh dc:tUffl tWW:.:OClinl C'Ollt* Wfff cittwwd *NII* .. ltwilr OI _......_, ..... Ill' .......... , , . . IIIIVup

• flll'l,ttrw ,wt . . . . . . IC'('OUlftfin&. 'TM.~ ptnr'nlcd ._, l'W ~ conwt"f'.. IW- In wrlina fllOl"f druikd ~ IN tuChor . . . ..ud c ~ .... VCdily tlall tor mr "finl ~

,.... f o r ~ ......... ~ *dlllrffflf ,,...1'11111...rtr.runita.* 1-,~""°""9r. . for11'*Ut111--11~ N/A indte*' en .,...., to ch.I "'"' °" .. no1 ~ - ~. . *

• uerd 111 ~ tlw IIUfflbrr of rran ut11** had op,nltd. 1-nfort. .,.1un..., h r ~ by up IO t:NIC'._. J'tal' c,,_ llf'III *
• IIOC )'f1 WI C ~ oprntion .. o/ Martt,. 198" "irundo_,.collmNll--*---lar--l.,..197Sto 1979

~No fund9 haw bfttl coll<<ttd for ~ I O l l " ' I Donald C Cool I & 2 a1 1tw 11* of Mich'Pft. Tht . . . al Ind...,. NI~ Fedrraf ~

• Rr,aulelor, COlllffllNIOII CFERO b f p n ~ a..,dlllfft 1 .....,1 ""°""' f<< ~....,....,. in 1983 11"tw -.xNlffll
• T1wff M,lr l.i.nd rook platt ~ cvatOfflffll ~ cfw1lrd ro.. d<<omm..a10Nna, ITh* plant IS ownrd by tlw kdr-tai ~ C011t1 ol drc'omm,M.an1,.. _.rT not. ltw-rcfore. c ~ 10 l'Mt'paV"" Tasp,11~* wtll br pa'f"'a lhr coals of dn::omffllUIOnt...._

hCh.rr for dttomrn**'"""'ll ~" IIOC n\lllk unhl *l1c, Uw unit h<<I lhul do.....,, 1Coals o/ ~ lf"t.ak'r ttuln lhow for I non nuclta, Uftol Wfft IIOC inadr UN1I lwo JI" aflff ltw Uftll had shul down. 39 J-56

Table 14. Decommissioning Financing Methods for Nuclear Power Plants by State 1984 Plants Plants Plants with with Plants Plants Number with Internal External w~th to be of Phantom Segregated S1.nking No Funding Funded State Plants Funding (b) Fund.1.ng (c) Funding (d) Provisions by DOE AL 5 2 3 AR 2 2 CA ( e) 6 5 co 1 1 CT 3 3 FL 5 5 GA 2 2 IL 8 8 IA 1 1 ME 1 1 MD 2 2 MA 2 2 MI 4 2 2 MN 3 3 MS ( f) 1 NB 2 2 1 NJ 3 3 NY 6 6 NC 4 4 OH 1 1 OR 1 1 PA (g) 7 6 1 SC 5 4 1 TN 2 2 VT (h) 1 l VA 4 4 WA (g) 1 1 WI 4 3 1 TOTAL 87 55 14 11 5 2 Number of States 28 17 6 5 4 2 TABLE 14. F - --n... tlh&r indudN boCh fiom.rd C'Offlfflttewl Gpf:f'afi,. ~ in January 1914 ,nd ~ ~ dNcnbed Wl Tllb&e 2. It .nctloldt'I ttw Hanl<<d*N and S h ~ f'\'ac1c)R.. sonwwhac .tMtranty. on dw bN.. ol chrir indulMn in 1tw lnvitn<<ory of Po....n- Plant*'" lhr UntC<'d Slacn (00/EIAJ O¥f!'I" tfw ,ran. Fiw YnCts wlCh lo*1JOW('I'" or full-p)""""' IJCTMn

• o f ~ 31. IIJilll arr end...dtd-Grand Cuff (MS,. OiaMo C.n,on (CAI.Sen Ono("' 3 (CA.I. McCuttt 2 (NO. end t... Salk I (ILJ. Onty Grand Cuff end Dlab'o C..,.an ti-' n o ( ~ l f t t o ~ OfW'WC_, .. o f ~ I. f98<4.

Thr Cablr ~ RWfhoda in 1,1w by pr'incl'* ~ of 87 untlL ft don no( ifluscnu- ~ICIN ~ cunc~phaehy but no<< 1(111'1 prac1tcr. A* Appctdi* 8 ckKnbft. ....,, fNN9 ~ jo,lnc ~ fotnt ~ ~ " 1 we mc1hods ~ for UiJteit, 111 thfir -.en by llt.w rq..ila(or, ~ Tab&t 4 ~ ft9dol' 1p<<1fic ~a. of mrthodf uwd DMh ~ (-1 indic:Mt no ptarn* uw lh_. rinancma nwchod. ~ btden& t.a.o ~ C O * "'*'"W uNr&~i<<'d finiancincJ K drflne'd

• an accoul'IC*rc pro('NIJf'\' FnttallJ w.nc rqaic1w nr1 ...~ * .,.t1<< dtp(TCY4iort.. wh11(11 Mlowtnctmekd ~

. . caetl to tw CMfwrd IO f"llk'pa)'ff'I owr tfw hk ol e fanhry ~ - no lunch~ ec1,.1.aUy <<1 ..w:k loc' ~ wlwn lh* pnch<<

• wwd. \.Jltf11-PMf' to r*v fllftek ~ f o r ~ -

. . in f - - ,nn. l.JNcwnl fUC'lda coUn:wd from ra&tpafttS fo, ~ n c ~ ......~ &o 1tw utJtty kW"~ JMl'fl'OW'i c~-. pur1l conscn,ct10nJ <:~ ~ f~ '9 drfil'l('d *

• flfWtCl"I f"C'Chod wf'wffby IM' ul1f1ly .ttrff phy,ucafty tt'ts Nldt (....di b' d<<ommt *'°""'I a i d ~
• ltww fund,. ,n such* . . , 1ha,t tfwy a,,"t ~ ll"Offl

-u.lef,w ~ , . . . . , .

• dcf-4 *
• r ~ nw4hod ~ funcM I << ~ erT ~ " ' an f'ICl'OW accou1" fNNllllt'd by en oueadr 1nA1tt funds MT"'~ .. h*h'f.radc- nw*

~ ti<<W1lir'I. fcdrral deb! obi.---. lltMC' or fflUNC1'* ta-..frtt WC"'1CllfL or Ofhtt -..r(&. ~Allholl&f'I ~ PubAic Ublilin ea..n..ion ('OftCq,,lueilly adcJpted nt,n,lal ...... f....:t.na in ~ ' ° " wdt not occw until SOl'lw1nnt ,n Col_hod_Nh<d_r,,_.._.....,. 1913. 198S. A. o f ~ I. 1Mc4 110 ..t1t1.n 1111 1A

• o l ~ I. IM4.Cnind Cu:lf-- nof "'1 " " ~ ..,.Ct0n. A k ~ ltw Ft:dtn,I Enrfs::, Rqulatoty COfflfl'MNtOft(fERC) ~ ~*W'1'nel 111nl""1 f...nd11'11, fot lhr """111'1 19&4.fvnds w,R nof bt ~l<<wd for drconwnt...antftl Uf'ltd commrrt.., ~'°" SQftW111nt "' I 9eS

'11w S h ~ (PAI and ltanlord N (WAI f'HCb'9 MT ow,,,rd by Cht u s . ~ o( ~ o~*conun,...Of'llfll ol chc-w P*"* -,II ht' p&id lor by ttw kdc-r.a ~ hA*ol<ktobtt t983dttommtW10n11'\lf""61 I<< V"""°"' Y ~ haw httn hrid 1t1 an~n,CTOWaiC'COUM OUColC'Ol'ftf*'Y hand.~'"°""'~ lftW'fNI raws llwf1N1C-11'""'°"' *'"' fflfflC whffd>y 1'*1"" 11tvolwd a<<1'ftd 10 t*k"mM smllf'f; fund'"<< ro, Vt1'ffl0nf Yenltt * * ~ ,n Spnnc 19&4 1M' ..cilf1y p4aM 1o ~ a ~ l y ~ 1,ue1 fund by t"Wiy INS

                                                                                                       ,J-57

Decommissioning Funds Collected by Principal Plant Owner Versus Estimated Costs of Decommissioning by State 1984 State No. of Units Average Multl~ny Total Estimated Total F'Unds Collected Rerrelnl~ Res pons ib i 1 j ty Cost of by Princi?le Unit Unit Life for Cos ts Dec<Jll'lli ss i oni ~ OMlers-Year end 1983 (Years) (Mill ions of 1983 $)4 (Milli ions of 1983 $)5 AL 5 27 00 255.4 APPIOX. 34.016 AR 2 26 N) 75.0 12.6 17 CA 6 198 YE, 618.4 39.5 (D 1 24 N) 39.9 2.7 er 3 23 N) 323.3 31.7i8 FL 5 27 YllS 384.4 74.4 G\ 2 32 YF.S 133.2 10.314 1L6 8 249 YES 473.214 84.7 IA 1 26 YES ~ DE1EIMINBl KNE <ILLtaE> ME 1 24 N) 122.0 2.1 M) 2 25 N) 93.7 8.219 MA 2 19 N) 127.3 3.5 Ml 4 22 YES 290.0 13.l ftt( 3 20 N) 163.5 34.9 MS 1 3010 00 106.6 N:NE <ILLOC1ID M3 2 24 N) 177 .o 1.5 NJ 3 2411 YES 294.8 APPOOX. 33_321 NY' 6 18 10 335.3 79.8 ~ 4 26 YES 263.1 25.122 CII 1 27 YES 53.0 I.NAYAI I.AILE 00 1 27 YE, 33.8 5.223 PA 7 2212 YES 470 .8 15 22.2 SC 5 24 YF.S 325.4 12.9~: 'IN 2 29 10 102.0 APPIOX. 14.0 VT 1 23 YF.S 82.9 .6 VA 4 26 YES 230.8 8.825 WA7 1 Kl N'.71' AVAJ.u\BLE N:NE~6 WI 4 2413 YES 171.3 61.0 TABLE l 5. Footnotes

'Principal nuclear plant owner rerers to th<, utility, holdini company or other entity primarily responsible ror operating a umL Appendix B lists individual unit ownen.. Principal owners - desittnated by an asterisk. Generally, these mtities are responsible ror ~ percmt or more of th<, costs or d<<ommis-1ioning.

This table includes data for 87 units licensed by l 984, including six iooperable reacto..... Appendix I or this report discusse; units surveyed in detail. Thia table is nol designed to ht an exact representation of decc missionin cres. In llecting this infonnation for 87 plants. some inaccurracy is in* evitable. Instead. the table is meant lo provide an approximation or monies collectrd to date in relationship to estimat<<I costs or decommissioning. Table 9 lists data for individual units.

'Average remaining unit Iii* was developed by laking th<, lic1ense expiration date for each unit and averaging it, th<,n subtracting 1984 from this year.

Units with provisional operating licenses were not included. , onnanently inoperable units were includt-J using their shutdown dates as lie1ense ttnn;na

• tion dates. Thi, value don nol consider th<, likelihood for premature shutdown or for nnerating hcmse rentwals.

'This column indicatrs whdoo ,oial lunds collected by principle unit owners* list* all monies collected for decommissioning in any particular state. or noL It rerers to companies responsible ror decommissioning costs. Unit ownership atructures can requi~ tllal individual unit owners each collect fonds from ratepaycn for decommissioning. Howevtt, aome plant owner/operators. such as single assc,I corporations (e.g. Vermont Yankee Atomic Corp.I, arc responsible for collecting all th<, fund, nec:Nsary f)r decommissioning.
'Figures for total estimated costs of decomm1ss10ning include varying assumption, of type of clccommiuioning planned and resultant costs. Th<, author has not allempted to break down thew individual cost, lo msure unirormity of responses. Costs are included as reported by state regulatory comm***

sions and utilities in summation. Table 9 dc,cribcs details of the con"""ion factor used for pulling figures in l 983 dollars.

'Figures are current to Dcc1embc.- 31. l 983 uni= otherwise indicated.
'This don not include data for La Salle 2.

41 J-58

  'This dON not incluM data lor WPPSS 2.
 'Diablo Canyon was not included since the unit did not have an operating license as of June l 984.
  'Drnc!cn 2 has a provisional opcralil!II license and. thcrclon,. was not included.
  "Grand Gulfs operating license capin,s in 2014. However. its owner in l 983 applied to extend this license lo 2022. Although NRC denied the cattnsion until the plant r-.aiv.s a commcrical license, ii is liktly that the licmse expiration date will be changtd to 2022 by 1985.
  "Oyster Crttk has I provisional operating licensr and. 1hcrcf0tt, was nol included.
  "Shippingport was not included since costs of decommissioning will be born by the federal government.
 La Crosse has a provisional operating license and. lhcrclorc, was not included.
 "Dttommissioning costs for Dradm I do not incluM an estimated $42 million which Comm. Ed. plans to spend lo deconlaminale lhe ullll. Ner 1s the S33 million collected from ratepayers for lhis lask included as part of decommissioning funds collecttd.
 This d<>N not incluM costs for Shippingport which arc being pajd by the federal government Costs of dccomm,ss,oning Susquehanna 2. still uOMr construction as ol June 1984, arc included as part of costs for Susquehanna I. Costa lor Three Mile Island 2 arc not yet known and arc, lhcrclor-., also omitted.
 Funds collccttd for Mcommiasioning Browns Ftrry I, 2 and 3 also include those for Sequoyah I and 2 (11'1). In attempting to <Slimatc what funds have been rollccttd for the.. units, lhe total sum for five plants has been divided by 5 and a per plant sum dttennintd. This ,s a total of S2 I million lor Browns Ftrry l. 2 & 3 and S14 million lor Sequoyah I & 2.
 This data is current  10 February 1984.
Current values for Turkey Pt. 3 & 4 and SL Lucie l & 2 wc,rc unavailable. In atlempting lo estimate the amount collected the author formulated a com-posite figure lor each unit assuming funds for Turkey Pt. 3 & 4 and St Lucic I were 16.2 million as ol year end 198 l. In 1983, Florida Public Scrv,ce Commission required: SS.5, S4.0. S5.0 and S4.8 million lo be rollccttd for decommissioning these plants. plus St. Lucic 2 Figures Mvelopcd. thcrcforc.

should be accurate, excluding funds collected for Turkey Pt. I & 2 and St. Lucic I in 1982 (approx. SI0-14 m1lhonl "Estimates of funds collected for Yankee Rowe were unavailable and arc not included here. Yankee Atomic Corp. has collected l m,11 per kilowatt-hour gencrattd sinae 198 l to rover the cost ol decommissioning. "'No funds had been collected for Grand Cull I as of June 1984 sine< it had not yet r-.ccived a commercial opera1,ng license. "Public Scrvia, Electric and Gas Co. has collecttd S43 million for decommissioning its lour units. In order to estimate funds collccttd lor Salem I & 2 alone. half of S43 million was assumed, $21.5 million. "Figures for McGuire I & 2 were unavailable and are not included here. "'Shippingport is not included sina, costs will be paid by the federal government. This figure also docs not include values lor Beaver Vall*v I. The value for TMI I, S368,000, includes Pennsylvania companies' share of costs. 75'JI.. "No funds wc,rccollccted for Summer I asof *****"Dd 1983. The amount forOcontt I. 2 & 3 ,s unavailable Funds hsttd arc lor H.B. Robinson 2 current lo 3/31/84. "'This is current lo March 1982. Funds through 1983 were not available. "Funds for Hanlord-N art not included sine,, the plant is owntd by the federal government. which w,11 pay dccommiss,oning costs J-59

uecomm1sslOIUllg 1v1eth<><ls f\ssumeo tor Katemaklng Purposes by ~tate 1 ~~4 State lnmedlate Temporary Permanent Entanl:ment Undeterminedb Unavailable Dlsnantle- Storage Entarunent wl th delayed ment Di SIJll.n tl tsnen t AL 5 AR 2 CAC 4 1 1 CD 1 er 3 5 2 8 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 3 NB NJ 2 me 5 lC 2 2 CJ{ 1 1 6 1 1 1 3 2 1 VA 4 WA 1 WI 3 1 10I'AL 60 7 1 5 12 2 !II OP 10TAL 69 8 1 6 14 2 TABLE 16. f~no4N

*Mrthodll utied bJ 11t1htin fof l'llklnN11'1 pi,lrpoen art vinm:I

• lnMC1w1, echrdukd Sltn comp,MUC"1 In' ,onn*hnc an amount from J°W1MIYffl whectl w,11 tqM,lrl 1tw pt"rWmtd ("OM of d r e a m ~

YIM'C lh* mr1hod ftownn. fN IIINhodl dloliffl w~I drptnd Ofl I wat~J of f<<10n M tht c,,... d<<omm1Mton"'1 I_,.. p'-"r Orf1N110N ol d<<'onwNtuON,. nw1hod11rt dncnbf'd III Cl\apwT I ol 1h1t

 ~ Teble ,1 heu fftldot .,arc pofean.
 ~ IMWII thel for rllleffllk. . purpowe Uw u111i1, hat not .....,nwd a '9<<1fc dttomm1N*onu'I tnrthod                    wtll bt uwd. I"'*-'. tclfflt t,Pt ol ~ t'OII         fisun" br,nc INCd '"ordrf IO ~lrl:1
 ~ Sor ""tt OK'Offlffll....,.,..     ' °"' nk'pe)'ffl.

C'Tiw Humboldt a., ICAI. ~ I CILl,....:l lnd1et1 Pt I CNVI fHC"I°" haw hrtft thul down lll'ln' 1976. 1971...... 1974 '"fW'(11\lot47 l'hnr 11Nlu1r ,n I fonn ol lt'fflpc)farJ Mor.,_,_. 1lrhouf.h only mtn<< ptffMftlOl'II haw bttn 1Mffl 10 ~ 1tw rHC10f'I Mk 10 tlw puhll( Pmdu* NRC 1pp,0¥ ..

• of Dre 1984. OW!Wf'I ol 1hnt plant* 1nlffld IO"'°"' fonn.a/11 pl<<T u"'11 in temp:wary 1h>'* Im nwd..., d1SIIWM:lfflwnt ea cu~ly ...unwd for Orndtn I and India,, Pt I

 '11w Sh1ppncpor, rnc'I<< dttomml~ achrdultd 10 ~'" "' 1985. don nae H"IC'IYdt' d11mani1h"1 ctw "'IIC10I' wu,r,t ona,w                 In.wad. 1tw vnwt w,11 hr rl"ftlOWd 1ntat1 M11J 1N.rn tty "*lit ti> lt,1nf<<d NA. Th* nwthod. thrmorr. don l"IOt r.11 wndiN' lht ~ lypcal dtftn111on ol 1mmNh*lf d1111Nt11ifflwfll. dtwnhird        !fl d'taJiCtt 7 of 11'1,. l'Tpo,1 Nonrthricw. ,t .. tate,p,wd

• IUC'h ~

43 J-60

44 J-61

Chapter Five The Myth of Immediate Dismantlement and Site Restoration For more than 30 years, defenders of nuclear power have For temporary storage followed by delayed dismantlement. assured the public that *atomic power plants don't explode." One reactor is scheduled for permanent entombment, and While reactor decommissioning certainly does not involve another 5 are slated for temporary entombment followed by fission-produced explosions. the use of *explosive decon- delayed dismantlement. No decommissioning method has yet tamination" to dismantle reactor vessels does not inspire been chosen for 12 reactors. Instead, the utilities owning them public confidence that radioactive contamination of the sur- have put forward very general cost calculations to justify their rounding landscape can be avoided. Yet many experts are collection of decommissioning funds. Data for specific reactors counting on using small, controlled explosions to dismantle is included in Table 4. reactors in the 1000-megawatt range. The use of explosives in-serted in the steel-enforced concrete walls of modem reactors Occupational Exposure lo Radiation is supposed to enable workers to use name-cutting tools and During Immediate Dismantlement specially designed saws to slice through the walls. Much of this process is supposed to be carried out underwater to help Immediate dismantlement is attractive to utilities who want protect workers from radiation exposure. (The use of robots is to dispel uncertainty surrounding decommissioning. by also being actively pursued.) Here is how one writer describes demonstrating their ability to dismantle the reactor and fully ~.,. ,, *explosive decontamination*: Four to five strands of I 50-grain blasting cord twisted together and placed in a tube inserted in the hole are ef-fectitoe, as Ori/ partial sticks of dynamite. Liquid explosives restore the site for general use. As described by the NRC and the industry, ii also appears lo be well understood, cheap, and easy. (3) In fact, the risks involved in immediate dismantlement should not be underestimated. Table 17 describes the occupa-am be used where it is difficult to insert solids. The size of tional exposure to radiation that the Battelle studies have the area to be blasted at cme time is controlled. so that an estimated will a..:company the immediate dismantling of a

                                                                               *reference" pressurized water reactor (PWR) and a "reference*

B. ~* *7*~ accident involving the explosives used presents an aa:ept-ably low potential for damage ... &ch blast is con- boiling water reactor (BWR). The data, like other data ducted with the individual charges sequena.d to minimize developed by Battelle, is based on calculations from the the rl/SUlting shock wave. (IJ dismantlement of the 22-megawatt Elk River plant. ex-periences in operating nuclear plants today, and simulation ex-Given that the reactor being *explosively decontaminated" periments involving the cutting and breaking apart of non-might have 30 years worth of accumulated radioactivity nuclear materials. As Table 17 indicates, Battelle's estimated permeating its walls and tubing. cracking apart the reactor's occupational exposure for dismantling a PWR is 1200 person-vessel with even "partial" sticks of dynamite should not be rerns(4) and for a BWR. 1845 per,;on-rems. (5) (Person-rems taken lightly. Studies by Battelle and others indicate that the measure radiation exposure in terms of its expected impact on process is likely to involve high levels of radiation exposure to human health.) the workers involved in dismantlemenl(2) Exposure levels In comparison. the government has set an exposure level of would be highest with immediate dismantlement. since half a rem or 500 millirems per year as the maximum annual radioactive particles decay over time_ dosage of radiation for an individual adull For the general population. the recommended average dose is no more than Planned Decommissioning Methods 170 millirems. (6) The maximum exposure allowed for for Today's Rncton workers in the nudear industry is 5 rems per year or 3 rems a quarter. Thus Battelle's 1200 _rem estimate for a single PWR Nearly 70 percent of today's licensed commercial nuclear dismantlement represents the maximum exposure of 240 plants have been tentatively scheduled for immediate workers in one year or the recommended maximum exposure

~.'l.z. dismantlement at the end of their operating lives, according to        of 7059 members of the general population in a single year.

Public Citi1.en's survey. Table 16 lists immediate dismantle- The 1845 person--rem estimate for.a a BWR di:;mantlement ment as the method assumed for rate-making purposes for 60 represents the maximum-annual exposure of 369 workers of reactors. Another 7 reactors have been tentatively scheduled the maximum recommended exposure of I 0,853 individuals. 45 J-62

   'lhese predictions, of course, could l5e wrong-as recent ex-        reactor have much shorter half-lives and will decay significant-perience in decontaminating the Three Mile Island reactor sug-          ly if immediate dismantlement is postponed. Cobalt-60. for in-gests. According to recent calculations by the NRC, decon-              stance, has a half-life of 5.3 years and is considered by the tamination workers at Three Mile Island No. 2 will probably             NRC to have "the most effect on decontamination efforts.* For         B q. 2.

receive six times the radiation doses that were estimated for this reason. it is tenned the "critical/abundant nuclide: (NRC

• them in 1981. (7) Similarly. the Battelle figures may Proposed Rule on Decommissioning Criteria. Feb. 11. 1985. p.

underestimate worker exposure levels. 5604.) Significant decay of Cobalt,60 would occur with tem-porary storage, a significant advantage to this option. 1bc Waste Disposal Dilenuna Waste Classification Problems. In addition to the *high lever and "low lever wastes contained in each shut-down reac-Decommissioning is fraught with problems related to tor. there are likely to be an estimated 11.S cubic meters of disposal or. the low-level and high-level nuclear waste densely packed radioactive material that is of an "intermediate* generated in the decommissioning process. Disposal of nuclear level -at least in the eyes of nuclear regulators. (13) This waste following immediate dismantlement will be problematic waste includes a number of highly "activated* concrete and because of the volume of low-level waste involved, transporta- metal components from the reactor, including the core shroud. tion or the waste, the amount of radioactivity involved, the the lower core barrel, the upper and lower core grid pieces. detennination of how to classify the wa'llte, and the lack or and the thermal neutron shield pads. ( 14) According to Dr. suitable waste disposal sites. Carl Feldman of the NRC, this material is likely to be l.Dw-levd Waste Volumes. The Battelle study estimates that classified as 1ow-level' waste, and certainly does not fir the immediate dismantlement of a PWR will generate 17,924 category of high-level waste. (15) But as Table 19 of this cubic meters of low-level radioactive material-an amount report indicates, such components of the reactor contain equivalent to about one-quarter of the volume of low-level Nickel- 59, Niobium-94 and Carbon-14, all of which have long waste currently generated each year in the U.S.(8) The waste hal f-lives. Such longbu-li~ed radiondacti~e w~sle ~ not beradlong in ~.I.\. \ generated from existing reactors and those under construction a 1ow-1eve1 waste na1 grou . smce its persistent 1oac-in 1981 would require the equivalent of three to four entire tivity could eventually leach from such a burial ground lo con-low-level waste burial sites, according to a study for the NRC taminate groundwater in the area. possibly causing the long* by Elder and Murphy.(9) term contamination of unde111.round aquifiers. Transportation. As shown in Table 18, the transportation of Where should intennediate-level waste be put? According low-level wastes from a single PWR decommissioning will re- to Dr. Feldman: "There is no method or special site currently quire the shipment of 1363 truckloads of radioactive material, designated for handling these 'intermediate-level' wastes. so if immediate dismantlement is used About 1.495 truckloads they will need to be classified as either high or low level." ( 16) of waste will have to be transported away from a reference Classifying such waste as low-level and burying it in low-level BWR plant (10) If all 87 currently licensed reactors were waste landfills is environmentally unacceptable and is likely lo decomissioned using the immediate dismantlement method, cause a public outcry. Classifying it as "high lever waste and more than 80,000 truckloads of low-level radioactive waste arranging for deep geological disposal, meanwhile, would would have to be removed from reactor sites and driven to significantly increase the waste-management costs attending a low-level waste burial grounds. ( 11) The more waste reactor dismantlement ( 17) This dilemma must be resolved transported, the greater the chance of radioactive exposure to before immediate dismantlement is allowed as an option. workers handling the waste and to the general public in the Unavailability of High-le,,el Nuclear Waste Site. At present. event of a transportation accident While fewer shipments will no high-level waste repository exists in this country to accept be required for the highly radioactive fuel rods. the transporta- the spent fuel and other high-level radioactive wastes created tion risks are far greater. (See Resnikoff, The Next Nuclear by decommissioning. Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of Gamble.) 1982, a facility for disposing of such high-level wastes is Radioactivity. A typical PWR reactor vessel and its com- scheduled to become available by 1998. (18) ponents, excluding fuel rods. is expected* to contain approx- But critics of this plan. such as David Berick of the En-imately 4.8 million curies of radiation at the time the reactor is vironmental Policy Institute, say none of the Department of ready for final shutdown A reference BWR is expected to con- Energy's deadlines for developing such a repository are tain an estimated 6.6 million curies. ( 12) A curie is equivalent to achievable. According to Berick. "[llte high-level waste 1 \ tJ the amount of radiation contained in one gram of radium disposal site) deadline 1s no more realistic than any other. In '1* I.\. "l Some radiation contained in the reactor vessel is long-lived. fact. it can be met only through a series or somewhat fantastic Table 20 lists curie content for major activated reactor com- assumptions probably requiring divine intervention . . . and ponents for the reference PWR Appendix C contains a certainly requiring unique interpretations of the Nuclear Waste diagram of a PWR As noted in Table 19, Niobium-94 and Policy Act and NRC and state participation." (19) Nickel-59 contained in the reactor components of a typical Meanwhile, local and state government units in almost every PWR have radioactive half-lives of 20,000 years and 80,000 state where high-level waste disposal sites are under con, years, respectively. The reactor's Molybdenum-93, with a half- sideration have strenuously opposed locating such a site in life of 3,500 years, and its Carbon-14. with a half-life of 5,750 their backyards. (20) Given the political and technical years, are other wastes that will not decay quickly. roadblocks to making a high-level waste disposal site However, other radioactive isotopes in a PWR or OWR available, such a facility may not be established until 2010 or J-63

later. Without a high-level waste site. imn-diate dismantlement the *crud" and the chelating agents are removed from the reac-would be dirftcult at best. Temporary storage or spent ruel tor. This process is estimated to have the potential for decreas-rods on site either in ruel pools or in dry storage is a likely ing occupational exposures during dismantlement by 80-90 H. ,.1. y scenario. Monitored retrievable storage al centralized sites lo ac:comodale spent fuel rods is also under active consideration percenL (26) Today, utilities generally bury their wastes from chemical by lhe Department or Energy. On-site storage or spent ruel will decontamination in low-level waste landfills.(27) However. the interfere with making the reactor site available for alternative chelating agents in the wastes have been found to cause the use under the immediate dismantlement scenario. Other reac- unexpectedly rapid migration of radioactivity out of such land-tor components such as the vessel itselr also require a high- fills. (28) Battelle PNL and other research organiz:ations are level site ror disposal. currently studying the products or chemical decontamination. The NRC requested Battelle to examine 1he lack or high- 1lowever research is needed to rocus more attention on the in-level and low-level waste sites included in Addendum I and teractions between chelating agents and other radioactive Addendum 2 or the Ballelle studies. The addcndums examine wastes. M.S. Davis of Brookhaven National Laboratory has

• I. '2 , j how a utility"s inabilily lo dispose or wastes in an offsite loca- pointed out in a recent report: "Ill he potential for enhanced tion will affect different decommissioning mclhods.(21) Table migration or radionuclides from a site used to dispose of the 20 describes the decommissioning alternatives that appear decontamination wastes must be addressed and guidelines reasible. assuming onsite storage or spent fuel and low-level established for the safe disposal of these wastes."(29) wastes. As the table indicates, only "'partial" decontamination Given current uncertainties about chelating agents and low-and dismantlement is considered practical. ir low-level wastes lev~I waste, chemical decontamination should not be relied on and spent ruel are stored at the reactor site. Battelle"s Adden- as a way lo legitimize immediate dismantlement as a decom-dum I states: -oECON [Immediate Dismantlement) implies missioning method Meanwhile. radioactive wastes bound to lhe prompt removal or all decommissioning wastes from the chelating agents should not be accepted for bunal at low-level site to allow unrestricted release or the property. Onsite radioactive waste landfills. unless there is run assurance that storage of the decommissioning wastes would prevent release migration problems will not develop.

of the site until the wastes are subsequently removed to an off-site facility. Therefore. DECON appears to be generally incon- lna:ntivcs for Delayed Dismantlement sistent with onsite storage or decommissioning wastes." (22) By this criterion, temporary storage would also be practical. Battelle studies indicate that the curie level in a reactor In fact. Battelle"s Addendum I consistently discusses the tem- declines fairly rapidly up to 50 years following shutdown. porary storage or SAFSTOR method as being highly adapt- after which the curie level declines very slowly. As a conse-able to all waste-storage scenarios. (23) Entombment is ruled quence. both occupational exposure and volume of waste out as impractical. generated decrease significantly with delayed dismantlement over the next fifty years. Table 17 lists estimated radiation

                             'Ottontaminating' Reactors                        doses that will be sustained by workers under various com-Before Dismantlement                            binations of decommissioning methods. A delay of 10 years in decommissioning a reactor will likely result in a 37% reduc-Some nuclear planners currently hope for the extensive decontamination of reactor pipes and other nuclear plant com-tion in occupational exposures. from 1200 rems lo around 760 rems. A delay of 30 years in dismantling lhe reactor would B* *'3
                                                                                                                                                     ~

ponents through mechanical or chemical methods before reduce occupation exposures by 62 percent. from 1200 rems dismantlement begins. Such decontamination is expected lo lo 460 rems.. A SO-year delay, however. would further decrease decrease the amount of radioactivity that nuclear workers and radiation exposures by only a slight amount, to 440 rems. The the public are exposed to during decommissioning. volume of waste generated would decrease dramatically According to Battelle official J.R. Divine. such prior decon- following a 50-year delay in dismantlement from ahout 17.900 tamination of reactors could make immediate decommission- cubic meters lo 1830 cubic meters, a 90 percent decrease. (30) ing feasible. (24) The authors ol Battelle"s PWR study also No significant forther decrease in waste volume occurs with a recommend lhat chemical or mechanical decontamination be delay up lo 100 years.(31)

 ~1.2.,  employed before the temporary storage method or decommis-                 These data lend support for the delay or dismantlement up sioning.(25) However, there has been some concern that                to 50 years after shutdown. although further delays beyond decontamination a>uld become a rationale for indefinitely             this time limit are probably unjustified.

delaying full decommissioning. Decontamination involves mechanical and chemical pro- The Inevitable Nc,c,d to Dismantle Reactors cesses. The mechanical decontamination of reactor parts in-volves the use of lasers. explosives. and/or chipping tools and The entombment option has been advocated by some is primarility used to remove radioactivity from the reactor utilities. but the NRC has ruled out this option for commercial vessel's bioshield. The pipes are then nushed out with highly roM'OSive solvents containing chemicals called *chelating reactors in its proposed decommissioning rule. l3. S-According lo Donald Blackman of the Duke Power Co~ a agents: which help to dissolve the radioactive "crud." former chainnan or the decommissioning task force or the somewhat like using Drano to unclog a sink. Afterwards, both Atomic Industrial Forum: 1ne utilities are not yet willing to 47 J-64

concede that permanent entombment should be ruled out Footnoc.ea, Chapter 5 because or the presence or long-lived isotopes." (32) *However, 1. Oak et al. l 980b.-G-8-G-9. researchers such as Dr. Marvin Resnikoff. John Stevens. and 2. Smith et al 1978; Engineering News &cord 1984. Dr. Roben Pohl have demonstrated that radioactive 'activation 3. Committee for Energy Awareness 1984. A fine example is products' in a reactor may continue to remain dangerously provided in a recent CEA press release on the decommission-radioactive For up to 1.5 million years following shutdown. (33) ing or Shippingport. According to Ed Delaney, DOE's project 8.5" The NRC admits that such radioactivity "will not decay to unconditional release levels within the foreseeable lifetime or manager for Shippingport. "All the operations we will perform are straight forward and well-known ... DOE plans to any man-made surface structure* and concludes that "the long- decommission the reactor immediately to demonstrate that lived isotopes will have to be removed or the integrity of the reactors can be decommissioned safely at reasonable costs.* entombing structure will have to be maintained for many Dr. Carl Feldman or the NRC states. "Decommissioning is thousands or years." (34) An "entombed* reactor and its over- basically a salvage job during which radiation exposures to coat of concrete will both crumble long before its activation workers are minimized.* Delaney describes the 12% of invest-products are safely decayed. ment cost required to decommission the plant as. *a modest amount" The Problem or Residual Radioactivity 4. Smith et al. l 978a:2-9.

5. Oak et al 1980a:2-10.

Decommissioning is supposed to restore the reactor site to a 6. U.S. Dept of Energy 1980. condition allowing its "full release* for public use. The deter- 7. Maiz.e 1984. mination or the allowable level or residual radioactivity is 8. Norman 1982:378 Smith et al. 1978a:I0-7. therefore crucial to whether the decommissioning process will 9. Elder and :\lurpny 1981 :6. A utilization factor or 65% is as-result in adequate protection or the public. sumed. Part 2 or the Commission's proposed rule-making on 10. BWR figures are found in Oak, eLal. 1980a: I 0-3-10-4. decommissioning is supposed to set residual radioactivity Figures do not include spent fuel. levels required in order for a utility to terminate its reactor's 11. This is an approximation assuming that or 87 reactors operating license. Since maintaining a reactor's operating licensed today 44 percent are over 800 Mwe. Conservatively, license is both inconvenient and costly, utilities will have a real waste volume for smaller reactors is estimated to be one-third incentive to meet the standard that is adopted But unfor- as high as for large reactors. tunately, they also have an interest in pressing for a standard 12. Oak.et al 1980a:2-7. that will be as weak as possible. Not surprisingly, utility ex- 13. Dr. Carl Feldman (NRC), Personal Communication, 27 ecutives swamped the Commission with letters urging weak March 1984. standards for residual radiation during the comment period on 14. Smith et al. I 978b:G-27. the draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for decom- 15. Dr. Carl Feldman (NRC). Personal Communication, 27 missioning. March 1984. . I.I The NRC is expected to propose a standard or SO millirems 16. Ibid. maximum full body dose per year. (39) This is equivalent to 17. Elder and Murphy 1981:11. the radiation received From two and a hair chest X-rays, and it 18. U.S. Dept. of Energy I 984: 12. is almost one-third of the NRCs recommended average dose 19. Berick 1984:2. For the general population per year (of 170 millirems). It is one-- 20. The Energy Daily 1984 a tenth of the recommended maximum dose which an individual 21. Holter and Murphy 1983a,b. adult (as distinguished from a nuclear worker) is allowed to 22. Ibid: 2.4. receive in a year. This standard does not include radiation ex* 23. Ibid. posures to individuals caused by medical X-rays or 24. J.R. Divine (Battelle PNL). Personal Communication. 19 background ndiatiorL January 1984. Dr. Carl Feldman of the NRC has argued that the country 25. Smith et al. l 978a:9-23. may not need strong decommissioning policies to cover 26. J.R. Divine (Battelle PNL). Personal Communication, 19 residual radiation, because he expects the NRC licensing divi- January 1984. sion to require reactors to use a 10-millirem limit to meet the 27. Davis 1983:xiii. Commission's ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) 28. Ibid: 21. radiation guidelines. (36) However .if the NRC could in fact de- 29. Ibid: 32. pend on ALARA. there would be no need for the NRC to issue 30. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1981:12. a separate rule specifically addressing residual radioactivity at 31, Ibid. all. In Fact. a strong standard is required precisely because 32. Norman 1982:377. Al.ARA guidelines cannot be enforced in the same way as a 33. Resnikoff 1976. standard. 34. Smith et al. 1978:4-6. Given that the site is to be restored to general public use, it 35. Dr. Carl Feldman (NRC), Personal Communication. 27 is reasonable for the NRC to require that when decommis- March 1984. sioning is complete, the site should not contain levels or radia- 36. Dr. Carl Feldman, Personal Communication, 21 tion which are greater than the background radiation which December 1983. was allowed at the site before the reactor operated. J-65

Summary ot Estimated t:xtemal Occupational Kadiation L>oses for Decommissioning a Reference PWR Time .Alter Estimated Reactor Shutdown Dose (Years) ( Person-re*) c Immediate D1SDantlement 0 1200 Temporary Storage: Temporary Storage Preparations 0 1120 Continuing Care 10 10 30 14 SC 14 100 14 Deferred D1SDantlement 10 330 30 24 50 2 100 1 Total tor Temporary Storage with Deferred Dismantlement in Year: 10 760 30 460 50 4110 100 430 TABLE 17. footnoln:

    ~ ~ PftlllUNINI          wain nrlldor nmd 1o an 1h1* tablr

• 1hr I IJO.MWE Tro,an planl .-din 1hr 8endlr studf. froM whdl 111.. cabtir - - ncnJ*d Thia tabk don not tneludt radlAlion doen dunntt trsniaportattOCI or dovs co clw public.

d-- bDrfMNfion. of decomtnttM)tunt fflfihodt an: Al~ in Chap(C'I'" I of th,s rt'l)()rt. Temporary II<<. CONISII o( thrtt phNn: ~ M > n & Cot Mor * . (Onl1nu,td CM\'. -,d ~

    'A pcn,on-mn;. a UNI nwMU""l lfw ~ radaatMMI d o << ~ bJ 1tw npolfd populallOft. EslimMN ol prnon-ft'ffl of radaat.orl do<< ha"t' bft'ft rouf'ded lo two . .ntfacent
                 ~"-R.LSfflidl.C.iK..-.ondW.E.K-.),.T.... oalow.S.,,.~C-<fOa.
                 -

• NIJREC/CR-01:IO IW.......on. DC, U.S. Nud<s Aciu'-J C - . L Toillt U-1.

49 J-66

Table 18. Estimated Burial Volumes, Weights, and Truckloads of Radioactive Material Using Dismantlement for a Reference PWR Material Burial Weight (lb)r Truckloads Catagory Vol \.Ille ( m3 )8 ____ g Spent fuel 37 ( bare) N/ A 57 (encapsulated) Activatedb: Metal 484 3,278,600 216 Concrete 1CIT Contaminated0 : Metal & Hise. 5,465 38,381,810 967 Concrete 10,613 Radioactive Wastesd 618 NIA 180 Total 17,924 1,363 TABLE 18. footnotes "Thes., figurn ar-c, for a 1175 MWE pressurized water r-c,actor. (-) indicates this information was unavailable to the author. bActivatcd materi~s are materials made radioactive by exposure to neutrons or protons. ccontaminated material is material that has been ckpositcd on the surfaces or art inte-mally ingrain~ mto structures or equ1p~nt. or that has been mixed with anot~r materiaL dRadioactive wastt-S include used ioo exchange r~ins. cartridge filters. evaporator bottoms liquids. and miscellaneous combustible wastes. '.028317M'= I cu. ft. 1I lb=0.45359 kilograms 'Spent lucl is assumed to be shipped by rai'. U,e study assumes 28 shipments ar-c, required. Soortt: R.I. Smith, G.J. Konuk. and W .£. Kennedy. Jr, T,ch,wlogy, Safety. olfd Costs of Du:ommissioniNg A &/,,,.NCC P...ssunud Wat<r &actor Pow,r SlatioN. NUREG/CR-0130 Vol. I, (Washington, D.C U.S. Nuclear Rqulatory Commi5Slon. June 1978). Table 10.1-4. As above. Vol. 2. Table G.4'-4. G.4-5, G.4-6, and page G-30. J-67

H.adioactivity Levels in Major Activated Components at Tune of Reactor Shutdown

                                                                                     "" _ _ Ill'.,
             ... ~             Ill If *L lfe        si..-

loi.c, 4 7l a of Core .. ,re I s...... v,u11 l'!Mrc;l.t~ L-r S 01

• of Vc11 .. t W.11 ,.,,u;~:~tC*I c,;, l:-;:;****

t\. . n ,., l.D

• ID1 I* a IOO J.S , IOO s , a 10* 1 I.I a 1o*J "r, 4S ,., 4.6 I la4 4.4 a 101 z.a
• 101 1.0 I 101 l.1 a 10 1 Yeo 11 .., 1.5 I IOS 1.0 a 104 4.6
• 101 J.J I 1a2 ,., * ,oo "1, ",., I. I a 10* 1 ,.z a 10* 1 1.,
• 10* 1 z o a 10** l.l
• 10**

        '1,,                  lU Ml              l.l  I    111     I. I a IOO      5.0    I    la*I    6.1    I      10° 4     J.S a 1o*S k,_                   '* ,.,            6.1   I    104     ). 7 a  10 1    I.I    I    10)      l.l   I      1a2       4. J   I   10 1 ss,.                  l.1 ,,            I.) I     la'      I.S  1  105     ,.1

• 10 4 ). 5 , 101 7.2 1 1a2 s.z, ,, ,., a ,as 9.J a 104 4.1 , 10* l.S I 13) 1.S a 10 1

        '°c.C*> -

• 1.z a ,as J. I a 104 1.6 I 10 4 I.Z a 101 z.s , 10 1

        '\1                  -..100 ,,          1.z

• 105 I.S a 104 *.* , 101 Ua 111 1.1 * ,oa

        '1-.                 ,JSGO ,,           J.6 a 10* 1       s.z

• 10*1 l.4 a IO.z l.l a 10* 1 l.J a 10* 1

        **c                  "6.HO 1r           ,.s.      111     I.I , 10 1      I.J   I     IOO     4.0 a 10* 1             1., a      10* 1
       "*                    -.la,000 ,,       S.4   1    10°    z., a 10* 1      l.l   I     I0°I    t.S   I       IO*J "11                   ** ooo ,,         .!.:.Lwl.          I. l

• IOZ il..!.JL ).0 a 10° ).2 I 10* 2 s.,., cc,,.11 l.tl a 10' ).01 I 105 l.4S 1 ,as 1.1) I 10) t.04
• 102 Z.91 a 10 6 Z II a 10 6

, .. ,.cie,rou O.IU o.u, o. 111 o.u, o.u, 0.00) I I. /4CC) O.OII

• c.1,l<l t11*,*** l.llJ I ,a2 Z.4ll a l0 1 l.40l ! 10 1 1.UI a 10* 1 7.1'4
• 10* 2 S.154 1 10° 1.40) I !al 111,,., ** Notartal C*1> IZ,JIZ 1'.71> 10,41) l,014 zn.saz 4,617 1 . .c,

...1e11lal ).4)1 I 106 5 1.461 a 105 I. SIi a 101 I. IS, a 10* Z.01 a 104 s. 5)4 a 105

                                                                 ' * ' " a 10 IOI.IL

• ladloe,u,11.r 4. az,
• 106 c..,,..

1.716 I 1017 ~ r t h TABLE Ii. PootnolN

   'Normalized lo ahro<Jd llt!pper and 10-r bounds wen, computed using lhe maximum and minimum levels ol :ioco contaminant in the ma1enalL All tolala wen, computed using the upper bound valun.
  *Activity (Plate Avcrsge):4.74, Activity (Shroud at Plate Location)=0.005. upper plate Activity(Plate Edge)               Activity (Shroud at Axial M1dplanc) (0.08, lower plate)
   'Convtt11ion ractor asoumn stainless steel density or 8.038 x lo3 kg/m3 (0.29 lb/in.3).
  "The number of significanl fig**~, carried i1 for computational accuracy and does not imply pn,cision *~ four plae<L Sourer:      Excerpted from R.I. Smith. G.J. Konzrk. and W.E. Kennedy. Jr. Tech11alogy. Safely. a,.J Costs of Dtcon11111ss1a,,111f a lwferncr, Pressunud Watn /vactor PMJMr Sta11a,,, NUREG/CR-0130. Vol. I. (Washinglon, D.Cc U.S. Nuclear R.tgulatory Commmission. June 1978). Table 7.3-2.

51 J-68

Table 20. Decommissioning Alternatives Practical with Onsite Waste Storage Waate Storage Alternativ.e.:i. Deoom.miasioning 1. LLW Stored 2. Spent Fuel 3. Both LLW & Spent

          .Alternative                                  Onsite_                                      Star.eJLOnsit_e                           [uel Stg~d Onaite
               !ECON                              Partial DECON                               Part! al DE CON                            Partial !ECON may be
                                                 * ., be                                     ma, be                                     p-actical c practical a                                 practical b S1FSTOR                            i'ractical                                 Practical                                  Practical ENTOtl3                           Not practical                               Not practical                              Not practical TABLE 20. Footnocn:
    *Not anaJ)'U'Cf in ~ rr-port.

b.nt.. im,oh,n lhr conwnaon ol lht *Pffll furi ~ lo a rac1!.1y f<< l<l<<IICt- ol 1~ fud. and llw dtconl.arnenahon ol ttw contamnv:nt b,uld,nc a"'1 of other ona11,r llrvc:turn noc. ftft'de,d lor furi IIOf"IIIF to ~ th.It pcnn1c unl"N,fncCrd uw cNoc ane4y.wd N'l t~ rq,ort. Thea woukf bt a eomh!na&IOtl ol altn'T\lit1\o'N I and 2 Sourer: EM:np(td from C.M. Holter. ES Murphy, Td,ao/"'l'f Sii{~tr ..d Co.is of aren,...,.,..,..,-,. fwf*rna P,.,s:nnud w.,"" ~ Poc<<r S.tlCM, NURECIC'R.01 :,o Adckrldum 2. fWNtU"llon. OC.: US. Nucfnr fvlid&COfJ' Comm,uaon. July 19831. Ttbw 2 I J-69

Chapter Six National Non-Regulations and Non-Policies NRC. which has the responsibility on the rommercial side, has not deueloped cost estimates, acceptable methods. or standards nttded by industry to plan derom-decommissioning. a description of the method of assuring funds, and a mechanism for adjusting cost estimates and fund-ing levels over the life of the facility. no such requirements are II D, Z, I( a.) missioning or disposal of their facilities. NRC has not attached to the certification option. paid much attenh'on to Ont/ of the biggest problems that Utilities may select prepayment. an external sinking fund, a may confront the public in the future- that is. who will surety method o* :~~u*JJ>rP. ,n intern~ rc!'frve (either pay the cost of decomrn1ssioni11g nuclear power reactors. segregated or unsegregated) or other funding methods pro-viding comparable assurance. Only for single asset utilities,

                                    - U.S. General Accounting Office. 1977 ( l)          such as Maine Yankee with its one plant. does the Commis-G. I                                                                         sion rule out internal funding.

2. About five 5 years prior to the projected end of the reactor's Although the NRC issued a proposed rule in February, operating life, the utility is to *submit a cost estimate for 985, on decommissioning criteria for nuclear facilities (2), the decommissioning based on an up-to-date assessment or the ac-roposed rule does little to assuage the concerns reHected in tions necessary for decommissioning and. if necessary. plans he 19n GAO report cited above. While the definition of for adjusting levels of funds assured for decommissioning.'

ecommissioning contained in the proposed rule requires the (Sec. 50.54 (cc)(4)) D. a ., I tum of the property to unrestricted use, in fact, the content of Assessment of specific actions is now to replace the earlier

• 0 * ,.

the rule primarily establishes procedural guidelines for vague generalities about decommissioning. Given the current utilities to follow.

• lack of experience with decommissioning large reactors and The Commission has avoided limiting acceptable methods the lack of an independent assessment of the problems of decommissioning or making choices among the financing associated with decommissioning, this is likely to be the first alternatives available in order to assure that funds will be time there is any realistic assessment of the cost of decommis-available when needed. The critical issue of the residual sioning. Who will pay if the NRCs $100 million minimum

          £, /  I radioactivity level that will be allowed after decomn_,issioning       proves to be far too low?

f: I I has been deferred to a separate rulemaking. Worse still. the procedural requirement to assure that environmental factors are considered fully has been significantly weakened. The pro-posed rule would no longer require the NRC to prepare an en-vironmental impact statement for the decommissioning of reactors. In the one area where the Commission is specific, the stan-

3. Utilities are to submit a "decommissioning plan" when they apply for authority to terminate their license. For reactors not yet terminated. the utility must submit a plan within two years following 'pennanent cessation of operations.*

Here, at last, the NRC would require the licensee to choose an "alternative for decommissioning with a description of ac-dard is woefully inadequate. The proposed rule specifies that tivities involved.* (Sec. 50.82(b)( I)) Here, at the end or the utilities must have at least $100 million ($1984) available for reactor's useful lire. the NRC wants the utility to address how decommissioning. an amount which Chapman predicts will it plans to protect "occupational and public health and safety.~ only be sufficient to cover the entombment option (3) Here, finally, the Commission calls for an updated cost The proposed rule sets up the following procedural re- estimate for the cl.osen alternative for decommissioning and a quirements: *comparison of that estimate with present funds set aside for t). 'Z..1-( O..) I. In its application for an operating license, a utility must decommissioning .*. * (Sec. 50.82(b)(2)&(4)) select a method for collecting decommissioning funds in ac- A utility can elect to delay decommissioning 'by including a cordance with a plan approved by the NRC as providing a period of storage or long-term surveillance" in its decommis- S 3 ~i "reasonable level of assurance" that funds will be available sioning plan. The proposed rule places no time restriction on , "'f, when needed. or "a certirication that financial assurance for the period of time these options will be allowed. e~ though decommissioning will be provided in an amount at least equal discussion of the rule suggests 30-50 years will be. adequate to to $100,000,000 ( 1984 dollars) adjusted annually for inOation signiricantJy reduce radiation levels.

                   ... " (Sec. 50.33(k)( l))                                                The NRC proposes to require that decommissioning fundsJD             3    ~

While the funding plan is to contain a cost estimate for be placed in a segregated fund outside the licensee's ad- * ' 53 J-70

ministrative control during the storage or surveillance period, minated. unless the utility maintains a surety method or Fund certifica- The effectiveness of AlARA guidelines in protecting tion. (Sec.50.82(cl( I)) 1llere is no discussion of the problems a workers and the public is undercut by the cost to the utility of utility may encounter in switching from an internal exceeding the regulatory requirement(7) The NRC should set U3."l unsegregated fund where decommissioning monies have been the standard itself at IO millirems in order to protect the E.1. I invested in utility assets. There is no discussion of how to han- public, rather than depending on voluntary compliance with dle possible lack or available utility Funds. In other words, the AlARA by the utilities. NRC docs not start worrying about assuring that funds will be available for decommissioning until it could be too late. Conclusion By delaying the requirement for segregated funds until the end of a reactor's operating life. the NRC has not responded. The NRC's proposed rule is clearly inadequate from both even in spirit. to the concern embodied in the 1977 PIRG et al an environmental and economic perspective, but it should D. '3.2. l. I petition to the NRC that decommissioning Funding be assured through the posting of bonds to be held in escrow. And in-please the Atomic Industrial Forum. AIF has stated in a recent decommissioning position paper that the federal government (a.) stead or responding to GA O's concern that "the cost of decom- should not impose restrictions on utility decommissioning methods, cost estimates or financial policies.(6) The proposed missioning should be paid by the current beneficiaries. not by Future generations,"(4) the NRCs proposed rule may mean rule gives AIF most of what it wants. that ratepayers will have to pay now and later. It is not until this stage that the NRC would have enough data to develop a meaningful EIS. Only then can utilities make the critical decision or when decommis,,,..,r.ing should take place. At the time the NRC draws up an EIS, it must address the health and safety or workers and the public. This is when the public should be allowed to comment on the proposed decommissioning method and on available alternatives. Yet F: I the NRC in its proposed rule downgrades the EIS requirement presently contained in 10 CFR 51.5 to an environmental assessment An environmental assessment does not require the in-depth examination of potential envirorunental. health and safety im-pacts required by an EIS. The assessment also avoids the EIS requirement that the NRC provide a draft version to other agencies and to the public for comment and then take these comments into consideration in preparing the final EIS. Dissent by Asselstine and Bemthal Commissioners James Asselstine and Frederick BemthaJ are not satisfied with the allowance of internal unsegregated funds in the proposed rule. According to the discussion D,3.2.1.1. (4.) relating to the proposed rule they "continue to be concerned about the vulnerability of the internal Funding mechanism for decommissioning Funds, particularly where the Funds are used to purchase assets or reduce existing debt ... [They) would like public comments on the need to consider the possibility or insolv!:llcy and its impact on the continued availability of decommissioning funds. "(5) ttesidual Radiation Standards Part 2 of the NRC's proposed rule-making is expected to amend I OCFR Part 2C .o define the residual radioactivity levels that will be permitted at reactor sites released for "unrestricted use* following decommissioning. The NRC is ex-E. l. \ pected to propose setting an upper limit of 50 millirems full body dose for annual exposure levels at such sites. The rule is also expected to require compliance with AlARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) guidelines of IO millirems per year radiation levels before their operating licenses can be ter-54 J-71

Chapter Seven State Efforts: Too Little, Too Late, But Better Than Nothing Since the NRC has bttn derelict in its responsibility to pro- Therefore, many utilities have been collecting decommission-tect public health and saFety by requiring utilities to set aside ing funds on the assumption that immediate dismantlement sufficient funds for decommissioning. the burden or planning will be the method chosen In fact, this decommissioning for financing future decommissioning has Fallen on the states, method may prove to be undesirable or unworkable for most prodded by concerned citizens; but even this has been slow in companies. Gd coming. In cases where the utilities have taken on the task themselves, they have done so in ways to promote their own Both state legislatures and state regulatory commissions have been involved in developing decommissioning policies selF-interest for the private utilities.. Maine established a state commission Because decommissioning represents a saFety concern, as to study the problem and then submitted decommissioning well as a cost recovery concern, state action alone is not suffi- legislation to the legislature. The commission's proposal cient The NRC must set the standards which must be met subsequently passed. In other states such as Illinois (where Strong national policy-making in this area is urgently needed. Business and Professional People in the Public Interest pro-posed a bill to require the use of external sinking funding). What the States have Done citi;r.en groups have lobbied to bring about changes in state Today, 27 years after the beginning of utility ventures into policies. State regulatory commissions have considered decommis-D*8' 3* I nuclear power production, utilities in 4 out or 28 states with sioning both in specific rate cases and in 'generic' hearings on operating commercial reactors have still not collected any the issue. In rate cases, utilities themselves have requested per-decommissioning Funds for thdr *eactors. Eleven nuclear mission to begin including decommissioning funds in their utilities have waited For ten years or more after the startup of rates. Generally, the utilities making such requests reveal their their nuclear plants before beginning to collect decommission- tentative plans for decommissioning and the financing ing money. Table 4 lists data on state-by-state decommission- methods they will use. It many cases, this has opened up the ing efforts. issue for debate and prompted action by concerned ratepayers. In the majority of states where collection of decommission- In most states, the private utilities have fought hard for the use ing funds has been required. utilities are allowed to use inter* of unsegregated internal funding. nal unsegregated funding. described in Chapter 4 as "phantom The nation's public power systems have generally preferred funding" schemes. These funds, being collected for 55 reactors lo finance decommissioning through internal segregated fund-in 16 states, have provided more than $500 million in internal* ing. Such recommendations made by their staff members to ly generated funds for the utilities involved. utility planning boards have been accepted without controver-The majority of publicly owned systems and some private sy. To date no public-owned system has formally considered D.l3.I systems have avoided "phantom funding* and have instead the use of external sinking funds. selected internal segregated funding of decommissioning. External sinking funds, the most stringent fonn, are now re- What Citizen Groups Haw: Done quired in eight states-California, Colorado, Maine, Mississip-pi, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Ver- Grassroots political battles over decommissioning have mont In New Hampshire and Mississippi the reactors to be focused primarily or. the financing methods involved, but also covered by such funds are not in operation yel In California, have touched on the decommissioning methods that will be the requirement for external sinking funds is new, and the allowed and on future legal liability for the costs. Local citi1.en state's utilities have IIOl yet bttr . ~quired to switch over to it groups have foogh, for the use of external sinking funding. What about state-level controls over cost estimates for Suc:cessful state policy initiatives calling for external sinking decommissioning? As noted elsewhere, the cost estimates used funding are listed in Table 21. The table shows such policy in-in the utility industry vary widely. In some cases they are set at itiatives occurring in eight states-California, Colorado, l O percent of the cost of construction, following the lead of the Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi., New Hampshire, Penn-Battelle PNL studies; in others, they are whatever a utility sylvania, and Vermont Citi?.en groups spearheaded successful believes will be allowed. No state has yet made a final judg- efforts in California, Colorado and Pennsylvania ment on which decommissioning methods must be used. In fact, this understates the amount of citizen activity on ex-55 J-72

temal sinking funding. Citizen pressure also indirectly helped Generally. citizen groups working on decommissioning have to insure action by the legislature or the local public service put pressure on their state public scrvi<< commissions commission in Massachusetts and Maine. Grassroots activitv whenever possible and have turned to the legislative arena on-on the financing issue also preceded action by the Feder,;I ly when it becomes clear that the commissions are unfavorable Energy Regulatory Commission. which brought about exter* to their perspectives and their cori'--ems. Therefore. most nal sinking funding in Vermont In Mississippi. FERC action decommissioning decisions to date have been handled in utili-largely brought about the external sinking fund mandated for ty rate cases and in *generic" hearings on decommissioning. the Grand Gulf I reactor. Such efforts by citizen groups and state agencies to tackle Citizen groups in three states have focused organizing ef. the complexities of decommissioning are commendable. forts on how reactors should be decommissioned. They have However, a state-by-state. case-by-case approach to decom-taken somewhat different positions on which of the three ma- missioning is no substitute For a coherent national policy on jor decommissioning methods is suitable for reactors in their the subject-particularly when good state decommissioning areas. policies stand in danger of being overruled at any time on the In Maine, for instance. Safe Energy for Maine (SEM) in- national level. To insure that the victories citizens have troduced legislation in 1981 to prohibit either the temporary achieved at the state level will be preserved. while the ir-storage or the entombment of the Maine Yankee plant The responsible decommissioning policies adopted by utilities in measure did not pass. but may be reintroduced. SEM believes some states are reversed. it is essential that responsible citizen that Maine Yankee will be a safety liability until it is dis- organizations. lawmakers. and public officials work for ade-mantled and removed from the reactor site. quate policy-making on decommissioning by the Nuclear In California. similarly. the Redwood Alliance is fighting Regulatory Commission. Pacific Gas and Electric Co."s decision to use temporary Until the NRC adorts national decommissioning policies storage as the decommissioning method for the Humboldt Bay that assure adequate fu. ,u,ng dnu fJr0lcct wori...ers and the reactor. The Alliance believes it is irresponsible not to disman- public, the integrity of the decommissioning process will be tle Humboldt Bay. especially given its location on an earth- threatened by utilities and the nuclear industry pursuing quake fault short-run objectives. In Pennsylvania. however. Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety is opposing the rapid dismantlement of the Saxton reac-tor by General Public Utilities. The Saxton reactor. operated Footnotes, Chapter 7 by the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation or SNEC. I. U.S. General Accounting Office 1977. was shut down and placed in temporary storage years ago and 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1977. is scheduled for dismantlement in 1987. Concerned Citizens 3. Ibid. fears that General Public Utilities is incapable of carrying out 4. U.S. House of Representatives 1977:411. the work safely or at a reasonable cost In 1983. the citizens 5. Atomic Industrial Forum 1983. group was successful in delaying the reactor*s dismantlement 6. lb1d. for an additional 14 years. until 1997. 7. Schilling et al. 1979:2-33-34. Citizen groups have also been concerned about the ine- 8. Ibid: 2-17. 4Uitable treatment of decommissioning costs: and again. dif- 9. Ibid: 2-16. ferent citizen organizations have defined the issue in different 10. Dr. Carl Feldman (NRC), Personal Communication. 12 ways. July 1983. In California hearings on Humboldt Bay. for instance. the 11. Engineering News Record 1984:26. Redwood Alliance has challenged the proportions of decom-missioning costs that are to be allocated to stockholders and ratepayers. The Alliance has argued that Pacific Gas & Electric waited ten years to begin collecting funds for Humboldt Bay"s decommissioning. thereby unfairly burdening its current ratepayers. Accordingly. the group has fought in regulatory commission hearings to have decommissioning costs allocated to stockholders as well as ratepayers. through a three-to-one splil In Vermont the Vermont Yankee Decommissioning l\lliance and 1he Vermont Public Interest Research Group argue ratepayers should pay 50 percent or less of decommis-5ioning costs. A bill to divide Vermont Yankee*s decommis-sioning expenses evenly between ratepayers and stockholders was introduced in the state legislature in 1983. The groups in-tend to pursue this policy again in future legislative sessions. In Pennsylvania. Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety fought in 1983 for a delay in General Public Utilities* collection of decommissioning funds for Saxton. J-73

External Sinking Funding Policy Initiatives for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 1984 State PerUnent rear H1u::b1a1a hu: .'1wl.a :i11111111rr.1r .RI .llll1m'. Onita Enacted Leg1alat1on PSC PBRC Utility PSC Cl.tu.en Other

                                                                                                                &ctionb          &otion°                                                 Group cad              ill 6                               1983                                                   X                                                         X              xi Nuclear Plaata 00               Ft. St.                             1980                                                   X                                                         X              X Train 1£e               Ha.iae                              1982                                I                                                                                                                 xk Yankee K&                 tallkee                            1981                                                                            I                I Rove P1lgr111S                          1983                                                     I HS               Grand                               19811                                                                           I Gulf t and 2 NHe               Seabrook                            1981                                X                                                                                            xJ 1 and 2 P&r              Salem

• 1 !11'8 X X X xl VT Venaontb 19811 X X tanlme TA8l.£ 21. Foo1no1t, 1Rcdwood Aa.nar .-cl ottwr&.

'Ea.....,..~ fundin& ** financin&~ whl("h rtqUlt'CI 1hel r u n c t . f << ~ JJanwt B. Wlllr.e,-, a citUlffl. a,e drpouttd "'an accounll ouc&ldt dw ut1hfy't controt m.napd by.,. Ol!' it lr.l!Rft' .-.. ' *.-d Ill IIOIHltHlty -.ta.

                                                                                                                  \ <<w Stalt l..tplat1w COlnlMtttt.
   ~ no1 cbcnbtd in dw lablr. nlenlal IIM"'I

_.,.....,.,,_""'_".._111111_,.........,_<Psc,.,...,.._11. fund** polenN haw bftn pn,poerd a III '-c......... -..oor.... '"-Cl-I,.._..... Mod,. . . 119791 PSC ......... M,-. ll!IOOJ PSC ........ and CA-N-'- "-"'r O . - - - , C-"Ca Pub UC._ c....._ 0 . . - No.

                                                                                                                                --Oil. 52 ..... Ubl. ......... 6111111131 W---. ll912. 1913) ~ C°Nlllffl P'OUPI 11111..aed ar ~ rilorts ... .ii cl 1hnt IIMn. WldtCknU'plNMal ~                                                                                                          .......,c.......-c_._...,....u1..... -cA.Ju(,1.19o.1.

"iosc*--c-,., .... ,......_.,__1 n........,....,_.,...__ lrowMll.aililinOlldw ..... '""4.. CO-IW6r-Ce -,c...... c..._....,_ UOI.C-.O.C.-No.CI02346. 52 ....,_ Ulil. Rip. 4'11 22! (l!Nlli &:FERC*,..,_. F.nrrv ..........., C ~ This ag,rncy ftllllaln all uhlllwa tn.ohoed "' ME-Me. Rev. SloL AM. TM. JS Soc. JJSS WIil> -~ll'lec1naty ..... MA-- U... Ca. - OrpL ol M. Ut,L C - . Doc ... No. I 350. s.1 Pvb d A fiMI _., hid ftOI pct bem HleWd III ttus c.. ol Dr<<mbrr 1914 u........ 4tb :149 (I 111,11. .............. indwdrd. ftlWINllff ol ottwt' ,...,......,..., Y*'- - - Co. 15 Ff.RCS.... 63. OIT Cl!NIIL 'n.. ... Pft'C'C'denl tdl. . ('llit 11,iuch ltd k> tht ...tahh.timml o f " ~ lffltlftC ri.nt, .. ro.. alt MS-&-S,,,.,*F- .... 26fERCScat 6.1.0C41191141 ~ , t v - ut1lillft. NH-Nii Rn SIM. AM. S<< 162-f* 19'21119111. ~ I t P\i~ic lnle'f'nl Rnca<<h Group tud supportn;f "111lataon rtq1unr11 Htt'fNrl ,,,,., Pi\-h-11. A,W~ U,J,1,n C,-* to Pfu.J.NI,,... i:.1<< Co. Pmn. Pub U,11 (."Offllft... "'I tund1na pnor 10 1tw 1,1aw 0rp.anmtl"t ol f\.ihloe Ut1lt11N ordn-0oo,t No RID-*28 119781 "vffllllllll Yenlift 0.:CINl'IIIIIIIIIOl\i"I pond ........ ,..... . . All~ and VfflllOnt Pubttc lnltfffl Rnraml Croup IUP*

                              .,.lefflel ......... fullld1 r- 1o 1hr FERC rvl;...

VT-Ff.RC uflff o..tn, _ .. s.,,,._,. _ ,...............1. ~ - y ..... Nud_. - Corp. FR 1.1 142. l4]. Apnl l. I - 57 J-74

Appendix A Public Citizen's 1984 Decommissioning Survey The Public Citi2:en Decommissioning Policy Survey ex- tional data was collected through follow-up phone calls to plored recent developments in decommissioning policy and ex- most or the utilities. The author was unable to obtain data amined critically the implications or "de rac10* policy-making from the Philadelphia Electnc Company. by the utility industry. Further infonnation was obtained from conversations with The author collected this data for the first time in 1981, as utility staffers. state utility commission staff and employees of part or work for the University Resean:h Group on Energy the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). During a (URGE) at Cornell University. Although published in ag* five-month period from January to May of 1984, additional gregate fonn in an URGE monograph in 1982, none of the in* telephone calls were made to utilities and regulatory commis* fonnation obtained in the survey has ever been collected on a sions lo clarify infonnation that had been received previously. plant by plant basis and made available before. The survey collected data on 87 of the nation's 89 licensed The questionnaire used in the survey consisted of seven reactors. For these reactors, it achieved a response rate of 100 questions covering three major policy areas: decommissioning percent However, the survey did not obtain data on the cost estimates, decommissioning financing methods, and LaSalle 2 and WPPSS 2 reactors, since they were not yet decommissioning procedures. Data entries for these questions operating. making such infonnation difficult to obtain. In addi-were collected through a several-step process. Fin;t the ques- tion some decommissioning cost estimates provided by tionnaire was sent to the principal nuclear utilities. Then addi- utilities lacked sufficient detail. 1984 Utility Decommissioning Policy Questionnaire Please answer each question where applicable for each in- 4. How often are the cost esttmates currently updated? Please dividual plant owned or partially owned by your utility. distinguish between updating to account for inflation and com-plete revision for estimates. I. Have your company's decommissioning policies or cost estimates been changed since January 1982 other than to ac-- 5. What decommissioning method is currently assumed for count for inflation? tr so, please describe these changes. ratemaking purposes? If different what decommissioning method is currently scheduled for the plant?

2. Please describe the study or methods used by your com-pany to detennine decommissioning cost estimates, financing 6. What financing mechanism is currently being used to accrue mechanisms and tentative type of decommissioning planned. funds? Please be as specific as possible in describing whether monies are held internally or externally.

3. What are the estimated costs of decommissioning the plant (in 191\4 dollars) for each method considered? Please list 7. What funds have been acc. ued to date for decommission-estimated costs by method. ing? Please specifv by unit or 1n aggregate for all units.

8. Whal year wil! the plant"s operating license expire?

J-75

Joseph Benish George Metzger Keith Beny Fred Miller Don Bigue Neil Palmer Robert C. Brown Denise Parrish Rosemary Bruster Carl Patrick Bill Carter Candy Patten Gary Connett David Patten Dick Daven John Pearson James Durrell Dennis Pooler Roger Dyer David Porter Jim Elliott Sam Powers J.H Francis Robert Rosenthal Ben Garrett Myra Shaunessy Carl Green Robert Shaw Tom Grooms Doug Short John Hasslebring Richard Shimshak Dan Hoppe Larry Shriner Brad Johnson Tun Simonson Ira Kaplan Jay Stewart Vince La Barbera William Stimart Rodney Larson Charles Stults Bob Lathem Jim Tascas R.H Leasburg Brad Thomas John Marcel Gene Trouba Bill Marshall Alfred l.leberroth Richard Marshall Nelson Updaw Mike Mauer John Varner Bill McGee Ray Vawter Dick Mc Caughey Dan Vollum Terry Mc Keighan Randy Watts Ben Melton 59 J-76

Appendix B l...icmsed Cornmen:ial Nuclear Power Plants 1985

     -               Uall c...--

Southern Co. o--.oi, 100.0 c-dol 0,,.-.. (NWl:I 860.0 Uall T,,. *I p f"Airley 1

                                                                      ..                12/77 AL Farl*r 2           Sout.hern Co.                                100.0     7/81        860.0     p Browne Feery l     Tenn*****     V*lley Auth.                  100.0      J/74     100.0        a Browne Feriry 2 Browne Ferry J Tenneaaee     Valley Auth.

Tenneeaee Valley Auth. . 100.0 100.0 l/74 l/77 1067.0 1067.0 II B AR Ark. Nuclear- l Hlddle South uuuu** 100.0 12/74 8SO.O p Ark. Nuc:le*r 2 Middle South Utllltles 100.0 J/80 912.0 p CA Hwoboldt Bay (cl Pacific 0.*, Elec. co. ,, 100.0 l/6] 6S.O B Dlablo Canyon l P*clflc Gu , Elec. Co. 100.0 l/84 1084. 0 p Rancho Seco Sacra. .nto Huniclpal San Onofre (c) Utility Di*trlct

• Southern Cal. F.dlaon Co.

San Diego Gas 1, Elec.

                                                                         . 100.0 eo.o 20.0 4/75 1/68 918.0 06.0       p p

San onotre Southern Cal. Edi*on Co. 75.0 8/83 1100.0 p San Die90 Gao, Elec. Co. 20.0 Rivera id* Pub Ii c Uti l . LB San Onofre J Anabel* Elect. Div. Southern Cal. ltdiaon Co. San Olego Gas 1, Elec. Co.

                                                                         .       J.2 75.0 20.0 1/84 (d) 1100.0       p Riveraide Public Util.                         \.8 Anahel11 Elect. Div.                           ]. 2 co        Ft. st. vrain l    Puhl le Serv. Co. of Colorado*                                   100.0      1/79        JJO.O er       Connecticut Yantee Hllhtone 1 Conn. Yan1itee A.ta.le Northeaat Utilltle*

P...,. Co. . 100.0 100.0 1/68 12/70 582.0 660.0 ff p B Hllhtone 2 Northeast Utiliti.es 100.0 12/75 869.0 p R. Cryatal Rlv*I[' Fla. Pwr. Corp. Se*inole Elec. Coop.

                                                         .                      90.0 I. 7 l/77       880.0       p Orlando Utll. ca-.                             1.6 Ot.hera                                        6.7 Turlcey Point 3     Fla. Pwr. .. u. co

• 100.0 12/72 660.0 p Turkey Paint 4 St. Lucie 1 St. Lucie 2 Fla.

Fla .. Fla. Pwr. a. Lt. Co. Pwr, " Lt. Co, Pwr, "1.t.. Co. . 100.0 100.0 100.0 9/7J 12/76 S/83 660.0 822.0 786.0 p p p OA [.1win l, Hatch South*rn Co. S*). l J2/7S ,',.() h

                                  <>9lethocpe Elec.

Nun. Elec. Aut.horlt.y of CA Corp. )0.0

17. 7 City of Delton. Co\ 2.2 Edvin I. Hetcb 2 S0uthern Co. SO, I

                                  <>9lethorp& £lee. Hea1. Corp.                 JO.O     9/79        ,,r:.o     8 Hun. Elec. Auth. of Ga.                       17.7 City of O.lton, GA.                            2.2 Ol"e*d*n 1 (cl
                                                                ...                                  207 .o IL                           Coaaonwealtn Ed. Co.                         100.0     8/60                   B Oreaden 2          COlalanwea 1th Ed. Co.                       100.0     8/70        794.0      B Dreaden )          c,-,..wealth Ed, co.

Zion 1 Zion 2 c-nwe*lt.h Ed. Co. COlllaOnwea 1 t.h Ed. Co. .. 100.0 100.0 100.0 10/71 10/73 9/74 794.0 1040.0 1040.0 B p p Quad Cltlo Quad CltlH 2 C:C-On-alth Ed. Co. r-.-n. GIia la Elec. Co. C.-onveal th Ed. Co. lova-u. Gu !lee. Co.

                                                                  ..            75.0 zs.o 75.0 8/72        789.0     B La Sdle l          r~wealth Ed. Co.  '                           25.0 100.0 10/72 10/82 (d) 789.0 1078,0 IA        Duane Arnold l     Iowa Elec.      u.   .. Pwr. Co.              10.0     2/75        5)8,0      I Central !°"a Pvr. Coop                        20.0 Corn Belt Pv-r. Coop                          10,0 J-77

..... , .. , \t1,\(., '"' T~ p,r **'

\I[  "1aine Yankee                                                IC).O    11 / 72

alvert Cllffs Ba.lt1more Gas , E:lec. Co.

• IC~.O 5/75 Calvert Cliffs Baltimore Gas, Elec. Co. IGJ.O 4/ 7 7 Pilgrim l Boston Ed1son Co.
• IC~.O 12 ;72

'"   \'ank.ee Rowe            Yankee Ato~ic [lee. Co.             ICC .Q     7 .'El B

p Conaamers P,..,Y. Co. *

'"   Big Rock Pt.

Palisades l l Consumers P\Jr. Co.

• ICO.O IC). 0 3 /63 12172 6J. Q 15 i. 0 B

p Donald c. Coo\c Al'\erican Electric Power Co.

• ICO.O 7 '6 l l: JC.~  ?

Donald C. Cool( "1nerican Electric Po.,.*er Co,

• lCO.O 1>10 1:oc.~

1,.:. 0  : ~::.:

 '"  :-'onticello l Pra1r1e Island Northern Sta:es ?'wr. C,::,.

Northern States ~Jr, Co. lCO.Q 6/71 12/7)  ::JC.') Prairie Island Northern States P...."r. C,::,. lCQ.Q l2/74  ; J:.:

     ~t"and Gulf     l (d)    Hi.ddle South Energy Corp.                     7 ..'84 <:!I i. 2 5(. r:
 ,.  :::ooper fort Calhoun Sebrasi(a P,...,r-. P*Jb. Dist.

• Oma.ha Pub. ?-wr. :lst.
• 1c:. o li::. I)

                                                                                              ~ 7~.::
                                                                                              .;~f. ".:

Oyster Creek. General PubllC Ut1l1ties 100.~ 650.0 B

 "    Sale:n l                Public Serv. £lee. , Gas.

• 80.~ 1190.0 p Atlantic city £lee. Co. lC.i:

General Publlc Utilities 10.f) Salem 2 Public Serv. £lee. , Gas

• 80.1') lC/81 1190.0 Atlantic City £lee. Co. lO.C General Publ1c Utilities 10.Q

 ,,    Indian Pt.. l (c)      Consolidated Edison Co.

• lCO.o l960 275.0 p Indian Pt. 2 Conaolidated Ediaon Co.
• lOO.Q 8/73 87),0 p Indian Pt. l PwT Authorlty St. of NY* 100.0 8/76 965.0 p Fitz.Pate iclc Pw'r Authority St. of NY
• lOO.O 7/75 82l,O B Nine Hile Point Niagara Mohawk ?i.T. Corp.
• lOO.O 12/69 620.0 B Ginna 1 Rocheater Ga1, Elec. Co.
• 100.0 10/86 470.0 p Brunawick Carolina Pwr. , Lt. Co.
• 81. 7 3/77 790,0 B N.C. Ea1tern Huni. l8.J Brunawick Carollna ~ , L t . C o .
• 81.7 H.C. !a*t*rn Hunl. 18.J 11/75 790.Q B HcCui.re Dulite Pwr. Co.
• lOO.O 12/81 U8o.o p HcGuir* 2 Oulite Pvr. Co.
• lOO.O 3/84 (d. 1180.0 p OH O.via-B**** l Toledo Edieon Co.
• 49 0 11/77 890.0 Cleveland Elec. Illu~. Co. 51.0 Oil Portland G4n. !lee. Co.
• 64.5 5/76 1230.0 EU<J*n* Wtr., !lee. Board 30.0 Pac1f1c Pwr., Lt. co. 2.5 Beaver Valley l Duque1ne Lt. Co.
• o.s l0/76 833.0

 "     ThrH Mlle I1.

CIilo Edhon Co. (c)General Public Ut1l1t1**

• JS.O so.o 9/74 919.0 Jer1ey Central Pwr.
• Lt. Co. 2s.o Penneylvan1a Elec. Co. 2s.o Three MU* Io. (c)General Publlc Utllltl**
• 50.0 12/78 906.0 p Jer1ey Central Pwr., Lt. Co. 25.0 Pennaylv*ni* Elec. Co. 2s.o Su1quehanne 1 Penn1ylvanla Po.tr. Co.
• 90.0 6/83 lOSO.O Allegheny Elec. Coop. 10.0 61 J-78

Staw u.. 1-... .

                                                                                   ~

c-_..w (MWE> u.o T)'Pt(al

..           Peach BottCMa 2           Phll. Elec. co.

Pub. Serv. Elec. &. Ga* Co. Delaarva p,,,r. &. Lt. co. .. 42.4 42.4 1.,

• 7/74 1065.0 B 1.,

Peach Bottoa Atlantic City Elec. Co. Phll. Elec. Co. Pub. Serv. !lee. &. Ga* Co. oe1 . . rva Pwr. , Lt. Co.

                                                                                 . 42.4 42.4 7.6 12/74          1065.0        B Atlantic City Elec. Co.                         7.6 Shlpplngport              u.s. Dept. of Energy

• 100.0 12/57 72.0 L SC H.B. Robin*on 2 Carol in& Pwr. Lt. Co. 100.0 )/;: 665.0 p Oconee 1 Dul<e PYr. Co. 100.0 7/;l 860.0 p Oconee 2 Dul<* p,,,r. Co. 9/7~ 860.0 p Oconee Sunner 1

                      )                Dul<e PYr. Co.

s.c. s.c. Elec. , Gae co. Public Serv. Auth.

                                                                       .            100.0 100.0 67.0
                                                                                      )).0 12/H 11/2 860.0 900.0 p

p TN Sequoyah 1 Sequoyah 2 Tenneaaee Valley Auth. Tenneeaee Valley Auth.

                                                                          ..        100.0 100.0 7 /El 6/62 1148.0 1148. 0 p

p VT Ver.ant Yan1itee Vt. Yankee Nu...:lear

                                                                            .       100.0    11/72             514.0      8 VA           Suety 1 Surry 2 Vlrglnla Vlrglnla Elec.

Elec.

                                                             .. Pvr.

Pvr

• co.

Co. ... 100.0 100.0 12/7 2 5/7) 775.0 775.0 p p North Anna North Anna Vlrglnia Vlrglnia Elec.

                                                   !lee. ..

• Pvr.

Pvr. co

• Co * . 100.0 100.0 6/78 12/8:J 877.0 890.0 p

p WA Hanford-N u.s. Dept. of Energy 100.0 li,'66 860.0 G WI LaCroaae Point Beach l Dairyland PYr ** Coop. Wlo. Elec. p,,,r

• Co. .. 100.0 100.0 11/69 l2/70 50.0 497.0 B

p Point. Beach 2 Kewaunee 1 Wia. Elec. p,,,r. Co. wlo. Pub. Serv. Corp. Wia. p,,,r *

• Lt. Co.

                                                                        .           100.0 41.2 41.0 10/72 6/74 497.0 5)5.0 p

p Hadieon Ga.a&. Elec. Co. 17.8 Footnotes Designates pnnc1ple unit owners, or units for which data was collected to date.

• 1n,s table includes both inoperable reactors and plants with low or foll power licenses not yet commerical. WPPSS 2 and La Salle 2. both in th,s category an: not included.

bR= Boiling Water Reactor* P= Pressurized Water ~actor 11= High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor G=Graph1tc Reactor L= Lighl Water Breeder Reactor c1n1s unit 1s inoperable. "This unit d0<,s not yet have a commercial operating license,. The date listed is either the dace a lower-power operaltng license or a full-power license, was issued. Source: Atomic Industrial Forum. "Nuclear Power Plants in the United Slates-January I, 1984° (Bethesda. MD. Atomic Industrial Forum, 19841. J-79

Appendix C Diagram of a Pressurized Water Reactor Vessel PIUSSURIZ[D WAHR REACTOf< IPWRl, A'.> WllH THE BOILER IN A COAL*. OIL-OR GAS-BURNING POWER PLANT, A NUCLEAR POWER REACTOR PRODUCES '.>TEAM TO DRIVE A lURBINE WHICH TURNS AN ELECTRIC GENERATOR. INSTEAD Of BURNING FOSSIL fU[L, A RE.ACTOR I 1!>510N5 NUCLfAR I UH TO PRODUCE HEAT TO MAKE THE STE.AM. THl PWR SHOWN HERE IS A TYPE Of REACTOR FUELED BY SL ICHTL Y PRESSURIZED WATER REACTOR (PWR) ENRICHED URAl~IUM IN THE FORM Of URANIUM OXIDE PELLETS HELD IN ZIRCONIUM ALLOY TUBES IN THE CORE. WAlER IS PUMPED THROUGH THE CORE TO TRANSFER HEAT TO THE STEAM GENERATOR. THIS COOLANT WATER IS KEPT UNDER PRESSURE IN Tllf CORf 10 PREVENT BOILING AND TRANSHRS HEAl TO THE WATER IN THE STE.AM GENERATOR TO MAKE THl !>TEAM. THREE U. '.>. COMPANIES MANutAClURE

                                                         !'WK!>* Wl!>IINGliOU!>l ll[ClRIC t:ORP .* t:OMBU!>IION [NGINffRING. INC..

AND Hi£ BABt:OCK & WILCOX CO.

                                        ~TEAM GENERATOR c....

I c,, c.> CONTROL RODS X co 0 I TURBINE GENERA TOR t CONDENSER COOLING

                                    .                                                                              WATER

64 J-81

Bibliography Andenoo, P. 1984: The Financing of Utility Holding Com, GPU Nuclear Corporation 1983: "Saxton Nuclear Experimen-panies, Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Madison. tal Corporation-Facts on Dismantlement,* GPU Nuclear Corp. Middletown PA. 4 April. Atomic Industrial Forum 1983: "AIF Organization Members," factsheet. Washington D.C. Hershey, RD. Jr~ 1984: "Bills Seek to Clarify Tax Status of

   -1983: "An Overview of Decommissioning Nuclear                   Nuclear Shutdown Costs." New York Times. Section D, p.4, Power Plants," Bethesda MD.                                       26 April.
   - Fall 1983: National Environmental Studies Project Newsletur, Bethesda MD.                                         Hindman, S.. Chapman, D~ Cole. K. 1982: Stau &gulatory Policies for Privakly Owned Electric Util,hes ,n 1981. Cor-
   - 1984: "Nuclear Power Plants in the United States,"

nell University, Ithaca NY. A.E. Res. 82-31. Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. Washington D.C. Beridc, D. 1984: "Department of Energy High-Level Nuclear Holter G.M~ Murphy ES. 1983: Technology, Safety and Costs Waste Program," statement before the Advisory Commit- of Decommissioning a &ferena Pressuru.ed Water R.eoctor Power Station. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. tee on Alternative Means of Financing and Managing Washington D.C~ NUREG-0672. Addendum I, July. Radioactive Waste Facilities, 22 February.

                                                                     -1983: Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomm1ss,on1"9 Bums & Roe 1981: Project Plan for Dismantling of the Sax-            a Reference Pressun'zed Water Reactor Pawer Stah*on.

ton Nuclear Experimental Facility, Bums and Roe In- NUREG/CR-0130, Addendum 2, July. dustrial Services Corp., 25 November. Komanoff, C. 1981: Power Plant Cost Escala .. on. Van Chapman, D. 1980: Nuclear Economies: Taxation, Final Nostrand Publishing Co. Inc .. New York NY. Cost, and Decommissionirtg, California Energy Commis-sion, Sacramento CA, November. Maw; K. 1984: "fMl-2 Cleanup: Radiation Dose Much Higher than was Thought.* The Energy Daily. King Chernick P.L et al~ 1981: Design. Costs and Acceptability Publishing Group, Washington D.C. 12(4). of an Electric Utility Self-Insurance Pool for Assun*rtg the Adequacy of Funds for Nuclear Power Plant Decommis-Manion W.J. & LaGuardia, T.S. 1976: An Engineenng fatalua-sioning Expense: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, h'on of Nuclear Pawer Reactor Decomm1ssion1rtg Alter-Washington D.C. NUREG/CR-2370. natives, Atomic Industrial Forum. Inc~ Washington D.C. AII/NESP-009. Clewett J. 1983: Nucrear Power Safety Report, Public Citizen, Washington D.C. Murphy, ES. & Holter, G.M. 1982: Technology. Safety, and Costs of Decommi<;Sionmg Reference Light Water Reactors Davis M.S. 1983: The Impact of L WR Decontaminations on Following Postu/aud Aa:idents. Nuclear Regulatory Com-Solidification. Wasu Disposal and Associaud Occupa- mission, Washington D.C. NUREG/CR-2601, Volume I. tional Exposure, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. NUREG/CR-3444. Norman, C. 1982: "A Longterm Problem for the Nuclear In-dustry," Science, 215 22 January. Elder H.K., Murphy E.S. 1981: "Waste Management Con-siderations in Nuclear Facility Decommissioning," Bat- Nuckar F~ Tames 1983: 1ne Redwood Alliance's Position.* telle Pacific Northwest Lab, Richland WA, PNL- Arcata, CA. Fall. SA-8886. -1983 "PG&E to Ratepayers: Hands Up" Fall, p.8. Nudeoaics Week, 1983: 'Commonwealth Edison is Plann-T1re EPU!.rgy Doily 1983: "Repository Schedules Slipping in ing to Begin Decontamination of Dresden-I," McGraw-Hill, DOE Nuclear Waste Pn>Rr'am," Washington D.C. Inc., Washington D.C. 24 November. 11(238):3.

                                                                     - "Utilities Retiring Nuclear Plants will have Unrecovered
   - 1984: "States Attack Energy Department Plans fo Fuel Costs," 24 November.

Nuclear Waste Siting" King Publishing Group, Washington D.C. 12(8\. Oak, llD., Holter, GM. Kmnedy, W.E. JR., Komek G.J. 1980: Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Energy .lnfonnation Administration 1983: Survey of &fermce Eoil:ng Water React,or Power Station, US. Nuclear Power Plant Construction Costs, U.S. Depl of Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington D.C. Energy- Energy Information Administration, NUREG/CR-0672, Volume I, June. Washington D.C~ DOE/EIA-0439(83).

                                                                     -Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Enviromncntal Action Foundation. 1984: "Electric Utility              lw/erma Boiling Water &actor Power Station, Phantom Taxes, 1982" Environmental Action Founda-                  NUREG/CR-0672, Volume 2.

tion, Washington D.C. Percival, RV. & Roe, D.B. 1981: Opening Brief of Environmen-Fenn, Scott, 1984: Americas Electric Utilities-Urukr Siege tal Defense Fund. Case No. 28059 New York StatP Public and in Transition., Praeger Publishers, New York, NY. Service Commision, 15 Decemh,,,r. 65 J-82

Pfeffer, Jeny L and William W. Lindsay, 1984: The Nar- US General Acoounting Office 1977: Ckanmg "P the Remains ragansett Doctrine. National Regulatory Research Institute, of Nuclear Facilitiu-A Multi-billion Dollar Prob/on, US Ohio State University. Government Printing Office. Washington D.C. Philadelphia Inquirer 1983: "Plan to Dismantle Reactor Pro- US House or Representatives 1977: Nuclear Power Costs. tested; Section A p.6, 6 April. Hearings Before a Subcommittee on Government Opera-tions, House of Representatives, US. Government Printing Resnikoff, M. et al 1976: Activation Products in a Nuclear Office, Washington D.C, 95th Congress. First Session, Reactor. New York Public Interest Research Group, Albany 1977. NY. US House of Representatives 1979: Nuclear Power Costs, US. Resnikoff, Marvin, 1983: The Next Nuclear Gamble, Council Government Printing Office. Washington D.C" House on Economic Priorities. New York. Report No. 95-1090, 95th Congress. Second Session. 1978. Ryan, M. 1983: "GPU Nuclear Facing Big Cut in 1MI-2 US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1978: Plan for Reevalua-Cleanup Funding." Nucleonics Week. McGraw Hill. New tion of NRC Policy on Decommissioning of Nuclear York NY 24(42) 20 October. Faa1ities, NUREG-0436 Rev. 1. Savage, JA 1983: "Paying for PG&E's Mistake," Nuclear Free -1981: Draft Qneric Environmental Impact Statement, Times. Redwood Alliance, Arcata CA, Fall. US Nuclear Regulatory Convnission. Washington D.C. NUREG-0586. Schiling. A.H., Lippek, H.E., Tegler, PD. & Easterling. JD. 1979: Decommissioning Commercial Nuclear Facilities: A Wall Street Journal 1984: "Fearing Slower Demand for Rei,ew and Analysis of Current Regulations. US. Nuclear Energy, Utilities Move Into New Businesses", 4 September. Regulatory Commission. Washington D.C. Wittenbrodc, N.G. 1982: Technology, Safety and Costs of NUREG/CR-0671. Nuclear Reactors at Multipk-Reactcr Stations, Nuclear Simison. R.L & McCoy, C.F. I 984: "Nuclear Utilities' Money Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. Raising is Disrupted by lnduslly Problems," Wall Street NUREG/CR-1755. Journal p.35, 14 February. Wolf, s.M. 1983: "Hazardous Waste Trials and Tribulations," Skinner, P.N. I 977: "Comparative Economics,* testimony Environmental Law, Northwestern School of Law, Portland before New York Public Service Commission, Case 2697 4, OR. 13(2). 2 December. Wood, RS 1983: Assuring the Availabi1ity of Funds for Smith, R.I" Komek, G.J. & Kennedy, W.E. J~ 1978: Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, U.S. Nuclear Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Regulatory Commission. Washington D.C. NUREG-0584, Reference Pressurized Water Reacror Power Station, Rev. 3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-0103, June.

  - 1978: Technology. Safety and Casts of Decommissioning a Referenc,e Pressun*ud Water Reactor Power Station, NUREG/CR-0130, Volume 2.                                      Note The author has used the Lovins and Lovins method of referencing in writing the notes and bibliography for this Smith, R.I. & Polen17., LM. 1979: Technology, Safety and Costs   report. As they explain:

of Decommissioning a Referena Pressuriud Water Reactor Power Station, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, The referenc,es are listed under the surname of the senior Washington D.C, NUREG/CR-0130, Addendum. author or (failing that) the name of the publication or Stoler, P. 1984: "Pulling the Nuclear Plug.* 17ME 13 February. organir.ation. Listings are alphabetical in the {om, ciuJ: if in doubt, look for organizational listings under both ffOnle Temple., Barker and Sloane, Inc. 1980: Financing Strategies for and rommon ahMviatjon. l.istings under the same sur-Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning, U.S. Nuclear name or equivalent are chronological, net alphabetiail by Regulatory Commission, Washington D.C. initials Jones. Z 1975 comes before Jones. A 1980. Listings are repeated by a dash. which refers to the name US Committee for Energy Awareness-Press Release 1984: or names most recently listed. thus in Jones. A 1975 "Pennsylvania Reactor Will Again Make History When Totally Dismantled Over Next Few Years." U.S. Committee

                                                                    -1976
                                                                    -& Smith. B 1972 for Energy Awareness. Washington D.C.
                                                                    -1981 U.S. Oepartment of Energy 1984: Annual Report ro Congress,           the last listing refers to Jones 6 Smith 1981, not ro Jones U.S. Department or Energy. Washington D.C.                       alone.

DOE/RW-0004.

   -1980 "Low-Level Waste Management Perspectives-8"            ( 1982: Brick House Publishing Co, Andover, MA, p.429)

J-83

G. I D* 3. '2. 1. I ( t1.-) J-84

                                                                 .,. .... PR-Jt?~b4S7,@}I HANNAH L. KATZ, M.O. h . . . . . lUl£ 'fl                                 ~.AA) 74 7L P.O. 8cY ~ ",..., '*.. --~;i:~r:;  Branc
                                                  - *. v 10521

( L"'7! ~

JU

                                                                                              $ VV./

C<Oton*OO*"""* *

• 9"/S .-

i:0'.K:'.TE:

                                                                                 *.;SHRC 15 MY -8 A9 :33 7~      -57/2.:
        /   ,<.._  r =Ai           C...,.       =,.,,4! ...£.. / A, 't'e ""-, ""'-.,__;t

~,'~,~ 141- M-d~ hc.,*~,,<r.,,'

            ~~ ~~-~h--~/ ;:2- ~de......_,~~~                         ,e
/J.;14-/1,,, ~ -"'? ~ .de-,.-..,-- ~ c.._ h;,.,..,, -"~...,;;,; ':;
/,:_<,     ~ "4-,./ ~                                      £c -4..:,U;/                  -;:2     ,-;2,                  ,

_/ _..,....._, 4.../ k / !"- ,,;,:;/- L..£' k C/0 / 7 4',, "--- -

1. 1. \

 "'"'"""""') ""< ~,/                          </ ~ - ,¢/...,, --~*-' ff-.,/-<'~-

l).

 ,K,: Cr,/ ,s...,;& k      ..__,{ 4,j<:</,                        v; .;f.,.,r~                     ~< ;,-             ~
~Al       fo " "1ed.>,(-c..,--c:~ 7'<-,.,:'.7 -4...,s, ~ , , ~
  ~        K< N ,e
;£<<-e-.'C-;(~,, <r-;,,,,f e
                            ~

4. L ~_;,.

                                                ~~    ;t:..    ~
                                                                          ,t;_<~*-....-,..,,">..
                                                                       -1'.     ,h_ _4_               .
                                                                                                                     ,<r:.,._,.
 ~?     4~eo      "J'  ~        /
                              'V"'c-~~. ~       '-'<,       ,, * ~ ,  ---c... ,---,- k      c:..,.,;. 7--zc   ~ Ac:      A'.'<::.,,-. e~

J-85

p,"?>,-Z,'2,l

    \)."3. "2.1.\(a..)

J-86

                                                                    /f2y l,tk_ _(.Jn.J
                                                                    !,_}k1. h,,t'!.-4C.,"i c...* (r,-<'jl/1 l.i y_~ ; ' ( f<;* ,---

1£'> _Ai~c/ttu.- ~icJ~yC>tulu\(/lf'<) {;)Af//~ J;C. Jti~-~-<

                                     '85 MY -8 AlO :23
                                     !:C * ....* * *.*i , :.f .: ..
                                                  ;o.i.*-i;~

G. \ C. \, 3 C.G,

                                                                      ~-.      .. -.. .  *-~~.-,/Jd .,. __

J-87

       .,.r fua     d; ),,        tf, { t'-< ..... ' Sf;,,, i-j t<,..,, ' r I.,_ ~+ tJ.<;d,_,

"" "'"""'-. s,-...'T.. ') e5 c,,w "-r' e "ft..,, ) 14,<.r ,, a ti~~ :z! D.3.'2..'2... I kr:"' 0/"-**:I,~, Ftl~7 ('-<'i<<" ,_c.l._"" ~ -,t- Tty£ - f 4,,., t,;t "1/U fT, -k_ k .u.,,_{,., di_ , ,,_. ..._ -.SSih 7 6><.,-'. £..,,_ 5

~~r Ae.. ci~/4.~ . I

~ y11<<. ~ ;..f.,..,- fL<,U ........., '-' I,J,;... s

 ~ - ~ ~.._ s{...,"j.,_,,__f ,_ "1fu- ,.J,-)~I "'--~
  -Sf' u f <. t,',.. .J. tfucr"1 a// 'tk }u Jfa..w. ! "-' ...,;tl'Ul,
 &..J. &.,,_'f c,.... - " ' ~ tu,.,,,_, j y11..u ..v'W                        r _,; /,;~

P' )-uk chtrr1 1 jw-lr, c. ~ tt- ~'-4A-d ~~.

                                                          ~~ dLUL; I
                                                           ~~-~

J-88

PR~\'~"2!";, 7q 7~ <BJ (5'1 ~ (2/

                 /Ill~  COM~"':i~ RN.
                ~M\1?14 I           PA /135..J fl\~ ~ I ~-8 AlO :26 Cift , ;;. :f SECrl:

OOCl'.E.ilNG & s* BRANC' I J-89

J-90 F. \ J-91

                                                               ~eter .rl.. ~itchell 121 ~d~ertc,n St.

Kochester, N, Y * .., ,l~~l-716 442-2929 ... fl .*.*_ _.*

                                                                                               ..,')t,t11..,

May 5, 1985 Secretary of the Co:m-tssion

                                                                              '85 HAY -8 A10 :)2 U. S. :,uclear .rl.egulatory Corrmission
 ,;ashington, O. C. 20555                                                    (,f ;:- [ C    ,*,,     *,, ( ; .. *

• Attr.: Docketing and ~ervice Branch 00~.\f 1..'C(i "i s(i'\'lo.r BRAHCli Hef: ~KC Proposed Decommissioning .r{ules Ref: 150 Fed. t<eg. 5600, 2/11/85 I a:n subm1ting comments on the NHC proposed decO!ffl'isstonlng rules and G,,'

sug~esting ch?ng~s thr.t I believe to be necessary to achieve adequate protection of public health and ;;,afety for :,resent 11nd future generations, proper protection cf e:nph,yees involved in the dec:Jrriissicning of nuclear f.:icilities, and assurances 1),"8

• I of adequacy and availability of fun~ing.

Pu',lic ~ealth and ::iafety rrot.? .tion for }'resent and Future Generations 1 Je.s I~. Entomb:nent should be specifically ruled out dS a decOITl"1issio'1ir.g option. All radionuclides S"'O'JlC: "le re:noved froc., the site so that safe put:1; a:id private I. \ sit~ use can be guarenteed. Site= should be restored in such ~3n:1er that ground water, soil, and air are free of radioActive contAmination. The ~KC shC'ul: CJ~pile,1 (:,.10,'2 org?nize, and evaluAte all available infor-,Ation and ex:,crience on decorm:issioning and then deve lo;> reco:nmendat i 0'1s and guideline" for the DEC*J., and SAFSTOR met hods of deco:nmissioning. The  :,Kc should develop decommissioning regulations to ensure that . C I .. ,._

                                                                                                                                ~

utilities and industry ap?roa~h decom-nissioning in a :nAnner that protects t~e p:.ihlic A'.lc! e:nployees health, welfare, and over-all well-,*eing,  !'KC deco.,.,.,,1!'c,ioning safety inspectors should be Assigned to all f?cilities undergoing decommissioning,

                                                                                                                     ' "* '5 Ueco:.,,issionir.g standards sh:,uld also irclude clear definitions of high level and H. u. l lo1J level radioactive waste and disposal procedures.

l-rc-ner protect io:, of e;1ployees irvolved i:1 deco,,,..,1ssioning of nuclear f?ci l It les The ;,r{C snould develo;> procedural standards and requirements that r~s..,lt in c..1.r,\

roin1-al 1Jorker exp:Jsure :o radiation. ,1 reviec..* of all pre:vious radiation exposure for workers 1n\':,l\'cd 1n aec:,=1sslon1ng work should be rec:;\;1r:c and tight record5 on C. ,. ,o J-92

2. Assurances of Adequ.1cy and !.vai le >i l ity of funding l.>eCOffl'Tiissionin; costs estimates should be base:d on available current and past experience both here and abroad and reviewed accordingly as more experience is gained. Based on the Shippingport experience, a cost estimate of Sl~O :nillion ap,,e:ars woefully inadequate for re11ctors of 500 to 1000 M...' size. The 72 M...: Shi~pingport reactor evidently is expected to cost S98 million to ceco!Tlllission. Ho**~ve:r, not only is it a;:;>roxi--"tcly I/14th the Megawattage of modern reactors, u.,.1., it also h;,.s the co-.t .id"ant11ges of h.,ving its radioactive waste deposited at the reder?lly owned H.in:ord waate dump (11t the taxpayers expense). Another cos~ saving unavailable to almost all O?e~11ting reactors ls the sm?ll size of the reactor vessel which pe~its semoval and shipment intact rather th~n uncer water dis~antle-

• ment through torch cutlng. L>eccvmiissioning costs will obviously be far gre<'ter than the projected SlOO million in 1984 doll~rs, Since the future fin~~cial viahility of otilitles cannot be ensured, it becomes very important th3t .:1dequ<'te fu'1dS tc cover decormiissioning ccsts be set It).3. 2.. i. ,

aside in the present, segr,gated fro~ all other utility functions ana financial activities. These funds sh-~uld oe segregated in such manner that they remain t>.~. 'Z.. ,. l ( d-) pi,t)cected fro:n creditors in case oi ut i 1 it)' bankru;>tcy. In Conclusion These sug;;ested procedures for ensuring procer.tion of ;,ublic anc'. ~ployee health end welfare for present and future generations are losical and reason?ble G,, I and should not be co~promised or weakened due to political expediency and industrial pressure. The hkC has a solemn obligation to regulate and protect, anci l expect the ~RC to fulfill its charter with the American peof*le. J-93

     ~. I 0.,.2.1 C. I,~

D, "3. '2. 1. \ (a.) J-94

                                       '85 HAY -9 Nl :50 uFF'* . , *.

f'r . - * ~* *

• uuC;~[itr.Gis( ***.

Back Fields Farm* Eliot, Maine BRANCH "' . Silas & Constance Weeks 207 - 439-2837 "D.3.'2.2.\ G. I~

• 1). 8. 2. I Acl<now::;cf.,9d b . MAY 1 5 199c-* O,/.

                                            *       ,C3rt1 *.... ,.-........ rr..,....__.

J-95

     . \. \
    \.\. \. \. '

J-96

                                                            ,~: l,;. ~r:*2275  r* ~urr,a,...,
             !" 0 Bex 2<.?01                                                  '85 11AY -9 A11 :42

--** - - - De1r'1aM NC 27705 JOINT COM!-!ENTS OF N.C. pyqo AND WELLS EDDLEMAN ON "1JECOMM!SSIO~ CRI~IA PO~ NUCL~~~ FACILITI~s"* 50 FR 5600 This pronosal is seriously deficient on almost all counts. One obvious problem is ailowing the use of unsegregated fur.ds for decorunis~ioning. Electric utilities in n*rticular tend to invest D. 1. -z.. I. I (a..) such funds in plant, which is not readily convertible into cash and which may not preserve its value over time. External sinking funds must be required of all licensees in order to provide adequate funding for deco!T!Mission1ng activities. These funds must be adequate to meet the cost of decomm1ss1on1ng 1n realistic tel'T'ls, not just an estimate 1'18.de at the time of licensing or an u,,date V. '-#. 3 near the end of the life of a facility. Cost estimates should be u~dated at least every two years, and any real increase 1n costs ahouid be fully funded. The NRC's eaperience with low cost estil'll&tes for the comolet1on of nuclear reacto~s should be clear evidence of

                                                                                                                't)I.\.\

why est1!!18.tes made at the time of 1n1t1al licensing cannot be relied on: cost overruns of 400, 500, even 1000 percent have occur~ed. Sinceerery nuclear facility w!ll n~ed 4ecommiss!oning, no licensee should be allowed to use the "asset" of one nuclear raciltty to fund deco1TUT11ssioning of others. These "assets" are not read11~ convertible into cat.h (e.g. GPU Nuclear did not sell its operable t). '3. 2, 1. I ( ct.) nuclear plants to clean up Three Mile Island), and will require their own decommissioning funds. Such a provision invites a shell game and underestimation of the real costs of decommission!ng. c,* , '* . ~ MAY 15 1985 o/

                                                     ~i<f';U\l ..0~00 O'f ::ard .* ,,,,..,,r.,,..,......,.'/l_

J-97

Underest!ll\8.tion of ~eal costs also invites adverse health consequence~ for decorun1ss1or.1r.g workers, and adv~r~e fll'lViror.~ental effects from inadequate or sloppy decommissioning. The hlstor,r of decotlll'liss1oned nuclear test reactors and s!~llar fac11!tl~s reveals I'ti.I.I, 1.. that many have harl to be cleanP.d u~ ~ore ~hen one~; the ccst of 1).1,\. \ such reoeat cleanuo%s can include disnosal of Mucr. la~rer quant!ties of contaminated material than the (:rfp;inal "decomMiss!oning 11

• Unfortunately, the Co~miss!on*s oronosed rules for what decommissioning shall de are so vague as to lend little cuidance to licensees. Instead, the Commission aotears to give them license to make inadeouate olans ~nd not o~ovide adequate cleanup. P. z..l (c)

Since licensees, oarticularly those of weak finances ar.d trose which are regulated utilities, have every incentive financ~all~ {... ,. '3 to un~erestimate or defer suer. costs, the Conunission !s asking ror 1rresoonsib111ty fro"! the nuclear industry in fa111n~ to enact strong standards ~ow, The Col'l"llsslon sho1,.;ld enact regulat!ons that clearl~ ... equlre co!TIPrehens 1 ve olanni ng ro~ decorir.tissi on! ng dur! t"'-F; construe t* <"'n, including addressing the specific rad!onuc:ldes likely or able tc ~=t~~~~:~ ~~/~~~~1 1 ~f v~;~~~~u~~~~~e~~;!n:0 ~!;~~~~~n°(~~ 1 !; 0 ~~ ~ow C, z. l what nuclides will have to be dealt with in deco~missiohing) an1 providing tr.at all 10 CF~ 50 quality as~urance requirements cover both the planr.ing (which must begi:1 during construction if r.ot before, C.. (.., in crder to adequately address the comnonents being used in any nuclear facility ~~d their lik~ly conta~inants), the monitoring, and the actual decommissioning of all nucleRr facilities. These criteria should also orovlde for !r.deoendent health physics and occupational health monitoring of ali deco~m1ss!on1ng activities; keeping of health registers of all wcrkers !nvolveJ, !~eluding those involved !.n transoortlng materials froM decomm!.ssloned \c..1.,0 facilities and others who work with such !TIS.te~lals; requ1.,.eMer.ts to m1n1"l1ze !'adia tlon exoosure to °b<"th wo ..kP"'S a!'*j ~te f'nv!rontllent during and afte~ decommissioning, including a suec!f!c ATA11A star.da!'d with dose guidelines m1n1mi~1ng such exoosure; and stens to m!n1"11Ze C.\.i,\ genetic ~ffects, e.g. by net e!"'IPloy!ng anyone in decomM1ss!~n1ng who ls going to have fu~ther children after heglnn:'..ng such work. All reactor internals and other :rrad!ated mate::-!al conta!n1n~ isotopes wh!ch are e!tter long-lived (over 25 years) or 1nte~~e - 1\,\,\.\.\

• e~lttP-rs should be requ1.,.ed to be dlsnosed of as h!gh-leve1 wastes.

Any materials removed by solvents, chelating agents, 11qu1das, etc should have all their toxic or radioact!ve connonents sta'tfl!zed I l,\,\,1..\ on-site before being moved to any storage or d!suosal s!te. Shallow land burial of all ra1!oact1ve wastes or materials fT'OM I 1-\. l. \. 3 I decommissioning should be banned by raule -- landfills leak. The definition of "deollrnmission" in 10 C"Cl'Q 30,!J.(y) (proT'losed) is inadequate and should at least nrovide that un!'estr!cted use B. \, 3 of the s!te shall be safe, that all contaminants above 10 CFR ?O li~1ts be removed from the site (at least -- more should be re~ove~ if feasible -- the ALA~ standard ls a m~n1:naal one to use; the goal should bP- to re:'love all radioactive contamlna tlon fro'.'! the sHe). I£,,., The dollar& li!'l!ts on decomr.iiss!oini:-.g in 10 CFR 30 * .34 ar.d 30.35 I'D 4 ~ I I a::-e too low and should be escalated w1 th 1nfla tlon and w1 th the real- ' *

• dollar lncrease ( if any -- tr.ere may be a great deal) in decomm1ss1on1nir 'D, G,
• S~ 'Z.

costs. The requ!rements should also include a bond by all licensees - for full decomrniss!.on.ing and cl~anuo costs following an accident at lease as severe as has ever occurred in a similar facility anvwhere I in the world, This would orovide financial assurances consistent with 1),3.~-~. the Atomic Energy Act's requ!re~ent for financial oual1t1ficat*ons, J-98

ror cases of "nre:iiature deco:Tt.~iss!oining" such as '!'hree Mile :sl~nd unit 2. The orovision for covering accidents at least as severe as the worst that has already occurr~1 ts o~n~a~l:V tn~ c~nsP.~vat!ve, but it would act to out financial resoonsib!~it~ for thP. consequences of accidents (and safaguard1ng the oublic and env1ronmP.nt fro~ contamination bv un-decom.'lliss!oned accident sites and fac, l! ties) D.?. '2. '2.. I where that resnonsibility should be -- on the fadil!ty*s owner(s). ~ This wo*Jl.d also serve as an !ncentive !'or safety, provide<i that the rule places all costs above those cove~ed by the bond on thP. owner(s) and orovi~es that each owner shall car~ insu~anc~ for these unbonded risks. Each o~ner would then have !ncent1ve to reduce insurance costs by act!ng to l!mit accident r!sks at the!r nuclear facility orfacilit!es. The ~C should also require a ~1nimum deco11niss!on!n~ s~nkln~ reserve (for normal decommissioning) equal to at least ~1100/kWe (1Qel1 S for nuclear cower reactors, based on the decol'U!liss1.onin~ cc,t for Shioningport. This nurtber anoears to be c~nservative because D.1.\, l Shipoingoort decommissioning cost that much even though its reactor is being disposed of as Military waste, !ntact. The cost to disoose of a co!11l'lercial reactor in civilian waste dis~osal is likely to be much higher.

      !he rules should also provide (cf. revised sec t!on 40.42 of 10 CFR) that any licensee which fails to fund or to carry out its decomniss!on1ng activities shall lose any other licensee which !t holds, and that any license for which a licensee that has failed to fund or carry out decommissioning is an operator, co-owner, shareholder, or participant shall be suspended until such failure to fund or decoMZ'llission is cured by funding or by orooer carr;vin2           Q. 8

• 2 out of the decon~issioning activities required to meet the det*nition of decor.uidssioning prooosed above(p.2, ~ ) . This orov1s1on will provide ~trorui; incentives to ca~?"." out dec~"l"liss*on!ng activities and to fund them nronerly. However, it has a #eakness if long-term storage of !'acilities is part of the 1eco!lltlliss!oning ootions. !n that case, fa!lure to maintain full funding for decommissioning of facilities in storage, failure to maintain safe sborage (e.g. radiation or radioactive material leaks), or failure to carry out any required decommissioning act!vities should lead to loss of licenses and ~uspensio I

of licenses that a licensee coM.'!litting such fa!lu!'es is in,*olved in, as above. The rules aooroved should include comurehensive olar.nin~ and 3 safety criteria for decommissioning, in one olace ar.d refe!'enced in C. l. ot.hers. The current rule is so vague and confusing that it is hard to tell when a license terminates, when the Co!'ll!Tliss!on dete~mines that decommissioning has been orooerl~ carried out, or what rules aooly to decommissioning. You may be sure that the clever lawye~s e'T!Oloved by th~ nuclear industry will exnloi t any confustor.s O!' loopholes C.. \. \ the Com.nussion leaves intact. and the results w!ll not bener!t the public or the environment and may exoosa us to great radiatton and financial risk. In sum, the present Prooosed rule !3 so defective that it cannot be safely stored in federal regulat!ons; if entombed it might esca?e to do serious damage; the only solution is to nromntlv dismantle tnts prooosal and ~tart over again and do it r!ght. If the Comn!sston goes forward w!th such a sloopy rule, it will have long-ter~ adverse G, \ consequences for ?Ublic confidence in the nuclear industry, and for

• tne environment. Given the present Col'll!1!ssion majority's evident dedication to short-term financial and regulatorv ~ssistar.ce to the nuclear industry come hell or high water {or worse}, the above COTTIT'!ents J-99

may amount to Cassandra-like prophecies. However, the soeclfic criticisms advanced above are intended to provide soMe guidar.ce as to how to construct a decommissioning rule that would actually orotect the public and the environment, and nrovide that G:,. l resoonsibility ror the r.uclear !.ndu~tr;r's* act1o~s l<<'Uld rest 9 quarely on the nuclear 1ndustr:,- itself. Time does not allow us to provide a fuller criti*ue, but one is cftrtainly possibl~. For exallt'!)le, the Commission itself ought to Make the cho~ce of decomnissioning methods, i,ather than leaving it to licensees; IB 3 ~ the criteria for aoproving (or denying) decoffll!liss1oning olans should be sufficiently soecific that they can be inter'Or~ted cons!stently and unambiguously. The prooosed rules give the Colll"liss1on alMost unbridled discretion to *~prove almost anything. Criteria ror plans and DN>cedures would helo, but the Commiss!on's current nractice or finding exceotions to almost every rule a licensee cannot or will not cormly with, does not lend confidence to even th!.s at:1oroach (corimare, C. I, 3 for exa"lple, the licensing of D!ablo Canyon, and the exerrmt1ons from safety requirements for r--cr-1 in the restart proceeding). However, a good solid rule is much better than a grouo of ~e~ulato~ ~uides that have no force or enforceability. The ComMisston aopears to be trying to make a rule that is not really a rule, here. 'l'hRt aoproach can lead to many problems in the future. The 60111nissj on needs to instead adequately define decomMisslon!.ng ootlons and 18 ,'Z., I tn.eir environmental effects, prescribe procedures and criteria for the safe and effective car~ying out of decommissionirg, provide for readily available funding for both premature and "normal" (end-of-life) decollll!lissioning (including provisions to clean up accidents), and c.,,3 put all of this into a clear rule that ls enforceable. Otherwise, the decor.unissioning problem ls just "shoved under the rug" for the foreseeable future. The NRC is evidently willing to leave e lot of oroblems for the future, rather than deal with them today. Such a policy, 1n fact or in rules like the deoam!.ssioning rules orooosed at 50 pq 5600, cannot work well. vou shc,ulr! abanr!on it and G, * \ do the job right, or at the very least (and this may well be inadequate) incorp~rate revisions to cover the above-cited nroble~s in these rules. On behalf of myself and ~C ?I~

                                 /Ii /-        ~ --

fhi~;j ~ /,!£.t,~ Wells 1='.ddleman Starr Scientist - NC Public !nterest t1esearch Grou,:, J-100

t)fl()POSED RUl1 t'K*2dtt4j(J ~ / ( 5c, Fil ~t,~) /f7i1 UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA <..f..;p DEPARTMENT or NUCLEAR ENCINEEIUNG AND ENGINEERING PHYS1CS NUCLEAJl. REACTOR FACUTY SCHOOL OF ENGINEERJNG AND APPLIED SCIENCE CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901 "C* I'."** May 6, 1985

                                                                ;el~fJ8'~;: 804-920156
                                                            'BS Mr 10 mo :27 Docketing and Service Branch Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisston Washington, D.C. 20555 Re:  Co11DDents on proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72, Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, Federal Register Volume SO, No. ?8, pages 5600-5625.

Dear Sir:

We write you to endorse the national organization of Test Research and Training Reactors' (TRTR) position on the proposed amendments. Acceptable levels of residual radioactivity for release of property for unrestricted use should be defined before the finalization of a decommissioning rule requiring cost estimates, since the values of such levels will greatly affect non-power reactor decommissioning costs. Proposed changes to Regulatory Guide 1.86 concerning decommissioning alternatives should be reviewed as to possible impact on decommissioning costs, also before final action on the proposed amendments. Finally, we believe it is important for a final decommissioning rule to distinguish between power and non-power reactors, to avoid future application of ~. 3. I regulations to non-power reactors which were developed for power reactors. Thank you for your attention. Reactor cc: A. Francis DiMeglio, Chairman TRTR J-101

(lt'KH llftlMCflf r, "ROPouo Ruu C5d Fl!. 5'4a) - Pn *..Jq~514,fL,I@ oc.i

            .&41;,i}(ll(l',,

MEDICAL CENTER 5'"r,n . . R<'lll\"-R!l* (.(Hl' R"-PIO ... MERCY

                                                                        '"l . . lll\ ;'4<111* hi~  .a;"' .:.'lltl l       llnNCl'I, lll lltl HEALTH CENTRAL
                                                                                                                    ;J : l<E T! ;
                                                                                                                       'SNRC May 7, 1985 Secretary of the Coll'll1ission                                                                        '85 NAY 10 AJO :29 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory COf1111ission Washington, D. C. 20555                                                                              vFF1i.:: ~; ,;, 't* A, .

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch ooc11t rING*; SE7i'.,!rf BRANCH

Dear Sir:

In response to the proposed rule "Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities" published in the Federal ReClister/Vol.50, No.28/Monday, February 11, 1985, we would like to suggest that it would be aooropriate to exempt the 2500 medical licensees. Removing ~ercy Medical Center's nuclear medicine facilities safely from service and reducing residual radioactivity to a level that would pennit release of the property for unrestricted use and tennination of the license could be accomplished without requiring significant time, risk, or expense. Unit doses are obtained from a centralized radioohannacy and all radioactive waste is returned to the centralized radiophannacy daily via their messenqer. G,. ~. t Cessation of NRC licensed activities would merely require no further receiot of radioactive materials, return of waste and equipment quality control sources to the centralized radiooharmacy, and final monitoring. The area would illlllediately be available for other uses. A comoarable situation no doubt exists for numerous other medical licensees. Implementation of the proposed action may impose requirements that are needlessly exoensive and time-consuming. It is respectfully requested that consideration be given to imposing the burden and expense associated with decolllllissioning only upon those licensees determined to have the potential for significant expense in order to accomplish disposal and decontamination. Inclusion of medical licensees would, at least in Mercy's case, be unwarranted and counterproductive to goverrment and private sector efforts of health care cost-containment. Paul Halverson, Certifying Official for License No.22-17307-01

/~/{,?,/uz.-

William Kinney,M.D. c~ //(. v_ Radiation Safety Officer for License No.22-17307-01 BBH/bbh Acknowle<bed by eard ..* ~.~:, ,1, :* .,1J~L J-102

CERTIFICATION #P645 196 967 'I

                                                                                   . )*  ~;.

Nuclear Science Center  :..s~~: =- South Ferry Road

'liarraganseu. R.I. 02882*1197 "85 NAY 10 A10 :36 May 7. 1985 l)(l({CT t.'t!~.:a~R PR-!JA .All n _I r.::xJ.~ ou.6ftl.A 1

P:tiJri!SED 8U\.E f -' ( 5o Fil ~tJo) @ Secretary of the Commission U, S, Nuclear Regulatory Co111111ission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

The national organization of Test, Research and Training Reactors (TRTR) is pleased to submit its conunents on the proposed amend-ments to 10CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72, Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, Federal Register Volume 50, No. 28, pages 5600-5625. For the most part, TRTR facilites will be subjected to the amendments proposed for Part 50 and Part 30 (either directly or through the agreement state compatability re-quirement.) A few facilites will be subjected to the amenlments proposed for the remaining parts. TRTR's comments are directed primarily to the Part 50 and 30 proposals with differing applica-bility to the remaining parts. The non-power licensed reactor community is diverse with operating organizations representing state and federal governments, state colleges and universities, private colleges and universities, non-profit organizations and for profit organizations. In some in-stances,the non-govermental organizations have operating budgets, I(. "3. I assets and capitalization in excess of or approaching the resources of state or local government organizations. Since state and local government licensees may provide the financial assurance for decom-missioning through a certification process, well capitalized, firmly established private organizations should also be permitted to comply through certification. TRTR recognizes that acceptable levels of residual radioactivity for release of property for unrestricted use are not part of this rule making. However, from actual deco111111issioning of non-power reactor facilitie~TRTR has learned that the values of these ac-ceptable levels will greatly impact the costs of decommissioning a non-power reactor and, therefore, should be addressed before the finalization of a decommissioning rule which requires cost estimates. J-103

It would also be useful to review the proposed changes in Regulatorv Guide 1.86 concerning decormnissionin~ alternatives before finalization of the decom- ~.17 missioning rule since these changes may also impact non-power reactor decom-missioning costs. Many non-power reactor facilities are licensed pursuant to Parts 30 and SO: a few are licensed pursuant to Parts 30, 40, SO, and 70. The cost of total t). I, 2. . decommissioning will be less than the costs of decommissioning piecemeal and the rule should allow licensees to adjust cost estimates accordingly. The primary concern of TRTR is that these proposed amendments were obviously drafted to insure that the money necessary to decommission a nuclear power plant or a nuclear fuel or reprocessing plant will be available when required. Since there is little actual experience in decommissioning a large nuclear facility, it is reasonable to address decommissioning requirements during the early life of these plants. The situation for non-power reactors, however, is considerably different in at least two respects. First, the monies required are considerably less than that required for power reactors: in most cases the decommissioning may be possible with funds equivalent to one or two years operating budgets. Secondly, there is considerable experience in the decommissioning of non-G,.' "?>. \ pcwer reactors which demonstrates that the decommissioning process is straight-forward with no real uncertainties. In fact, for most non-power reactors removal of the radioactive fuel, while not allowing unrestricted use, will result in a facility with little potential for health and safety problems. TRTR therefore stresses that the planning for decommissioning of non-power reactors be handled seperately from the planning for power reactors and fuel facilities. During the development of this decommissioning rule, the NRC appropriately rec~ived input from organizations associated with power plants. TRTR is un-aware of comparable input from the research reactor community and believes that these proposed amendments are another example of applying to non-power reactors regulations which were drafted primarily for power reactors. TRTR recommends that as in the past, non-power reactors be provided for specifically in the applicable regulations. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, ~ *~~ ({::::.:::::::!),,, 7. ~ Chairmat, TRTR AFD:ag J-104

May 6, 1985 F11.. E NO DOL1<£T((: t.:*;NRC Secretary ot the Co1111ission '85 NAY 10 IVO :42 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Collllllission Washington, D,C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Rule - Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (Federal Register Notice, Feb. ll, 1985, page 5600ff)

Dear Sir:

San Diego Gas & Electric Company is pleased to comment on the proposed rule, entitled "Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities," as requested by the NRC in the Federal Register citation specified above. As co-owner and co-licensee of the 3-unit San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, SDG&E is an interested party in such rulemaking to assure safeguarding the interests of our customers and shareholders. We are also party to the proceedings (OII-86), mandated by the California PUblic Utilities Commission, on mechanisms for assuring adequate financial resources for the decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Our comments are organized to parallel the subheadings of the proposed rule, per the Federal Register notice, and are focussed solely on its applicability to power reactor facilities (type l license). A, Decommissioning Alternatives The proposed rule defines "decommissioning" as the process "to remove nuclear facilities safely from service and reduce residual radio-activity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license" by the NRC. (P.5600,FR) Also, all the alternatives cited focus on "r?lease for unrqstri~~ed use." Such emphasis appears to be too narrow and restrictive. It should be recognized by the NRC, and permitted by the rule, that plant sites are improved private property. As such, they represent large investments dedicated to electric power generation and have been prepared for indefinite commitment to that purpose by provision of transmission lines, cooling (heat sink) facilities, road and rail transportation access, etc. Even if nuclear operations at such sites were to be eventually terminated, the valuable energy-related attributes would POST OFFICE BOX 1431

• SAN 04EGO. CALIFORNIA 92112
• TELEPHONE &1!K96*2000 J-105

Secretary of the Commission most likely suggest continued utilization in energy-producing pursuits, entirely consistent with the public interest. Thus, "unrestricted use" is too restrictive a criterion to be applied. For example, such a site (perhaps occupied by several nuclear units or by a mix of fossil and nuclear units) could 8. l.~ continue to be utilized via the construction of additional facilities (repowering, add-ons, etc.) whose service lifetimes would prolong beneficial use of the site. The NRC, in formulating this rule, should exercise caution to avoid inhibiting site uses that cannot be construed as "unrestricted." B. Timing The proposed rule seems to favor prompt decommissioning after license termination. In fact, it would require that the licensee submit "an up-to-date" cost estimate 5 years prior to the projected end of operation, presumed to be the final date of the current operating license. For such a cost estimate to be realistic and reasonably complete, planning for the final disposition of the unit (site?) must have been initiated earlier (8 years prior to end of life?). Thus, this requirement may force premature commitment to an uneconomic plan of action or to a less-than-optimum course from the overall public interest point of view.

8. ~. I The NRC, here, seems to gloss over the ever-present and legi~imate oversight of licensees by their public utility commissions. The latter have exhibited tendencies of late to involve themselves in, and to influence directly, the decisions of utilities which clearly extend to such matters as re-licensing, repowering, site utilization, etc. By imposing premature disclosure of plans (and estimates) for which no consensus exists, the NRC places the utility in a position of higher risk solely as a consequence of the prescriptive nature of the rule.

The NRC should review whether the benefits to them of such provisions in the rule outweigh the potential for federal-state conflicting requirements imposing needless costs and uncertainties on all of its utility licensees.

c. Planning It appears that there is an inconsistency of the requirements of the proposed rule in the Federal Register notice and the wording of the rationale for such requirements acknowledged in Staff's Regulatory Analysis. E.g., from the notice: "Thus, C. 2.'2..

most of the planning for the actual decommissioning will occur near final shutdown": and, from the Regulatory Analysis: "Final planning (for type 1 licensees) is already required, but only when J-106

Secretary of the CoJIIJllission the licensee desires to dismantle. For a power reactor such planning would be elaborate because of the complexity of the facil-ity being decommissioned* - and, I would add, - and the Intended future use of the site (facility). (Emphasis added.) Clearly, these statement* do not support the rule's requirement for the cost estimate to be submitted 5 years prior to the and of operation; as noted in Section B, Timing, the C. z, 'Z.. requirement could be counter-productive and seems to be premature. The *final planning,* envisioned by the NRC, anticipates a year or so for "review and approval.* If so, what is the justification tor the earlier submittal (5 years prior to end of operatioJi? As noted in the foregoing, the submittal of a cost estimate requires the preparation of a detailed plan lest the basis ot the estimate be deemed tenuous and unsubstantiated either by the NRC or the state PUC. Since a final, revised coat estimate is also being mandated, is the earlier estimate necessary or even desirable? I would urge the NRC to coordinate the requirements of its proposed rule with several state PUCs, NARUC, etc. Not only in the areas of Planning and Timing, but also in Financial Assurance, 1),!,3, l coordinated and consistent State and Federal requirements are critical for successful, cost effective decommissioning.

o. Financial Assurance As in all things nuclear in our polarized society, the focus on adequacy ot funds for decommissioning has been inflated far beyond any realistic concern. The proposed rule seems to adopt a punitive philosophy.

Coal plants not required to adhere to such rules despite despite the fact that the health hazards and environmental impacts of the plants and their waste disposal (ash, sludge, etc.) G,, ' facilities are more severe (in realistic terms) to the public health and welfare. Similiarly, petrochemical plants and oil D.f. \ refineries are immune trom public health concerns with no requirement for comprehensive decommissioning provisions to sequester carcinogenic by-products, etc. Yet, we find the licensees of nuclear power facilities singled out for special treatme"t and the NRC only too eager to comply with faulty public perceptions to the risks involved. And, in so doing, the NRC lends credence to those faulty and false perceptional Why should $100 million be prescribed? Shouldn't the estimate rely upon realistic site-specific surveys? Why are not 1l). 1.. I ( Cl.) the salvage credits applicable to nuclear facilities considered (deductible from decommissioning estimates)? Such salvage credits should include the value of re-use ot uncontaminated valves, pumps, It). 1.1. 3 J-107

Secretary ot the ColllJl':ission instrument*, heat exchanger*, warehouae tacilitiea, docwaentation atorage and retrieval tacilitiea, aa well a* a fuel credit tor approximately one-halt of the uaetul fuel in the core at final shutdown. For a aod.eat ahipping and/or handling charge, auch fuel could be aold to another utility (or uaed in a aibling facility [).l.1.3 owned by the utility faced with deco1m1isaioning a unit) and its energy value could be of the order of $50 aillion (same basis as that specified for the $100 aillion deco11J1iaaioning cost). Further, why should the funded amount be escalated at twice the CPI? Construction coat indices may be appropriate \ (probably on the high aide) , but not twice the annual change in the D. '2

• I (c1.J consumer index! (The Staff Regulatory Analysis shows no sign of an evaluation or justification for this prescription.)

The funding methods, deemed acceptable to the NRC, impose a wide range of financial penalties on the utility and its customers. The presWDption implied in thia rule, that utilities with nuclear facilities will shirk their decommissioning '{).i. l responsibilities and so auat provide funding assurances, is ludicrous and worse, perpetuates the popular public pastime - utility bashing! Does the NRC see its best interests served by participating in such sport? As a minimWD, the funding aspects of decommissioning should be removed as a license condition (S 50,54) from the proposed regulations. I 1),4,~ It is instructive to note the numerous references in the/ Staff Regulatory Analysis to the NRC concern tor "sociopolitical G G. proble~s" in connection with decommissioning. Where In the Atomic .'Z. Energy Act ot 1954 and its amendments is the NRC charged with responsibilities for sociopolitical problems? E. Residual Radioactivity Levels The proposed rule does not address this subject, promising to consider it in a separate rulemaking. The NRC should be careful, in separating these closely related topics, not to E.1. \ create inadvertant impediments to defining appropriate residual radioactivity levels in this rule. The repeated emphasis on decommissioning to permit unrestricted use raises the specter ot great difficulty, in subsequent applications of the rule, in accepting reasonable levels tor various industrial use patterns that should not be viewed as "unrestricted use." Similarly,

8. \,3 partial decommissioning of a portion of a facility, consisting ot mixed nuclear and non-nuclear activities, should not be em.burdened by meaningless considerations of unrestricted use.

It is apparent that the NRC is preoccupied with assuring public safety following total release of a nuclear site. As noted J-108

Secretary of the Commission earlier, for nuclear power reactors and their sites, the probabil-ity of complete abandonment ot industrial, indeed continued energy generation utilization, i* extremely remote. Theretore, proper / '6. I, '3 context would require the NRC to promulgate the rule tor residual radioactivity levels, appropriate to various uses, before the current proposed rule. In that way, needless expense or litigation t. ,. ' over adequacy of plans, etc. could be avoided. e.2 F. Environmental Review Requirements The proposed rule quite properly limits such requirements and is consistent with the view that the environmental reviews con-ducted during the Construction Permit and Operating License proceedings for nuclear power reactors assure adequate review of decommissioning impacts. The NRC is commended for its forthright position in this area and is urged to stand steadfast to this position. General Comments The Staff Regulatory Analysis in support of the proposed rule is flawed in a number of aspects. Its philosophical basis adopts unfounded assertions as premises justifying elements of the rulei e.g. --

l. It is claimed that current regulations are "limited, vague or inappropriate and are not fully adequate." It decries "licensing activities - made on a case-by-case basis." It asserts that "this procedure results in a lack of uniformity, inefticiency, timeliness, and comprehensiveness."

None of these accusations are supported by evidence for type 1 licensees (power reactors in particular). Thus, NRC difficulties(?) with non-fuel-cycle licensees are being used to justify the imposition ot unreasonable requirements

                                                                     ~. \

on utilities.

2. It is claimed that "A power reactor has potential tor sub-stantial health, satety, and environmental impact it decommissioning is improperly performed." As a theoretical assessment such a claim i. true, but then ev&rything in our society has the potential for adverse impact it "improperly performed." Nowhere ls the burden of proof satisfied to show that current practices have resulted in such impacts -

from power reactors! The attitude displayed is that, absent these stringent and prescriptive regulations, utilities will behave as "midnight dwnpers ot toxic chemical wastes." The staff assumes that utilities are unstable and likely to D.8. l J-109

secretary ot th* Co111J11iaaion be unable to meet the commitments ot their current licensing collllllitments. Thia mindset and subsequent provisions of the D.8, \ rule must be expunged troa this proceeding if equitable and reasonable positions are to result.

3. Th* untounded concern tor "aociopolitical problems" has been noted earlier.

4. The Staff acknowledges and requires that the "decommissionig plan -- take into account the financial and technical situa-tion at the ,time ot actual decommissioning.* No guidelines a:r.-provided, nor criteria stated, tor assessing the technical situation. And, rightly so, since no better device than a "crystal ball" currently exists to project that situation; factors such as low level waste disposal cost and D, i. l availability, site re-use plans, state-of-th~-~rt in robotics, residual radioactivity limits, etc. are critical to rigorous planning.

Yet, none ot these unknowns deter the Staff from requiring elucidation of the distant future in detail!

5. The Staff insists that "Explicit procedures and require-ments tor a licensee to terminate a license must be clearly delineated"; and, "Surveys submitted for termina-tion must be designed to demonstrate with a high degree of confidence that the property is suitable for release for unrestricted use." As discussed earlier, such C. i.. z..

definitive detail is premature, may preclude alternative beneficial utility uses and plans, is unnecessary, and is likely to be burdensome and misleading, since the submittal of a plan may create a false sense of security that adequate, permanent compliance has been accomplished and accepted by the NRC.

6. The Staff presumes that requirements of this rule on the public iapacta will "minimize licensee decommissioning impacts on health, safety and the enviro11J11ent," will "ensure decommissioning is done as promptly as reason-able~ "a non-operational facility does not become a e,, I public burden,* and "will minimize ratepayers costs relating to decommissioning." For utility-owned 1),8, l facilities, there is no proof offered that such public impacts are to be expected in the absence of this rule, or have occurred In earlier cases, or that the burdens imposed by the rule are not a more severe negative public impact.

7. The Staff evaluation ot the costs of the requirements of the proposed rule is naive and optimistic. E.g.

the amounts already expended by the California nuclear utilities in the PUC OII-86 proceedings exceeds the J-110

Secretary of the Co111111iaaion Staff eatiaate tor 110 operating reactora; and, this c:;. 1<{ proceeding deal* only with method* of providing ' financial ***urance. Le*t it be judged fro* the foregoing that these comments are entirely negative, the staff'* recognition that planning "for C. I deco1DJ1isaioning at an early stage of facility construction and * operation is desirable" ls appropriate. Actually, such planning 1 should be accomplished early in the design sta e in conjunction with design reviews for operability and malnta nability. It should also be noted that the record-keeping provisions of the rule C -, \ are entirely consistent with good maintenance practices to enhance ' ' reliability and dose minimization (AIARA), We have expended considerable thought and effort in the preparation of these co1DJ11ents. our intent has been to provide logical, practical and constructive suggestion* to the NRC to guide ita deliberation* in decommiasioning of power reactors. We hope that the NRC will consider the content of the comments from those points of view. Sincerely, L,~ L. Bernath, Manager Nuclear Department J-111

                                                    ,.-*./:.,~[; ~Ult f r( -..u            b1 ~               @

YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY(ScFI.~ 7*lephone 617 872*8 100 FYC 85-06

                                                                         .        GLA 85-50 167 I Worceiter Rood, From,ngltom, Mouo,ltv**"* 0I701 May 9, 1985                        ""\,'"I' .. :. .. :---

A. R. SOUCY - *1.. :;~.~. :~ Secretary of the Co111111ission '85 NAY10 AJt:12 United States ~uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comnents Pertaining to Decommissioning Criteria for ~uclear Facilities; Proposed Rule (50 FR 5600, 11 February 1985)

Dear Sir:

Yankee Atomic Electrlc Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject document. Yankee Ato~ic owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowe, Massachusetts. The Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services for other nuclear power plants New England. Yankee Atomic has maintained its awareness vf this rulemaking since 1978, when the Commission published the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking together with s~veral WJREG reports on decommissioning technology and costs. Most recently, we participated in the Commission briefing made on September 20, 1984 on the financial and technical aspects of decommissioning. Yankee Atomic is also a member of the Utility Decommissioning Group (UDG), which ls comprised of the Edison Electric Institute and thirteen nuclear utilities, and we have participated in the development of the comments that ,.,111 be filed by the U!:>G 3 t our request and in our 1:iehal f. We urge the Commission to give the fullest consideration to the UDG's comments, since they represent a unique and insightful contribution to the record in this rulemaking. In addition, we would like to briefly summarize our position as follows, First, we believe that if the Co11111ission should decide to proceed with this rule, it should reconsider its proposed use of the $100 million certification alternative for providing financial assurance of decom1nissioning 'Dz... I (Cl.) funds. While the Commission's rationale for certification appears to be the commendable objective of mini~izing the administrative burdens for itself and licensees, we believe that the certification alternative is similar to the imposition of a revenue req*.li rement -a matter *,hich is for regulatory agencies, rather than the Commission, to determine. In most cases, it is clear the $100 ~,1110~ would oe inadequate to cover decommissioning for a I large scale power reactor. The Commission has evidently adopted the SlOO mllllon figure from the Ratelle study, which was designed to estimate decommissioning costs in order of magnitude ter111s only. Also, the proposed rule does not :nake clur what costs the $100 million certification amount is D 'Z, I { ~) intended to cover. J-112

Secretary of the Commission May 8, 1985 Page 2 The Commission should seek to avoid the selection of such an inappropriate certification amount, especially where the codification of a specific 8111ount in the Connission's regulations could well become a '[)?, I (4,.) presumption or a cost ceiling in utility rate proceedings. If the Commission should decide, instead, to proceed with its rule as proposed, we believe there will be a substantial risk to utilities that rate regulators would tend to reject arguments by utilities that the Commission's $100 million figure was somehow inappropriately chosen. Thus, we suggest that the certification alternative be deleted, or that the certification amount be appropriately revised and its purpose clarified. I1) z.. l ( \:,)

    ~ . we are concerned about the possibility that the proposed deconnissioning requirements would be imposed as conditions of operating licenses. There would be a substantial risk, for example, despiLe the Commissions contrary intentions, that a licensee's desire to change an approved funding plan would be construed as requiring a license amendment.

Host changes, in fact, could be expected to increase the licensee's level of funding, to reflect changes in inflation and interest rates. Such changes would not adversely affect any party's interests. Further, the proposed requirements could be said to have no direct impact on safe operation of the p. 4, 4 plant. We believe that the formal hearing procedures associated with license amendments would be inappropriate in most all cases regarding desired changes to a funding plan. Further, we believe that the Collllllission should seek to avoid the kind of procedural problems that have arisen when it attempts to modify a requirement that was established as a license condition.Cl) The Commission's enforcement authority is the same, regardless of whether a violation of a regulation or a license condition is involved. Thus, we suggest that the Commission avoid the imposition of decommissioning funding and record keeping C. ,. '2.. requirements as license conditions, and clarify in any final rule that changes to a funding plan or record keeping program do not constitute license amendments. Very truly yours, CRO:~C:I~. ~ANY A. R. Soucy =-... Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer ARS/djw (1) See, e.g., Union of Concerned Scientists V. Nuclear ~egulatory Connission, 711 F. 2d 370 (D.C. Cir. 1983). J-113

May 6 1985

                                                         '85 H~Y 10 All :19 LFF 0QC *-I: 'I :::i .'~ ~ c.**

Secretary of the Commission aRANC~ U,S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D,C, 20555 Gentlemen: Confirming my May 6 1985 telephone call to Mr, Keith Steyer, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, request the Department of the Army be given a 90 day extension to comment on the NRC Proposed Rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, Title 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72 (FR VOL 50 No 28, dated Feb 11, 1985), Alternatively, recommend NRC revise and restaff the proposed rule to provide the additional information needed for review and implementation to include federal agency funding criteria and other issues which follow, The extension is requested to permit the Army to more thoroughly review the proposed rule; to assess potential impact and recommend additional changes s~ C. COMl'WIC, "'- \::- which would fulfill the intent of the Proposed Rule with the least adverse impact on Army readiness and programs, L ~ tt~... No. a3S-NRC has issued approximately 177 licenses to Anny organizations without including licenses issued to contractors operating Anny government owned, contractor operated facilities or to contractors providing services or equipment to the U,S, Anny, Some of these licenses are limited in scope of materials and locations; other licenses cover a variety of materials at many locations and use throughout the Army and other services, Each such Army broad license is the equivalent to having several hundred Anny activities get-ting their own licenses, While the percentage of licenses held by the Army may be small, the coverage is significant, To date our review indicates:

a. Decommissioning cost estimates appear very low based on experi-ences at Weldon Spring ($160,000,000 to cleanup contamination caused by an AEC contractor), at Seneca Army Depot ($300,000 for Anny cleanup of igloos in which AEC had stored ore; $1,300,000 if done by contract) and at Frankford Arsenal ($2,000,000 for cleanup of contamination related to source and byproduct licensed operations in non-readily dispersible form),

r. ,.'( . .

Ac.i.nJ'"',c-~<

                                                   , * "y
                                                       - *-*"         " 11 -*.!, ...
                                                           **- u .******.*           i ~
                                                                                       -. r'L J-114

b. Proposed rule should have included NRC unrestricted use levels which are needed to realistically assess the proposed decommissioning costs.

c. NRC appears to have overlooked certain significant implications related to Federal licensees. The costs associated with Federal licensees is not included on Page 5612. The proposed Federal entity certification in 10CFR 30.35(e)(4) (and elsewhere in related other Parts) needs legal review in light of 31 USC 1517 which precludes Federal employees from obligating money in advance of appropriation. If a Federal agency could legally provide such certification, reorganization or abolishment of the agency could occur without Se.E:. Co rYI M~vi+

decommissioning being accomplished. Therefore there is a ~eed for a Federal funding strategy and logically NRC should he the lead to develop such a L~"" tJo. 135" strategy. Without such a strategy, compliance might not be possible.

d. The proposed rule doesn't appear clear as to the financial obliga-tions of broad scope licensees related to their various authorized facilities/

sites. Maintenance of records might not be a sufficient substitute for requiring readjustment of financial assurance in the event of an incident. In the future recommend that proposed changes of this impact be more widely publicized. The ~ajority of Federal agencies contacted by this office were unaware of the proposal, Sincerely, d,,r,~zz:

                                     ~twin N. ~aras Chief, Health Physics Safety Office Copies Furnished:

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Re~earch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co1111Dission, WASH, DC 20555 ODASD(EO/SP), Rm lB873, Pentagon, WASH DC 20310 Deputy, ESCH, CASA (I&L), Rm 2E577, Pentagon, WASH DC 20310 HQDA (DAEN-ZCE), WASH DC 20310 HQDA (DAPE-HRS), WASH DC 20310 NAVSEA DEPT OF AGRICULTURE J-115

NUCLEAA ENERGY BUSINESS OPERATIONS GENEW ElECTlll( (QmiANY

• 175 CURTNER AVENUE* SAN JOSE, CAUFOl!NIA 95125

                                                                                 - ** iNf.C April 29, 1985
                                                                        '85       11AY 10 All :51 Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                     ~FO~-- ; . *, . . 'a ,,_': ..

Washington, D. C. 20555 'J "" ** ,,

• J * ,I 3Ri\NCH Attention: Docketing and Services Branch

SUBJECT:

GE COMMENTS ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ON DECOMMISSIONING CR~~~RIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES (50 F. R. 5600; February 11, 1985) General Electric (GE) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. The requirements for decommissioning are an important nuclear licensing issue, especially those concerning the assurance of decommissioning funds. The Atomic Industrial Forum and its member organizations, including GE, submitted recommendations to the Commission regarding a re-evaluation of the decommissioning regulations on July 17, 1978. At that time we explained our view that the current decommissioning regulations were adequate. Nevertheless, in response to the Commission's proposed decommissioning rule, GE offers the following specific comments. We support the proposed rule's method of permitting research and test 3 reactor licenses and materials licenses (in contrast to power reactors) G:r. 11 (:,., to be considered on a case-by-case basis, where applicable. Regarding the financial assurance requirements of the proposed rule, we believe ~ualification for the various funding methods should be based on the financial condition and decommissioning risk of the specific applicant or licensee. This could be done by use of an objective financial test or tests, thus avoiding arbitrary groupings of utilities, governments, and '1 I I all others as criteria for funding methods. In addition, we believe \) * (o, * ' that a financial test plus a guarantee should be added as an acceptable funding method. Use of standard financial tests on a case-by-case basis would improve the degree of financial assurance and eliminate unnecessary cost burdens for many non-utility, non-government entities. Additional, detailed comments concerning financial assurance appear as an attachment to this letter. GE believes that there are a number of issues which should be resolved prior to the issuance of this rule in order to permit the rule to be implemented most effectively. The definition of decommissioning in the proposed rule requires that residual radioactivity be reduced to a level that permits release of the property/facility for unrestricted use. However, no limit for the level of required decontamination has been established and, in addition, there are significant difficulties in arranging for the disposal of some constituents of the radioactive wastes.

                                                                        "  .:    . : :*~
                                                                            ........~~

J-116

GENERAL$ ELECTRIC Page 2 Secretary of the Commission 4/29/85 The level of decontamination required for release to unrestricted use should be specified prior to issuance of the rule to allow an assessment G,2 of the cost of decommissioning. Without these limits, we must assume that the Regulatory Guide 1.86 values are acceptable. The current requirements for land disposal of radioactive wastes (10CFR61) appear to prevent highly activated hardware containing nickel-63 from being accepted for burial. The NRC should ensure that materials such as control blade tips which have been removed and sectioned for disposal can be buried. In addition, burial of transuranic wastes and large quantities of cesium-137 is not presently permitted. A regulation which requires the decommissioning of a facility should not, at the same time, produce components which could not be disposed of and which would therefore require continued surveillance. 1-\.1.1 In addition, while the NRC has no direct responsibility in this area, the uncertainty regarding availability of low-level radwaste disposal sites must be resolved. The deadline for interstate compact control of radwaste disposal sites is January, 1986; but no compact has yet been ratified. Without such a resolution, only facilities located in a state which is a member of a compact having a current disposal site would be able to dispose of its waste. Facilities in other States would be forced to utilize either SAFSTOR or ENTOMB since, under the current scheme, they would either be excluded from use of the burial site or would be penalized through the assessment of a use charge. If there are any questions on the information provided herein, please contact me or R. L. Gridley (408) 925-3732. "/~;., Glenn G. Sherwood, Manager Nuclear Safety & Licensing Operation Attachment (s) J-117

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANC[AL ASSVRANCE REQUIREMENTS The stated objective of the proposed rule on financing decommissioning is "to require the licensee to provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds are available to ensure that decommissioning can be D. 8. \ accomplished in a safe manner and that lack of funds does not result in delays that may cause potential health and safety problems," We concur in this objective and we comment the NRC for permitting flexibility in 1).3. l planning for decommissioning in light of the variety of facility types and licensee financial situations. However, we believe the rule as proposed is overly restrictive, Furthermore, in some cases, the rule would result in cost burdens which do not enhance the degree of assurance of the availability of funds and,

                                                                                          'D,G,.~.I. \

thus, are not necessary in meeting NRC's stated objective. The proposed rule makes no distinction between nuclear facilities with a generally fixed operating life such as power reactors and facilities with an open ended operating life (e.g., materials laboratories, spent fuel storage facilities, fuel production facilities, etc., that are part of ongoing businesses). The proposed regulation appears to require that a funding method be implemented immediately upon approval of a licensee's preliminary decommissioning funding plan. This blanket 6,3 approach to all nuclear facilities, regardless of planned operating life, seems inappropriate and inconsistent with normal business and financial practices (i.e., money is not normally set aside for business termination until the termination is actually foreseen). A more normal and appropriate approach would be to proceed w1th planning for decommissioning as proposed in the rule, but to defer implementation of a funding method until termination of operations is plar~ed. The propcsed rule states several principal funding methods and also "other funding methods which are demonstrated by the applicant or licensee to provide comparable assurance to the (principal) methods 1). (p.y:z.. listed **** " No definition of these other methods is provided, which makes it difficult to comment in detail. We consider the other methods J-118

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS and the specific criteria for evaluating "comparable assurance" to be significant issues and are interested in any further information and examples that might be available. We would like to provide additional comments on those issues to the NRC. Nevertheless, we hope that at least some of the enclosed recommendations will be helpful in defining "comparable assurance." In many cases, the proposed rule would not provide a reasonable and appropriate balance between costs to the applicant/licensee and the benefits in terms of degree of financial assurance. A prime reason for this is the categorization of applicants and licensees into four groups, each with a different set of standards for financial assurance: o Electric utilities with more than one generating facility, o Electric utilities with one generating facility. o Federal, state and local governments. 0 All other D,'-,L.f.1,1 We surmise that the intent of the first three categories is to identify those types of entities with consistently strong financial conditions and very low probabilities of default (i.e., utilities and government entities). Since these applicants/licensees represent relatively low risk, they are permitted less restrictive and less costly funding methods (e.g., internal reserves, government guarantees). In these cases, the balance between the cost of the funding methods versus the size of the risk seems reasonable. However, we believe that the "All Other" category includes many applicants/licensees with similar financial strengths (dependable revenue sources, long histories of financial stability, etc.). The All Other category includes some of America's largest and financially strongest companies. Many of these large companies have independent credit ratings that compare favorably with those of utilities and state and local governments. Hore over, the decommissioning costs probably J-119

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS represent a much smaller proportion of overall financial resources for these large companies than is the case for most utilities. In the interest of fairness, we feel strongly that any applicant/licensee that can demonstrate continuing financial stability and solvency should not be required to assume an unnecessary, and perhaps unreasonable, cost burden with respect to the assurance of available funds. As explained in more detail below, we urge that the rule recognize the use of available standard financial measurements in evaluating an applicant/licensee's financial condition and its ability to meet decommissioning costs. Since these measurements would be applied consistently to all applicants/ licensees, it appears that the evaluations would be more objective and equitable than designating certain funding methods for certain types of licensees. Not only do we believe such measurements would be valuable in alleviating undue cost D.G,.Ll. t. ' burdens to the applicant/licensees by more clearly identifying financial risk and the need for a particular funding method, but more importantly, we believe a better level of financial assurance would result. We have two strong recommendations in this regard:

1. A standard financial test or tests should be established to eval-uate eligibility for the various proposed funding methods (rather than using industry/government groupings), and

2. A financial test shr ild be --ided .s an acceptable funding method, that is, if an applicant/licensee met the financial test, that test plus an applic ... t/licensee guarantee would rep.-esent financial assurance and no other additional funding provision would be required.

Various financial tests have been used for many years by creditors, investors and independent rating services which have proved accurate in measuring financial conditions. Financial tests are used in the Envi-ronme,ntal Protection Agency's "Standards Applicable to Owners and J-120

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities" (40 CFR Parts 264 and 265). The EPA uses two alternative sets of criteria to recognize that different industries have different normal financial standards. The two alternatives are shovn as follows: Alternative l: (A) Two of the following three ratios: a ratio of total liabilities to net worth less than 2.0; a ratio of the sum of net income plus depreciat!.0'1, deuletion, and amortization to total liabilities greater than 0.1; and a ratio of current assets to current liabilities greater than 1. S; and (B) Net working capital and tangible net worth each at least six times the sum of the current closure and post-closure cost estimates; and (C) Tangible net worth of at least $10 million; and (D) Assets in the United States amounting to at least 90 percent of total assets or at least six times the sum of the current closure and post-closure cost estimates. Alternative II: (A) A current rating for most recent bond issuance of AAA, , A, or BBB as issued by Standard and Poor' s or Aaa, Aa, A, or Baa as issued by Moody's; and (B) Tangible net worth at least six times the sum of the current closure and post-closure cost estimates; and (C) Tangible net worth of at least $10 million; and J-121

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON Fl~ANCIAL ASS~RA..~CE REOUIREMENTS (D) Assets in the United States amounting to at least 90 percent of total assets or at least six times the sum of the current closure and post-closure cost estimates. Besides these two alternatives, the EPA regulations also permit peti-tions to include additional test criteria by a particular industry. We also recommend that at least one additional alternative financial test be included: If decommissioning costs constitute a small fraction* (e.g., 5%) of a licensee's net worth and the licensee provided a guaran-tee, this would be sufficient financial assurance. This is merely an extension of the EPA financial tests. The EPA tests include a net worth requirement of at least six times the cost estimate for facility clo-sure. However, a licensee whose net worth is 20 or 50 times decommis-sioning cost probably represents much less risk than a licensee whose 1), G,. ~. l, I net worth is six times decommissioning cost. Looking at it another way, a decommissioning cost of $10 million may appear significant in isola-tion, but may be an insignificant risk if it represented only 5% of an applicant/licensee's total assets, net worth, revenues, etc. We believe a licensee facing a $10 million decommissioning cost with a $20 million net worth represents much greater risk than a licensee facing a $50 million decommissioning cost with a $1 billion net worth. Additional alternative financial tests may be appropriate to accommodate different types of licensees. We believe the Commission should seek such information from applicants/licensees. A financial test should also contain a provision which addresses deteri-oration of a licensee's financial condition. It is unlikely that a financially sound licensee (i.e., one which meets financial test criteria) would go bankrupt in a short time period. However, to protect against deterioration, the licensee's ability to meet the test should be reviewed annually. If a licensee is no longer able to meet the test, J-122

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS that licensee should be required to provide another funding method within a short time period. The financial tests should have sufficient safety margin so that there would be reasonable financial assurance during that period. As a matter of reference, the EPA financial tests include such a provision. We recognize that the addition of a financial test and guarantee as an acceptable funding method would present some administrative burden to the Co111111ission. However, we believe that the benefits of this method would far outweigh any disadvantages. The EPA has administered a financial test method for several years and we are unaware of any significant problems. In addition, it seems that the administrative burden would be less for the NRC than the EPA because (a) there are fewer nuclear facilities/licensees than hazardous waste facilities, and (b) there has been long-standing and tight control maintained by the Federal Government for the nuclear industry (as opposed to the much more recent regulation of hazardous waste). Whatever additional costs would be incurred by the Commission would be far more than offset by the 1),"*"'*'* \ applicant/licensee savings realized by not having to spend money need-lessly and unproductively for other funding methods. In regard to the guarantee that would go along with a financial test, we understand that the Commission may be concerned about the obligations of a parent company versus an operating subsidiary. In NUREG-0584 ("Assur-ing the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities"), the Commission mentioned that in the event of an operating subsidiary default, assets of the parent company might be shielded from creditors. Thus the issue coulo be avoided by requiring that a guarantee be pro-vided by the parent company. It may also be pertinent to note that the EPA accepts guarantees from both operating subsidiaries and parent companies. Specific comments on the various funding methods included in the proposed rule are discussed in the following paragraphs. J-123

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

1) Prepayment: While this method provides a high degree of financial assurance, it also represents a very significant cost burden to licensees. An applicant would be required to set aside funds in advance of deriving any benefit from the facility. Although interest could be earned on the prepaid fund, the interest earned would very likely be less than the (a) potential return on investing in a company's own business, or (b) cost of money if the prepa}'lllent has to b~ borrowed. In the case of borcowing, the additional debt would also have an unfavorable effect on the applicant /licensee's general financial condition.

A utility might select the prepa}'lllent method because its costs might be passed on to its customers. However, that seems unproductive and would benefit no one (except the bank holding the fund). 1), (p. '4 . I * \ We expect that this alternative will not be chosen frequently.

2) External Sinking Fund: This method is less burdensome in that more time is allowed to accumulate funds. However, the requirement for insurance or a surety method in addition to the sinking fund may be unnecessary in many cases and a financial test and evaluation of risk should be used to-*

determine the need for insurance. In the case of a financially strong licensee, additional insurance would have no material effect on the financial risk but would represent additional cost. Even the possibility of a premature closure may not significantly increase the risk of default in many cases. For many licensees, nuclear facilities (a) contribute a small portion of overall revenues, and (b) represent decommissioning costs that are only a small fraction of overall assets, net worth, etc. J-124

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQVIREMENTS One significant aspect related to the sinking fund method that needs clarification is the amount of time that would be allowed for existing licensees to accumulate in the fund the total estimated cost. Obviously there will be many different situations to consider and possibly a case-by-case review needed. However, this is a very significant consideration. A short period for accumulation could present an unreasonable burden for certain licensees. Based on the one example mentioned in the proposed rule, it appears that the Commission is considering relatively short time periods to accumulate funds for existing licensees. (The example states that if more than 5 years remain prior to license expiration an acceptable period of time would be 5 years or one-third of the remaining license period, whichever is greater.) In our opinion, such short periods are unrea-sonable and inappropriate. The shorter the time period allowed for accumulation, the greater the cost burden without an associated benefit. For comparison, the EPA regulations for hazardous waste facilities require funas to be accumulated over the initial permit (license) period or the remaining operating life of the facility as estimated in the closure plan, whichever is shorter.

3) Surety Method or Insurance: Since there is no current compet-itive market for sureties or insurance specifically for decommissioning, it *_s difficult to provide constructive analytical comments. However, the very absence of competitive markets is a cause for concern. It is conceivable that applicants/licensees could find themselves at the mercy of a few insurers. This situation could present a serious cost burden for the insured parties, especially for those applicants/licensees who were left with no alternative because of the heavy capital requirements of the prepayment or sinking fund methods.

J-125

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS .Q!:!. FINANCIAL ASSrRANCE REQUIREMENTS In view of the large size of some of the applicants/licensees, it is also possible that the insured could have higher credit ratings and greater financial resources than the insurer. We feel self-insurance is a valid means of keeping insurers competitive and reasonable. The higher degree of risk asso-ciated with self-insurance is recognized; however, a financial test would be useful in identifying those applicants/licensees for whom self-insurance would be acceptable. .'nother approach might be to allow a combination of external and self-insurance.

4) Internal Reserve: We recognize that this funding method is only permitted for utilities with more than one generating 1). ~.a.t. \, \

facility because they generally have stable revenue bases and strong financial positions. However, we believe that the determination of funding methods permitted should be based on an evaluation of the financial condition of and the decommis-sioning cost for the specific applicant/licensee. The evalu-ation should be based on standard financial test criteria applied consistently to all applicants/licensees, and those that meet the criteria (whether or not they are utilities with more than one generating facility) should be allowed to use the internal reserve method. We recognize that the internal reserve alternative could represent higher risk, thus the Commission c0uld restrict use of the internal reserve method to financially strong applicants/licensees whose strength would be determined by a financial test. J-126

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS The internal reserve method is most desirable because, as the Commission comments, this method is less expensive than an external sinking fund or prepayment since a company can normally earn more from its own capital structure than by investing in higher grade commercial securities outside the company. We believe that the internal reserve method would also be less expensive than a surety method or insurance. This cost differential can be significant. As an example, many companies' average return on capital is significantly better than the current yields on higher grade securities (10-12%). We believe that this differential, plus the addi-tional cost of having an outside administrator of the fund, represents an unnecessary and unjustified cost burden. 1). (p. 4. \. \ There is an added burden for some applicants/licensees related to taxes. The Tax Reform Act of 1984 allows utilities to take tax deductions for payments to decommissioning funds. However, non-utility, non-government applicants/licensees are denied this deduct ion, thus making their cost burden even greater. The proposed rule would eliminate the internal reserve as a funding method during an extended decommissioning period (e.g., SAFSTOR). Reasons mentioned are that (a) financial risk would increase once a nuclear facility stops producing revenue, and (b) there wvuld be additi0nal administrative burden on the NRC to monitor an internal reserve during the extended decommissioning period. Regarding the~e points, so long as a licensee met a financial test, financial risk would not increase and we believe that periodic review would not be burdensome. J-127

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

5) Federal, State and Local Government Guarantees: As in the case of the internal reserve method discussed above, we believe that choice of the funding method for any particular applicant/ licensee should be based on the ability of that applicant/licensee to satisfy an appropriate standard financial test, rather than as a result of categorizing. We 1),G,.~- ,. \

believe there are many private companies that would compare favorably with certain state and local governments in terms of financial condition. We believe that a guarantee should be acceptable for any entity meeting appropriate financial criteria, not just government entities.

6) Other Methods: As mentioned above, clarification and specific criteria are needed concerning other methods nich would provide comparable assurance. We suggest that objective financial tests and quantification of decommissioning cost in relation to financial resources should be fundamental criteria for measuring "comparable assurance."

We understand that the Commission plans to issue regulatory guides which will address how these funding methods will be implemented. We will be interested 1~ reviewing those guides and will appreciate the opportunity to comment on them. We also believe there would be significant value in having open public comment meetings between the Commission and groups of G-:' applicant/licensees on the proposed rule. Such meetings would l:,e very useful in discussing and clarifying the proposed rule, its effects and the possible alternative means of achieving the same objectives, J-128

ATTACHMENT COMMENTS ON FINANCIAL ASS~RANCE REQUIREMENTS In summary, we believe greater latitude should be permitted in the methods of providing financial assurance. We believe that the currently proposed rule unnecessarily discriminates against non-utility, non-government applicants and licensees. The allowance of funding methods for applicant/licensees should be based on individual financial condition and ability to meet decommissioning costs, not on arbitrary 1). ~. ~- \. \ groupings. Evaluating decommissioning cost in relation to overall financial resources would help quantify the risk of default and help establish appropriate funding methods in view of tha~ risk. The finan-cial tests discussed earlier appear to be a simple, objective means to provide financial assurance in a cost effective manner. We ~ill be happy to discuss these comments further at the Commission's convenience. J-129

wa.,...H -""*

         - <t o,~..:..,:,en:
         *.    ,  .. 1 , :':-<tu ,1,*rs Detroit   Fe,mt-2
         .:..,: * *,-*** '"'\,~_, """*'J"A\,
 =Ciison  ',*'A, -*

_:* .:. ':'Ot

                            '.t,, r,,J,.f J(7{'()

J*5v May 7, 198ioe,KETEC' NE-85-019 0.;SHRC

                                                                               '85 KAY 10 Pl2 :39 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Subject:

Proposed Rule Regarding Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 {February 11, 19651 Detroit Edison owns and operates Fermi 2, a licensed nuclear power reactor in Monroe County, Michigan. As such, it has considerable interest in the Commission's proposed rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities. In response to the request for comments, Detroit Edison reviewed the Commission's proposed rule published in 50 Fed. Reg. 56C0 (February 11, 1985). Provided herein are Detroit Edison's comments on the proposed rule. A. The Final Rule Should Include Internal Reserve as an Acceptable Means for oeconunissioning Funding Prior to receiving an operating license for a nuclear power facility, utilities are subject to rigorous financial scrutiny. Once a utility overcomes the financial burden imposed by constructing a nuclear power facility, the likelihood of financial instability or insolvency is exceedingly remote. Detroit Edison applauds the inclusion of the internal reserve as an appropriate funding method in the proposed rulemaking. Detroit Edison in testimony before the Michigan Public Service Commission demon-strated the fact that the internal reserve method is the least cost alternative to customers. Allowing a utility to generate funds internally will reduce the necessity for external financing and enhance the utility's financial position. Detroit Edison believes that the internal reserve method of decommissioning funding provides reasonable assurance that a utility will be able to finance the decommissioning effort. J-130

Hr. Samuel J. Chilk May 7, 1985 NE-85-0190 Page 2 B. The $100 Million Funding Amount Will be Misinterpreted by state Regulators The $100 million funding amount is intended to be an amount sufficient to cover the decommissioning costs for most power reactors. The risk, however, is that such an amount will be viewed as an upper limit or maximum in Rate Case proceedings. In addition, this $100 million amount may not be sufficient for large commercial reactors that have just recently been put into service. As a result, and contrary to the Commission's intent, the $100 million funding would, therefore, be inadequate. State Regulators generally require substantiation of all utility costs. The fact that there is a

   $100 million certification will not relieve the utility of the burden of cost substantiation.

Should the utility cost estimate exceed the $100 million certification, it will face an enormous burden to rebut the presumption that $100 million was *sufficient* to cover decommissioning costs. Detroit Edison would urge that the $100 million amount be eliminated, or, in the alternative, have the Commission provide adequate explanation in the rule to preclude such misinterpretation of the figure. Such explanation might include a DZ,' (b) statement that the amount is not intended to and does not actually represent the cost a utility might incur in decommissioning a facility. C. The Proposed Inflation Adjustment Factor of Twice the consumer Price Index /CPil is unrealistic The escalation rate of twice the annual CPI rate is arbitrary 3nd mQy eve _uall. lead to a level of funding that is out of line with the required costs. Such escalations do not account for changes in the technology of decommissioning 1)'2.' (4.) likely to occur between the time of granting an operating license and decommissioning. It is quite likely that this factor will, like the $100 million certification amount, be imposed as a presumption that the utility will be forced to rebut in state regulatory proceedings. If retained in the final rule, clarification should be provided as to what the factor is intended to l)'2.l(b) be used for by the NRC. J-131

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 7, 1985 NE-85-0190 Page 3 D. Specific Aspects of Decor.unissioning Should Not Be Included in the Operating License of a facility Including the specific requirements of decommissioning outlined in the rule as license conditions is likely to result in unnecessary hearings. By including such requirements as license conditions, any change to a decomr.tissioning plan could be viewed as a license amendment and, therefore, subject to the notice and hearing requirements of Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act. It is apparently the intent of the Commission to eliminate unnecessary hearings and to limit all other hearings, as evidenced by the proposed *Nuclear D. y.4 Power Plant Licensing and Standardization Act of 19Ss*, to those items which could impact the public health and safety. Detroit Edison proposes that the decommissioning requirements not be included as license conditions because they are not safety-related. Decor:unissioning requirements could be promulgated as regulations which would not otherwise inhibit or limit the enforcement authority of the Commission in this matter. Furthermore, regulations tend to be implemented or interpreted more consistently, whereas license conditions tend to be very site, Region, and Utility-specific, which could result in inconsistent applications. E. The Rule Should Contain Provisions Addressing Funding Plans Approved by state Regulatory Bodies Any rulemaking should recognize states such as Michigan that already have decommissioning hearing~ underway. The funding plan appro\~d by the regulatory body governing the majority of the 1),8,3.\ utility's business should be considered adequate by the NRC. The majority regulatory jurisdiction should have time to implement its order. Consequently, the two year time period provided for submitting information for those plants already holding licenses should apply to a.ll utilities. This would allow for the holding and completion of hearings by the majority regulatory body in the state, J-132

Mr. Sam1..1el J. Chilk May 7, 1985 NE-85-0190 Page 4 Detroit Edison requests that the Commission's proposed rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities be modified as discussed in these comments. If you should have any further questions, please con-tact Mr. T, Randazzo at (313) 586-4320. Sincerely, cc: Mr. P. M, Byron 1~11-~ Mr. M. David Lynch USNRC Document Control Desk J-133

                                '~               , I
      - ~ -~rQ;;.E .M~ ,- f\       - ~ ,¢4 SJ e,/.4-(

c5a PIZ s~od) © MARY z. SKO,V.PA, M.D. STEVENSTOWN ROAD, R. F. D. 5 A, BOX 31 7 GAJlDINER, MAINE 0434 5

                                                        .~ ,.

J-134

PO eox 1178

• MIi.WAUKEE. WISCONSIN 53201
• TELEPHONE (41') 289-9800
• TELEX 269452 May 7, 1985 *~ t\{ "r- -:-- "'

                                                                                           .,~. SN~*c-*

Secretary of the Commission -SS NAY 10 P4 :55 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

RE: Nuclear Regulatory Conunission, 10 CFR Parts 30,40,50,51, 70 and 72, Decommiss.:..ming Cri.teria for Nuclear Facilities We are writing to express our comments on the NRC proposed amendment "Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities." We are a 55-person operation with one location in Milwaukee. We prepare primarily thorium chemicals from imported raw material from Canada. We also prepare a very small amount of depleted uranium chemicals. Our processes generate no liquid wastes which cannot be adequately discharged into our normal sewer system. All solid waste material is properly compacted and sent out for burial at approved sites. Such solid wastes may total only 25-50 fifty-five gallon drums over a 2-3 year period. Our in-house safety program, supervised by a Safety Official and an assistant, involves constant monitoring of air, water, surface contamination and employee exposure. Any spills or other possible contamination from broken crucibles, ruptured furnaces, etc., are immediately cleaned up, and all areas totally decontaminated. Thus, for all practical purposes, our facility is always within acceptable NRC levels for exposure to thorium and the very small amount of depleted uraniura work we might <lo. We already have an effective plan for disposing of any inven-tory or waste material and have invested considerable funds in our ~ 1),fo.~' ,. \ Safety Program. :i:>':

                                                                                                                 ~-;

If we ever vacated our present facility (which we have no long-range plans to do; in fact, we are contemplating an expansion), it would be very simple and quick for us to demonstrate a safe environ-ment for subsequent users of the premises. Under NRC regulations contained in Part 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, we are required to keep records of inventory ...~* and document any spills or other incidents of contamination. We have invested considerable sums in monitoring equipment, compaction apparatus and disposal services to stay in daily compliance with all NRC regulations. In addition, we spend additional amounts of Off,ce. Plant and Labo<at0<y 407 No 1Jtti St Milwaukee. W,scons,n 53233 Metal. Alloy and Ceram,c Powde, g I'!.. I The Staff opposes the use of a 25 percent contingency factor as well as a doubled Consumer Price Index escalator .

                                             ~C, *. , ... t,.  * .-: * : ....,1 .*.

J-137

A contingency factor is unnecessary and a more relevant escalator would be the Implicit Price Deflator for Gross

                                                             ,I 1). , . ' .1\

1),2* \ { b) National Product. The proposed $100 million fund should not apply to both Boiling Water Reactors ("BWR") and Pressurized Water Reactors ("PWR"). The contaminated portion of a BWR is more extensive than that of a PWR, A further differentiation should be made with respect to the amount of the fund between 1). '2. I ( b) pre and post TMI units. A significant difference in the amount of contaminated material (steel and concrete) will exist for these types of units upon decommissioning. The benchmark suggested in the proposed regulations assumes decommissioning of a Post TMI type unit. Amounts collected for an internal reserve fund should be held in escrow and not available to the utility for general corporate investment purposes. Contingency Factor The 25 percent contingency factor proposed in the regulations is unnecessary. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission has recently disallowed this type of claim in connection with Pennsylvania Power & Light's Susquehanna 2 D. \I\. t.\ nuclear facility. A 2S percent contingency level is far in excess of the amount budgeted for contingencies in construction of nuclear generating units. For example, Philadelphia Electric Company's construction contingency level is 7 percent for Limerick 2. J-138

The Staff anticipates that accl!lllulated experience with decommissioning, workforce specialization and competition 1). l. ,.~ among decontamination firms will reduce actual decommissioning expense below the level currently anticipated. CPI Escalator The proposed escalation factor of 2 x's the Consumer Price Index is excessive. This index tracks the price of many goods that are unrelated to the decommissioning process. 1)2. I (o..) In Pennsylvania, the Implicit Price Deflater for Gross D'2..l (b) National Product is used to track the effects of inflation when financial projections are utilized. Again, given the economies in the decommissioning process that Staff believes will accrue, the price deflator is a more reasonable escalator to use than a doubling of the CPI. BWR's versus PWR's Staff submits it is well accepted that Boiling Water Reactors *:-.11erently include a larger c0ntaminated area D:2.1 ( b) than Pressurized Water Reactors. In setting the amount of a decommissioning fund that must be accumulated, this difference should be taken into account. J-139

Pre versus Post TMI Units In setting the level of funding for decommissioning, a distinction should be made between pre and post TMI units. Given the additional steel and concrete mandated after TMI l)-z.1(6) in construction, a significant difference in the tonnage of contaminated material can be expected. The benchmark relied upon for the proposed regulations is a post-TMI unit. The level of funding should be adjusted for pre-TMI units. Internal Reserve Option The Staff recognizes that in cases where funding is accumulated through an internal reserve that investment at the discretion of the utility can enhance the size of 1). 3.2.1., (a..) this fund over time. However, given the importance of the purpose to whic~ these funds will be expended - decommissioning of nuclear facilities - additional assurance that the funds will be available when needed is necessary. Consequently the Staff recommends that the funds should be maintained in escrow. Conclusion With the exceptions mentioned above, the staff of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission supports the proposed regul".tions for decommissioning. The modifications J-140

we propose would be in the interest of utilities and ratepayers. I(;. \ Q.8, \ Respectfully submitted, For the Staff of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission Dated: May 10, 1985 J-141

.SMUD SACRAMENlO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT : 6201 S Street. PO Bo* 15830. Sacramento CA 95852-1830. 19161 452-3211 AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFCRNIA o~:!~*-~::

                                                                                                            -      )    * nual adjustments are prescribed at twice the Consumer Price Index. Does this preclude the use of other indices which similarly indicate inflationary activity? ff not, might other indices (such as     1)2,\(b)

Chase Econometrics, GNP Deflater, Handy Wittman, etc.) be substituted? Section 50.33(k)(2)(iv) allows a utility to use an internal reserve which is not segregated from licensee assets. The funds are invested in other assets and, ultimately, bonds are issued against these assets to pay for deco11111issioning. In effect, the assurance that funds will be available is provided through the bonding capability of the licensee's assets. Therefore, it should be required that, where the licensee maintains an D.'"3.2,l.2 unsegregated internal reserve, a periodic report as to the utility's bonding capability be filed with the Colffllission. In the case of a utility whose primary source of financing is through the issuance of mortgage bonds, the utility should be required to file a report showing the level of property additions available for funding (such as under a trust indenture). This would provide assurance that bonds could be issued against these assets at the time of decorrrnissioning and that said assets were not pledged (as collateral) in support of previous bond issues. In the case of a utility whose primary source of financing is through the issuance of genera 1 system bonds ( such as a municipal utility) the uti' 'ty st .'d b* required to file a report demonstrating that revenues will be sufficient to support additional debt such as the "Accountant's Certificate" which includes the calculation of debt-service coverage ratios. CRITERIA FOR APPROVING FUND PLANS The criteria for approving a facility-specific decommissioning plan are DZ, I (c) sufficiently described in the proposed rule for purposes of theoretical illustration. However, we suggest that the final rule contain a more specific J-147

Secretary of the Comnission Hay 10, 19e5 or quantitative description of the NRC's criteria for approving proposed /t,2.1(c) funding plans. CONCLUSION In sulllTlary, we rec0111T1end that~~: C011V11ission: determine on a case-by-case basis the need for transferring the decomnissioning fund to an external account when the decommissioning alternative includes a period of storage. recognize that a municipal utility's internal reserve provides a level of assurance equal to that of an external fund. not restrict the use of the internal reserve mechanism to electric utilities owning more than one generatir.g facility *

• consider the differences between public and investor-owned utilities as they affect the "cost of providing assurance".

further dP.fine the term "certification" and its related criteria as used in

 §50.33(k)(i) .

• consider the appropriateness of indices other than the Consu~er Price Index for annual fund a~iustments.

where i nterna 1 reserve funds are invested in the licensee's assets (not segregated) , require a periodic report which certifies the bonding capability of these assets. state the criteria for approving facility-specific deco111T1issionin9 plans in more definitive terms. J-148

Secretary of the Corrmission May 10, 1985 SMUD appreciates the opportunity to submit the above comments for the Commission's consideration. Respectfully Submitted, r ) ,-- IA~ U{. Frank M. Tir.dal i~ Controller Sacramento Municipal Utility District J-149

NORnlEJIS'r 1n1Lrnes (([JJ PO BOX 270 HARTFORO CONNECTICUT 06101 (203)~11

                         '85 MAY 13 P2 :15
                        * ~": u*t* ... ** .,..

r."o~ ; : r,., ~ *;: -~ ~ May 10, 1985

H;.HC~

Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Att: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen: Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities; Proposed Rule (SO FR 5600) On February 11, 1985, the NRC published in the Federal Register (50 FR 5600) for public comment a proposed rule which would provide decommissioning criteria for nuclear facilities. The comment period expires May 13, 1985. As licensees of the Haddam Neck Plant and the Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. l, 2 and 3, respectively, Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) hereby submit our comments in response to the Federal Register notice. Our general comments are attac~ed. It should be recognized that adoption of some of our general comments could require revisions to the proposed rule. We have not provided alternate wording for each of our general comments. However, we would be willing to discuss potential alternate wording with the NRC Staff regarding any of our comments. l .::C: *. 'l *,* ~-. ~ ..... ' .. "

                                                                                              ""'fl$-

J-150

Our staff has been active in the area of decommissioning for many years. We have participated at decommissioning conferences as speakers and session chairmen. We have also been active and have leadership roles with the Utility Decommissioning Group and the AIF Subcommittee on Decommissioning. In addition, representatives from NU presented the industry's viewpoints before the Commission on September 20, 1984. We therefore have a great deal of interest in the proposed rule and future regulatory guides, and in seeing that they provide utilities with the guidance to perform the planning, funding and ultimate dismantlement of our nuclear facilities. Overall, NU compliments the NRC for the thorough job they have done in drafting this proposed rule after extensive research and gathering background information. We are especially pleased with 1),8,l the permitted use of the internal funding mechanism for multi-asset utilities, which would provide sufficient assurance of funds G.I at the time of decommissioning. We applaud the NRC for their statement that *eased on an analysis of the technical data base, decommissioning can be accomplished safely and at reasonable cost shortly after cessation of facility operation* (50 Fed. Reg. at 5603, Col. 3). This statement certainly echoes the utilities' position on decommissioning. Finally, we agree with the NRC that there is no need to prepare an environmental impact statement since the costs and environmental impacts at the time of decommissioning are small compared to the total costs and impacts Fl of building and operating a nuclear power station (see 50 Fed. Reg. at 5610, Col. 1). We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rulemaking. We would be pleased to discuss our comments at your convenience. Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY

                                  - c*
                            ~ . 1-.       Jr-
                             ~
                                        l John      Opeka-fr Senior Vice President J-151

Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 ATTACHMENT HADDAM NECK PLANT MILLSTONE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT NOS, 1, 2 AND 3 General Comments on the Proposed Rule Regarding Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities May, 198 5 J-152

GENERAL COMMENT

S ON THE PROPOSED RULE ON DECOMMISSIONING 1, The $100 Million Certification Alternative One major concern that we have with the rule is the statement on 50 Fed. Reg. at 5606, Col. 3 which effectively states that

  $100 million (1984 dollars) is sufficient to cover decommis-sioning costs for most licensees (emphasis supplied). We feel that this statement is incorrect, and conveys an incorrect impression to the public, to regulators and others. First of all, decommissioning a large nuclear power plant (1150 MWe)     D.2. I ( 4.)

will cost substantially more than $100 million in 1984 dollars. Numerous decommissioning studies, as well as our own Millstone Unit 3 estimate, indicate that $150-$170 million is a more realistic cost estimate. Second, the proposed rule does not indicate whether the $100 million ebcimate includes a contingency, whether it is for a BWR or PWR, its applicability to a large or small nuclear plant, impacts of plant location, -p, Z.l('c>) or the decommissioning method that is assumed. (NU estimates entombment with delayed dismantlement to cost approximately

  $200 million for Millstone Unit 2, an 870 MWe PWR), Third and most important is that state and federal rate regulators could use the $100 million estimate as a ceiling on rate recoveries for decommissioning, even in cases in which the utility provides a valid site specific study demonstrating that decommissioning costs will be substantially higher. Rate regulators throughout the country and the FERC ~ave relied on the out-of-date Battelle Decommissioning Studies (NUREG/

CR-0130 and -0672) for cost estimates and have not included the substantial increases in waste disposal costs as well as other costs not included in the Battelle studies. The reason for our concern is the risk that public utility commissions and the FERC could rely on the NRC's statement that $100 million is sufficient to keep decommissioning cost recovery to an unrealistically low level, thus leading to inadequate decommissioning funding, and thereby frustrating the very financial assurance that the NRC is seeking to provide. Stating that $100 million will provide sufficient funds to cover the costs of decommissioning could effectively put a limit on the amount a utility can recover from its customers even though a site specific study indicates much larger costs will be incurred. The NRC and NU seek the same results from this rulemaking; having the appropriate level of funds to cover decommissioning costs at the time of plant retirement. Use of this $100 million generic estimate could inhibit rate recovery of the higher amounts that a site specific study might demonstrate are necessary for particular units. It should also be ncted that site specific decommissioning cost studies are required by many state regulators and in some cases state statutes, regardless of the certification option of the proposed rule. J-153

With regard to the certification option, a utility corporate officer will not guarantee a certain rate of recovery over the life of the nuclear plant since that power rests with rate 1)2..' (a..) regulators. Therefore, the certification option is not a viable alternative for investor-owned utilities.

2. Inflation Adjustment Our comments concerning the $100 million certification amount also apply to the inflation adjustment in the proposed rule.

The rule proposes an inflation adjustment of twice the Consumer Price Index (see SO Fed. Reg. at 5602, Col. 2), Waste disposal costs have increased at a much higher rate than twice tn.. I (4..) the CPI. Between 1978 and 1984, waste disposal costs at Barnwell have increased over 13001 for low level wastes, while the CPI has increased only 631. The proposed inflation adjustment could be used inappropriately by rate regulators to hold down the recovery of decommissioning costs. Most utilities, including NU, revise their decommissioning cost 1)-Z...1(b) estimates periodically for rate case submittal. This auto-matically provides the appropriate adjustments in the cost estimate to reflect current increases or decreases in labor, materials and waste disposal fees.

3. Funding Plans and Recordkeeping Imposed As Conditions of the Operating License Another concern with the proposed rule is the imposition of C...l,'L the submission of decommissioning funding plans and record 1), ~. y keeping as express conditions of the operating license. These requirements should not be imposed as license conditions since they may result in unnecessary formal hearings which will involve substantial manpower requirements for both the licensee and the NRC Staff, In addition, the level of detail 11 specified in Sectionf o.S4 (dd) (1) and (2) is excessive.

Adequate provisions are already in place which cover c.,., records pf spills and as-built drawings, so that further documentation requirements are not necessary. Since this issue is not safety related and the NRC ~an enforce decommissioning funding and .recor i<eep.1g requirements by C,l,'2.. regulation rather than license condition, we strongly recommend that the NRC d~lete these requirem~nts from the \). 4. 4 operating license. 4, Use of Generic Decommissioning Studies The proposed rulemaking states that NThe PNL decommissioning studies can be used for initial estimates with suitable adjustments for inflation and for site specific factors.N 1)1.\.\ (see 50 Fed. Reg. 5604, Col. 3), The use of these generic studies for developing decommissioning cost estimates tends to (1) See, for example, Section 6.10 of Standard Technical Specifications J-154

greatly understate the true cost of decommissioning when compared to recent site specific studies. Such a reference makes rate commission approval of higher site specific cost estimates a much more difficult task. NU therefore recommends that you delete any reference to the use of the PNL decommis-sioning studies for cost estimates. In its place, we urge you to endorse the AIF's National Environmental Studies Project which has developed decommissioning cost estimate guidelines which will be published within the next several months. The task force that developed these guidelines includes DI,,. I representatives from the NRC Staff, National ~ssociation of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, EPRI, vendors, engineering and financial consultants and licensees. The development of site specific decommissioning studies through the use of these guidelines support the common objective of the NRC and the utilities to adequately fund decommissioning during the operating life of the nuclear plant. S. Raising Funds to Pay for Decommissioning In the description of the internal reserve funding method men-tioned on 50 Fed. Reg. at 5607, Col. 2, NU recommends that the following statement be deleted from the proposed rulemaking.

  *At the end of the nuclear facility's life, bonds are issued against these assets and the funds raised are used to pay for decommissioning.* While this approach may be one option        1)3, 3, '3 available to the licensee, other options also exist for raising the necessary funds to pay for decommissioning. In fact, large utilities may simply pay for decommissioning through normal cash flow from operations. Moreover by restricting the options available, the degree of assurance that funds will be available when needed is reduced.

6. Internal Versus External Funding Throughout the proposed rulemaking, the NRC indicates that internal funding methods provide reasonable assurance for multi-asset utilities. NU concurs with such a conclusion.

However, we believe that the statements that external funding provides greater levels of assurance, are misleading. First, it must be recognized that certain factors which pertain to external funding, do not impact internal funding. Possible reduction in market value of the securities held by the external fund, as well as the financial suununess of the institution that holds the fund are risks that are specific to D3.2.. 1.1 ( b) external funds. Second, the ratemaking process is intended to assure utilities' long-term financial integrity by allowing for the recovery of all prudently incurred costs, and decommissioning is such a cost. In fact, Professor Siegel, consultant to the NRC, concluded that internal funding provides excellent assurance of the availability of funds. Finally, in contrast to external funding, internal funding actually improves the utility's financial position by increasing the ability to generate funds internally and by reducing the need for external financings. J-155

7. Incentive to Collect Funds for Decommissioning Commissioner Bernthal has suggested in his comments that utilities have no incentive to collect, in advance, funds for decommissioning. See Fed. Reg. at 5611, Col. 1 - Separate Views of Commissioner Bernthal.

        "Absent the proposed decommissioning regulations, no such incentive would exist to dedicate funds in advance for successful completion of decommissioning."

This belief, which is shared by many, we believe is not true. The incentive is inherent in the ratemaking process, both for the utility and its ratemaking agency. For utilities, the ratemaking process requires that costs associated with a facility be recovered from ratepayers over the life of the facility to avoid intergenerational inequities between ratepayers. For ratemaking agencies, the incentive is even D.~,,z,. ,., (b) greater, since they are required to protect both the financial integrity of the utilities (primarily cost recovery) and that of the consumer (that the funds collected for decommissioning will be available for decommissioning). It is our opinion therefore, that utilities and rate regulators already have an incentive to dedicate funds in advance for decommissioning and that Commissioner Bernthal's premise is simply not true.

8. Possibility of Insolvency With regard to the request of Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal for public comments on the need to consider the possibility of insolvency and its impact on the continued availability of decommissioning funds (see SO Fed. Reg. 5609, Col. 1), the following comments are offered: The financial history of electric utilities has been extremely stable over the past 50 years with no recorded bankruptcies. However, even under the assumption that a utility might go bankrupt, they do provide an essential service. Some surviving entity would be asked to continue to provide that essential service, and whoever takes that responsibility would be required to honor the obligation to decommission such facilities.

J-156

2301 MARKET STREET PO BOX 8699 PHILADELPHIA PA 19101 12151841-5800 "85 1¥.Y 13 P2 :14 Secretary or the Cor.YT1ission Lhited States ~clear Regulatory Commission Washington D. C. 20555 Attention: D:Jcketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Deconmissioning Criteria ror ~lear Facilities Gentlemen: In response to your call ror co11111ents on a proposed rulemaking on Decommissioning Criteria ror ~clear Facilities as published in the Federal Register (50 F. R, 5600, February 11, 1985), Philadelphia Electric is pleased to have the opportunity to present the rollowing for your consideration: 1, Within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, revenue allowances ror the funding or decommissioning reserves are typically based upon the cost to decommission what is derined as the "nuclear portion" or a power production racility. Hence, only a portion (approximately one halr) or a nuclear power production racility is currently arforded rate treatment ror decommissioning reserve runding purposes. In the background section or the l'<<ltice or Proposed Rulemaking, the {3.\,'2.\ term "nuclear racilities" is stated, ror purposes or the proposed rulemaking, as "the site, buildings and contents, and equipnent associated with any !'.RC licensed activity", In order to assure that the decommissioning goal or the proposed regulations is achieved (i.e reduction or radioactivity to a level that permits release or the property for unrestricted use), Section 50.2 of the Commission's Regulations should be clllended to inclu:le a derinition or "nuclear racilities" similar to the definition in the background to the proposed rule.

2. Section 50.JJ (2) (ii) defines the external sinking fund rinancial assurance provisions. It calls for"*** deposits plus accunulated earnings *** surficient to pay decOl'lllissioning costs at the time of termination of expected operation". As a result of construction and licensing constraints, multi-unit nuclear generation racilities can have individual operation dates separated by a nunber of years. In such cases decommissioning is impractical prior to the termination of

• 4* ************ r--,,.,._

                                                                           --~-

J-157

operation of the last unit at the site. Section 50.JJ (2) (ii) should be modified to allow for the collection of the total decommissiJning 1). Lt, ~. '2.. cost for all units at one site to be complete with the termination of operation of the last generating unit at that site. J. Section 50.JJ (2) (ii) defines an external sinking fund as being" a fund established and maintained by the periodic deposit of a prescribed amount into a account .** ". By limiting the external funding option to a sinking fund methodology, the proposed regulations unnecessarily prohibit other equally reliable methods of maintaining an external fund. In the case of Philadelphia Electric COfTlpany, the Pennsylvania Pullie Utility Commission has allowed the Company an external fund maintained on a constant dollar basis. Payments to this fund are based 0."3.3,' on estimates of current decommissioning cost supplemented by a correction to account for the effect of inflation o~ prior accruals. It is the opinion of the Company that this methodology is better suited to an external decommissioning reserve than is the sinking fund methodology inasmuch as ~o esti.JTlates of either future decorrnissioning costs or future earnings and inflation rates are required using the constant dollar methodology. 1he provisions of proposed section 50.JJ (2) (ii) should be expanded to allow for the maintenance of an external fund utilizing any fiscally responsible funding basis which achieves the stated objective. Philadelphia Electric Company appreciates this opportunity to C011111ent on the proposed rulemaking associated with Decommissioning Critera for ~clear Facilities. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions related to these cOITlllents. Sincerely, .29125 J-158

S*cretary o' the co*m1111on ~ocketing ond S*rv1c* &ronc:h U.S. Nucl*or Rtvulotory co**i111on Wo1h1n9ton, 0,C, ZB555 COC.K£T[: IJSNRC Co***nt1 o, Oh10 C1t1zen1 for R*1Pon11blt En*r;y c*tcRE"> on Propoud oeco11m1u1onin; Rule, !Hl F'R ~60015-fir1j>'Pl!4J Th* Co**i11ion*1 propo101 on decommi11ion1n9 has s*rioud de r 1 c 1 enc i es 11h 1 c1i must bt rec: t Hied b., oW'IC£tOP:S£1tRt'l1,<ro"Si de red ac:c:*Ptable. DOCKETING & S£11VICI BRANCH

• The proposed rule ;reotly unaere1t1mates the cost or aeco**i11ion1n; ond pera1t1 the u** or unreliable runding mechan11m1. rhe cc:~mission oppo~e~tlY co~s1ders S!00 mill1or.

adequate to co~*r deco~mission1n; co1t1, There 11 no re11obl* bo11s for this 1u*. No 1or;e reactors hove ever been oecomm11s1onea, The closest 11* ho~* com* 11 the TMI-: cle~nu= costing over~ b1ll1on dollars, the funding ror which is still unc*rtoin and =recarious. There 1s ol11oy1 o aon;er 1n D1. ,. \ =r0Ject1n; costs 20-~0 years into the ruture. T11*nt) years ogo no one dreamed thot a 1:00 H11 power plont woula cost Se b1ll1on to build. Si~1lorly, the costs o, d*coma1ss1on1ni such large Plants decodes into the ruture art ;rtotl) und*rett1mot1d. The onl~ lo~icol cost tlt,mote 11 to assume that decomm1t5ion1n; costs will be occut equal to the costs of constructin; th* plant, Th* proposal stot*s that **v*n financially troubled util1t1ti have suffic:i*nt assets to cover the c:osts or decomm111ioni~;.

• 50 FR 5608, The rocts 1u;;*1t otherwise, The TMI license* hos co**on11eolth Editon hOI us*d its deco**issionin; rund to h*lP Pay ror th* 1)3.'2.,l.\(a.)

construction or ne11 nuclear Plants, Many utilities hove obon.,oned nucl*or plants und*r construction bec:ouse or r1Monc1ol troubles. These *v*nts dt*ond that dtc:ommissicnin; runds be kept seporot* fro* other utility ossets 1n o aanner such t~ot they cannot b* c:lai**d by creditors. The proposal 0110 needs to be clar1ried 01 to what type or license llill go,..ern the dtCOllllll1SSiOnin; Of O n.'f.Cl.,o_r .~011*.r pl on t , Th 11 n *

• d, c: lo r i r 1 cat 1 on , o s th* r
• au s t El* .a 1'.I"'
• C. I. I opportunity for aeon1n;ru1 Public portic:iPat1on in decommislionin; d*cision1.

Th* propos*d rule 0110 needs to set rorth criteria for jc.., .3 occ:*Ptobl* proct1ce1 ond 1eondora1 ror aecomm1ss1on~ru 1nc:1*..idi.,; r*si-,uCll rodiooc:tiv1ty l*v*ls, IUC:1"1 os the '"n*f"'tll d*sitr. :r1ter10 ond ~uolit/ 011uronc* stondords or APPend1ces A I E:. I. \ and B to Port 50 that govern pl,int d*si;n, construc:t'lon, ond lc.eo J-159

~p*rotion, Th*r* ~r* no cl*or cr1t*rio ror ChOOl1"9 o~on9 th* js.~.1. \ thr** m*thOdl or a*coaai11,on1n;, L1k*w11*. no quolitY ~11uronc* 1tond~rd1 or* proPos*d. I c. (, F1nolly, th* propo101 violot*1 th* Not,onol Env,ronm*nto! Pol,cy ~ct in that it r*!1*1 upon on 1noa*quot* and outdot*d Orort ,*n*ric EIS and r*qu1r*1 no tit* 1p*c1r1c d*coaa111ion1n;

• nvironm*ntol r*~i*w. Th* con1id*rot1on or d*coam1111on1n9 pr*s*nt*d in th* lic*n11n9-Pho1* *nviron~*ntol 1tot*~*nt1 or*

1uppo1*d to b* suffici*nt. This 11 un1oti1roctory, 11nc* th* f'. I ~nowl*d;* or d*co~missionin; **thods ond **cts or* so ~nc*rto,n ot th* 1,c*n1tn9 stag* thot on ott*mpt to evoluot* t~*m th*n 11 m*an,n;1*11. Q ru11 *n~1ronm*nta! ~ev,e~ or decomm1111onin;, befor* ,t ii b*;un, in occordon:e with NEPA,

on1id*r1n; costs Gnd b*ner1ti or various meth,dS, mus, be unclud*d.

Suton L., l'hOtt OCRE Repr*s*ntat~v* e:;5 Munson Rd, ~entor, OH 4~ec0 1:10; :!,5-3158 J-160

OOCIEI' /fUW.BER ell0f0S£D RULE pR-~~ e,.-rr,.,/ /_ Cts<l P£  !'~oa) ~ NUCLEAR REACTOR LABORATORY ~ AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL CENTER OF MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 0 K HARLING t 38 Albany S1ree1 Cambridge. Mass 02139 iJOU.E j: [: L CLARK JR

i,reclor 1617! 253- 4 20 2 ;JSNRC Director of Reactor Ooerat,ons if; MY 13 P2 :41 May 7, 1985 OFFIC£ OF SE.CRt 1A~

• DOCKETING & SEPVICf.

Secretary of the Commission BRANCH Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Waahi'llgton, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Proposed Decommissioning Rule (50 FR 5600-~~L5)

Dear Sir:

The Nuclear Reactor Laboratory of the Ma1sachuaett1 Institute of Technology has reviewed the proposed decommlaaloning rule published on February 11, 1985 in the Federal Register (50 FR 5600-5625), We have alao reviewed the COU\Dlenta being submitted by the National Organization of Teat, Research and Training Reactors, a, prepared by Mr. A. Francia DIHegllo, Chairman, and wish to endorse his letter. As we interpret the proposed rule, HIT would be required within two years after the effective date to prepare and submit to NRC a decommission funding plan for its research reactor containing a decommissioning coat estimate which, on approval by NRC, would constitute the amount of financial assurance that the Institute would be required to provide. Thia places research reactor licensees in a dl1advantageou1 poaltlon ln that moat other licensees may delay or avoid aubmisaion of a funding plan by certifying that financial assurance in an amount specified In the rule baa been provided, In particular, it places HIT, and a few others, at a di1advanta1e In that moat NRC*llcenaed research reactors are operated by state unlver1itie1 or federal agencies, which have the option of certifying that decommissioning funda will be guaranteed. The Federal Register notice atatea that deco1111la1ioning alternatives and their acceptability will be the subject of a revision to Regulatory Gulde 1.86 on the termination of licenaea for nuclear reactors and of a similar docuaent for other facilities. The notice also indicates that criteria for the peral11ible levels of residual radioactivity necessary for release of a facility to unrestricted uae are still subject to separate rule.. klng action. P'urtheniore, the availability and location of burial aitea and the coat, of diapoaing of radioactive waste are in a great state of flux. All of the above

           .. ke the estimating of decomml11lonin1 coata for a decommlaaionlng funding plan a very difficult, time-con1uming, and uncertain t.a1k.

MAY 151985 Acknowl*1aed by card .*** ,*r,-.-,-, ... , * ~ J-161

In view of the above, the following tvo recomaendaUon, are aubmltted: l) Well ~pitalized, firmly eatabliahed private organization, ahould be permittd to guarantee compliance through a certlficatlon process 1n a manner almllar to that propo1ed for govez:nment entities. 2.) If, nevertheleaa, private organization* are required to implement aome method of providing financial a,,urance for the decommi11ioning of research reactors, appropriate levels of auch aaaurance should be specified in the rule (perhaps baaed on authorized power level), 10 that the organization will have the option of providing aaaurance in that amount or in some other amount baaed on a decommiaaioning fundln@ plan, i.e. the sane option affor~ed moat other licenaeea. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. If ve may be of further a11lstance in developing a useful and effective rule, ve shall be pleased to cooperate vith the Co-halon in this regard. Sincerely your, L.......:.~U~r Lincoln Clark, Jr. Associate Director Nuclear Reactor Laboratory Ott~f::4 Director Nuclear Reactor Laboratory J-162

tJU'...,.d r:u..:i,tK PR .,ao. 4A ~- db./ R10f0SfD IUL£ ~~ C50 F4 SG,OC ~ THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY PARK. PESNSYLVANI ... 16IIO~ An:1 Code 114 College of Engin<<ring lltt~-6~5 I Bn:ueale Nuclur Rcxtor

                                                                       '15 MY 13 P2 :39 OFFiC£ O' StCRt. ~Ar .

DOCKETING & S(PVIC! BR.NCH 7 May 1985 Secretary of the Co111111ission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

I wish to submit my coaments on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 Decommissioning Criteria ror Nuclear Facilities, Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 28, pages 5600-5625, First, Dr. A. Francis DiHeglio, as Chairman or TRTR, has submitted to you co111111ents in his May 9, 1985 letter with which I totally agree. In addition, I would like to make

 *1 own comment.

The NRC continually places great stress on the non-power reactor community by not considering non-power reactor facilities significantly different from power reactors. In the late 1950s and 1960s, a research reactor was considered to be a prestigious facility to have on campus. The deans supported these facilities so that they were operated under conditions of high moral and productivity. In the '70s and '80s, the deans and presidents who were responsible for establishing the research reactor facilities were replaced with new personnel. Today, the new deans G,, '3, \ are no longer interested in research reactors, but now have their attention turned to other activities (for example, computer sciences, electrical engineering, etc.) which are now the prestigious facilities on campus. In fact, the university research reactors are becoming the pariah facilities. The deans now look upon research reactors as an unwelcome facility requiring more runds from their budget than they are willing to spend. As a consequence, the existence of non-power or research reactors at universities hangs on a thin thread. Each time the NRC, without thinking, proposes rules for power reactors and then relates these to non-power reactors, a few threads are cut. I, therefore, feel that when rules and MAY 1 5 1985 Acknow~ged by card ..** ,., ***** , ...... ~ AN EQL" .. L OPPORTL'*Hn l'NIVERSln f J-163

regulations are made for non-research reactors, they should be considered separately from power reactors. Thank you for your consideration. I(,.~. I Samuel H. Levine Professor, Nuclear Engineering Director, Penn State Breazeale Reactor SHL:mb cc: I. McMaster W. Wltzig A. Francis DiMeglio J-164

BOARD OF TRUSTEES SAFE POWER FOR MAINE John N. Cole John Donovan P.O. Box 2204 Etnll G. GarTett Frank Graham, Jr. Augusta, Maine 04330 Euclld M. Hanbury, M.D. (207) 123-9231 Call Hollander Lorin Hollander OOtr.E TECi Jolln R. Newell USHRC George L Pauk, M.D. May 8, 1985 Mrs. Waldo Plirce

                                                                                             ~         A. Smlltl, M.D.

11111111. Douglu Trumbull Secretary of the Commission w MY 13 P2:39 SlanleyTupper U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nall wemver Washington, DC 20555 c,rncc- or SECRt::iA1n* MJ:cJ KUMBERPR ATTN, Docketing ond Service, Bronch OOCK(Till:ltcr:"IC'-!IIOl'Ol<D 11111 *f!J'SAcJ,../ RE: Deco11D11issioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities ( So /:I!. 5"1d @ ISO Fed. Reg. S600, February 11, 198S

Dear Sirs:

We are pleased to see that you are promulgating rules to insure that money will j), g. ' be available for the safe decommissioning of nuclear reactors. &, I We hereby recommend two changes to make the rules 1110re effective and provide a better safeguard fer both the ratepayers and the stockholders. First, we suspect that the $100 million used as an estimated cost of decommissioning is inadequate. The cost of deconunissioning Shippingport, which is less than 1/10 the size of our Maine Yankee, is estimated to be nearly that much, so the 'D, \, \, \ cost of decommissioning a full-size power reactor would surely be more. There I are still many uncertainties in the cost of disposing of the nuclear waste generated by the decollllllissioning process which may have a significant impact on the overall cost. We therefore believe the utilities should be required to update their estimated costs on a regular basis (perhaps every 3 to 5 years) 1), 4, 3 to make sure they reflect the current market values. Second, we believe the funds for deco11111issioning should be kept in a separate setregated accounted which can not be used for other expenses of the utilities \), '?,, -z.. ,. \ (Cl) or for investment in other utilities or related industries. We would prefer some fol'II of prepayment, whereby the money for deconunissioning is collected and set aside before the plant begins to operate or during the first five years of operation. Where that is not possible, we believe the money should be 'i), '3. -z. ,. I collected as rapidly as possible, so that a majority (if not all) fs collected during the plant's fir~t 10 yea'!'s of operating life, lo/hen there are less outages for repairs and retrofits than i.*!len the plant ~s olc .r. Thank you for yoUT consideration of these points. Sincerely,

                                                                ~If~

Judith M. Barrows President MAY 15 1985 AcknoNledild by card, t t

• n*,-nT. Tro'"P-J-165

ducatlonal Campaign for a Prosperous Georgia

• 175 Trinity Aw. SW, Adanta, Gecqia 30303 404*6St*S67S

                                             .A.t:t,U IMtltlt.KPR tllQIQS6   lUJ.£     -4~/4~ ~ e,,fr,,._~

May 10, 1985 (~ ,=.~ Sfl~J 00<.KETEC ~ To: Secretary of the Commission uSHRC Attention: Docketing and Service Branch United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 16 MY 13 P2:38 Re: Proposed Rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nomessrr SECREiA" Facilities DOCKETING & SERVIC:I BRANCH These comments respond to the above-reference proposal as described in the Federal Register, 2-11-85, Vol. 50, No. 28, pp. 5600-5625. It is imperative that the Commission establish rules to assure that reactors are decommissioned and reactor sites Leturn~d to a safe status. Unfortunately, the proposed rule does not meet this minimum requirement. There are many shortcomings in the proposal; these comments will address a few of them. It is incomprehensible that nuclear power plants have been G,. \ constructed, licensed and operated in this nation without clear and effect plans for disposing of the radioactive remains at the end of the licensed operation. It is like sending astronauts into space and then trying to figure out how to bring them back. While we are glad that this issue is finally being addressed, we object strenuously to the failure to address it before now, as well as to the inadequacies of the proposed rule. In the late 1970s, prior to the Three Mile Island accident, the author of these comments (then employed by the State of Georgia) served on an advisory committee to the NRC; our task was to make recommendations as to funding decommissioning (who will pay, how will it be collected, etc.). Everyone on the committee agreed ( ) that it is only fair that those using the electricity be charged 1), ~. "2.. \ * \ o... all the costs of that use, including the costs of decommissioning; failure to do so not only might lead to inadequate funding when the time came, but it would also distort the marketplace by hiding certain of the costs of nuclear generated electricity. Here in Georgia, the Georgia Power Company collects decommissioning charges from ratepayers through its depreciation schedule for its nuclear plants. A difficult at the time, and today, with passing decommissioning costs on to consumers is that no one really knows what it will cost to decommission a nuclear power plant. The funds provided for under the proposed rule are woefully inadequate to current estimates (which are themselves questionable). One hundred 1), \, \. \ million dollars is half of what Georgia Power currently estimates the cost will be to decommission each unit of its Plant Vogtlc. Even Georgia Power's estimate is likely low. Consider what is involved in decommissioning a large commercial nuclear reactor: not only must it be taken apart piece by piece, much of this_mustMAy AcknCJWledpd by Cl"', oT.:;-:;:;;~~#il.ii. J-166

be done with robots by remote control (since the areas are so radioactive). Many different workers will have to be spent in those radioactive areas where humans are used, since they will receive their maximum permissible exposure in a relatively short time. Then, all the waste products must be shipped to a disposal 1)1.\.\ facility, there to be disposed of in a way that will not endanger the health or safety of the public. All of these measures and more will cost tremendous sums of money, perhaps on the order of the cost of the plants themselves (in real dollars). Obviously, it is necessary that the utilities collect the accurate amount of money for decommissioning while the plant is operating. Collecting too little now will mean inadequate funding for decommissioning. Another problem which was discussed with the NRC advisory committee on which I served was the simple question: what happens to the money in tne meantime? What protection do consumers have to insure that the money will be there to decommission the reactor when the time comes? Who will be able to use the money, and for what purpose, in the meantime? What will happen if the utility goes bankrupt? Although few analysts thought utility bankruptcy a real possibility at the time, it has since been recognized at such. Not only have several electric utilities approached bankruptcy through simple mismanagement (Georgia Power Company, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Long Island Lighting Company and others), but new developments in technology (some of which are already appearing) could destroy the electric utilities' monop~ly position and end the industry's financial stability. Por example, developments bringing down the costs of photovoltaic cells, fuel cells or other decentralized production of power t). 3.-Z..1. I (a.) could lead to consumers getting *off the system* or producing their own electricity. Vigorous enforcement of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, followed by evolution of some of its measures, could lead to greater competition in the generation of power, offering customers a choice of the cheapest generator. Electric utilities' responses to increased competition through rival fuel sources and conservation has been typically monopolistic--raise prices to replace lost revenues and pay fixed costs. Such a response characterized the railroads' response to the heavily subsidized trucking industry, consequently driving away more customers, causing the railroads to respond with higher rates in a vici~'JS cycle which led the former

• invi "'lcible monopolies* to insolvency. Western Union responded similarly to telephone competition. It is not difficult to foresee electric utilities going bankrupt.

Thus, it is crucial that the utilities be required to maintain their decommissioning funds in escrow accounts held separately and protected form other corporate funds or debts. One way might be to have the government or another independent entity hold the money. It could be invested in government bonds for safety but J-167

it should not be spent by the corporation for construction or other activities (as is now the case). For example, Georgia Power has no decommissioning fund even though they are collecting millions of dollars from consumers for *decommissioning.* Since the utility already came within days of bankruptcy in 1974, since 1).1. 'Z, ,. \ {tA.) its current management seems bent on leading down a similar path today, and since conditions beyond management's control might cause it to go bankrupt in any case, it is unacceptable that this money remain under corporate responsibility. Another shortcoming of the rule is that it fails to meet the criteria required under the National Environmental Policies Act. IF. I In summary, we support the implementation of rules to require I<:,., decommissioning methodology (including funding) for all proposed or operating nuclear facilities. No nuclear plant should be allowed to operate without such assurance, including specific I D, 1. I decommissioning plans and funding therefor. The funding should be raised in advance, preferably before the* reactor operates, since a major accident could lead to problems decommissioning it if the money isn't there, particularly in view of the fact that such an accident, causing loss of a billion-dollar or more 1),";.2.,'2.,\ facility, could itself bankrupt an otherwise healthy utility. And the funding should be kept separate from the utility and protected from creditors in event of bankruptcy. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely,

                                            ?-,~~

Tim Johnson Executive Director J-168

sTATE o:. iJOC-.C.J

                                                         ~IC~IGAN~

tru:tsu SUL£ PR -.3o, ~ 5lJ t!, *'-I

                                                                   ~o F= R, ~~oc)

COIHIIIIIONIIII Eric J Scnn*O***nd

£dwyn* G Ar,dersof\
                                                   ~    .
                                                     /i:,lt~

(_

                                                                                     )I~

l'UBLIC SEIIYICE COIIIII-SS45 Merc1n1, .. Way PO Bo1 30221 M1n,1e* E Mclogao JAMES J BLAkCt-tARO Governor L1n11ng. M1ch191n '8909 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE "W}tUW~W Doug Ross, Director OOtKETrn

.;SNP.C May 10, 1985

                                                                      '85 MY 13 P2 :16 GfFICE OF SECflL~A~

OOCl'ETtNG & S[t/lf I BR~HCH Secretary of the Canmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Canmission Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch RE: Nuclear Regulatory CCJ11mi ssion 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 NRC Docket No. PRM-50-22 Proposed Rule on DecCJ11missioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities Gentlemen: Enclosed are comments on the above matter on behalf of the Staff of the Michigan Public Service Commission. If there are additional opportunities for interested parties to participate or if you have questions concerning these CCJTl-ments, please let us know. S'7(}1'~,__ Hasso C. Bhatia. PhD Director, Technical Services Division Enclosure MAY 15 1985

                                                                  ~cknowtedaed by ea ref., ..*,:* .. ,*,.... ....-r711-J - l69

Nuclear Regulatory Canmiss1on 10 CFR Parts 30. 40. so. Sl. 70 and 72 NRC Docket No. PRM-S0-22 Conaents on Proposed Rule DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES by Staff of the Nichig&n Public Service Coa11isston The Staff of the Michigan Public Service COTimission submits the following comments on the proposed rule establishing criteria for decommissioning nuclear facilities. The comments are 1n response to the Nuclear Regulatory C001miss1on 1 s (fllC) concerns stated in the Federal Register on February 11, 1985. I. What decommissioning funding methods should be allowed during the period a plant is in operation? Connents

a. We support the NRC position that rulemaking *allow latitude* and 1>. 3. \

consider a range of options for decommissioning mechanism. t>, 8.' We also share the NRC concerns that there be an adequate provi-sion to assure adequate funds for a safe and timely decanmissioning C:,. ' of the nuclear facility upon termination of the operations. We also appreciate the f*ct thi'* ':he r-: C recognizes the rate setting responsibility of the state regulatory canmissions.

b. It is the position of the Michigan Public Service Canmission Staff that the specific funding mechanism be the sole province of the state regulatory commission. The funding method lllhether prescribed by NRC or selected by the utility shall ultimately be recovered fran the ratepayers through a ratemaking proceeding. The state regulatory J-170

agencies are in the best position to detennine the most effective and econanic method for funding decommissioning expenditures as it t).!.'3, \ involves tax. accounting and financial considerations. Moreover. the circumstances can vary frC111 utility to utility, thus requiring dif-ferent funding mechanisms. As you are aware. the federal incane tax laws have been evolving in recent years, altering the relative finan-cial advantages of various funding methods. For example the 1984 tax law (Sec. 468A) now allows tax deduction for payments made into the 1),5 external *oecanmissioning Trust Fund*. Another bill now in the Congress (Rep. Sam Gibbons) would further liberalize the tax treat-ment of decC111missioning funds even when established internally. In order for the utilities and the rate regulatory agencies to arrive at the least-cost option and to take full advantage of the tax laws, it is best that the state agencies exercise jurisdiction over the prescription of the decommissioning funding methods. Michigan, just as many other states, is aware of the need for establishing an appropriate funding program to ensure that decom-missioning will be carried out in a safe and responsible manner at D.i.3., the tennination of the operating life of the nuclear units. In Michigan we have already instituted hearings, widely participated in by the interested parties. Based on the record and the facts pre-sented, the commisiion will make a determination of the appropriate funding method. It is therefore the recommendation of the Michigan Public Service Commission Staff that the Nuclear Regulatory CC111mission not prescribe any speci fi c fun di ng criteria. J-171

c. The NRC proposal that any internal funding option rrust be supplemented by an additional guarantee or surety would negate the cost effectiveness of this option. Adequacy of the internal funding must be detennined by the state commissions as part of their overall criteria to secure sufficient funds. If a state commission felt that D. 3.3. '3 internal funding would leave the utility vulnerable from meeting its

1) '46 .':>, \

obligations, it would reject that option for the utility. However, additional surety (which imposes additional costs on the ratepayers} should not be required if in the judgement of the state commissions the internal funding can reasonably assure the availability of the funds.

d. The Michigan Public Service Ccmmission Staff supports the transfer of the deccmmissioning responsibility to the federal agency

                                                                            'i),'g,3.2.

as this will provide maximum assurance for a successful deccm-G,.. I i.\ missioning of the facility. Funds for this service may be collected during the operating life of the plant based on $/kw/yr. This method is similar to the current nuclear fuel disposal provision.

e. The NRC has proposed that the utilities with deficient funding for deccmmissioning must make up the deficiency over the next five years or one-third the remaining life, whichever is longer. 1),L\.G.. I The MPSC Staff suggests that the state ccmmissions should deter-mine the appropriate period for this "make whole" provision, up to the remaining life of the plant. This will enable the commissions to prevent a "rate shock".

f. When a nuclear facility is jointly owned by more than one utility, I i).y..~

J-172

only the majority utility (which in ITl)St cases is also the operating utility) should be responsible for developing the decommissioning plans. II. Which funding methods should be allowed during any long-tenn or delayed dec()Tlmissioning? C0111111e nt s If there is an internal reserve for all or part of the dec()Tl-mi ssioning fund when plant operations cease it should begin to be con-verted to cash if decommissioning is to start or to an external fund if dec()Tlmissioning is to be delayed. To the extent that the conversion to cash exceeds the ongoing need for cash, the excess cash should be placed in an external fund. III. Should a prescribed dollar amount for the dec()Tlmissioning fund be deter-mined by the NRC? Connents The Michigan C()Tlmission Staff suggests that each licensee make a study of the technical aspects of decommissioning ITl)de and the cost for 'D.'2. '(a..) its plant. This will permit recognition and consideration of any unique construction, location or operating circumstances. It will result in more research on cost-effective decommissioning methods than if the alternative of a prescribed dollar amount is pennitted. Updated studies of the tech* nical aspects of decommissioning and the cost should be filed periodi-cally, every five years for example, with the NRC for review. If the NRC J-173

or interested parties have concerns as to the adequacy of the licensee's plans, hearings could be held to resolve the issues. 1)'2. I (~) The HPSC Staff recommends that no specific dollar amount should be prescribed. IV. Why the need to consider insolvency and its impact on tne continued availability of funds? Connents HPSC Staff believes that this is a legitimate concern which goes to the heart of the issue. The state commissions however are in the best 'D.'3.2.1,I (\:,) situation to judge the solvency of a utility and to eva:uate warning signals of a potential problem. Periodic review of funding methods and verification of records will allow opportunity for any corrective action. It should be recognized however that if a utility can afford to build and operate a nuclear plant it can also afford to tear it down. We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. Date: May 10, 1985 J-174

~~£~: R::.~~- pR-~La~/ ~ c:'7J (_~ F/lS-"so) @

  ~ /~,,..,.r

• L. *: : :

                  .;si.;:.~

13. ~. "3 J-175

UNITED STATEG ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHING~QN, D.C. 20460

                                                         . ~::_~_-_ ..

J .,*; .. OFFICE OF EXTER~AL AFFAIRS Mr. Samuel Chilk

                                                   '85 HAY 13 P2 :42 Secretary 11.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, n.c. 20555 ATTENTION:   Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

In accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the proposed Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (10 CFR 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72; 50 F.R. 5600~.) The NRC's proposed rule sets forth decortlfl'lissioning criteria for nuclear facilities licensed under 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and

72. The proposed amendments to these Parts address decommissioning planning needs, timing, funding mechanisms, and environmental review requirements. We note that the NRG has not proposed "acceptable levels" of residual radioactivity for release of property for unrestricted use.

Rather, the proposal refers to a separate rulemaking action that will amend 10 CFR Part 20 to provide those limits. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also developing residual radioactivity criteria for decommissioning facilities and sites where radioactive materials have been used. We will continue to maintain close communication with the NRC on this subject. The EPA has no objection to the substance of these proposed technical

   ~nd financial decommissioning requirements. However, because some of the requirements in the proposal are not e~plicit, we believe they                    6,1

• ,I could be subjected to undesirable interpretations. Our comments identify the portions of the proposal which should be clarified.

A. Definition of Permanent Cessation of Operations and Criteria for the Deco111111issioning nuration There are three areas in the proposed rule where these definitions c.,.2., should be proviaed or made more specific, First, licenses may continue

                                                                                   ---p~

J-176

to be renewed as operating licenses as long as facilities may potentially operate. This condition enables a licensee to defer deconvnissioning by continuing to renew the facility's operating license. Although the C.l,'2.1 expense of maintaining a license would discourage S\Kh misuse of renewal, NRS should specify criteria for permanent cessation of operations that would eliminate the possibility of such misuse to avoid deco11111issioning. Second, there is no ti111e limit on the duration of decommissioning operations. Although the licensee must Maintain the site in a safe manner during decomMissioning.,....it maJ be a lengthy process during which radioactive emissions May occur. We recognize that different facilities may require different time periods to decommission. However, all 1i$.~."3 licensees should plan that the duration of deco11111issioning does not adversely affect compliance with the "as low as reasonable i!chievable" (ALARA) requirement. To aid licensees in their decof'l'fT1issioning planning, and to ensure consistency among oecommissioning plans and analyses, we recormiend that the NRC provide guidance for determining appropriate time periods for decommissioning. Finally, NRC stated (50 F.R. 5605, col. 2), without explanation, that it is not specifyin~ a time period during which licensees of reactors that have already shut down must submit deco11111issioning plans. We understand that many such licensees have already begun decommissioning (:.'1 or have already prepared plans. We recommend that NRC require such licensees to review their plans within a certain time period after rules become final and submit revisions if those plans are inconsistent with these new NRC regulations. B. Level of Detail in Licensee Termination Survey Requirements The only proposed survey requirements are for the units in which the survey measurements should be reported. Although the NRC plans to provide regulatory guidance documents for license termination surveys, these guides may not be soon forthcoming. We recommend that NRC increase the level of detail in this rule, even on an interim basis, to provide licensees with necessary guidance as to what constitutes reliable and consistent termination surveys. C. Waiver of Requirement for license Temination Survey NRC proposes to waive byproduct, source, and special nuclear material license termination survey requirements if the licensee demonstrates in some other manner that the premises are suitable for unrestricted use. We understand that NRC intends to waive survey requirements only for those licensees using sealed sources or short-lived radioactive materials, which would be reasonahle. We recoJT1T1end that NRC state such limitations on survey waives in the documentation of its final rules. J-177

D. Pre~aration of Environmental Documents Proposed Section 51.95 states that either an environmental assessment or supplemental environmental i111pact statement will be prepared for the post operating license stage. EPA recommends that the C011111ission require preparation of supplemental environmental impact statements for the post operating license stage of major facilities. such as nuclear power plants, nuclear waste disposal facilities, and nuclear fuel F, I fabrication facilities. EPA believes it would be beneficial for the Commission to have public review of the options for disposal of decommissioning wastes and other site-specific aspects of the post operating license state. For s~aller facilities EPA agrees with .he Commission proposal that preparation of an environmental assessment is appropriate and acceptable. EPA also agrees with NRC addressing the decommissioning of nuclear waste disposal facilitie~ in other rulemaking actions. I(:,,, "? If you have any q,Jestions concerning EPA's comments. please call Dr. W. Alexander Williams (382-5909) of my staff.

                                       ~;~
                                      ~h/lf

1l~ Director Office of Federal Activities J-178

                                            ~~~-*R~~ pR-~,:l(J, 5a e,TQ.J

( 50 FIJ.. 5~co) @D 5476 Harpers Farm Rd. BJ Columbia, MD 2104h May 10, 198S Secretary or the Commission ro: ~;- *;-- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Collllrl.ssion . ::si.~c. Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Services Branch '85 NAY 13 P2 :SJ

Dear Sirs:

OFF/(.t Or SLdit ilo

• DOCKf TING & SC~VIU I understand that the NRC is preparini#IIMilllti for decommissioning nuclear reactors. I am very much concerned that these rules and their compliance should adequately protect the health and safety of the workers and the public, and that fair and adequate funding be planned to guarantee the safe completion or this deconunissioning. I would like to submit the following comments for your consideration as you finalize your rules.

Safety New health data show adverse health effects of much lower exposures than has been previously acknowledged. Since reports (from TMI 2 cleanup and the Shippingport decommissioning experience) indicate that total occupational radiation exposure during decollllrl.ssioning may be substantially higher than

                                                                                              <:. I,~. I previously estimated by NRC studies, and since most workers are likely to be at the prillle of their child-bearing age, I am very concerned that:

1. Stringent safety standards be required which would minimize worker exposure, and which would be spelled out in great detail.

2. Strict enforcement and monitoring or oversight of these standards be required.

J. Techniques for worker protection and for reducing worker contact vi th radia- IC,. i tion (perhaps greater use of robots or remote mechanical devices) be developed. ~- Careful, complete and thorough records be required of each worker's radiation exposure, and that these records must accompany employees from job to job. I C. I. 1 D ~ Stringent safety standards for transportation of radioactive materials be required and enforced. (These standards and assurances that they are enforced C,l,\'3 should be specified in detail to ensure compliance). ~ Differentiation between "high", "intermediate", and "low" level wastes must be clearly defined and compliance firmly enforced. IH, 1.1.1 Method of Deconunissioning I urge you to not allow pe.:-manent encasemen~ of reactors (and spent fuel pools) at !!!l location---either test reactors or commercial reactors. Most test reactors are in highly po~ulous areas; many commercial reactcrs are, too.

                                                                 .      . 1u:1 1 5 198;,

Acknov, Id;~ ,,, ~*= .... ,,,*,-. -~~. J-179

Page 2 Secretary of Co1111Ussion The NRC should develop strict guidelines and criteria which help utilities determine whether to dismantle plants immediately or to delay a pre-determ1ned j s, 3. ,. I ti111e. Does the process of deco1111Ussioning deal with pools of spent fuel rods , f3,1.,.'Z.. which are now in temporary storage at reactor sites? Funding I am concerned that if the nuclear industry is forced to close down all at once, or even phased out over a period of time, that there will be a colossal financial burden on the utilities (that are already close to the brink or bank-ruptcy). Is it possible to ask Congress to provide a federal bailout similar to the Chrysler deal which may make it possible for utilities to extricate D.3.2....I. '2 themselves from the financial sinlc hole which is causing the poorly 11181l&ged utilities great fiscal distress? This same low-interest, long term loan may help utilities stay solvent long enough to complete the decollllllissioning process. Perhaps a qualifying clause for eligibility could be to improve accountability and improve management efficiency? As a taxpayer it would irk me to further subsidize irresponsible mismanagement. I think it is important to be honest and up front with the public about the !!!l cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors. (And to be honest about the !!!l D. 3, 2.1. I (ct.) cost of producir.g nuclear power, not hiding all those federal subsidies.) Is the cost of decolllllissioning factored into the "cost" of nuclear power? How nzuch of the financial burden of decommissioning will fall on the taxpayer/ l). 8. '2. -z. ratepayer/intentional investor? I\e:..), Conclusion Strong regulations in the rule books are very important. I am even more \?. I concerned that the public can have confidence in enforcement of these rules. I The public has learned not to trust the enforcement agencies. Reports I have read regarding sloppy construction practices at reactor sites and slip shod operating and management procedures at some reactor sites makes me very appre-C. l.3 hensive that enforcement of decommissioning regulations will be any better. The public had no choice about whether or not to accept nuclear power. Please help ensure that we can manage this dangerous technology with minimal health and safety damage, Sincerely, Patricia T. Birnie J-180

                                           *_;;-.'),   ~ *    .;O'J( l"'l
                                           . ',;.con   -.*1,::c 'ur1. f-zc:.c:2 "85 HAY 13 p3:24~~1:1*,        1*J, 1~25              --~

At te ~t 1or.: riie°~~~ft~~~j 5e:retaru of t~e -01lT!s~ton

                                         '.'Erv lee -:ranch

.r. s. :*J~lea:-* -ee*;!atcr*; :v"Tl'11se 1.on

~as~1nEton, ~.:. ~)~~~

I a11 eYtre~el*.* c')ncer-,e1 t'.-:at .-r0*11..!'1:::-ns 1::-e

~a1* for a,e1~ate f1~anc1al anj envi*on~ental eRfe
 ~ec:::.:nts~!:,n!r.F o~ "lJC~e9r reactcrs,                     Is 1s ,;ast 1~.~.1 tine th t the ~:uclear "=;ee-ulator.v .:o:n..-1ssi'.'n ~evelop                        (:,, I ree-ulatt *ns ~o :,:rotect OU!" J:s!"!J ,:;.;.1 our citlze~s frc11 r'l~b~ ton cont'l111r.'1t1or: a:-ij exor'!--1tant cha!'@'ES relst!r.~ to r.uclt:ar re'lctor co.-e~ ric* ton 'ln"l 1eco~~1s~1o"l1ne costs.

Ftrst we s~oulj t~rn to erv\ronm*~~~ll7 safe I ~.-z.

c-curc1:~ cf re-:e*-a=~e e~Erfy, ~eccn11*: 't"'er*e ~ust tE: <1 safe per:::am:nt d1spos .. l e-Ue for \..'.~'"-lf:vel IH-,1.,.~

raj1o-~ct!ve Aaste; ~~1rdl7 t~ere ~~st ~e an

• ~ -- !.td1a te d!sr.a r:t '!.e 7.E nt" -;et!-.o :i o!' je co~:n~s~ tor.1.ne- I t3. ~. '2.

r~ ~ tooc~ t~e reoctors. :~ere !~oulj ~ea verv t~orouvh ~tu17 of ~1te select1.ons a~j of -ethods tra,1s~ort ra~~o-actlve ~aetes to t~ESE s~:e;, IH, 1.1, \

         .;ol1C'T recr:'ll er.:Jatto~e fc!' !e jeral :.c: ~~:-: ~or
 ~EC.:):r..t.~ss~-;r,~,.fS 11sted 'bv *.:,,i"ltc :tttzen ar,d
~nv1ron:nEntal "ct ton see11 ,, :'!E*'.t~ate to 1r.sJre t :1at deco11m1ss1on1n! wUl "e carrte1 out in a sc::fe ~~~ner.

In ad-11t1on to these re;c-,-::*ner.da~~ons :~e~e sta~e actions seem l'Tlparat1ve: ***1\z:e uttltt*, str-c'.<hoUers D.i.,.z. resoons1rle for deco::111.ss!,:,r.1-:i;;* coFts *.o* ~~11 ected from ratepayers 1u!'l";f tl-,e; O,)Erat1nE' life of t'ie plar.t a:--.d rer,u1."'e .:.re;,ar-::ent of external FEfrEfate1 funds D,'3,2,'2,I 1.r. !:-e Eve~t t~e ::*~-:: f3tls to ~a're ~~ts ='~t'onal pollcy, J-181

_:,, e~ - T~e!'e shoul1 ~e '1 r~li ~~e:~~7 t~e * -~ ~u::t p*epare an e:wiro'l,,0:-:1:-.1 1-::~ct !:~ate"".e:-.t ~o: nuclear reactors, ., :1.;cle=-r Jt*Jltt*., "".-.J!ct ccll,..~t ieco:n.-a1ss1on1r-e !°'J:-,.le t-:at ,.-111 '-e ::.vS:11,~le *..i!':en needed an1 ~ :neans o~ di..istl~,; co;,t E'S~~-.:<:.tes 0

1nj f J!1:Jlnf. lev~l!' o*er t:-:e ;,lar:t'f' :!fe; ~"'E!=E 1

~:Jr,j!' -.J!'t. '1Ct '-e *Jsej ~, c.J!'c'-.ase aseets or rejuce

}" ~ E ~ ~ ,.. ;* ~ e ._ ~ .

• J r.Hi;:!"ee::.

                              -:- :1 f: 9 E  11
                                                ~ !l r. t O 1l f .... nd F " --:u St ~ E

~

td ~ !! t~e*r cci ~ 'te 'JSt=j for f ~ ""' r.c ! n~* ot:1.e r I i).'3.,.,.,(o..) I

>ower :>l::1:1': conl:!trJi::t1*'1r. c'.:'J&':.l*r or ::ore ex:;e!'.s!ve

r.-1

;n~;;,fe "':,;st!;-:.1 r:~'9.t1:n '.'tanj::ir1s !'!':c*..:'!.~ l-e set '=> t ~ :1 u,, per , l ,, t t - - :. ') ". ~ : : t re*:: ! :- o !'1 ~ r to E. ,. \

protec~ ~ ~e c lt Uc:r*1.

                                                        *rE'-vy   £1:.cerel.:,,
                                                          ~**. '.*.,.,-J./~~

A 11 e e ne Gau nt t J-182

FMC Wyoming Corporat,on May 8, 1985

                                                            -FMC
                              '85 NAY 13 P3 :21 Secretary of the Ccmnission         _ _

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory c,...,..ff .iM, .. t*,tt:*; 0 nas h.1ngton, D.C. 20555 '""'Otlt'Xt'i,'ll" 3RANCH & .t.r ""'* ru::. Decomnissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities Attention: Docketir,;i and Service Branch Gentleren: After reviewing the Nuclear Regulatory Co!missions Proposed rule for 10 CFR Parts 30,40,50,51, 70 aoo 72 entitled "Decarmissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities" found in the FR Vol 50 No. 28 pages 5600 through 5625 for Monday, February 11, 1985 we res~tfully sul:mit the following: The proposed rule does not clearly define what licensed facilities are covered by this rule. Our facility holds NRC licenses for the use of sealed source nuclear gauges. Under the proposed rule section entitled Backgrouoo, paragraph nl.lllber 3 the proposal states that:

         "For the purpose of this proposed rule, the term 'nuclear facility' is used to refer to the site, buildir,;is and contents, and equipnent associated with any NRC licensed activity."

Paragraph 5 in the same section states:

         "These proposed amendments apply to deccmnissioning of power reactors, nonpower reactors, fuel reprocessir,;i plants, fuel fabrication plants, uranium hexafluoride production plants, independent spent fuel storage installations, and NON-FUEL-CYCLE NUCLEAR FACILITIES." anphasis added.
                                                                        .... ).:.:.7~

J-183

2 Secretary of the carmission May 8, 1985 The use of the teIIll 'nuclear facilities' in paragraph 5 coupled with its definition in paragraph 3 suggests this rule applies to any NRC license. It is our understanding through conversations with the NRC <.,. 9 Region IV office in Arlington, Texas that this is not the intent of the proposed rule. If this is the case, we suggest that the wording be changed to remove this ambiguity. Thank you for the opportunity to carrnent on these proposed rules. Sincerely, fl_c~ft~~ Dee Peverley Environmental ~nager rp J-184

 -<'r,..W Co Gj           G, 1115 WOODLAWN DRIVE e CAMDEN S C 29020 e 18031432-3872

$ SAFE ~ IJOC:<.til NUA'.B~t< pR. ~~. So d...l. ~ENERGY-<

                                                                    -OS£!)       RULE
   ~OJE.C."                                         May 8, 1985 C...sa ~ A.       $"  a,o @

ilCC!':Cr* ti5NF(' Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

                                                                           'BS 11AY13 P3 :22 Attn:   Docketing and Services Branch Ref:    No. SO Fed Reg. 5600, February 11, 1985 COMMENTS OF FRED M. OGBURN, III, REPRESENTING THE KERSHAW COUNTY SAFE ENERGY PROJECT REGARDING "DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES" On my own behalf and on behalf of the Kershaw County Safe Energy Project, an unincorporated citizen's action group, the following suggestions for strengthen-ing the rule referenced above are hereby submitted.

l) Regarding decommissioning methods, we believe that the ENTOMB method 8,S" should be forbidden due to the long life of certain radioactive elements within the reactor. We further believe that DEGON would subject workers to dangerous I

        ~adlatlon levels. We believe that SAFSTOR is probably the least objectionable decommissioning method. However, the matter of financial accountability in the L). 3. '-1 event of a utility bankruptcy prior to completion of SAFSTOR must be addressed.

Furthermore, the rule should provide more guidance as to which method a utility

                                                                                                      / B. 3. 1. \

should choose.

2) In regard to decommissioning standards, the Commission needs to develop standards to minimize worker exposure to radiation during decormnissioning.

IC, l,i, I Quality control standards need to be spelled out and the Com111ission should require licensees to demonstrate their ability to comply. Furthermore, intermediate level I C, ~ waste should not remain classified as low-level, and should not be disposed of at

                                                                                                       / ,1. I. I. I low-level waste dumps.

J-185

3) Regarding decommissioning funding, we believe that the prepayment option is the only one of the methods proposed in the rule which will ensure adequate D. 3.2.z.. \

funding for decommissioning in the event of premature shutdown of a nuclear power plant. Furthermore, the internal fund, unsegregated from the utility's other assets, would offer no protection to the public in the event of a bankruptcy. lt>.3.?.,1,1 (a.) This option should be removed from the rule altogether.

4) We believe the Commission probably underprojected the actual costs of decommissioning. What little track record exists in the matter of decommissi0ning I nuclear power plants (e.g., Shippingport) suggests that the cost of decommissioning

                                                                                     'D,I.\.\

large commercially owned nuclear plants would be much higher that previously anticipated. For example, we can only speculate what the costs of storing high level waste will be in the future. We do know these costs have increased over 7001 in the past 7 years. The Commission should reevaluate its decommissioning cost estimates and should require utilities to adjust their decommissioning funds periodically in order to ensure sufficient funds.

                                       &.!!.~

1115 Woodlawn Dr. Camden, SC 29020 J-186

~ F- 34 4,, ~-a ..._,

MARTHA DIIAKIE

                                          &80 P'AIIIVIIW (SO            i=i St.~o)(ij)
                                    - l l Y . IIICN,    *no (8181 . .. , _ . Oil * -
 ;,.ay 7, 1985 3ecreta=y of the :c~~ieeion
 ~.~. ~ucJear R~gulatory ~ommission                        '85 HAY 13 P3:23
 ~ashington, J.C. 20555 Attention: ::::iock~ting and S~(~1t.iti~~iL BRANCH
 '..ie"ntlernen:

I affi writing to corn~ent en the Jecommissioning Criteria for

!~uclear Facilities, 1,RC 10 ~FR L'arts 30, 40, 50, 5:!., 70 and 72.

: believe th~y should be scrapped and startP.d over fer the following reasons.

IG. I Ir. the first place they are confusing. For instance, Sec. 50.51 says that unless application for renewal of a license is made C *. 1. I a licensee must apply to terminate the license no later than one year prior to the license's e~;iraticn date. wouldn't it be better to have a s~narate !~oartment ch2r~ed C 3 \ just with decommissioning so that there i2rit confusion with ,l, ' the regular licensing procedure?

hen the ccsts for decomwissioning arP. ba=~d on olrl f:g~re3 and only allow for inflation not the increased ccsts for i), I.I, I decommissioning or the increased costs for ;J~nt.s that are ol~er and ~ere radioactive.

The money must be set aside by the uti]ity in su~t a way that they car.'t use it for other things. In cu~ ~~se, :ig ?.o:k is 1),3,2. 1,l(a..) somewher9's near ready for decommissicning and yet the co~pany that owns it, Consumer ?owers, is or. ';i~e verg~ of bankruptcy.

 *~ho is going to pay for decorr.missionir.g this plant? Wi 11 it be done properly when the company has no mor.ey?

Dr. Radford and others have propcsed more stringent radiation standards which will probably be adopted as we are seeing some t>. I, I, 1 heal~h effects among wo1~ers at these plants from these levels of exposure. That will ~~an more cost. I believe there needs tc be a wr.ole fresh approach to this regulation. I<,-, I ---'!.'rt:, k you, ,r)

    /     l 0--ri.:c:C~' ~ ,.__,

i-f'.'a tna Drake

                                                                *'\\.r\1,'..J"* . . . . . , * . , .2.

J-187

P,o/.ll-0->.:!i RUL~ r 1~-&, 44 !a./ (5ol=ils-~oi)

• DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS INC.

2 World Trade Center . .Vew York . .VY 10048 Telephone 1212) 524-2222 @ May 6, 1985 Secretary of the Corrmission '85 HAY 13 P3:24 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, DC 20555 Att: Docketing and Service Branch (Decorrmissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities)

Dear Sir:

This letter is written in response to the request for corrments on the proposed rule regarding the decofTITiissioning criteria for nuclear facilities. The area of particular emphasis to be gben in this letter will be with regard to the funding mechanisms for the deco1T1Tiis-sioning for power plants owned by investor-owned public utilities. The Commission has appropriately addressed the need for the utility to be able to give financial assurance as to the ability to D.s.1 carry out decorm,issioning which may take place many years in the future and the cost of which is at present speculative. The proposed 6-, \ rule specifies several acceptable funding methods:

1. Prepayment

2. External sinking funds

3. Internal reserve 4, Insurance, surety bonds, letters of credit, lines of credits and other guarantee methods.

Of these four methods, the first two, prepayment and externa 1 sinking fund, are very similar as they would be applied to an investor owned public utility and will be considered together in the remainder of this letter. This classification of funding method has several features which make it superior to the third and fourth methods. First, the external method requires a specific accounting for and setting aside of funds for the single purpose of decommissioning. This is also very important to two major parties at interest in this subject in addition to the Commission and the utility. These parties are the Public Utilities Corrmission (regulator) with jurisdiction over the utility operation and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) which administers the taxability of the considerable flow of revenues and incor,e which will eventually need to be set aside to assure that decor111issioning is financially feasible under all circumstances. The regulator's duty is to provide a flow of funds from the utility's customer who is using the service from the power plant i), 3.'2. 2.'-1 during its useful life. It is very important for the Commission to recognize that regulatory practice strongly supports the concept that J-188

                                     .\ only those customers who use the service from the power plant should pay its costs (including decommissioning) and that in most cases such payment should come from those customers only during the useful life of the power plant. The external fund method in segregating the funds assures the regulator that this duty can be discharged.

Similarly, the IRS has been charged through the 1984 Tax Act to allow such funds for nuclear decommissioning to be a current tax deduction for the utility company only to the extent that such funds are currently collected in r~tes from its customers and separately set aside in a segregated fund such as a trust. This provides that the \). 5 customer using the service only has to provide funds necessary for the actual decommissioning and not for taxes to be currently paid on any such revenues as though they provided income for the utility. Again only the external method will provide for this economy. In contrast, the third method, internal reserve, does not meet the new IRS test or does it give the regulator a complete record of the status of the funds to be set aside. This is the method which utilities have used to account for money collected for deferred taxes. However, since nuclear plant assets may be such large portions of a company's as sets, it may not be pract i ca 1 to issue bonds against such 1),., . 2 . I. \ ( o...) assets to completely pay for decommissioning. Since from the ~ Commission's perspective, assurance is the most important criterion, the internal funding method seems much less desirable than the external method. The external IT'Pthod also is the traditional method of providing for pension fund ob 1i gat ions. As such, pension funding provides a role model for nuclear decommissioning funding. In pension funding for utilities, money is collected through utility rates, is tax deduc-tible, and is invested in external trust accounts. This thought carried further would include a possible solution to the issue the i). "3.'2.. '2., 3 Commission raises when it asks how to pay for premature decommis-sioning for reasons other than an accident. With pensions, there are forms of government insurance to cover shortfalls in account balances. With nuclear decommissioning, there could also be such insurance or there could be utility industry provided insurance against premature nuclear decommissioning. This technique in combination with the use of external trust accounts should assure availability of funds as with pension obligations. Another issue which the Commission addressed is the problem of funding for an existing licensee. The Commision suggests that it would be appropriate for a licensee to make up over a five year period \ for previously not funding deconmission1ng costs. However, the IRS i),L\.<o, apparently will only allow tax deductible contributions to a fund on a level basis pro rated for the normal remaining life of a unit. Thus, some portion of the accelerated catch up funding would be judged as income to the utility and require extra revenue to pay taxes on such funding. J-189

Subjects with which the ColTITlission did not deal were the follow-ing:

1) A nuclear unit with more than one owner. Should the presumption be that each owner of each unit be respon- V, i.&, S" sible for its own decommissioning fund for that portion of the unit which it owns? The 1984 Tax Act and regula-tory custom indicate that would be appropriate. A related question is how to deal with a company if its regulator does not allow it to recover funds in its rates to set up a nuclear decommissioning fund. Some states D, 1,3, l have yP.t to address this subject while others treat it in a variety of different ways. Uniform regulatory treat-ment could be very important in the future.

2) Should these proposed rules take note of the T~x Code? A powerful economic incentive to set aside deccmmi;s1oning funds in an economical way has been created by the 1984 Tax Act. The amount al lowed for current tax deduction shall be the lesser of the "ruling amount" as determfoed by the IRS and the amount allowed to be collected in the ut i1 i ty' s rates. However, some of the ru 1es set forth therein are unclear. Of particular importance, the 1984 'D, !:'

Tax Act is vague as to the precise definition of which costs shall be included in the "ruling amount," all decommissioning costs of a complete site restoration or only that portion of the costs required to decommission the radioactive portions of the power p ,ant? In con-trast, it is clear in these proposed rules that decommis-sioning means "to remove nuclear facilities safely from service and reduce rPsidual radioactivity to a level that permits releasP of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license." There is a need to encourage the Secretary of the Treasury to make this section of the Tax Code clear. In surm,ary, there are several parties at interest besides the Corrmission and the utility company as addressed in the proposed rule, Namely, the reglator and the IRS are also involved. The effectiveness 'D, tf, 3, I of these proposed rules will be enhanced if an attempt is made to take into account the roles which might be played by the regulator in poviding the source of funding from utility ratepayers and the IRS in allowing such payments by ratepayers to be current tax deductions for the utility. Additionally, this writer believes that pension funding experi-ence can be used to i 11 ustrate that the preferred method of funding t), ~, 'l. 2. '3 should be separate, external trust accounts which are funded by con-tributions from the utility company in conjunction with regulatory approvals and with recognition of use of the greatest tax deductibiliy al lowed for such contributions by the IRS. The use of funds which are D, 3 , ?. I, I (a.) internally comi ngl ed with other corporate funds of the ut i1 i ty wi 11 not provide the degree of funding assurance sought by the conmission. J-190

We hope these co11111ents are useful in your deliberations. J-191

f1PO$ED RUU rrt;t40,~0 ._Tw.A, C:1di=Z o!J @

                                                   *~r. Ahn ?h1lhrook
                                                   ~overnor's Special :on~itee on Dec oi-.r.,1 s1 on!. n~ *:a!ne Ya:i:.-ee Box 2627 AU."'.'.'.lSta, '.:a!.ne Cli330 Secretar~ of.' the Com~ision J  .s. ::uclea:- ~e~ulator~: Co::v.8Js'$Tjn

'.las!':!.n:_:ton, D.C. 20555 "

e:::bers of.' t!':e Cor:1.":'lisio-_

':!o*J.-:h ::: a::, ;,leas~ ~Y J}e ~~~~4 ~*our co::-_-,!s!on !':as be~U!'l t::.e ;,rocess o!: creatin\r~EtoPIT-.. tit~f,:1.dards to <:over:, the nuclea:-

=eco!':':..~!s!oninc-: process, Of~f,ti~VfJve:-al :.:3.j or ?roble:-::s wit !1 : :-:e

ro~osed re~ulations which I ~!sh to d!scuss with vou.

          !:, ~eneral, ! find the ,ro~osed re~ulations ~roa1ly def.'1c-

!.e!'lt in s~ecific ~uidel!.nes !'or assur!.n~ site ~afety and secur!:~ d~r!n~ t!':e deco:i~1s1on!n~ process or any stora~e period that :::ay be app::-cvec! by the co?:".m1s1o!1 in order to allo~., ti:::e !'or !"ad!oact!ve

ater!als to decay. ?rocedures should be laid out in detail re-

ard!n~ such crucial operations as blastin~. cutting, a~d ,ack-as!:i;:: of *.,aste for sh!;:,::-:ent. As a fo!":,er :,uclear o::-e:-3.tir.c_:; er.=:!r.-

eer, ! a::: all too a*.*1are of.' the :::an:, wa:1s :!1at safety co:icerns can s11, t::.ro~~h the cracks of.' any ope:-a:ion !.n the absence of s,e-c!~ic ~~les. s~ch thin~s as ~ite ,er~~ete~ ~ar~!ers, ~ai~~~!on co:,:a.!.:--:.:e:,t syste:-:ts, and co!'lt!.n~enc:: ~lans !!1 :he event o!:' acc!- dental lea~a~e should be ad:-essei separately and 3~ec!~!cally.

          ....." !nt!:::ate !'a~il!arity ~1th the len~::-iy history of cost overr~n~ 1~ :he :,uclear 1ndu5try sur~ests to ~e that yo~r ~und-1n~ sche=e5 ~3Y be ~holly ina!cquate. ! can:,ot bel!eve tha: :he
                                                                                               -o.,.,.,

!100 :::11:1on dollar fi~ure w!ll eve:, co:,e close to cove:'ins the cost of ~!s~antling the lar~er reacto:'s. ~his one-ti~e ~ay~e!'lt o;t!on should not be allowed as an alter:,at!ve ~n:ess s:,d ~:,t!.1: 1), 1..' ( A.) practi:~l experience tas born ou~ t~2~ ~tis ~ore :nan aie~uate to 1ns~:-e co:-:tplete a!1d tl':.0:-ourhl:1 s'ife deco::-~-:!sion!n5. Also, the "!!"lte:-nal :-ese:-ve" fundin:;>: :::ec!":an!s::: o,:t!o:1 :iust ;,;o, It !.s en-t!:-el:; :co vulne:-able to misuse b:* l!cesees ,ard ::ia;' :-es1..:l+; i:, 1),3,Z.l,I (o..) ~a!l~:-e cf f~nds to be ~ade ava!lable even !n the ~:,stance o~ ~ood !:1'.:ent!ons, !n the case of unforseen !nso:ven~y. J-192

,- :::os'; ur'.;ent concern is with t!'le haz3.::-:!s to which ';he deco::uni31on!r.3 workers are exposed, A3 you have correctly sta';ed, the dancer to ~cr~ers is the ~ost in.~ed1ate threa'; rosed by the 1eco~-::ision!n~ process. Your assertion t~at ex;osure to 1eco~~!-

s!on!n~ workers !s likely to be s!~ilar or less t~an exposure to workers ,._. orerat!n~ reactors ~ay be correct. ~cwever, I cannot*. a~::-ee t~at t~e present stand!n~ pol!c1es are a:!e~'..!a';e to prot-ect the deco::'..'"'.!s!on!no: workers. As a ~o:-~er en:!:":.eer e:,plo:*ed b:1 C. \.2, I the atc:::!c !nd:..:str:, w!"lo !s presentl:: suf!'er!n?, !'ro::? the e!'!'ec';s o!' over exposure to rad!at1on on the job (which was !'or a t!::ie e!'!'ect-1vely concealed fro::: ~e), I a::i !'creed to conclude th3t ,resent operatine; procedures are !nadec;uatel:* controlle:::, and that un!ess sr.,ec1!'1c re~ulat1ons on ~eco:-w-:-:ision!:-r *.,ol:ers a::-e !'ort!'lco::iine, the trend w!ll cor.t!nue. ?art!cularly odious is the ~ract!ce o~ allo*,dr.~ "s:-,o'.':~es" or "ju:::pers" to acc'..!:::*.1late t~e!::- :::ax!:-:~:, dose repeatedly 1t d!~!'erent job s!tes. :his ~ractice :::ust not be al-lo*.,red to continue :!.nto t!'le deco::-w-::1sion!nr rr::>cess. Alan ?::11!:>roo:(

                                           ~overnor's ~~ec!al :o:i~!ttee or. !:>eco:".1.-::!s!on!:-::::- '.'.a!ne Yan::ee J-193

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

                                                         .~:,sa*1~                             *.... **.-~*    .      .
         , ~ , ,zs-2201                                  COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ r

GOVERNMENTAL CENTER 701 OCEAN STREET SANTA CRUZ. CALIFORNIA 95060-,069 08l1'.Cff DAN FORBUS ROBLEY LEVY GARY A PATTON E WAYNE Moei~lf~~R. JOE CUCCHIARA

 < FIRST OISTRICT 1       < SECONO   OISTRICT 1     < TH1RO OISTRICT I     < FOURTH OISTRICTl         <FIFTH OISTRICTI
                                                                                '85 MY 13 P3 :25 May 8, 1985 Secretary of the C011111fssfon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co111nissfon Was~ington, D.C. 20555 Attentfon: Docketing and Services Branch RE:    DECOMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILilIES, 50 FEDERAL REGISTER 5600, FEBRUARY 11, 1985

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

I am writing this brief letter to conment on the proposed dec011111issfonfng criteria for nuclear facilftfes published in the February 11, 1985 Federal Register. I have the following c011111ents:

1. The proposed regulations apparently would allow licensees to choose among three potential dec011111issioning methods: DECON, B,3,3

                              ~ R , and ENTc>>48. I believe that the choice of dec011111issioning method should not be left to the licensee but should be reviewed and approved by the C011111issfon.

2. I believe that the ENTOMB dec011111fssfonfng method should be disallowed, and not be presented as an alternative. The rule 13. s-should forbid ENTOMB as a deconmfssfoning method for power reactors.

3. The rule does not contain adequate standards which would minimize workers' exposure during deco111nfssfonfng, and the rule does not Jc,,.8.1 requfre a registry of workers involved fn dec011111issfonfng. I fc.1,10 believe both should be added to the rule.

4. The rule would allow a *funding insurance* method which would pennft an internal sinking fund with the as~ets fn the fund mixed 1). ~. 'Z.. "\ (a.)

with the utility's other assets. This is an unsatisfactory proposal, since ft would not protect such funds in the event of a utility bankruptcy. That option should be removed from the rule, and strictly speaking, only the *prepayment* option insures adequate dec011111fssionfng funding fn the case of a premature i),3,z.Z..I shutdown. I think the Coll'lllfssfon should strongly consider requiring prepayment as the only funding insurance option. J-194

Secretary of the COl!lllfssfon May 8, 1985 Page 2 Thank you for allowing me to make these c011111ents to you. y,!ru,~y Y'J1rs,

                                         . !A[:~.

( Y,.* PAT;ON, Supervisor Tt.fr Dfstrfct I GAP:ss i" J-195

RJl<WOOEO RULE r t ( ~ 5a e,/Q.,,/.~ (&, J:l "" t:!.:JJ

,Ir. ,\lva :torrison; Staff Consultant on Radioactive :faste 1llalae l'lladear 11.efereadaa Committee

                                                              ,:tXKC[,.

.:311RC Secretary of"the Connission L.S. ~uclear Regulatory Conrnission

\.'ashington J.C. 20555                                   '85 NAY 13 P3 :26

Dear Connissioners:

\s soneone who has ueen intina te1y i~W~ltrNia11 as -

-,ects of the problen of raJioactive waste dispo§WfHr we'icone an<l applauJ the steps you are taking to address the :1r0Llen of decommisioning of nuclear facilities. There are several areas, however, in \,hich I feel tac:: proposed re/::ulations you have cir-culated for connent are inadequate to insure the public health and safety , particularly ~iven the f:lct that ti1is is an area in which there is no prier practical experience fror.i which problens may be anticipated and real costs may ee reckoned,

        \iithout going into exhaustive detail, I shall list below a nur.i.ber of areas in which I feel that insufficient clarity or detail is offered to provide guidance to licensees in carrying out effective deconrnisioning, and/or to assure that the pub-lic is [>rovided with the tools they need in order to have input into the ~rocess:
        -Licensing: Particularly in the case of ?art SO, it is C. l. \

not clear what sort of license governs decon~isioning, or at \oo'hat stage that licence should be <luring the <lecomnisionin:; process. This ?roblem could be easily rectified if ceco~~ision-ing were i1andle<l under new regulations as o;posc<l to anend-c... \.'3. l ments to the existing ones,

        -Choice of :lethod: S:,ecific criteria should be prol'lul-gated by which licensees nay decide which tleco~nisionin3 ~eth-8, 3, I. I od is a?propriate to their situation.
        -SAFSTOR Option: Ti:;ie ;illowable for stor.1~c s:1oulJ be linited, ;ind criteria s:,ould be listed b:,- 1,hich Jecisions on tining can be naJe, s~ecific resulations ~averning plant saf-                             C,\,'3 J-196

ty and security <lurinq the storage period, inclu<lin~ all necc-sary financial assurances, are crucial, Ic.. ,.

o. 3.

3

                                                                                        '1
        -Workers Protection: Standards nust be irarrovc<l in this area unless and untill it bccones clear that h:izards of expo-                 c...,,&.\

sure are indeed as ::tininal as the connision anticinates.

        -Safety and Security vuring Deconnisionin~: Strict stand-ards for radiation nonitorin~ of all personell, work areas, and the area surrounding the ,1ant rnust be established untill it is clear that releases will inJeed be as low as anticipated. Con-Jitions for inspection of all as~ects of the operation 8Ust be laid out in detail, and specific criteria re~arding barriers, warning signs, and alarLl systens nust be promulgated.

Portions of the new ,ropose<l regulations dealing with l), 1, I funding for decoranisioning, while nore detailed, are also (., . \ flawed in several aspects. To begin with, I feel that ~ore de-tailed criteria are in order to define how the conu!lision will de- D:2. I ( c.) cide whether the plans sub~itted by the licensee are accept-able, The establishnent of a benchnark figure of S100 million based on outdated studies which were nade purely theoretically o. I. I. \ seer.ts at best a 1uestionable practice to me, Furt;1err:iore, at least one funding schene is offereJ which is obviously inade-quate even if the benchnark fig~re proves reasonable. The avail* ability of funds from an internal reserve could never be guar-anteed, particularly in those cases such as exist in our state where the najor nuclear facility exists in a separate cor~orate structure from the utility which distributes the power ~enerate<l. It is ny view that this nrran~enent was srecifically Jesi~nc<l to allow the utility to escape responsibility for Jecoonisioning 1).i,2,\ in the event that costs should exceed tl,,.,se estinate<l. Under no o. !, z. 2.. circumstances should any funding method which offers even the possibility of such an occurence be ~ernitted. In your own rationale for the ;,ro;,osed rule (i'~. 56116, under "i), Financial .\ssurance" ) you raise the s;,ectre of pre-nature shutdown and its :-'Otential effect on t;1e 1vailability of l), "!>. '2.. 'Z. I deconnisioning funds, yet fnil to adress it effectively in ti1e ?reposed regulations. For this reason, ns well as ny reasons ~ivcn

il.,ove for o:,rosinr: c:1c "ii;tcrn:il reserve" func'.inr: ,ec:1anis,.,, it J-197

is ny view that the conrnision nust, to <lenonstrate that it is ser-ious about the need for those who profit fror.1 nuclear energy to be responsible for its costs, require that all funds for tleco~ni* l). 3 . i. 't.. I sioning be provided up front in separate, untouchable accounts, before issuing operating licenses (or within a strictly li~itcd tine period, in the case of t!Lose ;ilants alre:tdy in o:'eration), Turning tony particular area of exrcrtise, I find that your discussion of deconnisioning altern3tives on v:ige 5603 rests uncot:1fortably on the assurance that "The Federal and State gov-ernt:1ents have activities under ~ay to assure that there will be this (disposal) capacity." Given the present state of Feccral legislation concerning low level waste, this is at best an opti* mistic attitude, The primary focus of a~endrnents prc-~n:ly ~a-ing prepared to the Low Level R3dioactive ~aste Policy Act is to extend deadlines by w~ich states nust subnit and carry out plans for disposal, anc to!.!.:!.!.! access (by volume) to !)resently-oper- \-\.\.\.\ ating disposal facilities, In addition, a consesus seens to be developing among State officials, industry, and the public in the entire northeastern re,:?ion, that s!1allow land burial will be utter* ly unacceptable as a ~eans of disposal anywhere in the region due to geologic and hydrolo~ical factors. Yet to date, your corn-mision has declined to offer guidelines for alternative ~ethods of disposal. Given this situation, it see~s highly likely that ~ressures for extended use of the "SAFSTOR" option, and ntte,pts to a;,;,ly entornbnent technology to lar~e reactors for which it ~ay be entire-ly innappropriate are to ue ex:iected in the nenr future. I Le-lieve that if a crisis situation is to be avoilled, your coril'lision nust adress these issues in all relevant portions of the regula-tory codes ir.unediately. Sincerely,

                                     'Ir, .\lva ':orrison Staff eonsult~nt an cc:State Sen. JuJv :,an*:             l'!.adioactive \."aste Chair, Maine Low:Lcvci taste Sitin~ Cnnnision J-198

IIOf.Ol!D IU&l_rft-3d"'4 ,9 ,,....,* ~ COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE (~d Fl f '80) "<1P COUNTY OF BEDFORD. PENNSYLVANIA ., '"SlPH H CLAPl'U /R IIAUY I SCATTON I CUSNA c:....,-- YW HHSOU AILL'll J ARNOLD c... .. , C.-111....-n ...,u

       ...., . - c..un......

c..,., a.n1 ., o.n- DltKETED PATRICIA II CHAPIN Oucfa..t USNRC Telephone: IU-623-1173 BEDFORD, PENNSYLVANIA 15522 "85 MY 13 Pl :27 OF'f"JC[ OF' SECRUAF , Hay 10, 1985 DOCKETING & SEPVICJ. BRANCH Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch RE: Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities 50 Fed. Reg. 5600, February 11, 1985. On Hay 7, 1985, ~he County Commissioners, of Bedford County Pennsylvania, unanimously voted to sanction the attached co11111ents in response to the proposed regulations for the decommissioning of nuclear power facilities. This action was not taken in an extemporaneous manner. Both the regulations and the comments had been reviewed by the Commissioners and the County Planning Commission which also advised County Commissioners support. The location of an inactive experimental nuclear power station in Saxton, Bedford

   .unty, has made us acutely aware of the health and safety issues, These concerns have been magnified by the State's newly acquired responsibilities in handling low-level                                           f' I '

radioactive waste problems. We want you to understand our adamant feelings regarding the opportunity for local input into the decommissioning activities through involvement in an Envionmental Impact Statement, Thank you for considering this joint statement from Bedford County. Atteo;t:~~. C!k"-1~

              *~atricia K, Chapin,C~f Clerk MAY 15 kknewi.ct,ld by etnf             1985 Bedford County, Pennsylvania * "the Crossroads of Hen'tage and Hosp,:id.f,?'"~-.'F-J-199

                              ~_,- .*. :,. ,* ** E :~ :\            -~.44 5?J ehJ.

C.~ /=,2_. 5'sa~ CONCERNED CIT I ZENS

                                                ~                           FOR SNEC SAFETY lE..J)                      c/o James H. Elder W.al l St E}:t Sa:<ton, Pa 16678
                                                 .......  ~  .             May 6, 1985
                                                ..  ., .. l  '"; **

Secretary of the Commission ... J ..... "' US Nuclear Regulatory Comm1ss1on Washington, DC 20555

                                       '85 MAY 13 P3 :27 Attention: Doc~et1ng and Services Branch
                                     . r-                            .

Re: Decomm1 st.1 on1 ng Cr 1 ter i a[),f~t:iif~bjgq.ri*~.:.F ac 1 l 1 ti es 50 Fed. Reg. 5600, February 1S£~~11l.1985 Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety is an organization which has been involved in representing local residents as regards the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation's reactor during its dismantlement ph.ase. Therefore we have a very personal stake 1n the NRC's regulations 1n this area. We have researched the problems involved in dismantlement carefully so that we can help local residents protect themselves from possible harm. After studying the proposed rule for decommissioning we have concluded that it contains several serious flaws. It 1s surprising that a rule which has been worked on since 1977 is so lacking 1n specifics on the topic it addresses. The rule must be drastically modified to become an adequate framework for the decomm1ss1on1ng process. We will address this problem using the real e::per1 ence of what has occurred at Sa}:ton, where the pl ant was partially decomm1ss1oned 1n 1973 and then put into storage for eventual dismantlement. The dec1s1on to change the present requirement for a full Environmental Impact Statement when a final decommissioning plan is developed and to substitute a review 1s not acceptable. The change 1n ~nowledge and techniques during the life of a reactor 1s considerable and there are certain to be vast differences between the or1g1nal planning and the actual s1te-specif1c s1tuat1on after 30 or 40 years. This is clearly the case at Saxton only 12 years

f. \

after its 1n1t1al decommissi~n1ng plan was developed. In addition, the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement 1s the only guarantee that the site-specific ~nowledge of local government officials and citizens will be made a part of the plan which is carried out. It is important that the views of those most affected by decommissioning decisions, the local residents and workers, be made a part of the final plans. The prime consider~~ion in decommissioning deci~ions must be public health and safety since that 1s the legal mandate of the NRC. The proposed rule appears to give only lip service to this reQu1rement. It is mentioned, but nowhere are metho~s or c.. 1.3 performance goals for achieving safe decomm1ss1on1ng written into the rule. Instead, this topic 1s left for later jction by the J-200

NRC. when 1t should be the real substance of this rule. One of the most important decisions 1n decomm1ss1on1ng 1s whether to use OECON (immediate dismantlement>. SAFSTOR <temporary storage with later dismantlement> or ENTOMB (permanent on-site storage>. Yet there is no criteria given in the rule for how to make the choice among these options. Even the information supplied with the rule makes a clear case for how to evaluate these options, but the rule itself gives no guidance. ENTOMB is net a realistic alternative and the rule should state that. There will obviously be special reasons at particular sites to choose the OECON option because cf reasons such as poor original siting of a reactor, but in general the evidence suggests that partial decommissioning followed by a ~0-year storage period <SAFSTOR> will be the best option in terms of the public health and safety. Radiation exposure to workers and the surrounding area will be lower and, equally as important, t"*r~ ~* 11 be~ significant reduction in the radioactive wastes produced. While SAFSTOR might slightly increase the total co,t of decommissioning, the public benefits Justify that cost. The rule should require that the choice of method be based on a detailed assessment of the effects on public health and safety so that a rational decision can be made. There should be clear criteria available for NRC review of that decision. Again the need for preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement as part of a f". ' final site-specific plan is shown to be justified. Another extremely important part of the decommissioning process is not addressed by the rule at all. Proper requirements for quality assurance and quality control during decommissioning are essential, including adequate monitoring by the NRC itself. This need is very apparent at Sa::ton. The original work in 1973 was supposed to have cleaned up several auxiliary buildings for C,G> unrestricted use. The AEC did not inspect for 1~ months while work progressed. When an inspection finally occurred it was discovered that the buildings remained contaminated. Since the owner <General Public Utilities> had already dispersed its workers, those buildings remain contaminated today. Strict requirements for quality assurance must be a part of the rule, We cannot understand why the rule specifically excludes from its requirements reactor* which have already been permanently shut down. Saxton falls into this category and we think we c.'t should receive as much protection as anyone else who lives near a re*ctor. The experience at Saxton also casts severe doubt on the adequacy of the proposed rule for estimating the costs of decommissioning. In 1973 GPU estimated that the total decommissioning cost, excluding continued maintenance for SAFSTOR of the plant. would be S575,000. Even after the initial "'D, l. I,\ decontamination work had been done, in 1983 GPU's minimum estimate of the cost for the remaining work was fl~,454,000 or more than :1 times the original total estimate. Obviously not *11 of this increase was due to inflation. Saxton is only a 35 thermal J-201

mag*w*t t re*ctor *nd GF*U

• s cost estimates *ss1.1me the re*ctor v****l can be removed in one piece. To thi~k that Sl00,000,(11)0 is '[).I.I, l a ma:<imum figure for decommissioning plants 300 to 400 times the size of S*xton is unre*listic.

The proposed rule should be changed to require* decommissioning fund equ*l to the best estim*te possible for the cost of decommissioning* particular site, *nd th*t estimate should be revised every five years so th*t *n *ppropriate fund can b* built up. Otherwise when the time com** to actually decommission a plant only* fraction of the funds required

**Y be available.

The experience of GPU in appro*ching bankruptcy, with its m*in ****ts being inoperable nuclear pl*nts, indicates why the set-aside funding for future decommissioning must be in extern*l sinking funds which are leg*lly separate from* utility's other

****ts. GPU has not been *bl* to get a bl*nk check from Pennsylvania r*t*p*yers even in its emergency situation and therefor* its cleanup *t TMI-2 has been del*yed.        If the funds it h*d set aside for future decommissioning were part of its normal assats there would be no money *vailable tod*y for work at S*xton.

Wa appreciate the fact that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission raquir** external reserves for decommissioning funds and the NRC should require the same method, along with insurance to provide '[). '3,Z. z. I funding in c**e of the early retirement of a plant such as happenad *t TMI-2. The definition given for the term "decommissioning" is not complete in the proposed rule. Since the obJectiv* of decommissioning is to return a site to the same possibilities of use that the site possessed before a reactor was built on it, the dafinition should include language stating that th* limit for G'. \, \ residu*l radioactivity remaining should be the amount of natural background radiation at the site before construction of the plant. This is the only definition which can be acceptable by local rasidents whose children will be using the site in the future. To summari:e, the proposed rule is not complete since it does not provide specific criteria for m*king decisions *bout decommissioning and it leaves out sever*l import*nt topics. The rule should be redrafted *nd *g*in submitted for public comment 'before it is accepted by the ~RC. Jam** H. Elder Chairman J-202

               ,.u.n1 rw:.;;;~~

Pf!QPOSfO RULE PR-3bll:°'Qt:,;

                                      "" ~ ia..l

(.56 F~ S<.ooJ l.2JV 42 Highland A.,.. Madiaon NJ 07940 May 7, 1985 Secretary or the Commiaston US Wuclear Regulatory Consn. Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch '85 MY 13 P3 :28 Gentlemen: vFF'iC[ JF :LL.!it.::.,, OOCKE. TING&. S[FIVIU The RRC has issued an unacceptable propoal!A~ deco111111issioning reactors as far as the general public is concerned which 1* untair to the public'* health and also to their pocketbook. Entombment ot radioactive wastes should never be allowed aa the radio actiTity remains dangerous tor hund.reda ot tbouaands ot years, tar outliving the housing tor the contaminated wastes. Long-lived activation products should be separated trom low-lived waste aitea tor obvious reasons. Also, chemical contam1n* jH.1.1.1 ated wastes ahould be excluded from low-11Ted waste burial until I H,\,'2,\ interaction ot chelating agents 11 thorou~hly year limit ahould be established for the temporary" atorage or reactor* prior to dismantlement. assessed. A 50 IB. lf. 3 ~deral legialation 11 neoessary to make the parent/~8il81Rf responsible tor decommissioning costs. Prepa1112ent held in ID, 8. 2 * \ segregated tunda without deeommiaaioning insurance 1a the only sure way to avoid possible non-availability ot tunda due to D,"3,'2.,2.,I prelll&ture shutdown or a utility not haTing the neoeaaary aoney when the time arrives tor deeommissioning. Allow current tax deductions only tor segregated .funds to protect the utility cuatomers rrom haTing to pay for utility tax expenses on the deeommissioning funds when the utility will eventuall7 be eligible for a tax deduction. Revise deeo111111issioning coat estimates at least eTery fiTe years. 1).t.f.3 PresentlJ, I would not want anyone I am fond ot working in a nuclear facility. The maximum level ot radiation exposure allowed I\.\. 3 should -e decreased ten-fold and records should be kept on all workers regarding radiation exposure. The Pederal standard should jc.1.10 be aet at a 10 m1111rem limit tor residual radioactivity full body&.t> dose at plants released for ~unrestricted" use. ~

                                                                                     ~ e.1.1 Finally, 1r decomm1ssionin~ costa run higher than tunda available~

• utility stockholders should be responsible to pay the costs, not  ? 1), i. z. 'Z..

4 ratepayers who never benefitted from the electricity produced by the plant which 1s no longer operable. I f the NCR t'a1ls to i .  : require plants to adopt the moat reliable t'Unding method, atate E. i), ll, 3. l regulators should step in and request either prepayment or ~ segregated external t'unds tor reactor* in their state. ~* j, f

                                                                                  ~

0 I J-203

Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc. ~e,; * ::-~*-R*.:L. : r<-314/J S7J do) 7101 W,scons,n Avenue Bethesda. MD 20814-4805 Telephone *3011654-9260 c.~o ,:t S&,00 , s~*,,

.r.11rwi:.l.i

                                                            .i1
                                                                  * * '"          (]'* I
                                                                                       ~

TWX 7108249602 ATOMIC FOR DC co~,.~-~~

                                                                      . .**;*r*.:

May 10, 1985 '85 NAY 13 P3 :49 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Proposed Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities

Dear Sir:

The AIF Committee on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals is com-posed of licensees who possess, process and distribute radioactive materials. These companies conduct diverse operations under their respective licenses which are issued under one or more of Parts 30-35, 40, SO, and 70 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations and the licensed activities involve the full spectrum of available types and quantities of radioactive material. As a consequence, the proposed regulation will affect each licensee in a manner and to an extent which is unique to the particular licensed activities. Some aspects of the proposed rule will have a common impact on all licensees. The Committee's comments that follow are addressed mainly to the latter. We expect individual company comments will be forth-comiug on the former. fhe Commission specifically invited comments from small entities

oncerning the economic impact of the proposed rule. It is not easy to differentiate between small and large entities. Although many licensees are affiliated with larger more diverse enterp~ises, other than the licensed activity, it is common that the licensed enterprise operates as an independent profit center. The impact on any licensee is more closely related to the operating budget of the licensed activity rather than to the consolidated budget of all affiliates.

The comments of the Committee are ~ffered from this perspective. Any projection of decommissioning costs is dependent on the exis-tence and accessability of disposal facilities. It is also dependent upon the stability of the cost of disposal services and the regula- D.1.1. \ tory environment. Unfortunately, none of the above exist nor can they be guaranteed in the near future. The formation of compacts J-204

Secretary May 10, 198-5 under the Low-Level Waste Policy Act is behind schedule and this won't be resolved over the next several years. When the compact system is fully implemented, the cost of disposal will continue to 1). \.I,\ rise due to the relatively lower volumes of waste going into the individual sites within the newly formed compacts. Furthermore, there are several kinds of waste for which disposal methods have not yet been defined in the regulations. These conditions will greatly hinder an accurate assessment of future decommissioning costs. The proposed rule will require a decommissioning funding plan to be filed by licensees if they are authorized to possess more than 105 times the quantities listed in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix C. Licensees may certify that they have satisfied the financial security requirements amounting to $500 K, $100 K, or $50 K 1),(p.3. I depending upon the possession limits of their respective licenses. We note that the multiples of the Appendix C quantities of some isotopes amount to absolute quantities which are less than a curie. We do not believe that the decommissioning costs for such a license could amount to the sums prescribed in the proposed regulation. The only way a licensee may avoid the cost of providing the assurance in (,:, 2 the prescribed amount would be to file a specific plan. The cost of \), *"* doing this should be avoided for the benefit of both the licensee and the NRC. We believe that either the quantity limits for pre-scribed amounts of financial assurance in Part 30.35 be set more realistically or the prescribed radioactive quantity be increased 1),(p.3. \ for the certification provision in the rule. Comparable sections of Parts 40 and 70 should also be revised. We are in favor of the exemption provisions based on the quantity and half life of the material that licensees are authorized to ~.G:,.I possess. This exemption will greatly relieve the majority of by-product licensees of the administrative burden and added cost that this rule will impose. Some licensees are licensed under more than one part of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations and operations under separate licenses are conducted within common facilities. As the proposed \ rule is written, a separate decommissioning plan may be required L, I under each license. This duplication will lead to unnecessary additional cost to both the regulatory agency and the licensee. It is recommended that the rule clearly state that a consolidated plan be allowed if multiple licenses exist. J-205

Secretary May 10, 1985 The proposed rule would amend Parts 30, 40, 50 and 70 to require licensees to maintain an additional set of records for purposes of identifying those plant areas that would require special attention during decommissioning. These records would be redundant. Such information would be on record from the normal operating logs that G,,. I are kept for recording radiation exposure history. Considering the fact that licensed activities are carried out only in controlled areas of the plant and also that a detailed survey of these areas, and most probably the adjacent unrestricted area~, will be conducted per any decommissioning plan, the duplicate records required in the proposed regulation will not be necessary for the safe and effective decommissioning of a facility. The Commission mentions in the background information for this proposed rule that a 100-year waiting period would be considered an acceptable time for institutional control if the Safstor or Entomb 8,4,3 option were chosen. Some benefit may be gained in extending this period beyond 100 years in special circumstances. A precedent B,5 exists for a 300-year period in 10 CFR Part 61. It is recommended that, provided reasonable institutional control can be assured and a significant benefit will result, the Commission allow a longer waiting period. The proposed rule specifies certain funding methods that would be acceptable to the Commission. There is also provision for providing financial assurance by means other than those specified which* would provide comparable assurance. As stated earlier, licensed activities generally are financially accountable under distinct profit centers and the cost of providing financial assurance under the specified methods is significant within the context of these profit centers. The preferred method for providing assurance will invariably be that which costs the least. p I'=,, ~

• I. \

The cost of the various funding methods is generally tied to the cost of money. Most licensees can provide a greater return on investment through their own enterprise rather than from external investments and the surety method would seem to be even more costly. The internal fund is apparently the least expensive funding method and, therefore~ it is the most desirable from the licensee's perspec-tive. According to the rule, only utility companies are specifically permitted to use this method. We recommend that the choice of fund-ing method be dependent on the financial condition and potential of J-206

Secretary May 10, 1985 the licensee to carry out decommissioning rather than on the type of licensed enterprise. The internal funding method could be made available to licensees other than utility companies provided certain financial criteria 1).fo.~*'*' were satisfied. A precedent exists for this in Title 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. We recommend that the NRC consider adopting a similar approach when assessing adequate funding methods for all licensees. We believe that the above suggested changes will not compromise the efficacy or intent of the proposed rule if they are adopted. The AIF Committee on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals appreciates this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. Henry H. Kramer Chairman, AIF Committee on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals HHK:wpg J-207

1215 First Ave. 4A New York NY 10021 JV!ay 6, 1985 Secretary of the Commission -, :,<.~ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission>* 1"~ Washington DC 20555 Attn1 Docketing & Service B~c~AY 13 p3 :29

Dear Secretary:

I am writing in refecenc~A~t ~e.:. proposed rules on nuclear-plant decommissioning. I oi9j~.;.~Sutie iof unsegregated decommiss-ID, 3, '2.. LI (a..) ioning funds by utilities, and e~~ment as a method of decommiss-inning. IB,S" Since little is known about costs for shutting down a reactor, a major independent study of these costs should be undertaken by I C:,.,<o the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. In any case, the costs should be prepaid in segregated funds so utilities, if they have financial problems later, could still be called on to j o, '3, 'Z.. 'Z. *. I clean up the reactor. An Environmental Impact Statement should be required for every nuclear-plant decommissioning with full opportunity for public comment. I F": I Entombment--oneof the options for decommissioning--is unacceptable, since some of the isotopes in the reactors stay radioactive for thousands of years--past the life of the concrete used to close up the plants, Reactors should be given full decommissioning, immediate dismantlement. Very truly yours, t3d/;~ Bill Schwarz MAY l 5 *i955 Ac1Viow:..ciid by c::rd .*** .-. ... , - . ~ ~ J-208

                                         *l*Lf"'.,.-.,,..., ,,-L--_   * ...,..v~ -,  -v   -   I..._.

lay <J, 1 ') fl S

(~6 FR.. 5~00.J @ Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission \lashington, D.C. 20555 "Ot ~:- ...

                                                                           - ~-:i~1{'

Attn: Docketing and Services Branch

Dear Secretary:

                                                     '85 NAY 13 P3 :28 The following are comments on the proposedcRj.,~~:;;_, ~itled "Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facil i tieOC!if,°&tf~§i:fl~t~nce to

SO Fed. Reg. 5600. In general we are pleased thal!"l~~ 1ss*ue of decommissioning is being addressed. However, there are several G.I important factors that ~ust be corrected if the public is to be protected financially and environmentally.

The proposed rules allow the utilities to choose among three potential decomissioning alternatives but do not specify what factors should be considered when making that choice. Without these specific 8. 3.1.1 criteria there is no basis for regulating or reviewing the utility's performance. The CNTO~!B r:,ethod should be forbidden since it is contrary to the requirement of returning the site to unrestricted public use. It is also the method nost likely to result in long term environmental danage. Any decomnissioning plan should require an 6.5" environmental i~pact statement from the utility as part of its NEPA responsibilities. This EIS should be requir~d at the time the utility submits its plan :or decommissioning, and the public should be allowed to com~ent. Occupational radiation exposure during decommissioning will be substantially higher than in normal utility operations. The rules must specify standards to minimize worker exposure during C.I. ~. I decommissioning and require registry of workers. This registry of workers is vitally important to prevent individuals from receiving repetitive maximum doses by transferring from one nuclear clean-up C.1.10 site to another. The current rules lack any mention of quality control or quality assurance procedures. There should be specific basic safety practice required and an independent means of verifying that these procedures c.. ~ are being followed. The utilities should be required to include methods of meeting those safety criteria in their decommissioning application. Probably one of the most crucial aspects of decommissioning is that the utilities set aside sufficient segregated funds to accomplish th~ work. The cost ~f decommissioning should be D- ~.3 re-evaluated er,,ery five years by the utilities, reviewed by the N.R.C., and su'fficient funds segregated for this purpose. The regulations regarding funding methods available to utilitie~ should require segregate~ funds. Without this protection, there is very D.3.2.1.1(a.) little assurance to the public that decommissioning funds will be adequate and protected from bankruptc~ or other claims.

                                                                                                -,c
                                                                                . ,* *( \ .-. *--b:l
                                                                                 \i:I',    " *-

J-209

It is conceivable that the cost of decommissioning these power plants could natch or exceed the original construction costs. The potential public health consequences are staggering. The i~.R.C. must D. I. I. I make these rules to err on the side of protecting the public rather than meeting the desires of the nuclear industry. Sincerel!-"~ ~ - Proctor N. 15616 Timberwood Crt. Spokane, WA. 99208 509 466-5898 J-210

CASE 1426 S. Pol.k. Dal.las, Texas 75224 2J.4/946-9446 ( CITIZENS ASSN. FOR SOUND ENERGY)

                                                                          '85 HAY 13 P2 :13 Hr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission                                             uf f,::E Gr SECRt f).:, .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connnission 'ltJC!',E.TING & SE~*,:.:: Washington, D.C. 20555 SRAHCH Hay 10, 1985

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Attached is a copy of CASE's comments on the NRC's proposed decommission-ing rule ("Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities", 50 Fed. Reg. 5600, February 11, 1985). Boardmember CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy)

  /bb enc.
                                                 .".L 1, ** ** '-1,i_:; .- * ,_ * . _ * - '

J-21 l

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DECOMM1SSI0NING RULE Introduction CASE vi.shes to comment on certain aspects of the NRC's proposed rule entitled, "Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities" (50 Fed. Reg. 5600, February 11, 1985). CASE concurs that there is a need to set forth \), <g, I specific criteria for the methods to fund and carry out the deconnnissioning ~. I of nuclear facilities, including power plants, but does not cor.cur that the rule in its present form will ensure either that funds will be available when needed or that the effort will be carried out in a manner that will protect the health and safety of the workers or the public. Gener:al CASE generally supports NIRS' comments regarding the need for: the setting C.1.8,\ of appropriate radiation standards for decommissioning workers, the need for promulgating specific regulations with which applicants must comply in order to enable intervenors in decommissioning hearings to evaluate whether or not c.. \. ~ a li~ensee complies with the law, the need for developing a framework of safety goals parallelling existing NRC regulations for nuclear power plant operations,

                                                                                 ,c.1.i.t the need for developing substantive rules for the proper procedures to be used   IC., I. 3 in conducting decommissioning, the need for requiring that a QA/QC ~rogram be c.~

an integral part of any decommissioning implementation, and the need for estab-lishing specific criteria for the choice of a decommissioning method by a utility CASE believes that the choice of decommissioning alternatives is too important to leave to the discretion of a licensee (per the proposed rule), and urges that B. ~. 1. \ the Commission define the selection criteria in such a way so as to provide the maximum assurance that the public's and the workers' health and safety is pro-J-212

'I tected. CASE concurs that rules requiring beneficial operating procedures and design features that make decoannissioning easier should be developed. We would refer the Counnission again to NIRS' connents regarding areas for pro* posed regulations which would speed up decommissioning, reduce occupational exposure, speed up accident clean-ups, and reduce waste. CASE also urges that the Collllllission make expllcit in the final rule that the ENTOMB option is unacceptable for nuclear power plants, and that the rule will not exclude any reactor which is already shut down at the time that the C. 'i rule goes into effect. CASE notes, in passing, that the rule, as proposed, assumes that a utility will follow basic safety criteria when carrying out a decounissioning. The Com- C:.. 1,3 mission has not made that assumption for operating plants; it should not make it for retired units. Funding CASE wishes to couanent on what we feel are deficient funding standards in the proposed rule, in particular, the option of an internal reserve. CASE believes that this scheme will not provide reasonable assurance that a utility D.3.2..1.\(<.LJ will have adequate resources when needed to carry out decommissioning. CASE strongly opposes permitting the establishment of an internal reserve account which is not segregated from the licensee's assets and which is within the licensee's control. "Premature decommissioning" (an apparent euphemism for decommissioning due to serious accidents or to reactors otherwise beyond repair), D, 3.2.'Z..I or financial insolvency or even bankruptcy would place such unsegregated funds at serious risk. While no utility to date has actually gone bankrupt, several are in serious financial difficulty (cf., the utilities for Seabrook and TMI-2). 1), "3. Z.. I. I (o...) On the case of TMI-2, 1,1hich operated only a fe\.l months, only the prepayment J-213

option would have a~sured funds for decommissioning,) Nor does the proposed rule specify that investments be made in facilities other than other nuclear power plants--thus allowing the decommissioning burden for D.3, 2.,.1(A..) the second plant to shift to a later date and another group of ratepayers (since tl"le second plant will also have to be decommissioned). CASE also notes that the text of the proposed rule does not contain a requirement for a utility using the internal reserve option to have backup insurance. But even this would not necessarily provide sufficient coverage to ensure that the cost of deconnnissioning woL~J ~~ J,aLlable in the event of an accident, for 50.54 (w) coveres only "on site" accident costs. It appears that both the internal reserve and external sinking funds proposals suffer from the same flaw: both assume that a licensee will be able to continue to make deposits to a decommissioning fund over the life of the plant. As noted earlier, if a plant shuts down (for whatever reason) and is 1), 3.2.. '2.. \ no longer revenue-producing, the licensee may no longer be able to continue to make deposits to the deconunissioning fund, and decommissioning funding may then be in question. CASE urges, therefore, that any funding scheme that relies on deposits being made over time be backed up by insurance for premature shutdown. (The' coverage could decline over time--if 5-year updates of estimates of decom-missioning costs show that the fund is on target--to reflect the higher balance existing in the externally held account.) But CASE strongly urges the Commission to completely eliminate the option for internal reserve funding from the final rule. The public needs the protection which is inherent in a guaranteed fund which ensures that a utility can, in fact, decommission a plant safely when the time comes--whenever that may be. CASE is futher concerned that there is no mechanism in the proposed rule "D.3,2.1.'2 which would "lock in" a licensee to fullfill a committment to immediately de-J-214

Page 4 commission a plant, if it had taken the relatively ch~aper internal reserve funding option at the beginning of operation. There is nothing in the proposed rule which would prevent a licensee. from defaulting on its committment and taking advantage of the SAFSTOR option (which, accord1ng to the proposed rule, 1),3. 2..1,2 is supposed to be available only to utilities which accrue external funds). This is another reason to eliminate the internal reserve option from the proposed rule. CASE further believes that the proposed $100 million minimum (adjusted annually per the proposed rule) which licensees would be required to set aside for decommissioning is unrealistically low. (CASE concurs with NIRS' data and analysis presented in its comments regarding this concern.) CASE is also concerned that the proposed rule does not require that the utility assure accurate decormnissioning updates during the time which it is collecting funds. From a financial standpoint, this could result in a fonn of rate-shock at the time of decommissioning, and from a health and safety standpoint, it could even jeopardize the timing and the quality of the decom- v. L{.3 missioning effort. CASE concurs with NIRS that it does not make sense to allow a 25-30 year gap between the original and final estimates (the first done at licensing (or, for operating reactors, 2 years after promulgation of the final rule); the second done 5 years prior to decommissioning. CASE urges that the Commission require an update of estimated decommissioning costs every 5 years, coupled with any changes necessary to arrive at the revised amount at the plant's estima~ed retirement date. J-215

                                           ~-*~rc~t:.J ~Ult. I '\-..,,..., "'fU, ':,() ..:.,.1o__.1 May 8, L 98'>

(5(} F=fl S400) @ Secretary of the Commi.ssiou US NRC Washington DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen: RE: Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities.- Proposed Rule

l. The $100 million (l981J) estimate of tJll ~~I ljf ft?c~issioning nuclear power plants is surely a gross underestimation. Decommissioning costs will ID,1.1.)

most likely vary widely from plant to P.laffi",.l;frl!?.P~'n~ *to come up with a more reasonable figure for decommissionin\f'~~~~1ii should be required in the rule to re-evaluate estimates ~very five years and adjust their D.t.f.3 funds accordingl~ to ensure sufficient funds.

2. The prepayment fund or method is the only option that ensures adequate deco,nmissioning funding. An accident early in the life of a nuclear power plant would make the external sinking fund or the two types of internal funds unappropriate. If utilities want to build nuclear plants, funds should 1). '3. 2.. 2. I be available in a lUlllJ) sum such that the principal and interest will equal the estimated decorrmissioning coats (in current dollars). Funds should be placed in an account segregated from the utilities' other assets.

3. Your definitions of the alternatives of DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB are vague and need further clarification. The rule should forbid ENTOMB as a I B. 2.. I decorrmissioning method for power reactors. For DECON and SAFSTOR there needs to be guidance in the rule as to how the utility should make the choice. The rule should spell out specific criteria by which a utility's decisions can be \3. 3. I.\

govern~d and reviewed. Discussion of decormiissioning methods in Regulatory Guidmis not goQd enough as the guides are not binding like regulations. Therefore, this infor111ation should appear in the rule. IJ. You need to develop standards to minimize worker exposure during deconmissioning and should require a registry of workers involved in I C.. l, g. I deconmissioning. The establishment of a separate quality assurance and jc.1. ,o quality control staff for decommissioning needs to be required and procedures Ic.." for quality assurance and quality control need to be detailed. The rule should spell ~ut basic essential safety practices and the licensee's decomnissioning application should be required to include methods of meeting those safety criteria. - ~ Ic.,.3 S. The proper classification and disposal of "in rmedi11e-level wastes" should be ma.de. Intern1ediate level wastes shou not be allowed to be 11. I. I. I disposed of in low-level wcste dumps. Guidanc- for the proper disposal of chemical "chelating agents** which allow .radioL~tive wastes to migrate quickly through ~he ground as in happening from the deep well injection process for waste used at Oak Ridge where radioactivi~y began showing up in nearby water wells at concentrations 138,000 times the drinking water standards and is doubling every five months according to The Natural Rights Center. S~erely, _//_,,... 1

                                            '1 @urrtN y e t ~

(Mrs.) Naomi .Jacobson Co-Chairman & Director LAND, Inc. S2S River Road NFJ Rudolph, WI. 511475 J-216

Bedtord County Conservation U1stnct

                  ~
                ~               1:X>W. JOHN STREET BEOFORO, PENNSYLVANIA 15522 TELEPHONE 18141623-6706 Nay , . 1985             "85 NAY 13 P3 :Sl Offfcc- Of~-----.*

Secretary of the Coaaiaelon DOCKCTING-iSE~~ic:/ US Nuclear Regulatory Coaaieelon BRANCH . Waahington. DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service* Branch Re: Decoaaiasioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilitie* 50 Fed. Reg. 5600. February 11. 1985 The Sedford County Conservation Oiatrict is a local organization which has been closely foll~ing events regarding the Saxton Nuclear Experiaental Corporation's (SNEC) reactor during its diaaantleaent phaae. We have, therefore, soae concern* about the NRc*a regulation* in this area. After atudying the proposed rule for decoeaissioning we have concluded (:,. \ that it contain* aeveral serious fla*..111. The Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety (CCSS) ha* brought to our attention th.at the rule 1* lacking in apecific* and aust be drastically aodified to becoae an adequate fraaevork for the deco...iaaioning proce*** The Conaervatlon Dlatrlct Director*, on April 24, paaaed a reaolution which contain* the following concern*. Changing the preeent requlreaent for a full Znvlronaental lapact Statement when a final decoaalaaloning plan 1* developed. and to aubatitute a review, i* not acceptable. 'the refining of knowledge and technique* during the life of a reactor 1* considerable, and there are certain to be vaa~ difference* between the oriainal plannlna and the actual eite-apecific eituatlon after 30 or 40 yeare. Thi* i* the caee at Saxton only 12 year* F", I after it* initial decoaaiasionlng plan was developed. 'the preparation of a full Bnvironaental Iapact Stateaent is the only guarantee that local govenftlent officials aod clti&ene will have input into the plan which le carried out. It 1* important tbat the vi-* of thoae aoet affected by decoaalaaionlng decialona, the local reaidente and vorlllera, be aade a part of the final plana. Public health and aafety aeea to be inadequately referred to ln the propoaed rule. Thia topic 1* left for later action by the NllC, when it

                                                                                                       £,I.\

ahould be the real aubatance of thi* rule. One of the aoat iaportant deciaion* in deco...iasioning is whether to uae DECON (laaedlate dlsaantleaent), SAFSTOR (teaporary storage with later disaantleaent) or ENTOKB (peraanent on-site *torage). Yet there are no criteria given in the 13. 3. \. \ rule for how to aake the choice among these optiona. Even the inforaatton aupplied vith the rule ..,kea a clear case for hov to evaluate these optione, but the rule itself gives no guidance. The Conservation Dietrict honora the opinion of (CCSS) that partial deco...i**ionJng followed by a CONSE HV~ TIOr".J D[V[l0P'1[NT

• SHf GOVERNMENI Ii* t'i ruAY 1 5 198:,

fa'~~ Ackriowlo<ls,;&d by card ................. .... J-217

f. SO-year *torqe period (SAFSTOa) vill be the be*t option in tena* of the public health end *afety. While SAFSTOll ai&)lt *li&htly 1ocrea*e the total co*t of decoaa1**ioning 0 the public benefif* Ju*tify tbat co*t* The rule I B.~. 2

  *hould require tba~ the choice of -tbod be ba*ed on a detailed a**e*-nt        , 13. 3. 1. I of the effect* on public health and *afety. 1bere *hould be clear criteria available for IIRC reviev of tbat deci*ion. 'lbe need for a full ltnvironaental Japact Stateaent 0 aa part of a final *ite-*pecific plan 0 1*
  *hovn to be Ju*tified.

I {:°. , Quality ***urance and quality control during decoaai**ioning are not addre**ed by the rule. According to ccss. the need for *uch requirement* 1* very apparent at Saxton:

              "The original work in 1973 vaa aupposed to have cleaned up aeveral auxiliary building* for unreatricted uae."

The *ite vas not in*pected for 13 aonth* vhile vork progreaaed. "When an in*pection finally occurred it vaa C. Ct, discovered that the building* reaained contaainated. Since the owner (General Public Utilitie*) bad already di*peraed ita workera 0 thoae building* reaain contaainated today." Strict requirements for quality asaurance aust be a part of the rule. The rule specifically exclude* froa it* requirement* reactor* which have already been permanently ahut down. Saxton fall* into this category and the local people feel that they should receive as auch protection as anyone else vho livea near a reactor. Eatiaation of decommissioning coats has already been a proble* at Saxton. In 1973 GPU eatiaated that the total deco. . isaioning cost, excluding continued aaintenance for SAFSTOil of the plant. vould be

  $~7~ 0 000. Subsequent to initial decontaaination vork 0 in 1983 GPU'*

ainiaua e*tiaate of the co*t for the reaaining vork va* $12 0 4~4.000 (aore than 21 time* the original total e*tiaatel). Saxton i* only a 3~ thermal D.1.1. I megavatt reactor and GPU'* coat eatiaate* aeauae the reactor veseel can be removed in one piece. Setting a figure of $100 0 000 0 000 - a aaxi- figure for decoaai***ioning plant* 300 to 400 tiae* the *ize of Saxton i* unraali*tic. 'lbe propoeed rule ahould require a decoaai**ioning fund equal to the beet eetiaate for the co,t of decoaat**ioning; that e*tiaate *hould be reviaed every five year* .o that an appropriate fund can be built up. The experience of CPU in approaching bankruptcy. vitb it* . .in ****t* being inoperable nuclear plant** indicate* vhy the *et-aaide funding for future decOllllllia*ioning auat be in external *inking fund* vhich are legally 1)_3_2.1.,<~)

  .eparate froa a utility'* other ***eta. The Penn*ylvania Public Utility        D. 3. 2.'Z. I Coaai**ion require* external re*ervea for decoaai**ioning fund* and the NRC
  *hould require the eaae aethod 0 aloog vith insurance to provide funding in caae of the early retireaent of a plant.

The definition given fOT the tera "decoaai*siontng* is incomplete in the propo*ed rule. The objective of dec08181i*s1oning ia to return a aite to the saae potential u*e that it had before a reactor vas built on it; ,I,\ therefore, the definition should include language *tating that the liait for residual radioactivity should be the aaount of natural background radiation at the *ite before construction of the plant. J-218

Jn *'-rJ* the propoeed rule 1* not coaplete atnce it doe* not provide epectftc crtterta for aalttna dectatona about dec01111taatontna 0 and it leave* aat . .vera1 lapqrtant topice. 'lhe leclford CountJ Coneervatton Dtetrtct I'-

                                                                                '-='.

I

• 11&&**t* that the rule be redrafted and reeubaitted for public c - t before it 1* accepted by the NllC.

Sincerely. Jaae* F. E*helaan Chair.an cc. J.....,* H. Elder

                     ,):t,.*

J-219

CORP

~ ...... ,. .- . : .

                                            *rsN~:{*

Secretary of t~e Coomlssilqn HAYJJ pQ~et1n~ and Services ara~ch

      ~luclear Regulatory Comm1~1o't\'                            it~, .'150, Federal Re~1ster 5tOO Washington, D.C, 20555                                      froposed rule for Deco~m1ssion-tiff.:;. ,,.~ :c*.~t .1ne: Criteria for ~uclear Facn-DOCKETr~Li & SER~11ties.

3RANCH Cn ~ecommission1n~ ~~thods We believe that SAFSTCR s~ould be t~e only ~ethod sanctio~ed for decommissioned nuclear plants. All high and lntermediate I 0 *4

• i..

level radloactive wastes, a~d ~ost so-called low level wastes,

           ~ust of necessity be in retrievable, monitored stora;e, ~iven the absence for the foreseeable future of any storage systems                                                       H, 1.1. "I w~lch have been .Q_roved to be cermanently impermeable.

On Funding Assurances and Costs

           ~e belleve the estimate of ilOO mlllion as the cost of deco~~issioning to be unrealistically low.                                                The record of the nuclear power industry in consta~tly underest1I:Jatln~

ccnstructlon costs by huge factors, gives no assurance of D. \. \. 1 thelr reliability in esti~atln~ decommisslonln~ costs, particularly with an undevelo~ed technology.

          ~e also consider 1t to be absolutely essential that funds for decoIDI!l1ssioning be required to be placed ln segregated                                                     'D, '3.Z. 1.1 (Cl..)

escrow accounts, unavailable for any other purpose. Even lf a utllity has avoided bankruptcy, when a plant ls no longer generating income, there is a very h1~h probability for dereliction and dellnquency, leaving long-term care to be added to the national debt and national danger. II~~~ Mirlam Lee Targ, Fresident c.o.R.F.

                                                                              ,?~.,_ a&. /.c..r-s lg;/ :=:ve lY)'{ Cheslow,
                  '/, 1985                                                                      Vlce president P 0. BOX U1(    5 GLENCOE. IL 600n TELEPHONES:

13121432 8247. 9411. Jill * ' .* - *: t,.. :- .,. ~ .. _*: ~-, ~.:; '( . * .

                                                                                                             ........  /~
                                                                                                                      ;t -..

J-220

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 BEALE; SIREET

• SAN fRANCISCO. CAllfORIWI 94106
• 105) {Jill~[li(~ 1wx 9:0-31H,SB1 USH~C

.., ... .._.~s*o. St111',.ER IIIICI.IM IIOWllt: GC.U.tlOII May 10, 1985

                                                                                      .,'85 Ml \3 P2 :1 t Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Re:      COl!lllents on the NRC's Proposed Rule Regarding Deconmissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (February 11, 1985)).

Gentleman: Pacific Gas and Electric Company has reviewed the subject proposed rule. Our comments are enclosed. Kindly acknowledge receipt of this material on the enclosed copy of this letter and return it in the enclosed addressed envelope. Sincerely, Enclosure cc: J. B. Martin

          ~5~52~~554 850513 30 ~OFR5600              PDR Mll..i 1 5 t98S Acknow14<1;&d by card .* .-~ r n , , , .. ~~

J-221

.1

                                          £HCL05URE The following comments by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGandE) address the Conmission's proposed rule on *oeconmiss1on1ng Criteria for Nuclear Facilities.* As a lllell'ber of the Utility Oec011111issionfng Group. PGandE supports the conmen ts filed separately by that group. Accordingly. the group's comments wnt not be repeated here.

The SUlllllary explartatf on of the proposed rut e states that the amendment 1s fnt~ded to set forth * *** technical and financial criteria for deconmfssioning of licensed facilities.* However. while the rule itself extensively discusses financial assurance requirements and funding mecrznisms for dec011111fssioning. 1t provides little guidance regarding the technical requirements for decOll'lllissioning a nuclear facility. While matters such as amendment of licenses to possession-only. definitions of deconmissioning alternatives. and a very general description of the contents of a decommissioning plan are discussed in the supplementary information section, they are not specifically c.. ,.3 addressed in the proposed rule. The background information furnished with the proposed rule states that

  * *** current regulations cover the requirements and criteria for deconmissioning in only a limited fashion." A rulemaking that promulgates decommissioning criteria should provide guidance specifying those regulatory requirements applicable to facilities undergoing deconmissioning. This regulatory guidance should be applicable to all dec0111nissioning alternatives including. most importantly. those alternatives involving a delay in decommissioning completion.

Specific comments are as follows:

1. Proposed Section 50.82 (b)(l) states that "Alternative methods for decommissioning which significantly delay completion of dec011111fssioning such as use of a storage period. will be acceptable ff sufficient benefit results; ***

• However. other factors such as the necessity to store spent 8. 3.1. \

fuel onsite due to lack of a spent fuel repository or interim storage facility may also result in the selection of such an alternative. This factor may not be classed as a *benefit" and. as such, does not appear to be considered in the rule. This section shculd be revised to change the phrase *sufficient benefit results* to *sufficient justification exists or benefit results.*

2. Proposed Section 50.82 (b )(2) states that the deconmissioning plan must include *A description of controls and limits on procedures and equipment to protect occupational and public health and safety.* These controls and limits should only be those which would be required or changed as a result of deconmissioning. For example, health physics and radiation protection programs would not be anticipated to change sigiificantly from those already in effect during operation. These programs should not be required to undergo additional NRC review and approval before th~y can be used for deconmissioning.

0317S/0032K J-222

the present practice of amending an operating license to one of possession-only would continue. Such a license is not defined in the regulations and ft is not made clear how such facilftfes would be required to respond to regulatory actions specified for * *** facilities licensed pursuant to Part so.* It fs also not clear which activities c. \. <o authorized by an operating license would not be permitted under a possession-only license. .Presently. such guidance is deter111fned on a case-~-case*basis as part of the license amendment process. Clarification in the regulations or in other regulatory guidance would perlllft better evaluation of deco11111fssioning alternatives.

4. The suppleinentary information section also states that the details of a quality assurance program should be provided; however, criteria for such C.. ~

a program are not provided. Since existing criteria for quality assurance programs concentrate, for the most part, on operating facilities, some further guidance should be provided. Furthermore, changes to procedures for safeguarding special nuclear material (s) should be included fn the decOllfflissioning plan when appropriate. Part 73.55 is presently applicable to each licensee who is authorized to operate a nuclear power reactor pursuant to Part 50, while Section 73.50 is applicable to a facility other than a nuclear reactor facility licensed C..\.\"2. pursuant to Part 50. It is not clear i.tiat requirements would be applicable to a facility undergoing decoRlllissioning. A similar lack of guidance exists for site emergency planning, operator training, and plant staffing requirements.

5. The proposed rule states that acceptable levels of radioactivity for release of a facility for unrestricted use are to be established through separate rulemaking. Such limits are necessary to properly plan for decommissioning and, as part of the planning for the termination E .1.'

radiation survey, are required to be in a decommissioning plan.

6. There is no consideration given for alternative actions to be taken if either the financial plan or the decoRlllissioning plan is not approved, or ff a utility is unable to establish a dec00111issioning fund as required.

The rule does not specify, for instance, whether the federal government would then be responsible for decorrmissfonfng. with the utility ultimately financially responsible, or whether the facility would remain

    'in the status~ indefinitely until further action is taken.

7. Regulatory guidance should be provided which delineates the criteria to be applied by the dec011111issionfng study as the basis for a 'D.'2.l(c..)

deco11111issioning funding plan. In the supplementary information section ft fs stated that periodic technical reviews of information contained in preliminary plans or cost estimates for a funding plan would be submitted to the NRC for approval (50 Fed. Reg. 5608 Co. 2). However, the requirenent to slbmi t the results of the periodic reviews is not cohtafned fn the rule and, in any event, such a requirement appears unnecessary. The cost estimate which is required to be submitted 5 years prior tc the end of the license period should be sufficient to accomplish this pur~.:e. 0317S/0032K J-223

reviewed and approved prior to the start of maJor <lec0111111ss1on1ng activity. It is not clear what is consfdered to be major decornnissfoning C.1. 5 activity. Accordingly, PGandE respectfully requests that the C011111ission's proposed rule be modfffed in accordance wfth the foregoing c011111ents. 0317S/0032K J-224

LAW OF'J'1CtS OF' BISHOP, LIBERMAN. COOK. PURCELL & REYNOLOS 1200 SEvENT££NTM ST"((T, N W. W.A.S1-11NGTON, o.c.200Je B*SHOP, l.lBtAMAN 6, COOK

                    <20ZI 857-11800                               DC(,//(fr'rff'UC o, ....... , .. ,c:*s t;~"V6R,...""'£"" "0""' ,oole T[L[X 4405?4 INTI..AW UI                                        (lt,l) 704-0100 TCl.CJII. 2127e7
                                                           '85 lfAY f Jw.P~!1*"£CT               O**L May 13, 1985                       ~o~

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, o.c. 20555 Re: Proposed Rule Regarding Decommissicr,lng Criteria For Nuclear Facilities, SO Fed. Reg. 5600 (February 11, 1985)

Dear Mr. Ch ilk:

These comments address the Commission's proposed rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed, Reg. 5600 (February 11, 1985), and are submitted by the Utility Decommissioning Group ("UDG"), UDG consists of 13 power reac-tor licensees and the Edison Electric Institute.1/ UDG has participated and filed comments at each stage of-the decommis-sioning rulemaking since its inception in 1978, and UDG's members have a substantial interest in the Commission's pro-posed rule. I.

SUMMARY

AND INTRODUCTION The proposed rule on decommissioning nuclear facilities is quite comprehensive and reflects considerable effort by the Commission and its Staff. Many aspects of the proposed rule ~.' 1/ The thirteen licensees are: Arkansas Power & Light Com-pany, Carolina Power & Light Company, Duke Power Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison Company, Northeast Utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric Com-pany, Pennsylvania Electric Company, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, Texas Utili-ties Electric Company, Virginia Power Company and Yankee Atomic Electric Company. MAY 1 5 1985 Ackn<>Nl9dg9d by card. , , ,*;;*;;,,, .; .. ~**. . ~ J-225

Mr, Samuel J. ChilK May 13, 1985 Page 2 are quite positive. The Commission recognizes that internal 16,I funding is appropriate for utility licensees. Similarly, the proposed rule pro~erly acknowledges the fundamental differ- ~. l\ ences between decommissioning and accident-related decontami-nation. The proposed rule also eliminates ina~propriate and duplicative environmental review requirements, and correctly Ir.' recognizes that additional plant design requirements and oper-ating procedures to facilitate decommissioning are unneces- c.. i sary. On the other hand, it continues to be UDG's position that a rule addressed to the financial assurance aspects of decom-missioning is unnecessary in the case of electric utility licensees, as that term is defined by the Commission's regula-tions, 10 C.F.R, section 50.2(x) (1Sa4), As UDG explained in the Statement of Position it submitted prior to the Commis-

                                                               'O, !   I' sion's September 20, 1984 public meeting on decommissioning, electric utilities are subject to a comprehensive rate and financial regulatory process which provides reasonable assur-ance of adequate decommissioning funding. The basis for UDG's position is described in greater detail below.

These comment~ also focus on additional aspects of the proposed rule which require modification. The principal defi-ciency is the conclusion that $100 million will *provide suf-ficient funds" to cover the costs to decommission "most" power reactors. 50 Fed, Reg, at 5606, Col. 3. The $100 million figure is based on generic cost studies which depict decommis-sioning costs in terms of an order of magnitude only, and it 1). 2,, l {"-) can substantially understate the cost to decommission a par-ticular large scale commercial power reactor. Moreover, the practical effect of the $100 million certification alternative may be to fix that amount as a funding ceiling in rate cases, despite a utility's demonstration in a site-specific cost study that a larger amount is required, That result is plain-ly contrary to the Commission's objective of assuring adequate decommissioning funding. UDG recommends, therefore, that the $100 million certification method be eliminated. UDG also urges the Commission to clarify sections S0.54(cc) and (dd) of the proposed regulation so that changes C.1,'Z. in an approved funding plan and recordkeeping program cannot be construed as license amendments. --- The Commission has also requested additional information and comments on t~e costs and adequacy of the various funding '"D, '5. 'Z.. l.' lb) methods. As explained in greater detail below, the Commis-sion's proposed rul~ correctly recognizes that the internal reserve method provides reasonable assurance of decommis-sioning funding and is the least costly method. J-226

Mr. Samuel J. Chi l k May 13, 1985 Page 3 Finally, several aspects of the proposed rule require clarification. These are discussed below. II. Discussion A, The $100 Million Certification Alternative Will Be Counterproductive And Should Be Deleted From The Proposed Rule Under the ~reposed rule ~ewer reactor licensees can pro-vide reasonable assurance of decommissioning funding by sub-mitting either a facility-specific cost estimate or a certifi-cation that funding of $100 million or more (in 1984 dollars) will be provided, UOG opposes the certification alternative. It is similar in effect to imposing a revenue requirement for decommissioning, which is a matter for rate regulatory agen-cies, rather than this Commission, t0 determine. Furthermore, the $100 million certification alternative may be counterpro-ductive in practice because although $100 million is not suf-ficient to decommission most power reactors, it has the Com-mission's imprimatur and may be treated as a cost ceiling in utility rate pr.o~eedings, 1), '2..' (o..) 1, In A Marked Departure From The NRC's Consistent Practice, The Certification Option Purports To Set A Revenue Requirement For Decommissioning,

             ~ich Is A Function For Rate Regulators The Commission's consistent approach to health and safety determinations under the Atomic Energy Act has been to pre-scribe standerds and qualifications that licensees must sat-isfy in the construction and operation of their facilities, The Commission does not, however, attempt to define the level of cost a licensee will encounter in meeting these standards.

This is consistent with sections 271 and 272 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 u.s.c. §§ 2018 and 2019, which expressly pre-serve the authority of the various state public service com-missions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over the economic and financial aspects of publ'c utility service. Decommissioning should not be any different. It is nei-ther necessary nor appropriate for the Commission to ir.volve itself in the process of determining the cost to satisfy 1>.~.1 health and sa:ety standards for decommissioning. In this connection UDG restates its consistent position since the 'D,8.'3.1 inception of this rulemaking: the comprehensive economic and financial regulation to which investor-owned utilities are J-227

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 4 subject provides reasonable assurance of adequate decommis-s1on1ng financing,1/ UDG emrhasized that position in the pres-entation on decommissioning financing it made to the Commis-sion this past September,l/ The Commission itself recognized the importance of the rate regulatory process in the recent rule eliminating finan-cial qualifications review for public utilities. "Elimination of Review of Financial Qualifications of Electric Utilities in Operating Licent,e Review and Hearings for Nuclear Power 1), cg I ' Plants," 49 fed, Rog, 35747 (September 12, 1984). Specifi- D,Z,3, \ cally, the Commission noted that: It is Hell e~~..1blished that public utility commissions (PUCs) are legally bound to set a utility's rates such that all reasonable costs of serving the public are recovered, assuming prudent management of the utility. 49 Fed. Reg. at 35748, Col. 1, Decommissioning costs clearly represent a reasonable and prudent cost that utilities are entitled to recover, and the vast majority of electric utili-ties recover the estimated future cost of decommissioning in current rates,!/ Indeed, the financial qualifications rule ll See, ~.g., Comments of Arkansas Power & Light Company, et al,, October 7, 1977, in Docket No, PRMS0-22, pp. 5-7; Com-ments of Utility Decommissioning Group, July 15, 1978, re Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, Advanc~No-tice of the Proposed Rulemaking, 9p. 6-11: Comments of Utility Decommissioning Group, November 6, 1979 re NUREG-0584, Draft Report, Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, pp, 2-7, 13-14: Comments of the Utility Decommissioning Group, February 22, 1980, re NURSG-0584, Rev * .1, Draft Report, Assuring the Availability""of Funds for Decom-missioning Nuclear Facilities, p. 2; Comments of Utility De-commissioning Group, April 22, 1981, re NUREG-0586, Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement'"on DecommissioriTrig of Nuclear facilities, p, 2, ll See Statement cf Position of the Utility Decommissioning Group and the Edison Electric Institute on Proposed Decommis-sioning Rule, SeptP.mber 14, 1984 ( referred to below as "UDG/ EEI Stat~ment of Position"), ii An October 19:3 Edison Electric Institute survey of more than 30 investor-owned utilities found that only one state, Michigan, is not ~rescntly allowing recovery of decommission-ing costs in curr~nt rates, and this is due to the fact that the Michigan PSC has deferred recovery of decommissioning (footnote 4 continued on next page) J-228

Mr, Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 198 5 Page 5 refers to a recent National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) survey from which NRC Staff concluded that all ratemaking authorities "ensure sufficient utility revenues to meet the costs of NRC safety requirements." 49 Fed. Reg. at 35747, Col. 3. Further emphasizing this point the Commission added: This question was a subject of particular focus during NRC staff visits to PUCs, The

         ?UCs visited were unanimous in saying that safety-related operating expenses were always considered reasonable expenses when prudently incurred and were allowed to be recovered through rates.

The Commission believes that the re-cord of this rulemaking demonstrates gener-ically that the rate process assures that funds needed for safe operation will be made available to regulated electric utili-ties. Id. at 35750, Cols, 2-3 (emphasis in original). Against this background it is simply not correct to sug-gest that without the proposed decommissioning regulations utilities lack an incentive to make advance provision for decommissioning funding. See 50 Fed. Reg. at 5611, Col. 1 (Separate Views of Commissioner Bernthal). On the contrary, as noted above, the vast majority of electric utilities re-cover decommissioning costs in their rates despite the absence of any NRC-imposed requirement. The incentive to collect these funds is the rate regulatory process and the principle that those who benefit from a generating facility should bear the corresponding costs. In view of these facts UDG repeats a position that it has advocated in this proceeding since 1979. The Commission can satisfy its financial assurance objectives by requiring a certification by the appropriate rate regulatory agency (or (Footnote 4 continued from previous page) costs pending the outcome of a generic proceeding. Similarly, government-owned utilities include decommissioning costs in their rates as well, See UDG/EEI Statement of Position, September 14, l9C4, at--"s; see also the transcript of the Com-mission's September 20, 19~open meeting on decommissioning at Tr, 39, J-229

Mr. Samuel J, Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 6 agencies) that pursuant to state (or federal) law it regulates a given licensee's revenue requirements and rates. Obviously, a premise for this type of certification is that the rate-making agency will be faithful to its statutory mandate to allow recovery of all prudent expenditures. That premise underlies the Commission's action in the financial qualifica-tions rulemaking ancl it applies with equal -- if not greater force to decommissioning,2/ In sum, the specification of a decommissioning funding requirement, such as the $100 million certification, tran-scends the Commission's authority and is unnecessary in con-nection with assuring adequate funds for deco!T'.rr .* ss~on.ng.

2. Contrary To 7he Commission, $100 Million Is Not "Sufficient" Decommissioning Funding For "Most" Power Reactors, But As A Consequence Of The Proposed Rule May Become A Ceiling

a. For Most Reactors $100 Million Is Not Sufficient Fund-1.!!g. The Statement of Considerations describes the $100 mil-lion certification amount as "sufficient funds to cover decom-missioning costs for most" power reactor licensees. 50 Fed, Reg. at 5606, Col. 3 (emphasis supplied), The Battelle stud-v.,.,.,

ies, NUREG/CR-0130 and NUREG/CR-0672, are cited as support for '[). '2..' (a..) that statement. The Battelle studies do not, however, support the Commission's conclusion regarding the adequacy of the $100 million amount, nor does it have any other factual basis. To begin, the Battelle studies were never intended to be used as a basis for estimating the decommissioning cost for a given reactor. Instead, they were intended to identify decom-missioning costs in terms of an order of magnitude only. Indeed, due to their generic nature the Battelle studies do not take into account the numerous bases by which estimated .decommissioning costs necessarily vary among individual power plants, This includes, among other things, plant design, decommissioning methods, waste disposal costs and regional differences in labor and transportation costs. These factors can account for differences of many millions of dollars in the 5/ While rate regulators always allow recovery of safety related expenses, 49 Fed, Reg. at 35750, Col, 2, their rate case decisions usually do not discuss these expenses. Decom-missioning is an exception. Rate regulators are focusing very directly on the need to recover decommissioning expense in current rates, J-230

Mr, Samuel J, Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 7 estimated decommissioning cost of similarly-sized power :eac-tors,.§./ The Battelle studies expressly acknowledge their inherent limitations, For example, the studies note that they are based on a specific set of assumptions and that to apply the same results "where conditions are different from those as-sumed in th[ese] stud[ies] could produce erroneous conclu-sions," NURF.G/CR-0130, Vol, 1, June 1978, at 2-4, In partic-ular, the Battelle studies emphasize the importance of a site specific study of decommissioning costs: [T]o develop a r-~listic estimate of the costs of decommissioning a reactor facil-ity, it is necessary to perform a quite detailed analysis of the specific plant \). \. l. \ under consideration, Design differences among plants can have significant impacts on the types and amount of work involved in p.-z.l(O...l accomplishing decommissioning, Until such tim~ as facility designs are truly stand-ardizer., these plant-specific analyses will be necessary, Id, at 12-9 (em~hasis supplied), Further underscoring this same point, R, I, Smith, a principal aut~or and coordinator of the Batt~lle studies has stated: The analyses in the Addendum [to NUREG/CR-0130] were intended to provide order of magnitu1e estimates, good to within a fac-tor of two certainly, but not intended to be used without further site-specific anal-ysis. We did not attempt to deal with any of the site-specific considerations pecu-liar to each of the stations examined. ~/ The Battelle studies examine ctecommissioning cost esti-mates for several pressurized water reactors (PWRs) of varying size and develop ratios or "scaling factors" for different categories of decommissioning cost which depict the costs as a function of plant size, NUREG/CR-0130 Addendum, August 1979, at 3-1, Subsequent studies indicate that there is no clear relationship between plant capacity and decommissioning costs. See Analysis of Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Costs, National Environmental Studies Project, Atomic Industrial Forum, AIF/NESP 021SR, May, 1981, at 3, J-231

Mr, Samuel J, Chilk May 1 3 , 198 5 Pc1ge 8 Thus, while those costs derived from the component analyses are reasonahly reliable, you should do your own examination of the rest of the cost elements, some of which may be very site-dependent,2 In other words, estimating decommissioning costs involves many variables which the generalized approach of the Battelle studies does not consider, but which are addressed in site-specific studies. Significantly, the 1983 EEI survey referred \). \.\.\ to earlier indicates that 76 percent of the utilities surveyed use site-specific studies to determine decommissioning costs, 1):2. \ (a) It is not surprising that a number of studies refute the proposition that $100 million is sufficient for most power reactors, For example, a December 1984 report that Battelle prepared for the electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) updates the earlier Battelle studies to reflect 1984 costs.Bl Under the updated study the estimated immediate dismantleme~t cost for a BWR is approximately $120 million.9/ Moreover, an CPRI analysis of decommissioning issued at the same time as the Battelle update includes site specific decommissioning estimates for reactors comparable in size to the reference reactor in the Battelle study. The site specific estimates are $133,6 million for an 1100 MWe BWR and $126,2 million for 7/ Letter from R.I. Smith, Battelle Pacific Northwest Labora-tories, to H. R. Prins, Nuclear Power Generation Planner, Power Division, State of New York, Department of Public Ser-vice, dated October 29, 1982 (emphasis added). The Statement of. Considerations suggests that "[t)he P~L (Battelle) decommissioning studies can be used for initial estimates with suitable adjustments for inflation and site ~pecific factors." 50 Fed. Reg. at 5604, Col. 3, As shown above, the Battelle studies are intended to indicate decom-missioning costs only in terms of an order of magnitude, The Battelle studies are not an appropriate hasis for developing cost estimates for individual 9lants and the statement quoted above should be deleted or clar' c 1 ed. 8/ R, I. Smith, et dl., "Costs for Decommissioning rJuclear Power Facilities Estimated in 19S4 Dollars," prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories for P.lectric Power Research Institute, December 1984. 9/ Id. at Table 1.1. The $120 million estimate assumes con-tractor staffing for various labor functions and the 5 rem annual cumulative radiation dose rate, If a more stringent dose rate were applied, the estimate would be higher. J-232

Mr, Samuel J, Chilk May 13, 198 5 Page 9 an 1100 MWe PWR (each of these amounts is exclusive of demoli-tion costs for non-radioactive s:ructures) *..!.Q/ Additional examples of recent site specific estimates covering various regions of the United States further confirm that the $100 million certification amount is too low: Removal Cost: D.,. \. \ Capacity Reactor Date of Removal Cost: Non radio-(MWe) T:t12e Studl Radioactive active Total 'D,'2.,(4) 1000 BWR 3/85 $115,373,000 s 52,028,000 $167,401,000 940 BWR 3/8 5 117,618,000 43,507,000 161,125,000 610 BWR 3/85 111,946,000 30,763,000 142,709,000 1150 PWR 5/85 100,510,000 34, ,3,jCJ 135,2.>3,000 It should be emphasized that these four site specific cost studies are stown without the addition of a contingency allow-ance. UDG understands that the Commission's $100 million amount, on the other hand, does include a 25 percent contin-gency. The addition of a 25 percent contingency to these cost studies would further underscore the inadequacy of the Commis-sion's cost figure. l!./ In sum, the Commission's $100 million Battelle-derived certification amount is no~ sufficient to decommission the .!.QI J. T. A. Roberts, et~., "Decommissioning of Commercial Nuclear Power Plants," preparod by Electric Power Research Institute, December 1984 * .!.!/ The source o( the data shown above is TLG P.ngineering, Brookfield, Connecticut. Because of their recent origin the underlying cost studies have not been officially filed with rate regulatory agencies. Until that has been done, the li-censees involved have asked that the names of the plants not be listed. These cost studies were prepared in accordance with the cost estimation methodology that has now been published as "Guidelines For Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant De-commissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP (~ational Environmen-tal Studies Project), Draft Report, March 1985. The object of the NESP guidelines is to reduce reliance on generic studies and minimize obsolescence so that cost estimates can be up-dated periodically without redoing substantially the entire estimate. The task f.orce overseeing this effort includes representatives from the NRC, NARUC and utility licensees. J-233

Mr. Samuel J, Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 10 large scale commercial power reactors that have gone into service in recent years. While the Statement of Considera-tions notes that the regulation can be modified in the future if costs change significantly, 50 red. Reg. at 5606, Col. 3, it has been shown here that the $100 million certification is already obsolete. The solution is to eliminate the certifica-tion method and rely instead on site specific cost studies, updated at appropriate intervals as costs change.

b. The $100 Million Certification Ootion Could Be Coun-terproductive And Undermine Adequate runding.11/ finally, while the rationale for certification appears to be the commendable objective of minimizing administrative effort for licensees and the Commission, 50 red. Reg. at 5606, Col. 3, certification will not reduce administrative burdens and could be counterproductive. Thus, although funding decommissioning is not in relative terms a major expense to electric utilities, in absolute terms it represents a considerable cost for which rate regulators require substantiation. That means utilities typically prepare site-specific cost studies for 'D.Z.\ (o...)

rate cases regardless of the certification procedure. This substantially undercuts the purpose of certification as it relates to regulated public utilities. furthermore, particularly troubling is the fact that al-though $100 million usually understates decommissioning costs, logic suggests that that amount would be at the high end of the cost spectrum. There is concern, therefore, that rate regulators, fully aware of the NRC's concern for adequate decommissioning funding, will reject estimates which lead to the conclusion that the Commission chose a number that would be insufficient in many cases. In this connection it should also be noted that utility rate case intervenors, who often advocate positions that will lower rates for present consumers at the expense o( future ones, can be expected to argue that $100 million is necessarily sufficient funding. Taken togeth-er, these factors can lead to rate case decisions that defer to the future the recovery of costs -- either decommissioning or other types of costs -- that are properly the responsibil-ity of current consumers, These considerations stron~ly suggest that the $100 mil-lion certification amount, having the Commission's starnp of approval, could become a presumption or cost ceiling in utili-ty rate proceedings. A utility with a site-specific estimate greater than $100 million will have the very difficult ~urden 111 The concerns r.iscussed here are not intended to apply in the case of a government-owned utility licensie that has authority to set its own rates. J-234

Hr. Samuel J. Chilk Hay 13, 1985 Page 11 of proving why the funding level that the NRC said is suffi-cient for most reactors is nevertheless inadequate. This clearly undermines a fundamental objective of the Commission's decommissioning rule -- assuring adequate decommissioning 1)2. a(o.) funding.ill For these reasons, the certification option should be deleted from the proposed rule. Instead, the rule should rely on site-specific studies.

3. If Certification Is Not Eliminated, The Certification Amount Should Be Increased And Its Purpose Clarified If the certification option is not deleted from the pro-posed rule, the certification amount should be increased. As shown above, $100 million is not adequate to cover the cost of decommissioning a large scale power reactor. Therefore, in order to avoid the consequences that may result from a certi-fication amount that is too low (see supra, PP* 6-11), the certification amount should be increased substantially, to the

$120 million to $170 million range. In addition, the purpose of certification must be clari-fied because that purpose is obscured by the different phras-ing of the text of the proposed regulations and the Statement of Considerations. Thus, while proposed section 50.33(k)(l)

                                                               '\). 2.' ( b) describes $100 million as a threshold or minimum amount (fund-ing assurance *in an amount at least equal to $100,000,ooo*),

the Statement of Consi~erations nevertheless says that $100 million is *sufficient" to decommission "most" reactors. 50 Fed. Reg. at 5606, Col. 3. The Commission should specifically withdraw the latter statement. It is incorrect and inconsis-tent with *the intent of proposed section S0.33(k)(l). The rule should make clear that the certification amount is not intended to and does not represent the actual cost to decom-mission any reactor. In addition, the Commission should clarify that the certi-fication amount, whether it is $100 million or a higher fig-ure, is intended to cover removal and waste disposal costs for 13/ One additional shortcoming of the certification option should be noted here as well, To use this method a utility must submit an open-ended certification that the requisite amount will be "adjusted annually for inflation using an in-flation rate twice that indicated by the change in the Con-sumer Price Index." Proposed§ 50,33(k)(l), A utility li-censee cannot, however, certify to the future actions of rate regulators. J-235

Mr, Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 12 radioactive plant components and structures only, This is clearly the Commission's intent, see SO Fed, Reg, at 5606, Col, 3, but rate regulators may overlook the distinction bet- 1). 2.. ' ( b) ween removing radioactivity and demolition of nonradioactive structures. The proposed rule should clarify that distinc-

tion, Finally, the inflation adjustment of twice the Consumer Price Index is factually unsound and may cause the same prob-lems in rate proceedings as the $100 million certification.

Major elements of decommissioning cost have increased in re- 'D.2.1 (a.) cent years at a rate not just twice, but more than four times, the rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index,14;-rurther-more, like the $100 million certification amount,""the twice-the-CPI inflation adjustment may be treated as a presumption in rate proceedings, If retained in the Commission's final rule, it should be made clear that the adjustment is a minimum 1),2.1 (b): and is not intended to reflect the actual rate of increase in decommissioning costs, B, Decommissioning Regulations Should Not Be Imposed As License Conditions The proposed requirements on decommissioning funding plans and recordkeeping would be imposed as conditions of operating licenses. Proposed§ 50,54(cc),l~./ UDG i~ concerned that if these requirements are imposed as conditions of operating licenses under section 50,54, then, for example, a licensee's 14/ Fnr example, the December 1984 EPRI/Battelle study re-ferred to above indicates that waste disposal costs (con-tainers, transportation and burial) over the period January 1978 to January 1184 increased from $8,61 million to $22,96 million for PWRs, an increase of 2671, and from $8,68 million to $23,38 million for BWRs, a 2691 increase. ~d. at Tables A,l and A,3, During the same period the basic<:onsumer Price Index rose from 187,2 to 305,2, an increase of 63,031, Thus, the increase in waste disposal costs was more than four times the CPI increase, 15/ The submission of a financing plan would be required of "each holder of an operating license for a production and utilization facility. , . , f t Proposed§ 50,54(cc)(2), In the case of multiple ownership of a facility or where the entity licensed to operate the facility is not an owner, UDG under-stands that the funding plan will be filed by the lead licen-see and that the plan will describe the funding mechanism to be used by each co-owner for its share of decommissioning costs. J-236

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 13 change to an approved funding plan could be construed (errone-ously we believe) as a license amendment. That would trigger the notice and hearing procedures of section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 u.s.c. S 2239, despite the fact that the re-quirements in question have no direct impact on the safe oper-ation of a power plant. It is UDG's understanding, however, that the Commission does not intend that a change in an approved funding plan or a jc,,,.,_ recordkeeping system will constitute a license amendment. In the description of the periodic review requirements in the Statement of Considerations the Commission indicates that routine adjustments for changes in inflation and interest rates may be made annually through entries in the licensee's annual financial report, and *[al technical review of the information in the preliminary plans or the cost estimate for a funding plan could be done less frequently and submitted to NRC for aoprova1.* 50 Fed. Reg, at 5608, Col. 2 (emphasis added), There is no suggestion that a license amendment is required to effect such changes. Indeed, most changes to a funding plan over the years can be expected to increase the level of funding, as the Commis-sion's discussion of periodic review appears to contemplate. In such cases, the formal hearing procedures associated with license amendments would not be appropriate since no party would be adversely affected by such a change. See Bellotti v. NRC, 725 F,2d 1390 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (hearing is required under section 189(a) of the Act only where requested by a party whose interest would be adversely affected by the action). Accordingly, in order to eliminate any confusion over whether formal license amendment procedures will be necessary, UDG urges the Commission to make clear in the final rule that a licensee's changes to a funding plan and recordkeeping program do not constitute license amendments. c.,., The best approach on this point, however, would be for the Commission not to impose the funding and recordkeeping re-quirements as license conditions under section 50.54, but instead to impose such requirements by regulation. Procedural difficulties can arise where the Commission seeks to modify a requirement that has been established as a license condition. S e e , ~ , Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 711 F.2d 370 (D,C, Cir, 1983) (compliance deadline for environmental quali-fication could not be lifted by rule without notice and oppor-tunity for comment).~/ Furthermore, imposing the ~/ Under the Commission's recent rule on the *good cause* exception to the notice and comment requirements of S 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 50 Fed. Reg. 13006 (April 2, (Footnote 16 continued on next page) J-237

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 14 requirements by regulation rather than license condition would not in any way reduce the Commission's authority to take appropriate enforcement action against a licensee. The Commission's enforcement authority under sections 186 and 234 C,7.2 of the Act, 42 u.s.c. §t 2236 and 2282, is the same regardless D.~.4 of whether a violation of a regulation or a license condition is involved. For these reasons, UDG urges the Commission to revise the proposed regulation so that funding and recordkeeping requirements will not be imposed as license conditions.

c. The Proposed Rule Correctly Concludes That The Internal Reserve Provides Reasonable Assurance Of Adequate Decommissioning Funding The Commission has requested additional comments and in-formation on the costs and adequacy of assurance of the vari-ous funding methods. 50 Fed. Reg. at 5609, Col. 1.

1. The. Relative Costs Of Funding Alternatives D. ~ , '2. \ . \ ( b)

The relative costs of the various funding methods have been the subject of considerable analysis. See, ~.g., NUREG-0584, Rev. 3 at 13-30. The generally accepted estimate is that the cost of external sinking funds and prepayment is approximately 2 to 3 times, respectively, the cost of the internal reserve. That estimate is adopted by the Regulatory Analysis underlying the proposed rule (at page 15). UDG agrees that the relative costs of the funding methods are in this order of magnitude. In that connection UDG has previously submitted to the Commission cost studies which support these cost comparisons (the UDG cost studies are cited in NUREG-0584, Rev. 3 at 13, 29) *..!2/ (Footnote 16 continued from previous page) 1985), the "good cause* exception is not available for rules that specifically amend reactor licenses. Thus, changes the Commission see~s to make in the funding and recordkeeping re-quirements, however minor, may require prior notice and opportunity for comment. 12/ See Comments of Utility Decommissioning Group, February 22, 1980 re NUREG-0584, Rev. 1. The internal reserve method is least costly for consumers because rate regulators reduce by the amount of the decommissioning reserve the rate base on which a utility's rate of return is computed. See NUREG-0584, Rev. 3 at 9. ~- (Footnote 17 continued on next page) J-238

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 15

2. The Assurance Provided By Alternative Funding Methods The funding assurance provided by the various methods has also been the subject of exhaustive analysis. See, ~.g., 1),'?>,,,l,I (b')

NUREG-0584, Rev. 3, at 11-13, 47-491 NUREG/CR-3899. The pro-posed rule properly recognizes that the internal reserve meth-od provides reasonable assurance and is appropriate for multi-asset utilities.18/ The internal reserve is also favored by most ratemaking agencies (the October 1983 Edison Electric J "D, ~. z. I, 2 Institute survey referred to earlier shows that two-thirds of the utilities surveyed use an internal reserve). The conclu-sion that the internal reserve provides reasonable assurance is clearly appropriate for several basic reasons. I D,'3,Z,I,\ ( \o) First, as the Commission expressly recognizes, previous concern over the possibility of premature decommissioning has been alleviated by the requirement for on-site property damage l), '?>. 'Z. "Z.. I insurance * .§.!.! 50 Fed. Reg. at 5608, Col. 1. The substantial amount of property insurance required by 10 C.F.R. section (Footnote 17 continued from previous page) The Statement of Considerations seems to assume that a utility that has used an internal reserve will necessarily issue bonds in the later years when the cash outlays for de-commissioning arise. 50 Fed. Reg. at 5607, Col. 2. While issuing bonds is one means of raising the necessary cash for decommissioning, some utilities, especially large utilities, may use the normal cash flow from operations for that purpose. This is particularly true in view of the fact that these cash requirements will be spread out over a period of several years. The Statement of Considerations and proposed regula-tion, I S0.33{k){2){iv), should be clarified accordingly. -.!!/ Proposed S S0.33(k){4)(iv) would allow the use of an in-ternal reserve by *an electric utility owning more than one generatin~ facility * * * *

• UDG understands this to mean

*owning a comparable interest in, or a comparable entitlement to the output of, another operable generating facility.* It should not be necessary for a utility to own another 1ener-ating facility outright in order to be considered a multi-asset utility for purposes of the decommissioning rule. UDG urges the Commission to clarify this point in the final rule.

In this regard, it may be best to phrase S 50.33{k){4)(iv) in the negative, since the Commission's intent is to proscribe the use of an internal fund by single-asset utilities. Thus, the subsection could read: *Except in the case of an electric utility owning an interest in only one generating facility, an internal reserve in which deposits are made at least annually. . * .

• J-239

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk .., May 13, 1985 Page 16 50.54(w) ensures that even in the highly improbable event of l). '3. '2., ' * \ accident-related, premature decommissioning, the utility will still have sufficient resources available after the decon-tamination process to carry out decommissioning. Second, as Professor Siegel concluded in his September 1984 study, NUREG/CR-3899, electric utilities have sufficient financial capability to cover the costs of decommissioning. The foundation of that capability is the comprehensive finan-cial and economic regulatory process which ~rovides for on-going recovery by utilities of their estimated decommissioning costs as well as all other prudently incurred costs. See supra, pp. 3-6, Based on these considerations as well~ others the Commission's Staff and consultant, Professor Siegel, have each concluded that the internal reserve meets 1).3.2.L\(b) the reasonable.assurance standard and, in Professor Siegel's words, "provides excellent assurance of the availability of funds" for decommissioning, NUREG-0584, Rev. 3 at 49; NUREG/ CR-3899 at 13, Two concepts appear to underlie the assurance-based rank-ing of funding mechanisms in the Statement of Considerations, These are (1) the size of the fund at a given point in time relative to the current decommissioning cost estimate and (2) the financial position of the entity that holds the fund, 50 Fed, Reg, at 5606, Col, 2, Applying these criteria, the pro-posed rule recognizes that the internal reserve provides rea-sonable assurance. Id, at 5608, Col, l, But it is also sug-gested that the internal reserve provides lesser assurance than the external ~repaid and sinking fund methods. Id, at 5607, Col, 3 to 5609, Col, 1, That suggestion fails to ad-dress several important facts, First, the Statement of Considerations indicates that the external prepaid method provides the greatest assurance be-cause the entire amount required is deposited at startup. Id, "t> *'3 . '2.

• I. 2.

at 5607, Col. 3, Internal funding methods can take several forms, however, and one form, straight line depreciation, provides a pattern of collections in which the size of the decommissioning reserve is almost always larger than the pre-paid account balan=e,.!.2_/

   .!.2_/ The reason for this is that under straight line deprecia-tion the cost inflation that is expected to occur during the license term is accounted for in the initial decommissioning cost estimate by anticipating the price levels that will be encountered when decommissioning takes place many years later, That inflation-adjusted amount is recovered ratably over the license term and credited to an internal reserve account.

J-240

Mr, Samuel J, Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 17 Furthermore, the fact that internal funds are held by the utility rather than an indenende~t financial institution does not detract from the excellent assurance that internal funding provides or increase vulnerability relative to other methods. See 50 Fed. Reg. at 5609, Col. 1. In fact, in contrast to other methods, the internal reserve improves the utility's financial integrity. This is because the internal reserve may be used to purchase utility assets or reduce debt from utility operations, id., which enhances the utility's ability to gen-erate funds "Internally and reduce external financing. The capital mar~ets ~e=ognize these benefits and they are re-flected in the cost of the securities the utility issues. Moreover, like any investment, external fundi,J methods are subject to risk, including the soundness and fluctuation -p,"3.'2. \, \(b) in market value of the securities in which an external fund is invested and the financial condition of. the entity that holds the fund, Thus, regardless of the funding method used, the utility must stand behind the fund, Indee~, the internal and external sinking fund methods are each designed to recover estimated decommissioning costs over a plant's projected oper-ating life -- a period of many years, Therefore, the key to funding assurance under either method is the long-term finan-cial viability of the utility and its ability to operate ef-ficiently and obtain compensatory rates. In sum, the standard that governs the Commission's evalua-tion of alternative funding methods is "reasonable assurance," as the Statement of Considerations recognizes, 50 Fed. Reg. at 5606, Col, 1, anc the choice between alternative funding meth-ods meeting that standard is for state and federal rate regu-lators to make, with due regard for the circumstances in indi-vidual cases,20/ Because the internal reserve method provides reasonable funding assurance, it is appropriate for use by utility licensecs,l.l/ 20/ The Commission has previously noted the state commissions' position that "particular funding arrangements, such as funded reserves, escrow accounts, depreciation allowances, etc., should be left to the state commissions in view of their legal responsibilities under state laws and the specific needs of individual states." See Resnonse to and Partial Denial of Petition for RuleMaking Filed by the Public Interest Res~arch Group, et al., 44 Fed, Reg. 36523, 36525, Col, 1 (:979). 21/ UDG recogniz~s that for single-asset utilities -- i.e., those owning an interest in only one generating facility--- the use of an internal funding method may not be appropriate. Several single-asset utilities have voluntarily chosen to use an external sin~ing fund, and the Federal Energy Regulatory (Footnote 21 continued on next page) J-241

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 18

3. The Possibilitv of Insolvency Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal have also requested comments on the need to consider the possibility of insolvency and its impact on the continuP.d availability of decommission-ing funds. At the outset it should be em~hasized that the possibility of an electric utility becoming insolvent is ex-tremely r~mote. No electric utility has gone bankrupt since 1931.

The Commission retained Professor Siegel, an expert in utility finance, to examine, among other things, this precise question, i.e., the impact of utility financial instability or bankruptcy on the availability of decommissicning funds. Professor Siegel investigated several utilities experiencing various stages of financial stress due to the large expense of ongoing nuclear plant construction programs. He concluded that D,,.'2..1.\ (b) there is sufficient value in on-going util-ities, even those experiencing severe fi-nancial stress in bringing completed or nearly-completed nuclear reactors on line, to more than cover the decommissioning costs. NUREG/CR-3899 at 10. In line with that assessment, the Com-mission's proposed rule recognizes that "[elven financially troubled utilities have sufficient assets to cover the costs of decommissioning." 50 red. Reg. at 5608, Col. 2. UDG agrees with th~se conclusions of Professor Siegel and the Commission.

    ~urthermore, even in the unlikely event of an insolvency, the obligation to decommission and the financial means to do so will be available. Thus, as Professor Siegel notes in his report, a financially impaired company's assets have far (footnote 21 continued from previous page)

Commission has followed a policy of requiring that method for single-asset utilities. UDG also believes that government-owned utility licensees should be permitted to provide financial assurance through a "certification that the appropriate government entity will be guarantor of decommissioning funds." See proposed § S0.33(k)(3)(iv). Under the proposed rule that method is available to other types of government-owned licensees, and the proposed rule provides no basis for different treatment of government-owned utilities, J-242

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 19 greater value if the firm remains in operation, ~nd it is rarely in the interest of creditors, therefore, to close a firm and sell its assets. NUREG/CR-3899 at 4. This is par-ticularly true in the case of electric utilities because they provide an essential public service. Moreover, the utility -- D, 3 , '2.

• I. I ( b) or successor entity if there is a reorganization -- will re-tain the obligation to decommission and will have the cash flow from operations to fund and complete decommissioning properly.22/

D. Several Aspects of the Proposed Rule Require Clarification Finally, several additional points raised in the proposed rule require clarification.

l. Funding Method And Use Of SAFSTOR It appears from the language of proposed section 50.82(c) that where SAFSTOR is selected as the decommissioning alterna-tive the decommissioning fund is to be placed in an external account unless assurance is being provided by a surety, insur-ance, or the certification method. See 50 Fed. Reg. at 5608, Col. 3.23/ UDG understands this provision to mean that where a utility that has previously used internal funding commences SAFSTOR and continues as an on-going multi-asset utility dur-ing the SAFSTOR period, t~e utility should not be required to shift to external funding as long as it continues to provide satisfactory assurance of the requisite level of decommission-ing funding.

~/ Another point that Professor Siegel addresses should be

,noted here as well. Specifically, it is important to recog-nize that the financial difficulty associated with construc-tion of nuclear power plants is in <> 11 bsta tial part a result of prolonged licensing delays. See NUREG;CR-3899 at 2-3. Such concerns are not pertinent to decommissioning where the focus is on a utility that has successfully completed construction and the plant is in commercial operation. 11/ There appears, however, to be an inconsistency in the Statement of Considerations on this point. At 50 Fed. Reg. 5603, Col. 1, this process is described with no mention of the certification method. The language of the regulation itself, of course, will control over the Statement of Considerations; however, UDG urges the Commission to correct the inconsistency in the Statement of Considerations. J-243

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 20 This is an appropriate provision as far as it goes and should be retained regardless of any changes the Commission may make in connection with the certification option as it relates to regulated public utilities. See supra, PP* 3-12. However, the language of section 50.82(cf;-as proposed, would require a fund certification "in accordance with the criteria of I 50.33(k)" -- that is to say, a certification in an amount of at least $100 million adjustad for inflation. If the cost estimate for a small plant is less than that amount, the util- D.3.~ ity would not be able to make such a certification and would have to convert to an exte~nal reserve should it elect the SAFSTOR option.24/ There is no reason to require plants with decommissioning~eserves below $100 million to convert, ipso facto, to an external fund so long as they can continue to demonstrate reasonable assurance using an internal fund. UDG therefore urges the Commission to modify proposed section 50.82(c) so that the use of internal funding during SAFSTOR is not contingent on a specific level of funding assurance.

2. Definition of Decommissioning Proposed Section 50.2(y) defines decommissioning as remov-ing a facility "safely from service and reduc[ing] residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of license." UDG under-stands this definition to encompass (1) decontamination of radioactive structures, systems and components and (2) removal of those structures, systems and components that cannot be decontaminated to acceptable levels. We further understand that the $100 million certification amount contained in the proposed rule is based on this definition and does not include the cost of site restoration or demolition of non-radioactive 8.1,2.\

structures. 50 Fed. Reg. at 5606, Col. 3. At an earlier point, however, the Statement of Considera-tions suggests that decommissioning means to remove "nuclear facilities" from service, including "the site, buildings and contents, and equipment associated with any NRC licensed ac-tivity." 50 Fed. Reg. at 5600, Col. 3. This statement is much too broad: the removal of all buildings and eq~ipment associated with NRC licensed activities at the site is not within the generally understood scope of decommissioning and contradicts proposed Section 50.2(y). The statement should be deleted from the Statement of Considerations or clarified. This is necessary to avoid confusion over the cost elements to which the proposed financial assurance requirements apply. 1!/ Alternatively, the utility would be required to purchase decommissioning insurance or a surety bond, even though previously it had not been necessary to do so. J-244

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 21

3. Decommissioning Activities Proposed section 50,82(e) would require Commission author-ization for decommissioning. The Statement of Considerations clarifies that requirement: *oecommissioning plans should be submitted in a timely way for review and approval prior to the initiation of any major decommissioning activity,* 50 Fed.

Reg, at 5605, Col, 2 (emphasis added). It is UDG's under-standing that prior Commission approval under proposed section 50.82(e) will not be necessary for those decommis3ioning ac-c:.,.5" tivities which can be accomplished in accordance with the current regulations, 10 C.F.R. s9ction 50.59. For example, after fuel has been removed from the core, tha licensee should be able, on the basis of an analysis performed under section 50.59, to dismantle certain systems and equi9ment that the Technical Specifications do not require to remain operable. Such activities can facilitate the decommissioning process and should be allowed consistent with section 50.59.

4. The Timing of New Regulations It is UDG's understanding that the Commission does not intend that operating license applications currently on file must be amended to provide the financial assurance information described in proposed section 50,33. The Statement of Consid-erations, 50 Fed. Reg. at 5601, Col. 3, appears to contemplate D, c.t .1. 2.

that such information will be required only in connection with applications for new licenses which are filed after the regu-lations have become effective. UDG urges the Commission to make clear that the revisions to section 50,33 concerning financial assurance for decommissioning are mea~t to apply to applications for operating licenses filed after the effective date of the rule, and not to applications currently under review. Finally, the proposed regulations on financial assurance will become operative two years after the effective date of the rule. Proposed I S0.54(cc). The Commission is also plan-ning to issue a regulatory guide on financial assurance. 50 P.'-1.\,1 Fed. Reg. at 5603, Col. 1. Licensees should have the benefit of the regulatory guide during the two-year period that they must prepare to satisfy the new regulations. If there is delay ~n issuing the final regulatory guide on financial as-surance, then the operative date of the new regulations should be deferred accordingly. J-245

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Page 22 II I. CONCLUSION The Utility Decommissioning Group respectfully requests that the Commission's proposed rule on Decommissioning Crite-ria for Nuclear Facilities be modified as discussed in these comments. Respe~ffu,1y submitted, i  ;.' I Nichoh Scott

• DuBoff Daniel;* S~enger

                                        . J Counse to the Utility Decommissionin~ Group J-246

In the Matter of

                                                       / /..                '

(-. *'.-,--., \ Decommissioning Criteria for 10 C.F.R. Par , 40, Nuclear Facilities, Proposed Rule 50, 51, 70 and 72 COMMENTS OF CERTAIN PUBLir*Y-OWNED ELECTRIC SYSTEMS AND PUBLIC POWER AGENCIES OPPOSING, IN PART, ADOPTION OF PROPOSED RULES ON DECOMMISSIONING On February 5, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (1985). The NRC proposed rules (1) relating to the amount to be collected for decommissioning; (2) discussing funding meth,ds which may be used; (3) describing procedures which can be used to decommission plants; (4) establishing recordkeeping requirements related to decommissioning planning; and (5) establishing administrative procedures to be followed at the time decommissioning actually commences. The comments which follow primarily address the NRC's proposed rules concerning the amount to be collected for decommissioning and the methods which may be used to fund decommissioning, as those rules affect electric utilities. l/ 1/ Part 50 of the Proposed Rules sets forth the relevant regulations. J-247

While there is a ?Ublic interest in assuring t~a: funds will be available for decommissioning, as shown below, t~at interest wi' ~ not be served by the proposed rules which are the subject of these comments. Indeed, there is a strong likelihood t~at the rule, as proposed, would significantly ~nba:ar.ce tte re:ationshi? 'T'\ V* o O, I of actual costs and t~e rates likely to be all9wed. T~is will send the wrong signals to the affected customers of the utility/ li~ensees and could well result in both overcol:ections and undercollections. Neither of these results are desirable public goals. BACKGROUND A.~D s~~~..A~Y OF CO~..ME~~s These com.~ents are being filed on behal: of the Cities o: Ar.aheim and Riverside, California, Board of ?ublic Works - Marshall Missouri Municipal Cti:ities, Ashburnham Municipa: Lighr, Templeton Municipal Lighting Plant, Boylston Munici?al Municipal Light Plant, Danvers Electric Division, Georgetown Municipal Light Department, Groveland Municipal Ligr.: Depar:ment, Hudson Liqht & Power Depar:~ent, Hingham ~unicipa: Light Plant, Gas & Electric Depart~ent, Hudson Light & ?ower ~epart~ent, ~erri~ac Municipal Ligh: ?:ant, Micd:eborough Gas & J-248

Electric Light Departmen~ of south nad:ey, Sterling Munici?al Electric Light Department, Taunton Municipal ~ighting ?lar.t, Municipal Electric Light Department, West 3oylston Municipal Lighting ?lant, Westfield Gas & Electric Light Depart~er.t, Virgi~ia Municipal Electric Association; II Florida Cities Public Power Cornrnitt~e; ll ~orth Carolir.a Municipal ?~wer Aqency No. l ("NCM?A"); North Carolina Eastern Mer.icipa: ?ower Agency (~CEMPA"); and the Connecticut Municipal Electric Energy Cooperative, Inc. ("C~EEC"), collectively referred to herein as "Public systems." The entities joining in these comments are either publicly owned electric systems, or public power agencies which provide wholesale power to municipally owned electric systems. Certain of the cornmenters are wholesale customers of utilities t~at own nuclear generation and whose wholesa:e rates incl~de costs associated with decor:unissioning such nuclear generation. Other commenters are customers of utilities which own nuc:ear generation and also are co-owners and/or co-licensees of nuclear units. The power agencies, NCM?A, NCEM?A and CMEEC, ?rovice II VMEA represents the Towns of 3:ac~stor.e, c~:peper, E:~ton, and Wakefield, Virginia; the Cities o: Fr nklin and Manassas, Virginia, and the P.arrisonburg Electr c Corr.:nission in who:esa:e rate proceedings involving the Virgin a Electric and ?ower Company. l! Composed of a number of Florida C ties which are custo~ers of Florida ?ower Cor~oration, or co-owne sand/or co-licensees of Florida ?ower Cor~o-ation's Crysta: R ver ~nits. J-249

                              -  4 -

power to participating municipal utilities. Each agency owns an interest in nuclear capacity. Each agency (under varying arrangements) also purchases additional capacity from investor-owned utilities, the cost of which is affected by estimated decommissioning costs. Thus, Public systems represent the interests of wholesale purchasers of electric power and owners of nuclear capacity. Public systems do not object to paying their appropriate share of decommissioning expense and indeed, are presently paying (as power purchasers) and collecting (as owners) amounts for decommissioning. However, the proposed rules relating to o. '2.. \ ( C.) decommissioning costs and funding methodologies are likely to result in additional confusion and potential miscollection of decommissioning funds and to that Public Systems do object. Specifically, 0 The cornerstone of the proposed NRC decommissioning rules -- a $100 million decommission~ng cost estimate to be annually escalated a~ two times the CPI -- is not a reasonable across-the-board proxy for specific decommissiqning costs; 0 It is not clear that the NRC has considered or devised etficient and fair procedures for handling challenges to utility decommissioning 1), ~.5' cost estimates and funding plans; yet efficient and fair handling of such challenges may be critical to estQblishment of reasonable estimates and funding procedures; and 0 State and other federal agencies now consider a broad range of decommissioning issues. The proposed NRC rules are not coordinated with the 1). g. '3 activities of state and other federal agencies. Public systems believe the proposed rules are Gs. \ likely to disrupt and confuse regulation of decommissioning rather than clarify matters. J-250

NRC. when it should be the real substance of this rule. On* cf the most important decisions 1n decommissioning 15 wh*ther to us* OECON <immediate dismantlement>, SAFSTOR (temporary storag* with later dismantlement> or ENTOMB (permanent on-site storage>. Yet there is no criteria given in the rule for how to 6,J,1,1 make the choic* among these options, Even the information supplied with the rule makes a clear case for how to evaluate these options, but th* rule itself gives no guidance. ENTOMB is not a realistic alternative and the rule should state that. Ther* will obviously be special reasons at particular sites to choose the DECON option because cf reasons such as poor original siting of a reactor, but in general the evidence suggests that partial decommissioning followed by a 5(1-year storage period CSAFSTOR> will be the bast option in terms of the public health and safety. Radiation exposure tc workers and the surrounding area will b* lower and, equally as important, there will be a significant reduction in the radioactive wastes produced. While SAFSTOR might slightly increase the total co*t of decommissioning, th* public benefits justify that cost. The rule should r*quire that the choice of method be based on a detailed (3.'3.l,\ assessment of the effects on public health and safety so that a e.1.'3 rational decision can be made. There should be clear criteria available for NRC review of that decision. Again the need for preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement as part cf a final site-specific plan is shown to be justified. Another extremely important part of the decommissioning proc*ss is not addressed by the rule at all, Proper requirements for quality assurance and quality control during decommissioning are essential, including adequate monitoring by the NRC itself. This need is very apparent at Sa:{ton. The original work in 1973 was supposed to have cleaned up several auxiliary buildings for C,(p unrestricted use. The AEC did not inspect for 13 months whil* work progressed. When an inspection finally occurred it was discovere~ that the buildings remained contaminated. Since the owner <General Public Utilities> had already dispersed its workers, those buildings remain contaminated today. Strict requirements for quality assurance must be a part cf the rule, We cannot understand why the rule specifically excludes from its requirements reactor* which have already been permanently shut down. Saxton falls into this category and we think we c.ct should receive as much protection as anyone else who lives near a reactor. The experience at Sa>:ton also casts severe doubt on the adequacy of the proposed rule for estimating the costs of decommissioning. In 1973 GPU estimated that the total decommissioning cost, &:{eluding continued maintenance for SAFSTOR of the plant. would be S57~.~)0. Even after the initial "'D, I, I,\ decontamination work had been done, 1n 1983 GPU's minimum estimate of the cost for the remaining work was Sl~,454,000 or more than :1 times the original total estimate. Obviously not *11 of this increase was d1.1e to inflation. Sa>:ton is only a '35 thermal J-201

megawatt reactor and GPU's cost estimates assume the reactor vessel can be removed in one piece. To thi~k that s100,ooo,ooo is 'D. I. I. l a maximum figure for decommissioning plants 300 to 400 times the size of Saxton is unrealistic. I The proposed rule should be changed to require a decommissioning fund equal to the best estimate possible for the , 1),'2, 1(e1..) cost of decommissioning a particular site, and that estimate should be revised every five years so that an appropriate fund can b* built up. Otherwise when the time comas to actually decommission a plant only a fraction of the funds required

*ay be available.
                                                                         /o.~."3 The experience of GPU in approaching bankruptcy, with its main assets being inoperable nuclear plants, indicates why the set-aside funding for future decommissioning must be in external sinking funds which are legally separate from a utility's other assets. GPU has not bean able to get a blank check from Pennsylvania ratepayers even in its emergency situation and therefore its cleanup at TMI-2 has bean delayed. If the funds it had set aside for future decommissioning were part of its normal assets there would be no money available today for work at Saxton.

We appreciate the fact that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission r*quiras external reserves for decommissioning funds and the NRC should require the same method, along with insurance to provide D. z. J.z. I funding in case of the early retirement of a plant such as happened at TMI-2. The definition given for the term "decommissioning" is not complete in the proposed rule. Since the objective of d*commissicning is to return a site to the same possibilities cf use that the site possessed before a reactor was built on it, the definition should include language stating that the limit for ' l. \ residual radioactivity remaining should be the amount of natural background radiation at the site before construction of the plant. This is the only definition which can be acceptable by local residents whose children will be using the site in the future. Tc summar1:e, the proposed rule is net complete since it does not provide specific criteria for making decisions about decommissioning and it leaves out several important topics. The rule should be redrafted and again submitted for public comment (:,. '

• before it is accepted by the ~RC.

Sincerely, James H. Elder Chairman J-202

                             -  5 -

Moreover, ?ublic Systems object to provisions in :he proposed rules which could be read to regu~ate or limit funding alternatives for government licensees. The proposed rules would have broad and drama:ic impact on the nuclear industry. At an annual average increase o: 7 per cent in the C?I, the amount required to provide financial assurance for decommissioning under the NRC formula would increase from SlOO million to almost S400 million per plant in ten years; in 35 years, the amount required would increase to Sl9 billion ~ plant. The stated pu::pose of the NRC rule is to assure tha: decommissioning of all licensed facilities will ::ie l).Z. I (0-) accomplished in a safe and timely manner and that adequate licensee funds will be available for this purpose. However, these purposes are not advanced if unwarranted burdens are p:aced on present owners of units and consumers of nuclear-generated energy; to the contrary, such burdens may fur:her destabi:ize the nuclear industry. The critical question therefore, is: are the proposed rules likely to lead to the appropriate amount being collected for any parti~ular plant? Publ;c Systems believe the answer to this question is "no." As discussed below, existing state and federal regulatory procedures are more likely to lead to establishment of appropriate decommissioning fund es:imates D, i, I and with the exercise of exper: guidance from :~e N~C, could be D.i.3.\ expected to ensure that adeq~a:e funds will be availab:e for safe the timely decommissioning of licensed facilities. Therefore, J-251

                              -  6 -

Public systems believe the NRC should withdraw the proposed rules relating to decommissioning costs and funding methods (specifically, §§50.33 and 50.54(cc)(l)-(3)). The NRC should, instead, provide guidance to state and other federal agencies considering decommissioning issues by (1) funding and supervising additional independent studies on decommissioning, and (2) working with agencies like FERC and the IRS to resolve issues, o.a., such as the appropriate methods and costs and the proper tax o.,.'3.t treatment of the decommissioning funds. To the extent the NRC believes there is some danger that utilities will not collect adequate funds to pay for decommissioning costs, the NRC could simply require that every utility licensee submit a decommissioning cost estimate to the state and federal agency responsible for regulating its rates. If the NRC decides that it wishes to take a leading role in approval of decommissioning costs and approval of funding plans, then the proposed rules should be substantially amended to

                                                                 'DZ, I. (a..)

1. Eliminate the $100 million - 2 CPI formula;

2. Provide for appropriate challenges to decommissioning estimates; and

3. Provide for consistent and appropriate treatment of government licensees.

J-252

I. THE PROPOSED NRC RULES ARE LIKELY TO LEAD TO A MISCOLLECTION OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDS, Proposed Rule 10 C.F.R. SS0.54(cc)(2) requires each holder of an operating license for a nuclear plant to provide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available to ensure that decommissioning can be accomplished in a safe manner and that lack of funds does not result in delays that may cause potential health and safety problems. 50 Fed. Reg. ac 5602. A utility must provide assurance that it will be able to decommission the plant at the end of its life, and must provide assurance that it will be able to decommission the plant in the event of a premature shutdown. Information adequate to provide assurance must be provided in any application for an operating license, or, in the case of existing licensees, must be submitted within two years of the effective date of the final NRC rule. Financial assurance for premature shutdown is provided by the insurance utility licensees carry pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S50.54(w). Financial assurance for end-of-life decommissioning may be provided in one of two ways. The NRC has devised a decommissioning cost estimate and has provided that any electric utility may satisfy the proposed regulations by submitting a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in an amount at least equal to this NRC estimate -- $100 million in 1984 dollars, adjusted annually for inflation using an inflation rate twice J-253

that indicated by the change in the Consumer ?rice Index. ~nder this alternative, there appears to be no requirement that t~e utility periodically update its decommissioning estimate for changes in technology. If wholesale customers or minority owners wish to challenge the established target, they presumably will

                                                                   'D, 2.1 (a..)

have to petition the NRC to amend its rules. The NRC proposal D, '4.S' does not provide for periodic review of its own estimate. !/ As an alternative to relying on the NRC estimate, a utility may submit a proposed "decommissioning funding plan." This plan must contain a cost estimate for decommissioning, and include means for adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels over the life of the facility. Prooosed Rule, 10 C.F.R. S50.33(k)(l). However, the NRC Notice states that: For many cases, routine adjustments for changes in inflation and interest rates might be done annually by the licensee and could be reoorted in the annual financial reoort without the need tor NRC approval.

• A technical review of the information in the preliminary plans or the cost estimate for a funding plan could be done less frequently and submitted to the NRC for approval.

50 Fed. Reg. at 5608. 11 ii The NRC simply provices that "[i]f decommissioning c sts differ significantly in the future from that approxi~ated by th s prescribed amount, the regulation may be modified." 50 ed. Reg. at 5606. 11 Five years prior to the projected end of operation, a utility must submit a cost estimate for decommissionina based on an uo-to-date assessrr.ent of the actions necessary for decommissioning. Proposed Rule, 10 C.F.R. S50.54(cc)(4). This update is required regardless of whether the utility has relied on its own decommissioning funding plan, or relied on the NRC's s:oo million estimate for purposes of decommissioning accruals. J-254

                              -  9 -

Whether a utility submits a decommissioning funding plan, or relies on the NRC's $100 million estimate, it must submit a plan for collecting the required funds. The rulemaking specifically describes four potential financing methods. Proposed Rule, 10 C.F.R. §50.33(k)(l). A utility may provide financial assurance by prepaying decommissioning expense; establishing an external sinking fund; arranging for adequate surety or insurance to provide for decommissioning; or (in the case of utilities owning more than one generating facility) establishing an internal reserve. The NRC would permit utilities to opt for either a funded or unfunded internal reserve. A utility may also use other financing methods which it demonstrates provide assurance comparable to the four methods described in the proposed rule. Proposed Rule, 10 C.F.R. §§50.33(k)(2)(i-iv), 50.33(k)(4). As shown below, this package of rules is not likely to lead to collection of appropriate amounts for decommissioning particular plants; the rules should not be adopted as written. A. The $100 Million - 2 CPI Formula Should Not Be Adooted.

1. The $100 million estimate D-Z., I ( a..)

The rulemaking notice states that the NRC's $100 million decommissioning cost estimate was based on two reports prepared for the NRC by the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.!/ !/ NUREG/CR-0130 "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning A Reference P~essurized Water Reactor Power Station* ("PWR Study") and NUREG/CR-0672 "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning A Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station.* ("BWR Study"). J-255

These studies, known as the "3attelle Studies* or "?NL" studies, a:1alyzed the cost o: decorrw'llissioning reference nuclear reacto:-s, and developed a formula for applying those costs to other n~c:ear plants. The $100 million (the NRC states) is derived by escalating the Battelle estimates for the refe:-ence react.ors to !984 dollars, and adding additional costs for additional engineering and planning, use of contractors, variations in :oca: labor rates, waste transportation costs and local power costs. The NRC st.ates that the figure does not take into account the costs of shipments of spent fuel or "the costs o: demolition o: non-radioactive structures which is not required for ~RC ~icer.se 1), 2. \ <.. 0...) termination.* 50 Fed. Reg. at 5606. However, the NRC's own documents escalating the 3att.el:e figures to 1984 dollars do not support the $100 million :ig~re; the Batt.elle studies do not support application of a f:at fic~re to plants of varying sizes and the expected va:-iation i:1 cost based on plant size and design indicates that use of a :lat $100 million amount is ir.apprppriate. Counsel for Public pysr.e-s su~-':te~ a FOIA requeEt. to the NRC on April 12, 1985 FO!A-85-270) requesting, inter a:.:.a, "all materials (Other thar the ~~REG reports) relied on by the SRC ir. car.eluding that. $100 million would cover deco:r..'ll.:.ssior.ing costs for most. utility l.:.censees* and req~est.:.ng all mat.er.:.als *re:.:.ed upor. by the ~RC to escalate the costs derived from the ~UREG studies." :n partial respor.se, the ~RC s~bmit.t.ed a ~ay :5, :984 J-256

letter from Richard!. Smith of Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories to Dr. Carl Feldman of the NRC's Chemical Engineering aranch (Attachment 1). This document does not support the NRC's $100 million estimate. 21 Mr. Smith escalated 1).'2.l(a..) the Battelle study 1978 estimates to account for increases in staff labor, waste disposal and energy costs. He estimated that the cost of decommissioning a boiling water reactor (BWRJ, in 1984 dollars, would be $92-95 million. The estimated cost of decommissioning a pressurized water reactor ("?WR") was substantially lower, in the range of $69-72 million.~/ Hence, 21 It may be that there are other documents which the NRC relies on which it would contend support its $100 million estimate; however, no such documents have been provided to Public Systems yet. If further information is received, Public Systems may revise their analysis. Public Systems are aware, of course, that some utilities have contended that, for their individual units, an estimate derived from the Battelle studies must be escalated to add on additional costs of engineering and planning, local power costs, etc. However, certain of Public Systems have examined such claims and found that such increases are not justified: utilities have based decommissioning energy costs on use of incremental energy costs, when there is no rule or regulation which provides that decommissioning energy is to be priced in that manner; utilities have "added on" costs for personnel, which on examination, appear to duplicate costs already included in overheads for decommissioning. Untested contentions by utilities would provide no basis for further escalation of the Battelle studies, and are, in any event, utility-specific. ~/ Mr. Smith noted that an argument could be made that staff labor costs for a PWR decommissioning should be increased 30-50 percent due to changes in assumed allowable occupational exposure levels. It is not clear such an adjustment is warranted (the letter does not indicate why costs would go up 30-50 percent; Mr. Smith's staff labor estimate already includes a 25 percent contingency and it is a high-side estimate, since it is based on Pacific labor costs, which Mr. Smith estimates results in $9 million in higher costs than would be derived using labor costs for the [FOOTNOTE COINTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) J-257

the NRC rule would entitle a utility with a PWR reactor to overcollect almost $30 million in decommissioning costs from ratepayers, before the effects of escalation are even considered. While the difference between the proposed rule and the BWR estimate is relatively smaller, it is still a $5-7 million differential. Thus, neither the PWR or BWR estimates as escalated by Battelle support the NRC's $100 million estimate. There is no reason to promulgate a rule which (by the NRC's estimate) institutionalizes overcollection of decommissioning funds. Cf. Buckeye Pipeline Co., 13 FERC 161,267 at p. 61,594 (1980). Moreover, because the NRC $100 million estimate does not include decommissioning costs for non-radioactive structures, adoption of that estimate does not even have the advantage of laying decommissioning issues to rest. Utilities can be expected to seek additional decommissioning costs associated with non-radioactive st~uctures in state and federal proceedings.!/ .I [FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PRECEDING PAGE] southeast). In any event, a 50 percent increase in staff labor would increase Mr. Smith's decommissioning estimate to between

  $78-81 million, still far below the $100 million NRC estimate.

9/ It is clear that the NRC's estimate does not include balance-of-plant decommissioning costs because it is clear that Mr. Smith's analysis did not escalate the balance-of-plant costs for the reference reactors. It should be emphasized that while Mr. Smith did not escalate balance-of-plant costs, these costs are included in the Battelle studies.~~, Battelle PWR study, Volume 1 at 9-9, 10-2, 10-6; Battelle PWR study, Addendum, at 3-50, 3-56 through 3-58. J-258

Even if the $100 mil:ion esti~ate were corrected to rnore accurately reflect costs associated with t:ie required dismantlement of ?WR's and 3WR's, it would still be inappropriate to apply that estimate to all nuclear plants, regardless of size and design. The Battelle estimate for a reference ?WR reactor (from which the NRC $100 million estimate was in part derived) was developed by examining in detail the cost of deco~.rnissioning Portland General Electric Company's Trojan Nuclear Plant, a 1,175 Mw(e) station with a four-loop pressurized water reactor ar.d cooling tower. The NRC would permit application of its $100 million estimate to plants such as Yankee Rowe, a 175 Mw(e) 1). 2. I ( a..) station; Vermont Yankee, a 504 Mw(e) station; and Maine Yankee, a 810 Mw(e) station, despite the fact that (given the substantia: difference in size) the cost of decommissioning these units could be expected to be lower than the cost of decommissioning the Tr.ojan plant. Indeed, the Satte_lle study addendum est:..:nated the cost of decommissioning the major components of Yankee Rowe at $3.048 million (1978 dollars), less than a third of tr.e Sl0.59l million (1978 dollars) estimated major component decommissioning cost for the Trojan plant. Battelle PWR Study, Addend~:n at 3-1:. The Battelle study authors warned against app:icatior. o: a flat estimate to all plants. In Volurne l of the ?WR st~dy, ttey warned that (a)pplication of these results to situations w~ere the conditions are different ... could produce erroneo~s conclusions.'" Battelle PWR Study, Vol. ~ at 2-4; ~ a:so Vol. l J-259

at 4-10. A~:er ~ore than a year o: furt~er s:udy, 3a::e:le submitted a~ addendum ~o the initial s~~dy. ~he pur?ose of tte addendum was to determine a reasonable method of estimating :~e cost of decorTL~issioning where conditions dif:ered :rom those considered in analysis of the Trojan plant. Battelle PWR Study, Addendum a: 1-1, 3-1. The 3attelle authors develo?ed an overall scaling factor (OS:) to permit estimation of decomrr.issioni~g costs based on unit size. Public syste~s do not ob:ec: to use of an OSF to estimate decommissioning costs; indeed, some o: them have urged adoption of decommissioning estima:es based on application of the OSF to ;:,articular plan<:.s ( ~ Affidavit o: D. 2. I (a.) Jacob Pous). However, what the NRC has done is to ignore the OS: which makes the Battelle decor:unissioning estimate applicab:e to units of varying size and design -- and adopt a ::a: decommissioning esti:r.ate. The 3attel:e corr.pa:r.:.son o: ':'ar:kee ?.owe anJ the Trojan Plant indicates quite c:ea:rly that t~e ~ac*s approach is ir.a?propriate. As explained in the Affidavit o: Jacob ?ous, the substantial differences in size among reactors results in substar.:ial di::erences in decommissioning cost estimates. ?ur:~er, decomrniss.:.on.:.ng ex:;:ier.se can be s-..:bstar.tia:ly :reduced by sequentia:.. decor..'::iss.:.or.ing o: uni:s a: :r.ul:ip:e--.:::i: sites. ~onetheless, :~e ~RC es:irnate does not take into account a utility's plans for decommissioning. J-260

The NRC's proposed rule cannot be justi:ied merely because the proposed ru!es also provide that utilities can submit t~eir own decorr.:::issior.ing esti~ate if they do not wish to use the SlOO million estimate. First, the rules do not appear to provide an opportunity to challenge a utility's decision to rely on the NRC estimate. Investor-owned utilities which own small reactors could well have a strong incentive to use the SRC estimate ratr.er than expend money to prove they are entitled to less money from their customers. Second, the SlOO million will undoubtedly influence state and federal cor..r:iission decisions, !0/ discouraging more detailed investigation into decor:trnissioning costs. Hence, adoption of a SlOO million estimate, applicable to D. 2. I (a..) all plants, is likely to lead to mismatchir.g (both over and under) of decommissioning funds.

2. The*two times C?I escalator adopted by the NRC is inanoron::""iate.

The NRC proposes to require utilities using the NRC decommissioning es-:irr~ate to escala~e the S!OO million by two D. '2.1 c~) times the C?I annually. §50.33(k)(l). The NRC appears to have opted for an automatic escalation :actor in an attempt to er.sure that decommissioning accruals reflect changes in deco~,issior.ing .!...Q/ It would not only influence, it would effectively determine t~e decisions of state and federal ratemaking co~missions. unless it is assumed that utility stockho:ders contribute to the costs of decor..missioning, then the only way a utility ~ay be able to demonstrate SlOO million of financial assurance would be by obtaining the authorization of ratema~ing cor.cT,issior.s to col:ect this amount from ratepayers. J-261

                             -  16 -

costs, while minimizing regulatory burden. 50 Fed. Reg. at 5606. Using an automatic two times CPI escalator may reduce the regulatory burden which arises if utilities are required to obtain approval for increases in decommissioning accruals. However, whatever benefits might follow from reduction in regulatory burden are more than outweighed if the automatic escalator is inaccurate, and, for the reasons discussed below, the escalator is inaccurate in this case. The two times CPI figure cannot be supported based on an analysis of historica: data. There is no reason to suspect that decommissioning costs will increase at two times the CPI into the future. There are reasonably accurate and readily available sources of information 'D.'2. l lb) which can be used to escalate decommissioning costs to account for price changes. Counsel for Public Systems obtained the calculation supporting the NRC's adoption of a two times CPI inflation factor in the NRC response to the April 12, 1985 FOIA request. The calculations are shown on a note to file from the Chemical Engineering Branch Decommissioning Staff. The note calculated 'D, 2.' (a..) the percentage increase in waste disposal costs from 1978 to l984 (expressed as a multi~ ier of the CPI); calculated the percentage increase in labor cos~s (also expressed as a multiplier of the CPI); and develo?ed a weighted percentage increase for total decommissioning costs, expressed as a multiplier of the CPI. However, as explained in the attached Affidavit of Jacob Pous, in J-262

performing these calculations Staff rounded the percentage increases from 1978 to 1984, and made certain calculation errors. Mr. ?ous followed Staff's general methodology, but corrected for the rounding and calculation errors; he found that total decommissioning costs had increased only 1.47 times the CPI from 1978-1984. The difference between using a 1.47 times the CPI escalator instead of a 2 times CPI escalator is akin to the difference between obtaining a mortgage for a home (when the CPI is increasing 6 percent annually) at 8.8 percent as compared to 12 percent. It is easy to see that this variance would make an enormous difference in mortgage payments, particularly if one is

p. (..\(Cl.)

considering the costs associated with a $100 million "home.* The NRC's formula for escalation, if used at all, must therefore be corrected to avoid overcollection. However, Cities believe that use of an escalation factor tied to the recent CPI is incorrect. Decommissioning costs appear to have risen faster than the CPI because of the dramatic increase in waste disposal costs from 1978 to 1984. There is no reason co believe that waste disposal costs will continue to increase at that same rate of increase into the future. Hence, there is no basis for assuming that the relationship between CPI and decommissioning costs will hold into the future. Indeed, the NRC Staff recognized this fact in the note to file which contains the two times CPI calculation: These factors are based on the historical period noted. Waste disposal costs in the future are uncertain. J-263

As suggested at the outset, using a two times CPI escalation factor will dramatically increase total deconunissioning costs. At a seven per cent annual average increase in the CPI, indicated deconunissioning costs at the end of ten years would be over S400 million; in 35 years, the indicated deconunissioning cost would be $19 billion. Placing such a potential burden on ratepayers and utilities on the basis of such a tenuous relationship is not appropriate. Moreover, reliance on an inaccurate escalation factor is not 1).2.,(d..) necessary. As explained in Mr. Pous* affidavit, there are readily available sources which provide more accurate measures of decommissioning cost increases. These include the Handy-Whitman index and tariff sheets showing the schedule of charges for waste disposal. Such sources were relied on by Mr. Smith in updating the Battelle reports to 1984 dollars, and thus were relied on by Staff, which took Mr. Smith's escalation figures and translated them to a multiplier of the CPI. In essence, adopting the two times CPI formula amounts to taking a roundabout route where a direct route is available. Should the NRC wish to establish an escalation factor, it should provide that escalation rates will be based on the Handy-Whitman index (taking into account the tariff sheets for waste disposal if required). 11/ It is Public syste~s* position that the NRC should withdraw those parts of the rule establishing the decowmissioning estima~e and inflation factor. J-264

B. The ?reposed R~:es Jo ~ot ?=ovide for ?=ocedures Like:y :o Lead To Establishmen: Of An Appropria~e ~ecorr.missioning Amount.

    ?ublic Sys:ems do not object to rules which permi: utilities initially to deve:op their own decommissioning estimate, selec:

one of a num.:>er of possible funding methods, or ar.alyze various methods of decom.T.issioning a nuclear unit. Indeed, Public Systems believe it is appropriate to allow flexibi:i:y in decommissioning planning. However, and crit:ca_!y, it is not clear that the NRC has considered or devised efficient and fair procedures for supervising the initial choices made by the private utilities as to their deco~.missioning plan choices. 1).z.' (c:.) Public Systems* experience ind:.ca:es that such procedures may be essential to establishment of a reasonable decor..missioning estimate, and to establishment of a reasonable p:an for funding decommissior.ing. Public Systems may be affected by inaccurate utility decommissioning estimates both as c:.istomers and co-owners of nuclear generation. As customers, decommissioning costs are reflected in wholesale rates or in power contrac:s. As owners, many of Public Systems rely on decor.Jllissioning estimates developed by co-owner utilities to develop estimates of their own decommissioning responsibi:ities. ~ence, mar.y of ?ublic Syste~s have recently been involved in rate cases at the Federal Energy Regulatory Com.'Tlissior. ("FERC") which involved decorr.r.:ission:.::g issues, ar.d have strenuously challenged utili:y-developed J-265

decommissioning estimates. 11.I These proceedings have involved substantial dollar disputes: in recent cases the difference between the Company estimate and estimates by FERC Staff and intervenors has exceeded $50 million. These disputes do not disappear in cases where a a utility relies on the Battelle studies '"with suitable adjustments for inflation and for site-specific factors.'" SC Fed. Reg. 6504. There may and in fact, have been substantial disputes as to wr.~ther some or any "site-1). '2.. \. (c) specific factors'" need to be taken into account, and disputes as to how those factors should be taken into account. ll/ Further, in the past certain of Public systems have challenged as to the method of decommissioning assumed by the Company in establishing its decommissioning estimate; the use of an external or internal fund by particular investor-ow~ed utilities; and the propriety of permitting an investor-owned utility to control decommissioning funds, where it would be more cost-effective for each Public System to maintain a separate fund 11.I Thus, for example, certain of Public Systems have challenged utility estimates based on: the assumption that it it takes nearly ten minutes to lay a square foot of sod; use of a daily rental rate for equipment being used for a long period instead of a much cheaper monthly rate; and data for which there is no support and where the utility has destroyed backup information. 11/ As the NRC recognizes, the Battelle studies' overall scaling factor was developed taking design differences into account. Hence, before adjusting for costs which may be higher than those incurred in decommissioning the reference reactors, it is necessary to consider whether other costs might be lower. J-266

covering its decommissioning obligation. There has, in short, been a need to provide for opportunities to challenge utility-selected plans; that need will not disappear under the proposed rules. However, it is not at all clear that the proposed rules are intended to provide for the necessary supervision and regulation of proposed utility decommissioning estimates. Indeed, it appears that the NRC intended that some matte=s would not be subject to review at all. Thus, the proposed NRC rules do not establish a required method of decommissioning, but instead allow licensees to consider alternative methods. 50 Fed. Reg. 5601. Under the proposed rules, one year prior to expiration of the operating license for a plant (or within two years following permanent cessation of plant operations, if that should occur sooner) a licensee must submit a plan to the Commission indicating which alternative for decommissioning it has chosen. Prooosed Rule, 10 C.F.R. §50.82. 14/ However, the rules do not restrict the utility in any way in selecting a decommissioning method for purposes of decommissioning accruals. FERC precedent suggests that the utility will generally only be allowed to recover costs associated w::h th- '.eas cost method. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 13 FERC ~61,155 (1980). Absent an opportunity to challenge a decommissioning estimate, the NRC r~le ap?ea=s to permit a utility to devise a decommissioning estimate based on .!.ii Generally, the NRC expects utilities will choose the immediate disffiantlement option, absent a showing that some othe= method would be appropriate. J-267

the most exc=>e:1s.:.ve CecOITLilissioning a::.er-nat..:.ve ava.:.:a:>:e.  ;::e funding method chosen by a utili:y will have a significan: e::ec:. on :he cost to customers and co-owners, since di:feren: methods may give rise to differer.: tax liabi:ities. T~e COS4:. o: decommissioning could effectively double if a utility opts to D .1 e-

                                                                                            ' "'1 I ;:>

p:-ovide for decommissioning expense usir.g an alterr.a:i*;e which is not subject to favo:-able :ax t:-ea:::ien:.. While the NRC recognizes this problem, (50 Fed. Reg. at 5608), the SRC ru:e does no: explicitly require utilities to use :.he :eas:-cost fur.ding method, nor does it provide for the oppo:-tunity to challenge the funding method chosen. Should the NRC decide to adopt the proposed ru:es, these rules should be substantially modified to provide for procedures which protect the interests of customers and co-owners. ':'hese procedures would necessarily involve opportunities to c::a::er.ge utility cer:.i:ica:.es o! financial assurance :or deco;.:.issicr.ir.g and decor:1!:',iss.:.on.:.r.g f;\.:r.ding plans w:i.en filed, and the oppor-:-...ni:.y to require periodic review of these esti::iates. Further, while the NRC justifiably considered pub:ic safety and administ:-a:.ive convenience in devisir.g its proposed ru:es, a proced*.:re for esta:,1ishir.g deco:._'l'.iss.:.or.ir.g costs ::i:.:s:. a:so D. '8. I provide for cor.s.:.deratior. of other i::iportant interests. Or.e D, i. 3. I issue considered as par:. of rate proceedings, for exa~p:e, is to what extent current ratepayers shou!d be forced :.o support a fund based on an estimate of expenses which may never materialize, especially as technology and exper.:.ence in the area grow. J-268

If the NRC is to enter into the realm of ratemaking, Public Systems believe it should be required to consider such issues if requested to do so prior to allowing a utility to use the flat $100 million estimate, or prior to approving the level of a decommissioning fund. The NRC should consider whether consideration of decommissioning issues would fit easily into T). 'if. I existing NRC proceedings, or is practical in light of limited i).8.3,I agency resources, and the existence of other ratemaking agencies. For example, it may not be appropriate to consider decommissioning issues as part of operating licensing procedures; given the potential for delay, separate proceedings may be more appropriate. 12_/ However, before adopting any procedures, the NRC should consider carefully whether it needs to involve itself in the implementation of decommissioning costs. As suggested in Section 'D. 8. I III, existing regulatory procedures already provide for consideration of decommissioning issues or can be expected to protect the public interest -- particularly if the NRC provides expert guidance on certain specific issues. 12_! For example, it may be sensible for the NRC to require utilities to meet with customers prior to submitting a information to the NRC concerning decommissioning, to attempt to resolve disputes informally. The NRC rule should provide for a hearing procedure if disputes cannot be resolved. J-269

II. THE RULE IS FLAWED IN OTHER REGARDS, INCLUDING IN ITS TREATMENT OF GOVERNMENT BODIES. The Notice of Rulemaking states that in the case of government licensees, guarantees of financial responsibility by the appropriate state, federal or local government entity are adequate to provide financial assurance for decommissioning. 50 Fed. Reg. at 5607. In the event the NRC adopts any rules regarding financial assurance for decommissioning, such a provision is appropriate. However, the rules do not clearly implement the intent expressed in the Notice. W~ile language regarding guarantees by governmental entities appears in S50.33(k)(3)(financial assurance for licensees other thtn electric utilities), it does not appear in §50.33(k)(4) (financial assurance for electric utilities). These sections wouhave to be amended to make it clear that guarantees of financial responsibility are adequate for governmental entities which also happen to be public utilities . .!..§./ Indeed, the rules as now written could be read to restrict funding alternatives available to public agencies. Thus, S50.33(k)(4)(iv) provides that internal sinking reserves may be used to fund decommissioning in the case of electric utilities more than one generating facility. Whatever the propriety of such restrictions for investor-owned utilities, they are not appropriate for governmental entities. For exarnp'e, the only .!..§./ Such provisions are appropriate given the fact that, unlike private licensees, governmental licensees are subject to continuing scrutiny by local agencies*for financial stability a~d cannot limit their respor.sibilities by leaving the jurisdiction. J-270

unit owned by NCMPA is a nuclear unit, unit No. 2 of the Catawba Nuclear Station. NCMPA is presently collecting amounts for decommissioning through an internal fund; that internal fund is required under NCMPA's bond resolution. The bond resolution requires NCMPA to make deposits to the Decommissioning Fund on a monthly basis, and places limits on the manner in which decommissioning funds may be used. NCMPA's decommissioning obligations are secured by its contracts with its participating municipalities. NCMPA's operations are subject to direct scrutiny by a division of the Department of State Treasurer, the Local Government Commission of North Carolina. The Local Government Commission by law monitors certain of NCMPA's operations and has power to ensure that NCMPA's financial obligations are met. Thus, NCMPA's internal fund consists of real dollars, not just accounting entries, is closely scrutinized by the state and is governed by local government units. Application of restrictions on funding methods to governmental entities such as NCMPA would not enhance financial assurance. On the other hand, application of the rule in the case of NCMPA (and perhaps others), could raise questions concerning existing bond and other financial arrangements, to the detriment of the public. Any portio~s of the proposed rules which could be read to restrict funding alternatives for public bodies should therefore be amended to remove any such implication. 1]_/ 1.21 Certainly, it would not be appropriate or beneficial to adopt a (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE] J-271

III. THE PROPOSED RULE IS UNNECESSARY AND IS NOT COORDINATED WITH EXISTING REGULATORY PROCEDURES. A. Existing Procedures Provide Adequate Assurance That The Decommissioning Funds Will Be Available In The Future. Decommissioning costs are now the subject of regulation by state and federal commissions. At the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, for example, decommissioning expense is generally considered during the course of ordinary rate proceedings. In such proceedings, the burden of proof is on the utility to show 1). ~' \ that the decommissioning costs asserted are just and reasonable.

                                                                    \),i.3.\

Federal Power Act §205, 16 U.S.C. §824d . ..u!_/ The FERC has rejected utility decommissioning cost estimates where the utility has failed to provide convincing studies to support those costs, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 16 FERC 163,004 at p. 65,008 (1981), aff'd, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Opinion No. 147, 20 FERC 161,340 (1982). Hence, as a practical matter a utility is required to submit support for its cost estimates; those estimates .and supporting studies are then subject to study and challenge by FERC Staff and intervenors. [FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PRECE~ING PAGE) rule which has the effect of disrupting existing financial arrangements . ..u!_/ Indeed, the FERC has held that a change in decorn.~issioning charges is a change in rates which requires Commission approval pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 23 FERC 161,013 (1983); Pennsylvania Power and Light Co., 23 FERC 161,006 (1983). J-272

Utility estimates may be supported in a variety of ways. Some utilities have used the scaling factors developed in the Battelle studies, but adjust the resulting deco:-:-Jnissioning estimate on the basis of claimed differences bet~ee:: costs as reflected in the 9attelle studies and costs for decon:.~issio~ing a specific plant. Other utilities have performed studies which they label *site specific* studies. Site specific studies (theoretically) develop unit costs assoc:atc~ ~i:~ ~dr:icular decommissioning tasks 19/ and apply those cost factors to the D. i.1 volume of material at a particular plant. FERC Staff prepares ar. independent estimate using the Sattelle study, updated to re::ect the effect of inflation. Intervenors may also deve:op independent estimates, and may challenge the sufficiency of other estimates submitted. Proceedings are not limited to consideration o: decommissioning costs. There may be disputes as to decommissioning rr.ethodo :..ogy; funding methods (!nte::-~al versus external funds); and the service l.:..fe of the p:ant (as part of a determination of the period over which fu:1ds are :o be acc:-ued). The FERC cons.:.ders a nu:rber of factors ir. reso:v.:.r.g such disputes.~/ ~~e Commission tas ~ecogr.ized ~hat:: is :a:= for 12_/ E.a., cost of demolishing each cubic foo: of reinforced concrete. ~/ The:::-e are t*,.,o paths to resolving disputes a::1ong :::e utility, FERC Staff ar.d in:erve:1ors. ~he parties ca:1 se:::e, agreeing or. some L.gure to be used :or decom.'Tiissioning ace uals. For exa~ple, the FERC has approved set::e~e"ts i:1 ..:....:a~~~.k-'-'--e~e-'-A~:~o.;;_;._m~.:.~c (FOOTNOTE CONTINUSJ ON NEX7 ?AG J-273

today's ratepayers to pay some portior. of the costs associa:ed with decommissioning, since they are receiving benefits associated with the plant. Ver~ont Ya~kee Nuclear Power Coro., 26 FERC !61,420 (1984). At the same time, the FERC has recognized that decommissioning estimates are uncertain, and that they can be updated to avoid significant shortfall. Therefore: Given the highly sDeculative nature of [decommissioning methodology) at :his time, we are reluctant to allow a charge to be assessed that may exceed on a proportionate basis the true cost of decommissioning .... [W]e choose :o err if at all on the downside rather than run D.8. \ the risk of over-charging current customers. Connecticut Licht & Power co., 13 FERC 161,155 at p. 6!,332 (1980), af:'g 5 FERC 163,004 at p. 65,075 (:978). Thus, the Commission has decided that it is not appropriate to protect future consumers to the greatest extent by choosing the highest possible decor:unissior.ing cost estimate. This approach makes particularly good sense in light of the fact that under the Federal i}t>wer Act utilities are free to make filings to adjust their rate& to reflect increased costs, including decommissioning qosts. ll/ [FOOTNOTE CONT!1~ED FROM ?RECEDING ?AGE] Electric Co., Docket Nos. ERB0-569 and ERB0-570 c:98:) and Xai~e Yan~ee Atomic ?ower Co., Docket No. ER82-15-000 (l9S2) where :je deco;runissioning accruals were based on cost estimates derived from the Battelle studies. If disoutes cannot be resolved bv settlement, decor.unissioning estima~es are the sub:ect of hearir.g, where the utility, Staff and ir.tervenors have the opportunity to present evidence ar.d to cross-exa~ine opposing witnesses. ill Cf. Comrnono.,,ealth Edison Co., Opinion No*:. l65, 23 FERC ~6:,2::.9 (1983)(rejecting c:aim that failure to approve co~pany esti~ates [FOO~~OT~ CON~~NUEJ ON NEXT ?AGE] J-274

Other factors have also been considered by the Comrnission in the course of establishing an appropriate decommissioning accrual rate. These include consideration of tax effects,~/ and whether the Company has adopted a funding method which provides assurance that it will be able to pay costs at the time they are incurred, takir.g into account the financial health of the Company and the assets under its control.~/ In light of this already-existing regulatory framework, it is 1). 8.' difficult to understand what purpose the NRC's proposed regulations serve or are intended to serve. It does not appear that the NRC rules would provide for consideration of interests now being overlooked by agencies. Indeed, as suggested by the foregoing, existing procedures at FERC provide for appropriate weighing and balancing of the various interests implicated by decommissioning issues. It cannot be argued that the NRC rules will lead to more reasonable resolution of decommissioning disputes. The proposed rule does not purport to establish an accurate decommissioning estimate; it [FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) for deoreciation costs for nuclear-related facilities will result in underrecovery of costs, since Company is free to adjust rates using up-to-date information, and, indeed, is obligated to update depreciation rates to assure that the service value of electric plant is recovered over its useful life). ~/ Vermont Electric Power Co. Inc., 23 FERC ~61,219 (:983). ~/ Boston Edison co., Opinion No. 156, 21 FERC ~61,327, p. 61,881 (1982); see also Maine Yankee Atomic Power Co., 20 FERC ~61,141 (1982) and discussior. by Administrative Law Judge in Middle South Energy Co., 26 FERC ~63,044, p.65,137-65,139 (1984). J-275

does not require adoption of particular decommissioning methods for which decommissioning costs should be determined. See discussion of decommissioning methods in Connecticut Light & Power Co., 13 FERC 161,155, p. 61,332. 24a/ The NRC may have been concerned that state and federal agencies might resolve decommissioning issues differently, or that different decommissioning estimates might be established for a single unit owned by a utility subject to dual regulation. However, so long as both jurisdictions provide for collection of some reasonable amount for decommissioning, the public interest in ensuring adequate funds are available at the time of decommissioning is satisfied. Further, it is not clear how the NRC intends for its regulations to fit with existing state and federal regulation of 1), i,3. \ decommissioning costs. 24b/ If, on the one hand, the NRC intends ,.__ I,.;,.

                                                                              \

that state and other federal agencies will continue to have primary responsibility for establishing decommissioning costs, then the rule is redundant or possibly mischievous. A flat rate would effectively establish a "floor" at some commissions and a I j).-z.,(...) "ceiling" at others. If the NRC intends to take over It). 'i(. 3. , C:,. \ 24a/ '!'here are at least two ways i:1 which the proposed rules do provide useful guidance, albeit indirectly. Disputes may arise as to the appropriate useful life of a nuclear unit; §50.51 suggests that the NRC expects the useful life will be at least equal to the license term. Further, disputes have arisen as to the propriety of using the Battelle studies as a base for decommissioning estimates. The Notice indicates that use of such studies is appropriate. 50 Fed. Reg. 5604. 24b/ Furthermore, the NRC may be acting in an area outside its jurisdiction insofar as the rate-setting aspects of its rule are concerned. J-276

                                   - 31  -

functions now being performed by other agencies, Public Systems believe the Rule is inadequate. In addition to the substantial modifications that would be required (discussed in Sections I and II), the NRC should recognize other complications. To avoid these, the NRC should make it very clear what functions it intends to supplant. The NRC should recognize that imposing its D.8.3.\ regulations on existing regulation may mean that requirements presently in force, such as the FERC requirement that a utility (:, ' \ regularly update decommissioning cost estimates, may become duplicative. Further, to the extent the NRC seeks to exercise control over the economic matters related to decommissioning expense, NRC action of the sort proposed here could be ex?ected to give rise to serious jurisdictional disputes, which cloud, rather than clarify, regulation of decommissioning costs. See ~ ' Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Energy Resources Commission, 4 61 u. s. 19 o < 19 a 3) . ei ~/ It is not clear what rate-setting functions the NRC intends to assume, if any. However, to the extent the NRC intrudes into the economic regulation of decommissioning costs serious jurisdictional questions may be raised. Thus, in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. the Court noted that the NRC "does not purport to exercise its authority based on economic considerations," and had recently repealed its regulations concerning the financial qualifications of utilities proposing to operate or construct nuclear plants. 461 U.S. at 207. The NRC cannot justify requiring collection from present customers on the ground that funds are needed in the event of premature decommissioning; the NRC's proposed rules recognize that a utility may provide adequate financial assurance for decommissioning by maintaining insurance. Further, the NRC's discussion of internal funding recognizes that multiple-asset utilities are likely to have sufficient assets to rreet [FOOTNOTE CON~INUED ON NEXT PAGE) J-277

Before the rules are adopted, therefore, the NRC needs to carefully consider what it intends the rules to accomplish and whether, in fact, the rules are necessary. As suggested above, 1). 8. ' the rules are not necessary and indeed, probably would result in more harm than good. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS Under the circumstances, it appears to Public Systems that the proposed rules relating to decommissioni;g costs and funding methods are not necessary and should not be adopted. Public Systems believe there are positive contributions the NRC could make to decommissioning analysis. For example, "D.!,3.1 publication of the Battelle studies provided an independent data G-. I base now being used by state and federal commissions to evaluate decommissioning claims. (Prior to publication of the Battelle studies, the FERC had denied requests for decommissioning allowances on the ground that inadequate information existed as to decommissioning costs. Carolina Power & Light Co., 4 FERC 161,107 (1978)). Similarly, the NRC could enhance the existing [FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PRECEDING PAGE] decommissioning responsibilities in the future; hence, as far as utilities are concerned, it is not clear that the collections from today's ratepayers are necessary in the interest of public safety. Moreover, questions as to allocation of costs between present and future ratepayers would seem within the ordinary jurisdiction and expertise of the FERC or appropriate state commission. J-278

regulatory process by periodical:y spo~soring other indepe~der.t analyses of deco~nissior.ing exper.se. l.§./ Uncertainty concerning the tax status of decommissioning funds is a major obstacle to development of adequate and equitable decommissioning funds. The NRC could provide a '(), s-valuable contri~ution if it worked with the other agencies, including the !RS, to provide for appropriate tax treat~ent of decommissioning funds. Such actions obviousiy do not require the NRC to issue the sort of broad rules it has proposed here. Further, shou:c t~e 1). "3. I NRC fear that some utilities would fail to seek to recover D.8.!>, l decommissioning expenses, the NRC could si~ply provide that every utility licensee shall seek recovery of costs from the appropriate state and fede::-al com:nissions which ::-eg'..2.ate its rates. Again, a broad rule is not required. Should the NRC opt to adopt rules along the lines of those proposed, it should 0 eliminate the $100 million - 2 CPI for~u:a; I D. '2.. I (a.) 0 provide for a reasonable procedure for resolving disputes requesting decor..nissioning DA.5" estimates, including participation jy interested parties; and 26/ Given thee ectric utility industry's incentives to ~ustify high decom.~issio:, r.g costs, their studies car.not be re:ied upon to provide i~part al analysis of changes ir. decommiss~or.i~g requi:-eme:1ts. J-279

0 prov:de for cor.sistent treatment of governmental licensees by allowing them to 1),3.'2.'3 certify that thelr obligations under the rule can be satisfied. Respectfully subm:tted,

                                                            . J.   *_ ~- c.*

Frances -* Francis

                                                         /
                                        ~oseph Van Eaton Attorneys for ?ubl:c Systems May 13, 1985 Law offices of:

Spiegel & McDiar~:d Suite 1100 1350 New York Avenue N.W. Washington, o.c. 20005-4798 (202) 879-4000 J-280

LEBOEUF, LAMS, LEISY 1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N. W. alO MAOISON AVCNUC WASHINOTON, DC 200~,__r:ETE.l tea MtLC STlltC:CT HCW YQlla, NT 10011 CIOII *a7* 1SOO iJSNRC aOSTOH, MA OIIOe

 ,ooo   KCAIIINS    au*l.OINO                 TC:LEX 440174
                                                                                                                   ,.. o. eoa 1so aA&.T 11e SOUTM MAIN
       '-""I. CIT1', UT . . 101                                         "85 11AY 13 P4 :26                   IIIALI.IQM, NC 17.01
                                                                                                                 ,ao   STA.TC    s,*r:n ALaANY,    f'*'f' 11107 411 *1.ouoT AYCHUC SOUTM*O"T. CT         o***o                                                                            MOLZA,.,.l:L, *ElllflUIS 6 *tt..L*

10* NOIIITM UNION AYl:frifVC ONI: CM . . . IICAOC:1110 CENTl:111 "'* 11'.o.ao* *** SAN ~flANC*SCO.CA e4tU C"AH,.01110, N . .J. 0701a May 13, 1985 Samuel J. Chilk, Esq. Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Amendments to 10 C.F.R. Parts 30, 40, SO, 51, 70, and 72, Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities

Dear Mr. Ch ilk:

By a notice published on February 11, 1985, the Commission requested public comments on a series of proposed amendments to its regulations concerning the decommissioning of various types of nuclear facilities. 50 Fed. Reg. 5600. As attorneys representing a number of utilities involved in the Commission's licensing and regulatory process, we wish to offer comments on the proposed amendments. Our comments are focused upon the financial and rate regulatory aspects of the proposed amendments: we do not address the technical bases for decommissioning requirements or the dollar amount, if any, that should be prescribed for decommissioning. Because each of our clients owns and operates one or more power reactors, our comments will be directed solely to proposed changes in 10 C.F.R. Parts 50 and 51. 1), 3. 2. I. 2 We strongly support the adoption of regulations that permit electric utilities to provide reasonable assurance of \). <g' l MAY 1 5 1985 Ackr.cu:'.cgsd by card ..** ,-.-.,,-**-:: .--:;;,, 71fi.._ J-281

Samuel J. Chilk, Esq. May 13, 1985 Page 2 adequate funding for decommissioning by the creation of an internal reserve based either upon net negative salvage included in depreciation or an internal sinking fund. Both types of internaJ reserves are currently in use and have been

• approved by state ratemaking commissions. In many cases, 1), °':2. \. 2 .

substantial reserves have already been created. To now require the adoption of a different funding method could be extremely disruptive. It would certainly require substantial retroactive accounting adjustments, and it might require retroactive financial disclosure. There is no reason to doubt the security of an internal reserve in a typical multi-asset electric utility. Such firms typically have large non-nuclear investments and sufficient annual earnings and cash flow to defray the expenses of deicommissionin~ asfthey come due. If p resent trends 1>.3.1.\.\('o) cont nue, the ratio o non-nuc 1 ear to nuc 1 ear assets will increase in future years, since no additional nuclear facilities will be constructed, while rising electrical demand will require the addition of other utility plant. The maintenance of a segregated external fund in such circumstances is simply unnecessary. The use of an internal reserve for decommissioning enhances the financial stability of an electric utility, since the funds in the reserve reduce the need for external financing to add utility plant. The use of an internal reserve is also advantageous to the customers of the utility. A utility can 't),3,2.\.l(b) earn more on an internal reserve than can be obtained through investments by an external sinking fund. Consequently, annual payments into the internal reserve, particularly in the earlier years, can be significantly lower, thus reducing the cost to the consumer. In approving the use of an internal reserve, the Commission may wish to clarify statements made at 50 Fed. Reg. 5608 concerning building up a decommissioning fund where the fund was not established at the beginning of facility life. If an internal sinking fund is used, it is acceptable, in calculating the annual funding required, to take into account D.~.G,. I the time value of money, resulting in lower funding requirements in the early years. Any requirement to catch up on funding an internal sinking fund that was not established at the beginning of facility life should recognize that the amount to be *made up* may properly take into account a lower level of payments for the first years of facility life. J-282

Samuel J. Chilk, Esq. May 13, 1985 Page 3 The Commission should recognize that there is a considerable tension between its desire to have reasonable assurance of funding for decommissioning and the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the various state ratemaking agencies to determine the appropriate method and level of financing. To the maximum extent possible, the 1),'&'.3. l Commission should avoid prescriptive requirements for decommissioning funding. The regulations as proposed afford utilities and their economic regulators some latitude. Additional requirements by the Commission do not appear to be necessary, and further intrusion on the regulatory authority of other agencies should therefore be avoided. In that regard, the proposed regulations should be changed, prior to adoption, to eliminate the reference in proposed S S0.33(k) (2) (iv) to the issuance of bonds at the end of facility life. There is no apparent reason why a bond issue should be required. The utility may well be able to meet the t),"?>.3.'3 expenses of decommissioning from internal funds, through short-term borrowing, the issuance of common or preferred stock, or by other .forms of credit. Other financing methods may be more attractive to the utility, or less expensive to the ratepayers, or both. Any suggestion that a bond issue is a regulatory requirement should be removed. At 50 Fed. Reg. 5609, Commissioners Asseltine and Bernthal have requested comments on the possible impact of insolvency on the continued availability of decommissioning funds. In response, we offer two observations. First, there is no meaningful distinction between *unsegregated* internal funding and an internal sinking fund. In the unlikely event of a utility bankruptcy, control of either type of fund would pass to the trustee. (The Commission, of course, could intervene before the bankruptcy court and seek an order requiring use of 1> (b) the fund for its inter.ded purpose.1 SerJnd, the same .3.Z. I. I conclusion may apply to an extern~l sin~ing fund. In the absence of any clear legal precedent (because there has not been a utility bankruptcy since the Great Depression and the statute has been substantially amended in the meantime), there can be no assurance that an external sinking fund would be

• bankruptcy proof*. The answer could vary depending on the precise terms of the trust for the fund and on state law governing trusts.

An external sinking fund makes sense for a single-asset nuclear utility, whose cash flow will essentially J-283

Samuel J. Chilk, Esq. May 13, 1985 Page 4 terminate at the end of facility life. For a multiple-asset company, reasonable assurance can best be provided by the financial stability of the utility, rather than D.3. ,. ", (b) overly-prescriptive funding requirements embodied in the Commission's regulations. Finally, the Commission is clearly correct in / concluding that no environmental impact review is required for th.e approval of decom~:~sioning funding plans .*. Approval of a funding plan does not authorize any physical activity or change j F. I the way a power reactor is operated. It simply has no effect on the environment. The proposed amendment to S 51.22(c) is appropriate and should be adopted. Sincerely, LeBOEUF, LAMB, LEIBY & MacRAE

                                 ~         ?I ?)Mg By
                                   ~rtner          -r J-284

THI ASSOCIATION Of' THE BAR o.- THE CITY Of' NEW YORK 42 WUT 44n< STREIT NIEW YORK 10038 COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY ANO LAW May 13, 1985

                                                                         '85 HAY 13 P2 :Qt
                                                                        ' C,:     *              ..

Office of the Secretary of the Commission ~J,J*:*,,~: i:,*j ".~ ~~-~ *.. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission :l~MiCH Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, SO, 51, 70 and 72 Decommissioning Criteri~ for Nuclear Facilities (50 Fed. Reg. 5600, February 11, 1985)

Dear Sirs:

on February 11, 1985, the Commission published for public comment proposed Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 Fed. B~ 5600). The Committee on Nuclear Technology and Law of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York wishes to take this opportunity to express its views on one aspect of the financial assurance requirements of the Commission's pro-posed decommissioning criteria. The Commission has determined, among other things, that the internal reserve method for funding decommissioning costs would generally be acceptable for electric utility licensees maintaining the on-site property damage insurance coverage required by 10 CFR S50.54(w) of the Co~mission's regulations. It is concerning this narrow issue that the Committee wishes to address its comments. In the Supplementary Information accompanying the decommissioning rulemaking, the Commission recognizes that while under normal circumstances the internal reserve funding mechanism should provide reasonable assurance of adequate funds to decommission the facility, the viability of this method is dependent upon the licensee's financial solvency (50 Fed. Reg. at 5608). Thus, the Commission observes that if the licensee encounters serious financial difficulty or becomes bankrupt, the internal reserve fund may be unavailable to pay decommissioning costs since it is likely that the licensee in these circumstances will be unable to raise funds against its decommissioning reserve. On this basis, the Commission has taken the position that internal reserve funding of decommissioning costs will be acceptable only when supplemented by further funding support, such as an insurance

                                                    * ... . # -~ - .. -
                                                                                                        'f~

J-285

Office of the Secretary of the Commission May 13, 1985 P~eT~ or surety arrangement. Although not specifically included in the proposed regulations, the Commission concludes in the Supplementary Information that for most electric utilities, the insurance required by Section 50.54(w) will be sufficient to allow use of an internal reserve. The Commission's conclusion on this score is, we assume, premised on the fact that Section 50.54(w) requires electric utility licensees to maintain a substantial i-JJ~t ,,f on-si~e property damage insurance. Indeed, on November 8, 1984 the Commission issued for comment proposed amendments to Section 50.54(w) which, among other things, would fix the required level of property damage coverage at $1.02 billion (49 F e d . ~ 44654).* With property insurance coverage of this order of magnitude, it would appear that in the event of an accident-induced premature decommissioning, the licensee would never-theless have sufficient funds to carry out its decommissioning plan for the facility. By letter dated February 5, 1985, the Committee submit-ted comments to the Commission on these proposed amendments to Section 50.54(w), In that letter (a copy of which is attached), the Committee specifically addressed the Commission's proposal to require that nuclear property insurance proceeds be first applied to payment of decontamination expenses before they are used for any other purpose. In that connection, the Committee responded to the concern expressed by the Commission that in the event of a serious accident which threatened the financial viability of the utility, property insurance proceeds might be used to pay the utility's bondholders and other creditors rather than the costs to decontaminate the facility. The Committee stated in its February 5, 1985 comment letter that the decontamination payment priority suggested by the Commission would not, in the Committee's view, provide

• The comment period for these proposed amendments expired February 6, 1985 and the rulemaking is awaiting Commission action.

J-236

Office of the Secretary of the Commission Hay 13, 1985 Page Three reasonable assurance that property insurance proceeds would be available to decontaminate the facility following a serious accident. We pointed out that were a large scale accident to occur, the utility'~ bond indenture trustee may well be prohibited by the terms of the indenture from releasing pro-perty insurance proceeds to pay for decontamination or debris removal. Instead, the trustee would hold such proceeds for the benefit of the bondholders. Moreover, if the severity of the situation were such that the utility was forced into a bankruptcy reorganization, the Committee expressed concern that the consequences under the Bankruptcy Code were far from certain if the insurance proceeds were paid directly to the utility rather than an external trust fund which presumably would be insulated from the utility's creditors. Insofar as the operation of the Bankruptcy Code is concerned, it is interesting to note that on February 19, 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to revie~ the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in In re Quanta Resources Core. 739 F.2d 912 (3rd Cir. 1984)~ In Quanta Resources, which the Committee discusses in its February 5, 1985 comment letter, the Court of Appeals had held that the Bankruptcy Code did not permit a trustee in bankruptcy to abandon a toxic waste site where abandonment would create a danger to the public health and safety in violation of a state environmental statute. The Committee does not intend to suggest by these comments that the internal reserve method of funding de-commissioning costs, when supported by other sources, does not generally provide reasonable assurance that decommissioning D. '3,3,3 funds will be available when needed. We are concerned, however, that unless the Commission modifies it's proposed

• Cert.granted sub. nom. O'Neill v. City of New York, (No. 84-805) and Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (No. 84-801) 53 USLW 3597, February 19, 1985.

J-287

Office of the Secretary of the Commission May 13, 1985 Page Four amendments to Section 50.54(w) along the lines the Committee has recommended in its February 5, 1985 letter, reliance on [). 3. '3. 3 the availability of nuclear property insurance proceeds to decommission a nuclear power plant following a severe accident may well be misplaced. The Committee appreciates this opportunity to express its views on this matter. Respectfully submitted, COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY AND LAW

                           ~~~Douglas~dson, Chair~~~~-

DEO:kag J-288

Mallinckrodt, Inc. 2703 \\AG,.ER PLACE '-~ May 10, 1985 "85 NAY 13 P2 :03 Secretary of the Commission U.S. l'tlclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW Washington, O.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Mallinckrodt, Inc. has a broad scope license issued by the NRC to manufacture radiopharmaceuticals at its Maryland Heights, Mo. plant. The proposed rule on decommissioning (50 FR 5600) would potentially effect operations and subsequent decommissioning of our facility. The following comments address the impact the proposed rulemaking would have on our radiopharmaceutical manufacturing operation. Mallinckrodt feels the effort required to decommission a radiopharmaceutical facility would be substantially less than 8.4,S-decommissioning a commercial or research reactor facility. The typical half-life of materials handled at our facility is on the order of hours or days. This makes a short tenn SAFSTOR option a very viable method. We fully support the NRC in choosing a 120 day half-life criterion for filing a funding plan. We feel the NRC has recognized the relative effort required to dec01TUTiission a non-fuel cycle material licensee. Due to the relative low cost for decommissioning our facility submission of D.'9.1 a funding plan is unnecessary. If a byproduct material licensee were required to submit a funding plan the cost of assuring that decomnissioning funds were available, would vary dramatically depending on what methods were chosen. Mallinckrodt has reviewed the various methods in the proposed rule for funding the decommissioning effort. We are strongly opposed to any funding method requiring prepayment of funas or actual funding of

                                         *':§1##1-J-289

Page 2 reserves internally when this capital could be rrore effectively utilized in business operation. We also feel that self-insurance should be reconsidered by the NRC in light of its acceptance under EPA's RCRA Act (40 CFR 264 and 265). Providing a licensee can meet the financial 1).~ .4.1, I requirement for self-insurance, this would provide an attractive compliance alternative for corporations with significant financial resources. Option #4 in your proposed funding methods (50 FR 5607) provides the most attractive mechanism to assure that funds are available at the time of decommissioning. To summarize, Mallinckrodt feels the 120 day half-life exemption is a , l). ,;., I prudent decision and will allow for safe and timely decommissioning of byproduct materials facilities. The letter of credit method of funding the deco1T111issioning effort would provide the rrost cost effective method for our operations. The NRC should maintain several different options of 1>. ~. \ funding in order to allow the licensee to choose the method best suited \), G.,'4, 1. \ to their operation. Mallinckrodt would like to thank the NRC for this opportunity to furnish comments on the proposed rulemaking for decomrnissioning. Sincerely yours,

                                          ~~-

Roy W. Brown, Manager Regulatory Co1T111ission J-290

Iowa Electric Light and Power Company May 10, 1985

                                                                                        '85 NAY 13 P2:10 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                                      l.F'F:(J lj,- ~:*,*,t .,'.

Washington, D.C. 20555 OOCKc.i'tNG ~ SEw,1,: BRANCH

Dear Secretary Chilk:

RE: Proposed Rule Regarding Decommissioning Criteria For Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (February 11, 1985) This letter sets forth Iowa Electric Light and Power Company's (Iowa Electric) comments on the Commission's proposed rule on Decom-missioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed Reg. 5600, February 11, 1985. Iowa Electric holds an NRC power reactor license for the Duane Arnold Energy Center, and, therefore, will be affected by the ~ules. Iowa Electric supports the conceot of the Commission establishing minimum financial criteria for funding the costs of decommissioning. Iowa Electric believes, however, that the best interests of the public generally would be served if the Commission qualifies the proposed rules to indicate that the $100,000,000 level is not intended to reflect the actual decommissioning costs of any nuclear facility, but rather is only intended to insure minimum financial responsibility that will not require Commission staff review. These minimum criteria could be analogized to mandatory motor vehicle liability insurance limits which are not intended to fully cover the D. 2.1 (b) costs of all possible events. The limits merely set a floor for assuring some financial responsibility. If the Commission fails to draw this distinction between actual costs and minimum levels of financial responsibility, it will make it only too easy for rate regulatory agencies to seize upon the $100,000,000 in spite of contradictory evidence. In addition, this distinction will relieve the Commission of continuous review of the $100,000,000 level to assure that costs have not risen beyond the level established by the escalators. The review will instead, fall upon the rate reaulators where there will be an inevitable stream of case by case reviews of the best estimates of the actual costs.

                                                                                                              "r    *,sas Ac\*:.o-::!or:.- *: : * -*          ..... L c;,.11,.ral Offic,.

• l'CJ /lo, .1.H
• C:Pd.,r llap,d.,. /m,:1 5:!406
• JJ9/J91l*44l1 f J-291

Page Two With this single exception, Iowa Electric applauds the proposed rules as an excellent starting point whose adoption will best serve the interest of the public generally. I~- I

                              ~(~"(2~~

Jonathan M. Rogoff Senior Attorney JMR:as J-292

ORIGINAL BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WftSHINGTON, D.C. 20555

                                                          ~~!    --~~: ~.

Decommissioning Criteria  :..'.;IHlC for Nuclear Facilities

                                                     '85 tfAY 13 AlO :47 COMMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION JANICE E. KERR J. CALVIN SIMPSON GRETCHEN DUMAS ROBERT CAGEN 5066 State Building San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 557-0470 Attorneys for the Public Utilities May 10, 1985                Commission of the State of California fl<v:- _ - " -

J-293

BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555

                              )

Decommissioning Criteria ) for Nuclear Facilities ) _______________ )

                              )

COMMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION The California Public Utilities Commission c~crUC") submits these comments on the proposed amendments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed amendments to its regulations setting forth technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed facilities. (10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72) The CPUC wishes to thank the NRC and its staff for this opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments. The CPUC has long been concerned with decommissioning. Like the NRC, the CPUC has sought means to ensure that decommissioning costs would be adequately financed. On April 6, 1983, the CPUC issued D.83-04-013, which orders California utilities to set up D. 8. I external sinking funds to finance decommissioning costs. The (:,. I proposed amendments approve of this financing method. The CPUC remains committed to the goal of assured decommissioning financing at the lowest possible cost to ratepayers. The CPUC accordingly supports tax-exempt treatment D.~ for decommissioning funds. J-294

Both the federal government and the states have legitimate interests and roles with respect to decommissioning. 1 The suggestions that the CPUC makes are designed to clarify and D. 8'. 3. \ strengthen those interests and roles, and to further the goal of ensuring a fund for safe and adequate decommissioning at the lowest possible cost to ratepayers.

1. The proposed amendments should be expressly made applicable to nuclear plants which were already retired from service when the amendments became effective. Decommissioning issues involving such plants are similar to issues pertaining to plants which will still be operational when the amendments become effective. Health, safety and financial considerations are equally important whether a nuclear plant is new or has been retired from service.

The intent of the amendments is undoubtedly for them to apply to plants already retired by the effective date of the amendments. This intent should be made explicit, so that there is no possibility of a question being raised on this point at some later time. 1 California believes that while the NRC has a legiti~ate role in setting decommissioning guidelines, the states have ultimate jurisdiction over the financial issues surroundine decommissioning. (See Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Ener Resources Conservation and Develo ment Commission et al., 1 U.S. 190 19 3 2 J-295

The CPUC makes this request because the Humboldt nuclear plant, located in Eureka California, has been out of service since 1976 and was retired permanently in 1983. The CPUC wishes to ensure that this facility, and others of its kind, are explicitly covered by the amendments.

2. The proposed amendments define nuclear facilities as "the site, buildings and contents, and equipment associated with any NRC licensed activity "(Prcposed Rules, p.5~00). This definition does not further define the meaning of "site". The CPUC believes that a definition would be useful, because "site" is a somewhat ambiguous term. A site may be interpreted to mean hundreds or thousands of acres of land surrounding the building containing the nuclear reactor, and it may also mean auxiliary buildings which have never been exposed to significant radioactivity. G.22.

A definition of site should distinguish between those areas and facilities which are subject to decommissioning rules and those which are not. The proposed admendments should make certain tnat "site" areas not covered by the rules need not be decontaminated and that they may be returned, with NRC approval, to unrestricted use. If that distinction is made clearly utility ratepayers may benefit by not spending money on unnecessary decommissioning projects and by allowing portions of nuclear sites to return to unrestricted and productive use. J-296

3. The proposed amendments show strong concern that el~ctric utilities be able to assure the NRC that adequate funds will be available to deco~mission nuclear power facilities. This goal is shared by the CPUC, which has ordered California utilities to set 1). 8. 3. I up external sinking funds to finance their decommissioning expenses. The mechanism is one of several approved by the NRC as providing reasonable financial assurance.

The proposed amendments refer to the following:

        "An electric utility may submit either a proposed decommissioning funding plan or a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in an amount at least equal to $100,000,000 (1984 dollars) adjusted annually for inflation using an inflation rate twice that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Departoent of Labor.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. "(G50.33 (k)(1)) The $100,000,000 should be carefully explained and qualified. D. z.. I. ( P) In California, decommissioning expenses for nuclear power plants may substantially exceed $100,000,000. For example, the Southern California Edison Company has estimated the cost of decommissioning SONGS I as $122 million in 1985 dollars, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company has estimated the cost of decommissioning Diablo Canyon as $167 million in 1979 dollars. These figures may increase after further investigation by the CPUC staff or others. Accordingly, it should be stressed in the amendments that the $100 million does not represent the NRC's views as to the maximum J-297

or likely cost of decommissioning a nuclear plant. The proposed amendments should also explicitly state that the $100 million is D2. I (b) not meant to bind regulatory ratemaking bodies to th~t figure as either a maximum or minimum.

4. As the preface to the proposed amendments notes,

"[t]axation policies can have a significant effect on the cost of funding alternatives" (P.5608). The CPUC requests that the proposed amendments specify a NRC policy that funds for decommissioning be subject to favorable tax treatment. This is a laudatory policy to promote. Decommissioning expenses should be made as affordable as possible to utility ratepayers who bear the capital costs of nuclear plants. It should be noted that a NRC statement supporting favorable D.s-tax treatment for decommission expenses would not mean support for a position to reduce taxes or revenue from taxes (see legislative history to Tax Reform Act of 1984, Code Sec. 408A, P.L. 98-369). The statement would only demonstrate support for tax treatment and tax law interpretation which avoids serious inequities to ratepayers. If the NRC decides not to make such a statement, the CPUC requests that it explicitly state that nothing in the proposed amendments is meant to prevent favorable tax treatment for decommissioning. The effect which the amendments will have on tax treatment given to decommissioning expenses is now unknown. The statement of intent is an important precaution to prevent the J-298

Internal Revenue Service from mistakenly concluding that specific language in the amendments, or the amendments as a whole, evidence D.5 a NRC position that decommissioning expenses should not be subject to favorable tax treatment. Respectfully sub~itted,

                                      -~~~~~~~~R.c
                                         ~              ()~~/<..(_

Gretchen Dumas I Robert Cagen 5066 State Building San francisco, CA 94102 (415) 557-3289 May 10, 1985 Attorneys for the People of the State of California and the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California J-299

f (16 f jiH

   /,...)'JG 1ifA(l"i VI.

CA II J

                                       *-Jc.,~
                                                                               ~
                                                                               ~
                                  ;e,,ze-,M';'(           CF i.:.,v1.,.,H/..:,"\)
                                 ~J-lL t;AR. "~t, ...*L4T"'.._ '1            cc..,1N\US tc.J
                                 ~-J"5rll'l!(;,ro.J               i)(   2r.;..;:;::;

Df/\R 'Cl-KETAR'(;

,*,.. WK("f1'4G (0 Yov A601..rr NCCL!:A.f< 1<_°"\CToR D!:(Ol"ll<'IIJS,o,JI.J(

!~1/1'.)tlif /<.f'/:,VL.ATlo~f o.J 'b(0-..1M1H(...a,.i<, L,.;rt/Crl NR(. <5 5up;;,S£0 To ~E ~-*f(..)f'1,.,;c,. C".)c,

         --(~ (_llRl<l.:,..1LY ('Rcf'o5U)               ,;vdf        HAS  s., C~L-E'           OF    fee RI  005 I<:.. I P1'cGLt:N\          ~  :    (  r\    f\Jv ~ 1 , &              ~ L,,,,.i-.-5      ol\J     k.>Hf\-. 11     A""
 ,r-cC::l:</\~c
                             't>t:(0.-.1"\d~,., ..... -.J (.,    *"~i?THuD . (2       'eoto      f,.Jv't~o ... Me,,.,,/\1-
                                                                                                                              ,   Js.3.,.,
  ,....,f,\('('    5f"AT'E:Me-l'\'      15 KOG.VI~(!)~              (1)  !Ht       f 1/;;sZW°['Lto ...      t',i::0..1,;t<<C6
                                                                                                                                   /r=-. \

T*  !:! lc:.c:~E:t<.IJ~I)-* yOK t>U.CM,-\l)S lo.; *NG?is5 l",j,.'\r)'G.VA-re. (4) TH ~c(:;<.<.(:,ATl:'1) ~fl.,...M.lf\/o..,, .. (, ,-,)JAJ~/J.e.Fpf:'~"f ~ /-C). I . I. I J(;-kw~6~At>(~ ,o E~-.~~-lc+'(~I, ...,IE'H""e'OF _ :so (?~c...,,~.() Dar'~ J,h':.. e.--n OF ,,.c l'.CACr~I'*)

                                                                                                                                  /'D.'J.z.z..1 cnrf~G~{t~*~4.~ . .-.,z ~a,,~ "'"'G AS 8tfAiic4,[lf ~ lf..L J-300

COMMONV/EALTH of VIRGIN-IA._*:

                                                                    ;.. ;NilC Dcpar/1111'11/ of Emergent)' Sen*iccs                                     310 i.,.,- llood
                                                                                  ....-. v...., 23225-6<t91
                                                          '85 NAY 14 AlO :35                 1-  1323* 2199 April 30, 1985
                                                         .F ~ > . . :: l    ', .

GOCi'.[ i 1Nli .i Str:

• BRA NC~

Ms. Sue Weissberg Office of State Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Ms. Weissberg:

Representatives of Commonwealth of Virginia State agencies with responsibilities for decommissior.ing of nuclear power C:,. I plants have reviewed NRC 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, SO, 51, 70, and 72, Proposed Rule, Decommissioning Criteria for ~uclear Facilities, as requested and have no comments at this time. Sincerely,

                                  ---/ --~tf ~ i f
                            ~        ~,y'C. Allard St'<ite Liaison Officer
                                     /

HGA/ j gl J-301

r..

~IVEASITY OF MISSOURI Research Park Columt>,a. M,ssour, 65211 TelephOne (314) 882-421 t

_* ~. r ~ . --

                                                               .., .lN:i C

1ay 9, 1985 "85 MAY 14 A10 :57 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

                                                  .,r= . -           .:1.. . .   .

DOCK: iri*,li .i. SEF'.'i'.: BRANCH Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

My remarks are addressed to Decommissioning C'riteria for tluclear Facilities, Federal Register Volume 50, No. 28, pages 5600-5625. Dr. A. Francis DiMeglio, Chairman, TRTR, expressed the views of Test, Research and Training Reactors (TRTR), about this subject in his letter to you of

     ~ay 7, 1985. I support these views.

I would like to emphasize that the University of :1issouri Research Re-actor (MURR) and TRTR's are not power reactors and should not be considered as such. Any rules proposed by the Commission should give special thought and consideration to this set of non-power reactors. The NRC has the charter to protect the health and safety of the citizens Gr, 3. l of the nation, I would like to state again that r believe that it provides greater protection of the health and safety of the citizens of the nation to have research reactors operating and effective, rather than to have them shut-down or made ineffective. Additional rules that add more non-productive work _and non-productive costs are robbing the research reactors of their resources to be effective research centers. I urge the Commission to consider this veiw in their deliberations. Sincer;,~) {C'- , :t)?( Robert M. Brugger Director aJJ ,".,"J

                                                                                                                     ,r;c/4-
     /ctb COLUMBIA    KANSAS CITY            ROLLA                ST. LOUIS                    1 111*,,
                                                                                                           '"' {

Ac kr:*.*. *'***., *,. *ar.1 ........* ~ .~ an eQual opportunity institution i.185 .:J.,,f

                                                                                                                       ********r--*~

J-302

56305 Spruce Road Otis, Orefon, 9'736~ s~..-etary, Nuclear ~efU].atory Co111111ission Washinfton, D.C. 20555 Attention- Docketing and Service Branch Res Decoalli.ssionlng Reactors Dear Sirs

i

• lF.C I am concerned over the proposed rtle !or deco!Dlliss1oning reactors, especially the use or unsegregated decommlssionlngf'unds. The utili'tis M,W>41$i M)l!lt1e to I t:>.-:S.'"2.,1, I (c1.)

take financial responsibility for- the protection ot the present and t'uture gene::-aUons. Unless decommissioning funds are segrerated..~?lere is no assurance j u. 1. z.. ?.. , that they will be available at the time for deconmissi~,: ,!s~f1lll1 1n the case or premature shutdown. Current tax deductions shoula~*besfil1ie~i!d only for segregated decommissioning t'unds. I°' 5" The NRC,

• proposal to substitute an envittinmental assessment !or an EIS as a decommissioning prarequsite is unacceptable as the process has significant e!fecton the environment and must be sub,i ect to public comment. Decommissioning II f", I costs should be included in the EIS prepared at the time. of construction license E=": :Z.

as well as when a utility submits its plllll to the r::>.c. Reaction wastes must be care!'ully reclassified to exclude long-lite products I ~. I. I. I from low-level radioactive land fills. Although the NRC suggests a 30-50 year limit for temporary- storage prior to dismantlement, this should be mandated of I a.4.3 the utilities. Chemical decontamination wastes should be excluded from low level waste burial until research studies prove them to be absolutely safe. I~- I, 2..1 Utility liability for decolll!ll.issioning costs should be strengthened through , 'D. "& . z. I legislation, including repeal of th'3 Price-Anderson liability limit. The N~C should explicitly prohibit entombment as a decommissioning mathod in keeping with the proposed rule requiring release of the property to unrestricted j s.5 use. " !l'inally, the present maximum permissable level of radiation exposure to nuclear worke.rs is much too high. A worker .registry should be established to monitor I ""* lc.1. '3 10 Tadiation exposures for All reactor workers. The commission should propose a ma.ximu::n radiation level of 10 millirams full body dose at plants released for unrestricted use. I e.,.,

                                                         ,_._ *--** '-.,<-*.*' c,. * **.

f..,, .,,.-.; . . *** ~~

                                                                                                     . ... ..~.:

J-303

c"', u THE CONSERVATION COUNCIL OF NORTH CAROLINA 307 Cranvill* Road, Chap*I Hill, N.C. 2751' (919) 9'2,7935 or 942-1010 (2~ houn) Hay i8!i 1Ml514 Alt :03 Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c. 20555 Attention: Docketing & Service Branch Re: Comments on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities Notice at 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (February 11 1 1985)

Dear Sirs:

The Conservation Council of North Carolina has intervened in the licensing processes of nuclear power plants in North Carolina, currently the Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant proposed by Carolina Power & Light. We are concerned that the decommissioning of this plant, and all nuclear power plants, has not been given adequate attention and careful consideration. We G.. I commend the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in beginning to regulate the decommissioning process, but urge the Commission to consider the following in promulgating_the final rule:

1. The cost estimate of $100 million ('84 dollars) appears to be based on old data and without the cost experience we have gained through decon-taminating parts of TMI, the Dresden-I plant, and other plants. Pacific Gas 'D. \, I, l

    & Electric recently estimated that decoomissioning of the small Humboldt reactor would cost $600 million (in inflated dollars) by 2015. The cost estimates made recently by the various utilities have been extremely varied.

2. The cost estimate of $100 million will need revision periodically as experience is gained in decommissioning existing plants, such as the Shippingport unit, and in further decontamination efforts. Until different 1>. 2.. I ( o..)

decommissioning methods are used in practice, especially with full size reactors (in the 800 MW-plus range), a final figure for decommissioning cannot be firmly established. J. Safe decommissioning with allowable worker exposure levels kept as low as reasonably achievable will greatly add to the labor costs. Various researchers and government agencies have recommended that worker exposure 1), I. l. l levels be decr*eased, especially as data from long-term studies comes in. (See for example the work done on residents around the Nevada test sites and the so-called **atomic veterans"). i.,,,..___ C **,, ~

                                                                              . ,.:           I , )   '.

j__,.,f_j.* ....-:.:'* :u; ., ... * * * * * * * * * * * * */JfA-I~ J-304

4. Decommissioning funds must be kept separate from the utility's general operating funds in order to be protected from depletion. In times of financial adversity, the utility with support from a sympathetic public utility commission might "borrow" from the decommissioning funds in order to 1). 3. '2.1. \ (a..)

pay current expenses. It is also increasingly likely that an utility may become bankrupt and decommissiong funds must as a result be protected from creditors.

5. The proposed rule appears not to have distinguished between the numerous alternatives for decommissioning. Different methods involve B. 3.1.,

different costs, both financial and risk to workers.

6. The final rule should include specific standards for decommis-sioning, such as requirements to minimize exposure to workers and the I C. ,. '3 jc..1.S public, strict reporting of all phases to the NRC, and additions to Part 50 j C. to Appendix B for Quality Assurance/Quality Control throughout the process. It is not unreasonable to require a decommissioning license, such as the construction permit and operating license, which specifically addresses the C. \ 3. \

utility's proposed plan for decommissioning and requiring NRC approval in a formal manner.

7. We question the rationale for exempting any reactor from the final decommisiong rule. An exemption could be formall'y"granted if a utility could prove undue hardship or extreme circumstances; this request would allow the Commission more control of the entire decommissioning process.

8. The 1981 Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement which the Commission appears to rely on in developing the proposed rule is of course a draft EIS and has never been finalized. The information contained in that document is at a minimum five years out of date and as a result could not G, 5° have considered new information, especially experiential data about decon-taminating nuclear power plants. It also does not consider the cumulative impacts from decommissioning all of the currently operating power plants and the safe permanent storage of all high and low'-level radioactive waste.

Thank you for your consideration. Please inform us of any further action or study you make on this important issue. Respectfully submitted,

                                     ~u~

General Counsel Conservation Council of NC J-305

r:t-:*,u~.£~\~LE t*= R-3tJ,40, (2J e..h./ CSa t=R. s,oo) (JJ) AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER Service Corporation I I Rivusid~ Plaza P.O. Box J66JJ (614) 22J-JOOO Columbus, Ohio 4J216-66iJbo.[; ~ ~ aoel*T W MAIIIMO .... A JOSI_." OOWO USHRC. THOMAS S ASM,0110

• llillfOIII VICI NIIIOI .. T AMO 01 .... **1. Cova.Sh Writ~r*s Dirut Dial No . llflllO* *tHo,11 ..IYI

. JOMN " eu11Totrc IOWMOJ PAOY VICI .....tOf .. , Ste**, ...... A'\110 DIPuT* GI ........ C0u1ri1Sh 91...c,a*ATICOUMHL

 .IONN II Ool.OIIINZO ,111 VICI ,,** ,aoc .. , &11110 4SIOC**TI      c., ......... cov ... Sh 614/223-1622'85           HAY 14 P12 :22     iitA"VIN I 111 INI..
                                                                                                                             *IVI..

• ou**v MA"IMA " ICMIIIM£"-

IIICMMO M McllllOllfltOW

 *******,., vie* .-,s,01: .. , co ... ,* ...... , ... ,.l  ..,,.,..* ,                                                       a&1'1 COl.f'Wlf1. *
                                                                                                                             &INNITN I Mc00flll0UGH
..IONN a IMINIIIIIOC*                                                                                                         . . 6'. IITATI &TTOllllirillY WILLIAM C NAIIV(Y Jl""IV fl W'WIT(                                                                                                             flliACHII. 8 l(IA"NIY
 *1111,a. .. , c..c .. r**L cov.,.S<l                                                                                         ANTHON,. l MIU.I:*

KATHllll'l"N L ,-,IUMAN WILLIAM OAVIS Ch.l. V *IVIN O MACW.

 *** cnufrrilllL                                                                                                              JU:,IIIIY O CIIIOSS
                                                                                                                              ***o,ot110 111 IIGN(T OANIIL W O l,tVA.1'11                                                                                                         ATTO .. fllfl'l'I
 .a.11,,, ..... , *** cov .. s1, Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re:             Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities:

50 Fed. Reg. 5600, February 11, 1985 Gentlemen: This letter responds to your request for comments on proposed amendments to your regulations that would set forth technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed facilities. These comments are submitted on behalf of Indiana*& Michigan Electric Company (IMECo), which owns and operates the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. The Cook Plant has two nuclear units with a combined rating of 2,130 megawatts. IMECo shares the Commission's concern about assuring that the decomrnissloning will be accomplished in a safe and 0.8.1 timely manner and that adequate licensee funds will be available G.I for this purpose. The following comments are made. in the interest of strengthening and/or clarifying the proposed amendments:

l. Decommissioning Funds

a. We have no basis for disagreeing with the $100 million except that it would be helpful to add 1),2. I (b) detail supporting the reasonableness of this as a generic estimate of actual decommissioning costs.

                                                                                                                           *******tZ-J-306

Secretary of the Commission May 13, 1985 Page 2. In lieu of generic standards, IMECo has presented testimony before certain regulatory commissions as to its preferred method of decommissing and estimated cost. The Commission's rule should clearly state that if a licensee site-specific cost estimate for decommissioning is available, it should be used in lieu of the $100 million figure. We also recommend clarifying whether the $100 million is per unit or per plant (which may have '()2.1 (b) more than one unit.) If per unit, then some consideration should be given to requiring less that $100 million per unit at a plant having more than one unit on the assumption that the units will be decommissioned in the same time* frame, resulting in a more efficient, less costly pro-gram.

b. We are concerned with what we perceive to be a problem in timing. In order to obtain NRC approval of a funding plan, it is assumed that a utility must select the decommissioning method.

Otherwise, it will not be possible to estimate , 8. '3. \. \ costs for the plan. Yet, the Commission's guidance on critical issues such as timing and E.1. \ acceptable levels of residual radioactivity for release of property for unrestricted use will not be available until some later, unspecified date. Accordingly, the two-year period during which a j D,L{. I.\ plan is to be prepared may not be long enough. We urge the Commission to issue as soon as possible all of the technical criteria by which a IDz.\ ( c.) decommissioning funding plan will be judged.

2. Funding Methods We think that of the four methods proposed, the external sinking fund and internal reserve will receive the most attention. We favor the external fund because of the assurance of its continued availability for the purpose of decommissioning. The internal reserve can be highly risky 'DI 3, '2. I. 2 from an assurance viewpoint. It should be limited to those cases where the liability is small in relation to the company, the company has a strong financial position, and the relevant state commission has a demonstrated history of preserving the financial strength of all regulated companies within its jurisdiction.

3. Existing Licenses

a. The section on Existing Licenses at page 5608 highlights the need, as noted in our earlier o-z.1(c.)

comment, for the Commission to identify very soon J-307

Secretary of the Commission May 13, 1985 Page 3. the criteria for approving funding plans. Includ-l\)Z. I (c..) ed in this section is an apparent criterion which says the period of time for building to the acceptable funding level is 5 years or one-third of the remaining license period, whichever is greater. This criterion, however, is not stated in the proposed amendment. Is it a condition of approval of a plan?

b. The following questions should be answered:

l. Does the "catch-up" requirement apply to D. Ll.G,. \

electric utilities? The text (see line 19, third column, page 5608) implies that the presence of the Section 50. 54 (w) insurance for electric utilities eliminates the need for the catch-up.

2. What is an "adequate decommissioning fund"?

The projected costs of decommissioning or the level that would have been attained if funds had been accumulated from the beginning of facility life? We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments. Respectfully submitted, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company By c--,\

                                 ;?'
                                                - I 1 John B. Shinnock
                                                               ===-------

1 Assistan~*General Counsel

                                  ,~j..ca'n Electric Power Service Corporation JBS/lb J-308

May 16, 1985

'*: *E~;-

                                                                         - :;ji,;rlC TO RECEIPIENTS Or PR-30,40,50, et al   (50 FR 5600) Deconmissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities                                    "85 MAY 16 Pl :25 Please disregard Comment No. 74. It is a duplicate of ConmeoFtrNo.         ___ _

51. No. 74 wi 11 not be used again. CIJCl\~ -,,,., _., ':):"' ;

3R.lNC~ Docketing and Service Branch Office of the Secretary of the Conmission J-309

                          ~'~~ ';'={;,..-;;;4d Sil e:/aJ (J]J     1 CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR SNEC SAFETY c/o James H. Elder Wall St Ext Saxton, Pa 16678 May 6, 1985 OOti-:ETEC' Secretaru of the Commission        'JS~RC US Nuclear Regulatoru Commission Washington, DC 20555 "85 HAY14 P3:21 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch Re: Decommissioning Criteria~lfpt. °ij~l_ ~r Facilities 50 Fed. Reg. 5600, Februar-~ *i_k,.N~5 Concerned Citizens for SNEC Safety is an organization which has been involved in representing lbcal residents as regards the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation's reactor during its dismantlement phase. Therefore we have a veru personal stake in the NRC's regulations in this area. We have researched the problems involved in dismantlement carefully so that we can help local residents protect themselves from possible harm.

After studying the proposed rule for decommissioning we have concluded that it contains several serious flaws. It is surprising that a rule which has been worked on since 1977 is so lacking in specifics on the topic it addresses. The rule ~ust be drastically modified to become an adequate framework for the decommissioning process. We will address this problem s,~ using the real experience of what has occurred at Saxton, ComrnC-4\.t-where the plant was partially decommissioned in 1973 and then put into storage for eventual dismantlement. Le..i\t'r No. 51 The decision to change the present requirement for a full Environmental Impact Statement when a final decommissioning plan is developed and to substitute a review is not acceptable. The change in knowledge and techniques during the life of a reactor is considerable and there are certain to be vast differences between the original planning and the actual site-specific situation after 30 or ~O years. This is clearly the case at Saxton onlu 12 uears after its initial decommissioning plan was developed. In addition, the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement is the only guarantee that the site-specific knowledge of local government officials and citizens will be made a part of the plan which is carried out. It is important that the views of those most affected bu decommieeioning dacisicns, the local residents and workers, be made a part of the final plans. MAY : 5 i985

                                             ~c'.*.no*,,,..._~:,... _; h'7' -~~~'.                      ~.,I
                                                                                   ********************pa_

J-310

2 CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR SNEC SAFETY The prime consideration in decommissioning decisions must ba public health and safety since that is the legal mandate of the NRC. The proposed rule appears to give only lip service to this requirement. It is mentioned, but no111here are methods or performance goals for achieving safe decommissioning written into the rule. Instead, this topic is left for later action by the NRC, 111hen it should be the real substance of this rula. Ona of the most important decisions in ~acommissioning is whether to use OECON (immediate dismantlement), SAFSTOR (temporary storage 111ith later dismantlement) or ENTOMB (permanent on-site $toraga). Yet there is no criteria given in the rule for ho111 to make the choice among these options. Even the information supplied with the rule makes a clear case far how to evaluate these options, but the rule itself gives no guidance. S-&.e. ENTOMB is not a realistic alternative and the rule should state that. Thara will obviously ba special reasons at C.of"i\W"n~\- particular sites to choose the DECON option because of reasons such as poor original siting of a reactor, but in ganaral the Lc...t\-<f"' evidence suggests that partial decommissioning followed by a f'Jo, SI SO-year storage period CSAFSTOR) will be the best option in terms of the public health and safety. Radiation exposure to workers and the surrounding area will be lower and, equally as important, there will be a significant reduction in the radioactive wastes produced. While SAFSTOR might slightly increase the total cost of decommissioning, the public benefits Justify that cost. The rule should require that the choice of method be based' on a detailed assessment of the effects on public health and safety so that a rational decision can be made. There should be clear criteria available for NRC review of that decision. Again the need for preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement as part of a final site-specific plan is shown to be Justified. Another extremely important part of the decommissioning process is not addressed by the rule at all. Proper requirements for quality assurance and quality control during decommissioning are essential, including adequate monitoring by the NRC itself, This need is very apparent at Saxton. The original work in 1973 111as supposed to have clear.ed up several auxiliary buildings for unrestricted use. The AEC did not inspect for 13 months while 111ork progressed, When an inspection finally occurred it 111as discovered that the buildings remained contaminated. Since the owner (General Public Utilities) had already dispersed its workers, those J-311

3 CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR SNEC SAFETY buildings remain contaminated todau, Strict requirements for qualitu assurance must be a part of the rule. We cannot understand whu the rule specificallU excludes from its requirements reactors which have alreadu been permanentlu shut down. Saxton falls into this category and we think we should receive as much protection as anyone else who lives near a reactor. The experience at Saxton also casts severe doubt on the adequacy of the proposed rule for estimating the. costs of decommissioning. In 1973 GPU estimated that the total decommissioning cost, excluding continued maintenance for SAFSTOR of the plant, would be S575,000. Evan after the initial decontamination work had bean done, in 1983 GPU's minimum estimate of the cost for the remaining work was s12.~s~.ooo or more than 21 times the original total estimate. Obviously not all of this increase was due to inflation. Saxton is only a 35 thermal megawatt reactor and GPU's cost estimates assume the reactor vessel can be removed in one S<e piece. To think that Sl00,000,000 is a maximum figure for decommissioning plants 300 to ~00 times the size of Saxton is ~m~~ unrealistic. L~~cr The proposed rule should be changed to require a No, ~I decommissioning fund equal to the best estimate possible for the cost cf decommissioning a particular site, and that estimate should be revised every five years so that an appropriate fund can be built up. Otherwise when the time comes to actually decommission a plant only a fraction of the funds required may be available. The experience of GPU in approaching bankruptcy, with its main assets being inoperable nuclear plants, indicates why the set-aside funding for future decommissioning must be in external sinking funds which are legally separate from a utility's other assets. GPU has not been able to get a blank check from Pennsylvania ratepayers even in its emergency situation and therefore its cleanup at TMI-2 has been delayed. If the funds it had set aside for future decommissioning were part of its normal assets there would be no money available today for work at Saxton. We appreciate the fact that the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission requires external reserves for decommissioning funds and the NRC should require the same method, along with insurance ta provide funding in case of the earlu retirement cf a plant such as happened at TMI-2. The* definition given for the term "decommissioning" is not complete in the proposed rule, Since the objective cf J-312

                   'i      CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR SNEC SAFETY decommissioning is to return a site to the same possibilities of use that the site possessed before a reactor was built on it, the definition should include ianguage stating that the      Se~

limit for residual radioactivitu remaining should be the amount of natural background radiation at the site before CaW""""""'\- construction of the plant. This is the only definition which L,th(' can be acceptable by local residents whose children will be using the site in the future. ~o. ~\ To summarize, the proposed rule is not complete since it does not provide specific criteria for making decisions about decommissioning and it leaves out several important topics. The rule should be redrafted and again submitted for public comment before it is accepted by the NRC.

                                           ;:.}erel: 1 //,;/°/
                                          ~ ,A,-..-  ff_,::_/~-
                                          ?;ames H. Elder Chairman J-313

The Light company H1111s1rn1 1.i~luing & 1'111\l"r P.O. Box l'iflll 111111,11111. Tc:xa, 7711111 171:11 '.!:!X- 11'.!I I May 13, 198~ ST-HL-AE-1252 "85 HAY 15 Pl2 :01 File No.: 63.15 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Proposed Rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities Houston Lighting and Power Company is pleased to submit the following comments on the NRC's proposed rule, "Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities", which was published in the Federal Register on Monday, February 11, 1985. We have reviewed and endorse the comments on the proposed rule wMch were submitted by the Atomic Industrial Forum's (AIF) Subcommittee on Decommissioning. We especially endorse the AIF's comments relative I "D.2.. ,(o..) to the inflation rate to be used to update decommissioning cost estimates; the removal of the funding aspects of decoITTTiissioning from 11>-~.~ license conditions; and the use of a specific dollar amount of SIOO million in the regulation as an appropriate estimate of plant decommissioning costs. I V, 1.. \(o..) We believe that an annual adjustment of the decommissioning cost estimate by twice the Consumer Price Index to account for inflation is I ~:2.. I (a..) not equitable in view of the current economic climate. An annual inflation rate equal to the Consumer Price Index would be appropriate. Jo. Z. I (b) Removing the funding aspects of decommissioning from the conditions of operating licenses in IOCFR50.54 will eliminate tht possibility of litigating the decommissioning cost estimate in operating license hearings and remove uncertainties associated with the operating license in the event that unique requirements on the funding method were mandated by state public utility commissions. The proposed rule under new 10CFR50.33(k)(l) requires either a site specific decommissioning plan or a certification that financial assur- 1)'2...\ (4) ance for decorrmissioning be provided in an amount at least equal to SlOO r.: . . : , *;as W2/NRC3/d A._"kl'I"O'Nl*,u

                                                                 *-....1. * ., '~..,
                                                                                              ..1 * *       * * * * ..-. * ,,, ,*.r:.-.*'jiJ--

J-314

Houston Lighting & Power Company ST-HL-AE-1252 File No.: G3.15 Page 2 million (1984 dollars). This optional generic cost approach should be removed from the final rule. The $100 million estimate of decofllllission-ing costs is based on a nonexistant power plant. It does not take into account such things as size, design, location, or future decofllllissioning technology changes. We believe that few, if any, licensees would use ( ) this generic approach in lieu of developing a plant specific plan with 'DZ,\ Cl. associated costs. The danger in using a specific cost number in the final rule is that state public utility co1m1issions will use it as a "rule of thumb" by which all plants will be measured. Variances from this amount would have to be explained and documented. The explanation will be extremely difficult since the base case is a nonexistant power plant. As a near term operating license applicant, Houston lighting and Power Company is concerned with a potential inconsistency relative to the implementation requirements of the proposed rule. As we understand the proposed rule, each holder of an operating license obtained prior to the expiration of the two-year period after the effective date of the final rule has until the end of that two-year period to submit a deco1m1issioning plan for the NRC's approval (proposed 10CFR50.54(cc)- (92)). Each holder of an operating license issued after that two-year period would be required to provide financial assurance, apparently D <I I z. immediately (proposed 10CFR50.54(cc)(l)). * *

• We are concerned about the provisions of the rule relating to pending applications for operating licenses. Proposed 10CFR50.33(k)(l) provides that each application for an operating license must contain information providing reasonable assurance that funds will be available to decorrmission the facility. An applicant may submit either a proposed plant-specific decorrmissioning funding plan or a "certification" that financial assurance for decorrmissioning will be provided.

Unlike proposed 10CFR50.54(cc)(l) and (2), proposed 10CFR50.33(k)- (l) contains no provision for delayed effectiveness. Consequently unless the proposed rule is modified, applications for operating licen-ses still pending when the rule becomes effective will have to be amended. More important, the potential for the introduction of new contentions - and therefore for delay - in operating license hearings would be substantial. Sincerely yours,

                                          .-) ' / 1' i :, f C l. .-< l.J. '

M. R. Wis nburg Manager, Nuclear Li c:~'}i ng MRW/yd w2/NRC3/d J-315

Houston Lighting & Power Company ST-HL-AE-1252 File No.: G3.15 Page 3 cc: J. H. Goldberg J. G. Dewease J. T. Westermeier W. D. Kovach STP RMS W2/NRC3/d J-316

                                                       ".           .. *        ..* \' _ 2A Al. s~ eh,J i;,,<*r ,:-*.     ~-
                                                                                 - -.;,,u/4+U1
                                                                              ' I *
                                                                            --*.          - ~
                                                          . (_So Fe 5rs,oo) ~

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS & CO. (INC.). BIOMEDICAL PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT

                                                                                                  ;J:<.
                                                                                                    ~j~t\~

May 8, 1985

                                                                                           '85 NAY 15 A11 :58 Secretary of the Commission USNRC Washington, DC          20555 Attention:       Docketing and Service Branch DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES Proposed Rule published in the Federal Register/Vo. 50 #28/

Monday, February 11, 1985, Pages 5600-5625. On behalf of the Biomedical Products Department, E. I. duPont de Nemours and Company, we are pleased to submit the following comments on the above referred subject. Sincerely, L. R. Smith Senior Radiological Consultant Safety & External Affairs D~pt. LRS/kes Encl. NEN PRODUCTS 331 Treble Cove Road, No. Billerica, MA 01862 Telephone 617-667-9531 Telex 94-0996 T. :~:: .. ftl-J-317

COMMENT ON PROPOSED RULE ON DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES We recognize the need for major users of unsealed sources of radioactivity to have the financial capability" of decommis-sioning facilities. l 'D. ! , I It is not clear in the proposed regulations whether financial assurance requirements apply to each license, each 'D (, licensee or each facility. The unit requiring demonstration ' ,'2. of financial assurance should be clarified. Unnecessary duplication can be avoided by specifying that the licensee be the responsible unit. The finalization of decommissioning plans and cost estimates depend upon access to waste disposal facilities and stable waste disposal costs. The availability and cost of disposal is uncertain after January 1986. Furthermore, there are currently no acceptable disposal options available for several kinds of waste held by licensees. It is clear that the planning requirements of the G. LI proposed decommissioning rule cannot be implemented until these disposal issues have been resolved. To prevent the uncertainty of waste disposal costs from being used to challenge the decommissioning process, we recommend that the USNRC specifically states in these regulations that the cost and means of waste disp_osal be excluded from decommissioning plans and demonstration of financial assurance. . The proposed rule requires the maintenance of a separate set of records for decommissioning purposes. These records would C.7. I duplicate those already required by 10 CFR 20 and other regulations. We recommend that this proposed duplication be removed. In addition to the above comments we also endorse comments submitted to the USNRC by the Atomic Industrial Forum Committee on Radionuclides and Radiopharmaceuticals. J-318

MAY 1 3 1985 SERIAL: NLS-8.5-16.5 Mr. Samuel J, Chilk, Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20.5.5.5

                                                                                                  '85      HAY 1s A1 l      :sa Attention:     Docketing and Service Branch Room 1121, 1717 H Sreet,NW                                                         LFt <~ *, .:

Washington, DC 20.5.55 ooc-*-*

                                                                                                     .* ~.,;.i.;. *-   ** ~-
                                                                                                                   & *s,**:

BRANCH~",,,'

Subject:

Proposed Rule Regarding Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 FR 5600, February 11, 1985)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Carolina Power&. Light Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule, Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilitie3, .50 FR 5600, February 11, 1985. We have followed the developments on this issue since 1978 (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 48 FR 10370) and are active members of the Utility Decommissioning Group. We fully endorse the comments submitted by the Utility Decommissioning Group. We believe that they present the industry's view. In our judgement, the rule should not require financial assurance for electric utilities. The rate and financial review by state utility commissions and the value of assets held by 1), ~. I utilities provide reasonable assurance of adequate decommissioning funding. We also consider that the Commission should not require the $100 million certification. State utility commissions may use this figure to establish decommissioning funding D.2.1(0..) ceilings in rate cases in spite of the fact that actual costs may be larger. Thus, the certification may inhibit the ability to recover the actual cost of decommissioning. If you have any questions with regard to our position, please contact Mr. Pedro Salas at (919) 836-8015. Yours very truly,

                                                                       ~a::--   Manager Nuclear Licensing Section PS/pgp (1488PSA)
                       ,. *. ~a_.e~~e ... 1.,t- S~*e~'

• P '.::: S:..., * :: * * :. ; ""

J-319

P~Cr*.!SED ili.::.E i. r{ -,3 OLfJ, Qi a. fa_) (_~Fl5(j,oa) r/E) BEDFORD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE c/o Christi Kutz Star Rt~ Box 111 Everett, Pa 15537 May 9, 1985 Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch "BS HAY 15 All :57 Re: Decommissioning Ct"itet"ia for Nuclear facilities Ji,*_ _ so Fed. Reg. 5600, Februat"y 11, 1985 r:o,:;t* -*,t; ~-~(,, The Bedford County Environmental Committee has studied3RA:~r1-1.. the proposed rule and finds it inadequate to fulfill its / I stated purpose. Basically the rule is Just too vague in 1..:t, many areas and does not pt"ovide specific criteria by which decisions about decommissioning can be made. first, it is unt"ealistic not to require a full Envit"onmental Impact Statement as part of the final d~commissioning plan for facilities. During the 30 to ~O year time between the original EIS and the closing of a facility there at"e certain to be significant changes in F. I knowledge and methods of work. In addition, the site situation itself is bound to be very different. Without a full EIS the public will not be able to add its site-specific knowledge to the plan which is carried out. Second, the very important decision of whether to use DECON, SAFSTOR, ct" ENTOMB as the method of decommissioning is left up in the air. There at"e no criteria given in the l3. 5, I, I rule for how to make the choice among these options. The infot"mation supplied with the t"ule makes a clear case for how to make the evaluation, but the rule itself gives no guidance. ENTOMB is net a realistic altet"native and the t"ule should make that clear. In general the evidence suggests that pat"tial decommissioning followed by a 50-yeat" storage pet"iod CSAFSTOR) will be the best option in terms of public health and safety. Radiation exposut"e to wct"kers and the sut"rounding at"ea will be lowet" and, equally important, B. Li. 2.. thet"e will be a significant t"eduction in the t"adioactive wastes produced. Of cout"se thet"e may be site-specific reasons to choose OECON in some cases where that option will better promote public or worker safety. The rule should require that the choice of method be based on a P.:> * '?,

• I. \

detailed assessment of the effects on public health and safety so that a rational decision can be made, There C.. I,~

                                                                         ~:AY ! :; i~85 Ackn*.,..*.,:,~ * *-,..! ~ ** .* ..! .......... ... "jJ:.,

J-320

BEDFORD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE 2 should be clear criteria available for NRC review of that decision. Again, preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement as part of a final site-specific plan is greatly needed. Third, nowhere are methods or performance goals for achieving safe decommissioning written into the rule. Instead, this topic is left for later action bu the NRC, when it should be the real content of this rule, The -E'. I. I public health and safety should be the prime consideration in decisions about decommissioning--that is the NRC's legal mission, yet this rule lacks any specifics on this issue. Fourth, en important part of the decommissioning process is not addressed by the rule at all, Proper requirements for quality assurance end quality control during decommissioning are essential, including adequate monitoring by the NRC itself, fifth, there is no good reason for- the rule I C. (o specifically to exclude reactors which have been permanently shut down. and we think we deserve Bedford County has such a reactor as much protection as anyone else.

                                                              / c.9 Sixth, the proposed rule should require a                , 'D.'Z. I(  a.)

decommissioning fund equal to the best estimate possible for the cost of decommissioning a particular site, end that estimate should be revised every five years so that an appropriate fund can be built up. Otherwise when the time 1:>.~.3 comes to actually decommission a plant only a fraction of the funds required mau be available. It is inappropriate for the NRC to set an upper limit of Sl00,000,000 when specific plants may well require higher funding. The rule's invitation to utilities to request lower funding D*2. I (a..) levels based on site;..specific needs must be balanced bu a requirement that needs greater than 5100,000,000 also be funded. Seventh, set-aside funding for future decommissioning must be in external sinking funds which are legally separate from a utility's other assets. GPU's precarious l). ~. 2.. I, I (a.) financial situation is a case in point. If the funds it had set aside for future decommissioning ware part of its regular assets there would be no money available today. The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's approach requires external reserves for decommissioning funds and the NRC should require the same method, along with D.3.2.2, 1 insurance to provide funding in case of the early J-321

BEDFORD COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITTEE retirement of a plant such as happened at TMI-2. f 1). 3, '2.. z. I finallu, the definition given for the term "decommissioning" is not sufficient in the proposed rule. The objective of decommissioning is to return a site to the a.,. 3 same possibilities of use tnat the site possessed before a facilitu was built on it. The definition should include language stating that the limit for residual radioactivity remaining should be the amount of natural background radiation at the site before construction of the facility. This is the only definition which is acceptable to *

c. I. I residents whose children will be using the site in the future.

In summary, the proposed rule is incomplete since it does not provide specific criteria for making decisions about decommissioning and it leaves out several important topics. It does not provide adequate protection for public (:,. \ health and safety in terms of complete planning or funding for decommissioning. The rule should be redrafted and again submitted for public comment before it is accepted by the NRC. J-322

page -1

Dear Commission,

Most of the following comments refer to #50 Fed. Reg. Feb. 11, 10S5. The N.R.C. has funct1oned and helped maintain a standard for the industry without which I would feel less safe and worse than I feel now. The tine has come to retire some of our older nuclear ~lants and it would be extremely foolhearty to relax rulings and regulations on ~-' decommissioning our nuclear neighbors. Left to their own self-regulation utility companies could and would not manage the great task of decommissioning hot plants. They must have strict rules forcing them to do so. + Strict rules are needed for worker exposure which will increase 1000 fold when the highly radioactive power plants are taken apart. Ic.,.8., + Strict rules are needed to insure proper packageing and correct buriel of the high level waste. jc.,.,'3 + Strict rules are needed to insure proper methods of cutting up and removing *~he nuclear plant components. Ic..,.\, + And of course strict rules are needed to insure adequate funds to cover the costs of decommissioning. The proposed guideline estimates I D. f. \ a cost of t100 million to decon an average nuclear plant. This is based en a stedy in 1978 by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory. It se~~s ;:L;hly unrealistic a figure. D. \. \. \ In th:: Ju:1r: 19e5 Science digest an article appeared on page 54, t t is on '!'hree ::tle Island and the estimate for the cleanup ar.c! the decon for Unit 2 is a billion dollars. Even at that price: am sure we will not see the Unit 2 facility cut up and safely buried. The only way to insure adequate funds is Prepayment by the ut i 1i ty, D. '3,i. ,. \ This should be a separate account and an adequate one, so if the utility goes bankrupt the decon can still safely occur. I feel ,'D.3.l..l,l(a..) _stron;ly *:hat the goverrunent should share in these costs as it is an: has teen the goverrunent that has led the utilities down ~!~c ID. 8.'2.. 2. nuclear path. Please do not assume that the utilities will follow basic safety criteria when earring out the decommissioning. Instead make atrong rules spelling out all essential safety practices and* the ways the utility will meet these requirements. J-323

page 2 I have lived 10 years within the 10 mile zone of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant in Buchanan, New York. I have regreted my choice of my home since I became aware of the Nuclear Industry and its workings in 1974. The Nuclear Industry has had its day and the many nuclear plants that are old will be closing down. At the end of the cycle the plants are more dangerous then at any time in their lives, havir.g C.. I, 3 absorbed radioactivity for years on end. They are much more dangerous then most citizens can imagine. It is your profound duty to insure the safest possible rules to erase this industry from our planet and our lives. Si~;* D~le S a l t z m ~ Dale Saltzman

                                   )091 Hict:.ory St.

Yorktown Heights,N.Y. 10598 J-324

JC.:~-;- P::J~.!-?. SAPL 0 oee,ocrn HULE PR-&1 so.k./ Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ( ~ r=e 5(su!?o ) 5 Market St.. Portsmouth. N.H. 0380i (603J 431-soa9 Secretary of the Commission '85 HAY 15 All :J2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Do=keting and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

I am writing to make comment on the proposed rule entitled "Deco:nrnissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities" at 50 Federal ~~ster 5600, February 11, 1985. Unfortunately this proposed rulemaking escaped the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's attention until very re=ently and therefore this comment has not been prepQred to address every point which ought to be addressed, but rather will focus on a few poir.ts of major i~portance. SAPL's commentary will be confined to the issues raised by ~he decommissioning of power reactors only, though SAPL realizes that this rule is intended to affect all nuclear facilities' decommissioning. Decommissioning is a subject matter which should have been addr~ss~d, and for which standards and criteria should have been set, before the first power reactor was ever licensed in this country. The landscape is now dotted with sites that will pose signifi=ant hazards for public health and safety if decommissioning of a full \). S'. ' scale pr,wP,r reactor should t:.:rr. out to be a .failing proposi.tio~. We ar"e faced with the ineluc~able conse~u2n=e that we have to do the C:r. \ best that is humanly achievable in preventing the sites of aban-doned reactors from harming the public. This is a process that will requira extraordinary care and very large amounts of money. The instant rulemaking is insufficiently drafted to ensure that either appropriate care will be taken or sufficient funds available to do the job of decommissioning. DEFINITION The very first task that needs to be addressed by the Commission is the task of defining what a dccomr.-.issioned site is, e:. '2. and that means cefinin~ t~e level to which residual radioactivi~ J-325

                                       ~~    be red~~ed in order to release property for unrestricted use.

The Com.~ission is fooling itself in trying to draft a meaningful decommissioning rule without facing this very difficult* problem head-on. Costs cannot be accurately estimated or specific enough criteria set until the Commission determines precisely what it means by a deco:nrnissioned site. It is not in the public E. '2. interest to leave the matter of the definition of a deco:nmissioned site to the discretion of the utilities. This rulemaking should not proceed until this most important matter of definition has been squarely addressed, whether that be in a separate rulemaking action amending 10 CFR Part 20, as referred to at 50 ~ a l Register 5600 column 3, or as part of this rulemaking. ( It would probably make the most sense and be most clear if the commission were to establish a new regulatory section governing c... I. "3. \ decommissioning of power plants and deal with all matters related to decommissioning in one comprehensive treatment.; FUNDING The issue of ensuring that adequate funding for decommission-ing is available is an exceedingly important one. In New Hampshire, where the state's largest public utility barely escaped bankruptcy in 1984, envisioning the possibility of a utility reorganizing under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code at the point w~en the plant stops generating re~enue is not very difficult. It is not clear whether a bankruptcy court would find that deco:n-missioninq should be funded. Particularly if no immediate danger were posed to the public health and safety, the court might find in the favor of the creditors that funding should not be provided, P. 3 .2.1. t(a.) since preservation of the assets of the creditors is the bankruptcy court's primary concern. In vie~ of this tremendous uncertainty, any decom.~issionin~ funding requirements ought to provide a heage against this sort of ~ventuality. Internal unsegregated funds should not even be held out by the NrtC as an optior., as ~t 50 Federal Regis~~ 5607. It is too too poes:.::,;1e that. sc,:,,c:..:~ing. cn,1ld happen tc* divcr .... thc,.sc:: func!.s. tv other purposes, especially in the case of a financlally troubled utility. As you may know, SAPL has taken the position consistently that financially troubled utilities should not be issued operating licenses. If the Co:nrnissior. ware to act in accord with that suggested policy, some of the risk might be obviated. However, in principle, SAPL believes it contrary to the public interest to

allow any funding mechanism which does not absolutelx !:.~~ that adequate funding will be available at the time when needed. Only no risk funding mechanisms should be allowed.

One acceptable mechanism would be the prepayment of decom-missioning costs with the funds to be held in a segregated account 1), 3. '2..'2. 2 that is overseen by some governmental entity in addition to the J-326

utility. Anoth~r acceptable mechanism would appear to be an external sinking fund, but only if that is coupled with premature D. "3. '2, 'Z., \ shutdown insurance and again overseen by some governmental entity in addition to the utility. On the issue of level of funding, the proposed rule requires utilities to set aside a deco.nmissioning fund of at least $100 million unless the utility submits a facility-specific cost estimate submitted as part of a "decommissioning funding plan". The $100 million estimate is do;.ibtless going to be too low, and t,;. allow a utility to come up with a rationale for putting aside even less is irresponsible. Public Service of New Hampshire presented a cost estimate of $170 million in testimony before the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission in Docket No. DF 84-200 for total decommissioning costs in 1984 dollars *. PSNH has had a long t), I. I. I and distinguished history of grossly underestimating costs related to the Seabr.ook project. Paul Chernick, a witness for the consumer l). 2.l(Cl..) Advocate, put forth in the above-referenced case an estimate of $311 million and Dr. Richard Rosen, a witness for the campaign for Ratepayers Rights, estimated the costs at $300 million. The true costs of decommissioning the Seabrook plant will almost certainly be above $170 million and, given the fact that Dr. Rosen's past cost estimates for Seabrook have been understated, may well exceed those estimates at or around $300 million. Again, as stated above, SAPL believes that until the Commission arrives at a detailed definition of decommissioning, all cost estimates are going to be unreliable. It is important that at regular intervals the utility adjust the decommissioning cost estimates over the life of the facility and not wait until 5 years prior to the projected end of operation 'D,4.3 to update its estimate. SAPL would suggest that a reexamination of the cost estimates be required at least once every five years over the life of the facility. This proposed rule discusses three categories of deco.nmission-ing alternatives; DECON, SAFSTOR or ENTOXB. For power reactors, which is again all SAPL is addressing in this coltUl\ent, the ENTOMB option should clearly be forbidden since it is perfectly clear that all the contaminants within a retired reactor cannot be expected to decay to levels that would make unrestricted use permissible within a period of around 100 years. Where it is B.5 eminently predictable that ENTOMB will not serve to protect the public health and safety adequately, it ought to be expressly forbidden in the rule. Removal of the reactor internals alone would not suffice to remove all the long-lived isotopes contam-inating the reactor structure. It even seems likely that neutron bombardment might affect the reinforcing steel within the

                                     ]-327

containment dome itself. The very long-lived isotopes nickel-59 and niobium-94 have already been identified as problems in the reactor internals and it seems not unreasonable to expect that these isotopes would be found in other parts of the reactor structure. Therefore, the chosen method of deco;nmissioning must safely deal with isotopes that will last hundreds of thousands of years. Ultimately, DECON is the method that must be employed on all reactors. In this rulemaking, it is aptly noted that: "The -use of DECON assumes the availability of capacity to handle waste requiring disposal." SAPL remains not sanguine about the prospects for availability of capacity since the technology for high level waste disposal is as yet untried in the U.S. and the suitability of the sites under scrutiny is as yet unproven. '!*he Commission ought to address these uncertainties. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW REQUIREMENTS SAPL finds the Commission's stated opinion that there is no need for preparation of environmental impact statements in connection with issuance of license amendments or orders authorizing decommissioning frankly appalling. Only the most cursory general treatment has been accorded the subject of deco:nmissioning in the environmental reports and environmental impact statements developed in connection with the licensing of major nuclear facilities. SAPL believes that the Co:nmission's opinion runs directly counter to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The deco:nmissioning of a reactor in order to return land to unrestricted use is certainly a federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment and therefore subject to NEPA requirements. An environmental assess-ment alone is not enough. This rulemaking leaves ve~i unclear what quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) re*;Julations W.Juld be in effect during decommi~sioning. SAPL believes that the process of deco!Tl'llissioning c..~ should be carried out under the strictest of QA/QC requirements in order to ensure public protection. Further, the proposed rule gives no guidance or direction with respect to W.Jrker exposure. SAPL has a great deal of concern about the long-term impacts on the human gene pool of genetic anomalies induced by exposure of C.. I. 8. ' segments of the population to ionizing radiation. SAPL takes the position that a great deal of attention ought to be devoted to dtvelopment of worker protection standards for the purpose of minimizing exposure. J-J28

The proposed rule set forth at 50 Federal Ra~ister 5600, February 11, 1985, is not ready to be pro~ulgated until deco~- missioning is fully defined, especially as regards residual levels of radioactivity. The funding, the methods, the environ-mental impacts, quality assurance and worker exposure issues are not addressed in this proposed rule in such a manner as to ensure le;.z. G,. \ that the p~blic interest will be protected. Sincarely, I"\ ~

                                              *.....p,. . *-.. .-----

l. J. .._.. ,.. ).J.-.

                                                                         *'          \

Jane Doughty Field Director J-329

COMMENTS ON DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 50, p.5600 David S. Pate 506 E. Bellefonte Ave. c:;uc-;=* JS1-1iic'. Alexandria, VA 22301

                                                   '85 NAY t 5 AJO :48 GENERAL REMARKS liff:(;r o, s= t.1"'.t:. _

OOCKETNG i S[Rv:ci Obviously, the proposed rules for the decommissior?BA~'t>f nuclear facilities will again have to be extended until such time as the NRC gathers ample scientific data on the decommissioning options. These proposed regulations should "assure that decommissioning of all licensed facilities will be accomplished in a safe and timely manner". The rules as proposed would neither provide for safe or timely decommissioning. I have never seen any federal agency propose rules in such an obviously inept and irresponsible fashion. After reading through the proposed rules in the Federal Register, I can assure you that I certainly do not feel that my health and public safety are being served by the haphazard fashion in which the NRC has seen fit to deal with an issue of such far reaching economic and public safety impacts. The rules as proposed are unworkable, short-sighted and undesireable from any perspective imagineable. To begin with, I find it incredible that the NRC has issued these proposed rules in light of a clearly defined, economic and technologically sound decommissioning strategy. Specifically, under the three proposed decommissioning strategies there simply is not a REALISTIC provision for funding the decommissioning in a consistently safe manner. True to form, the nuclear industry and D. I.'.\ the NRC underestimates what the actual costs will be for b.~.3 decommissioning power reactors, nonpower reactors and other nuclear facilities. In terms of environmental protection, the proposed rules are a sham, overtly violating the National Environmental Policy Act. Secondly, surely the downtrend in limits of acceptable radiological impacts implicated in the proposed rules should be subject to a thorough dialogue before these self-serving rules are I0.1.1. I to be taken seriously by the public at large. The ambiguous and nefarious nature of the decommissioning options presented in the proposed rules appear to be much more positive than the input of scientific and "real world" experience would dictate. The superficiality of the proposed rules verges on insult and I find J-330

it difficult to take them seriously when considering the long range implications of these rules. I<:,., Thirdly, setting a hundred year cooling-off period for reactors (Why 100 years?), based on some criteria that "about 100 years *** is considered a reasonable time period for reliance on institutional control", is full proof that the inmates have B. !t,4 taken control of the asylum. Considering the recent wave of financial downturns for the electric utility industry, including bankruptcies, I find it a large pill to swallow indeed that any nuclear facility operator can be accepted carte blanche for any period let alone one hundred years. By the way, what about reactors shut down prior to promulgation of these proposed rules? What exactly does, "plans should be submitted in a timely way for Ic. 'l review and approval prior to the initiation of any major decommissioning activity to avoid delay", mean? /c..-z.3. It goes without questioning that the proposed option of the internal reserve provision which someone had the gall to include in this highly suspect document should be eliminated in the proposed rules as totally unacceptable: If we are to seriously examine the decommissioning issue, the funding level must be I D. 1.2.1. I (a.) reexamined. To think that the $100 million level is adequate /0.1.1.1 illustrates the absurdity of these proposed rules ( especially funding plan!). These proposed rules illustrate that the NRC is again sleeping with the nuclear industry. Shame, shame, shame! I (:,. ' Finally, I find it utterly astounding that these rules have even been dignified in the Register as they lack any substantive reference to decommissioning guidelines for any of the included nuclear facilities. In light of the downward trend in acceptable 'D. \. \. \ levels of radiation exposure, surely someone in Silver Spring has to be aware that lowered levels will certainly add geometrically to the actual costs of any plant being decommissioned. To close my comments on this charade, it is certainly obvious to me that the proposed timeframe for these "hollow" rules to take effect must be delayed. In carrying out this agency's mandate to protect the health and public safety, decommissioning rules must not be made until such time as the technical merits of the various decommissioning alternatives are ascertained so that

                                                                       ~. \

these rules don't lead to an appreciable waste of public moneys and serve as a roadblock to the economic development of the United States. The present uncertainties in the nuclear industry will be greatly enlarged with the promulgation of confused and indecisive regulations for the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. J-331

                                                                                                                                  ., .."._ r      f'f'JIH':C ~

PR- 1r1"1 r,. c;-,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                ~
                                                                                                                                    ~-.Jr'0'\""D I. ~.c:      :.:*. LE
                                                                                                                                                       ,.              ~~A        ~ rJ .....L I Q.../

LAKELAND (So F,e, :S.~o) @ UDUBON SOCIETY, INC. ~ May 10, 1985 ~ Secretary of the Commission

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "85 NAT 15 A10 :46 ~

Washington D. c. Attn: Docketing & Services Branch 20555

                                                                                                                                                                                                               ~

Ref: NRC Proposed Decol!1lllissioning Rule

                                         # 50 Fed. Reg. 5600, February 11, 1985
                                                                                                                                                                                                               ~

Dear Sirs:

The subject of decommissionir,g of nuclear reactors is of

                                                                                                                                                                                                               ~~

major importance to all citizens because of safety problems during the process and of costs involved. It is the citizen who is exposed to the risks and it is the citizens who ulti- ~ mately pay the cost. Not only are engineerisg oroblems in- ~ l volved in the process but social implications --dangers of ' - exoosure to radioactivity to workers -- dangers to local ~ residents -- increase in transl)Ortation of radioactive wastes - and future land use for facility areas. All these require the formation of an affective decommissioning policy. n U I find that the Pro?()sed Decommissioning Rule is inade-quate and unrealistic. There is little assurance that necessary I ~ C. 1,8. I fundinp; will be available, little concern for the exoosure of workers, nor is it shown that the reactor site will be restored to "safe* use. In u.1.3n The Rule allows nuclear power plants to choose among()) U decommissioning methods: 1) Dismantlement ~

2) Safe Storage ( for }0-100 years) 6~ I J) Entombment (encasement in concrete) '

• First, to allow the utility to choose. From ~

past practices, this usually means "the cheapest method.* i Dismantlement offers high exoosure to radioactiv-ity to both workers and to the area. This method assumes 6 " 1.~

                                         "a place to "!)Ut it," and the decision for a site of a                                                                                                          .,.

permanent repository has not been made. However, it is the best of the three. Safe Storage will *;:;e expensive. A t*tili ty could B "I LI very well go bankrupt during the allotted years. I ' ' Entombment i s ~ an adequate solution and shouldjg 5 not be included as a choice. ' HlaC::=)Cl*Otc::<=-:.c=:xtc"----'C=::::>i~.c::::::JC==on.c:::::=:,cc::=,c:.c:::::=:,cic::=:xtc.c:::::=:,c=:::::>no..c::=wHI..C::=)Catc::=:)4i.c::::::JCIIC=::x1o~==.HI...C::=)CHllitc::=:)4HIIClll=:::>4~~ .......l.. A<::k:.::-*, ...~ ... * - .... , "*. ~as MIS. BELEN IIU.UGl!t 111 S. WASIII'HGTOII L~ 11.UOIJI. WlS. "l"e I ELKHORN, WISCONSIN ~~-12,' .... ., ... -;/J1l-11111 J-332

The regulatory Rule should 1nclude snec1f1c criteria by wh1ch a ut111ty's decision is reviewed ar.d studied. The Guide 13. 3. I to be published at a later date should be .1n ~ Rule -- other- C. I, 3 wise it is not binding. In fact, no guidelines are offered at all in the prooosed Rule. Furthermore, standards are needed for jc.1.s.1 worker safety during decommissioning. The Rule does not mention quality assurance or guali~ control. This is a serious over-sight for any worker's welfare. Utilities should have baste I C, (p safety criteria to follow during this specific process -- not merely their usual safety procedures. I c. 1. 3 In addition, there should be accurate and snecific classi-fications and identifications in the radioactive waste disposal. ( ~ as in the definition of low level waste ***** Manthing that is not high level waste.") If the classifications are not speci-fically *spelled out* much of the waste could fall into the low H.1.L\ level repositories for which they are not pronerly constructed. This could result in a potential danger to the groundwater and to the drinking water of the site area. The term "intermediate-level wastes* was vague and should be defined more clearly. Finally, the Payment Methods:

1) Prepayment (Funds held separate)

In my opinion, this external *sinking fund* is the best method **** probably the only D. 3. 2. z.. I answer.

2) Regular payments into a fund *** ,1tility control and held separate

               )) Internal funding a) Utility would invest (held senarate) b) To be mixed with other assets (NOT separate)

This option SHOULD NOT be in the Rule. Offers no bankru?tcy protection. D. ~. 2.1.1 (ct) No guarantee that assets will be worth anything when the time comes for decommissioning. (WPPS, for example) Tremendous bookkeeping for the utility ** that is, if the *fundS- are to show up in the *ledger.* In conclusion, the cost of decommissioning, I think, is completely underestimated. The Battelle figures are outdated. What 1s needed is llfil! rea11stic ~ for these estimates. (And not like the

• too cheap to mete~ myth.) Construction of nuclear DI \ I power plants has gone up 1000 fold and 1f the COST of WASTE and ' *
• DEX:OMMISSIONING are added, the figure would be far higher. The cost figure should be a cold, hard, realistic figure -- not a sham. In order that the utilities, the government, and the citizen can plan rationally. Sufficient funding 1s of major importance for we should not ~t this cost entirely upon the future generations. Unless these rules are set up strictly and t) g I realistically for the utilities, the government will have to * '

J-333

assume the entire cost of decommissioning, in my oninion. j P. f. I I hope the Final Rules for Decommissioning will be stronger, much more specific, and far more adequate than this PROPOSED RULE. I D, 8. \ 6,1 I thank you for the opportunity to express my comments in writing. Sin~ere.ly yours;~

                             ---v0 -/      c' .~ ,, ./f:.-,1-'-<~y-<'~

Helen Kluge, Cons~tion Chair Lakeland Audubon Society J-334

                                                .!:'>+:,a*
                                                   . ,.__ ...*"***DR
                                                 ,v,,-*,r, P">':D
                                                               =.* *. !    ~3tJ4a, 53 ~       Lr
                                                                       --*-- ::::J..
                   .                                                     5~FeS~fo)                 ~

Utility Ratecutters of KentucKy ~ NaY 11, 1c.*95

                                                                                 '85 MY 15 A10 :45 t.FFIC: c,:- ~. l..l't. - .

OOCKETikC & st?v:r.. BRANCH ' Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Re*ulatory_Commission Washin9ton, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketin9 and Service Branch Ref: Decommissionin9 Gentlemen: We have been fri9htened to lParn that rules now under consideration allow two very unsettlin9 circumstances to haPPen. They are as follows:

1) Continuin9 to allow entombment as a viable alternative.

This out of si9ht, out of mind ar9ument wi 11 come back to 1 s.s haunt 9enerations to come.

> Collectin* money in rates for Plants no lon9er OPerable.

Needless to say, it is the stockholders' duty. ' D, '-'. ~. 3 Thank You for the OPPortunitY to discuss these matters. Sincerely, cc: Con9ressman Ron Mazzoli Senator Mitch McConnell P.O. Box 132 Loui.-ill<. Kentucky 40201 ~ - J-335

COALITION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 6267 DELMAR BLVD. INTERSTATE BLOG. ST. LOUIS, MO 611 JO ()141727-0600 I JOO LOCUST ST. KANSAS CITY. M064106 (816) 471-1450 liFFlt:~ l.'* i~Cnc. :,. .. , OOCKE TING l SE~VII I BRANCH Secretary of the Commission -..

• d r-.:.,r.i.st~ PR . _f__ 0 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission ?R()ii~Ul RlJI.E j .3{) 4D, ~ ~

Washington, D.C. 20555 (So F~-Sf.#c,o) ~

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Missouri Coalition for the Environment supports the co11111ents to be submitted in May, 1985, by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service regarding the proposed rule entitled "Deco11111issioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities" (50 Fed. Reg. 5600, February 11 1 1985). _;.f1cerely, 1 /)

                                                           . 'lfkt.0.-J f-. 1- - 'j_fy'-'-

Thomas R. Crane Executive Director r..c,,~c-.**' * ;, v! "v ~ -*of I, 1,:,.:: . ~ :~0:)IA J-336

1t ~

              ~t:ik 11f Hhuih* 31~1:i:t1't :1111't Department of Health CANNON BUILDING D.1vis Street Providence, R.I. 02908 10 May 1985                            '85 NAY 15 AlO :43 Secretary of the Conmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:       Ibcketing and Service Branch

Reference:

Proposed rule, "Deconmissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities"

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We are writing to offer a brief conment on what we perceive to be a likely consequence of the referenced proposed rule on medical licensees in Agreement States. As we tmderstand the proposed rule, medical licensees would be largely tmaffected because they generally do not utilize tmSealed by-product material of half-life greater than 120 days. Therefore, it appears that the Conmission may believe that the proposed rule would not affect most medical licensees. However, all medical licensees who are authorized for Group I isotopes by Agreement State licenses are thereby authorized to use Cobalt-57, an accelerator-produced isotope of 270 day half-life. To our knowledge, this is the only isotope of half-life greater than 120 days comnonly used in nuclear medicine, and, therefore, the only isotope which would bring most medical licensees in Agreement States tmder the deconmissioning rule.

      ~bst, if not all, Agreement States regulate accelerator-produced radioisotopes                                                    D.~.1 and by-product material tmder the same set of regulations. In this state, and in other states whose regulations are modeled after the Suggested State Regula-tions for the Control of Radiation, the regulations contain a table identical to Appendix C of Part 20. This table does not list accelerator-produced isotopes, and these isotope quantities are established by the rule at the end of the table.

This is, the table quantity for all accelerator-produced isotopes is 0.1 micro-curie. The point we wish to bring to your attention relates to the compatibility requirement associated with the proposed rule. Assuming that the rule is adopted by the Agreement States in its present form, it follows that medical licensees in Agreement States will have to demonstrate financial assurance for decorrmissioning if they are authorized to possess more than 0.1 millicurie of Cobalt-57. (The usual possession limit for Group I isotopes is: "as needed".) Even if the Agreement States were to revise their tables to specify a "realistic" quantity for Cobalt-57, it would seem likely that the qualifying possession limit (for financial assurance) would: only be increased to somewhere in the range of 1 to 10 millicuries. In either case, we think that most medical HEALTH-A WAY OF LIFE Telecommuniutions Device for th<' Deaf (TOOi: 277-2506 MAY :. ;, i3a5 01,_

                                                                 .*"'<n'Jl'*'<w"l-"'-1 *:v '.:a:°!1 .* ,,, *., , ,*, .-,*,.,,;-.:.-.r J-337

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Secretary of the Corrmission 10 May 1985 Page 2 licensees would hasten to apply for license amenchnents to reduce their possession limit for Cobalt-57 in order to avoid falling under the deconmissioning rule. If this "solution" is undertaken by the majority of nuclear medical licensees, a severe papez,.,ork crisis may fall upon Agreement State radiation control pro-grams. (Presl.Ullably, all licensees, both Agreement State and NRC, will review their possession limits to detennine whether they can be reduced for the 1),(o, I purpose of either decreasing or eliminating the need for financial assurance.) In swrmary, it would appear prudent to consider the ramifications described and, in addition, the adverse and possibly unwarranted hardship which would be imposed upon the majority of nuclear medicine facilities, medical research licensees who use accelerator produced isotopes, and other borderline" cases. Very truly yours, CCMvlJNITY HEALTI--1 SERVICES Jar.ies E. Hickey, Chief Division of Occupational Health and Radiation Control pc: D. Nussbaumer, OSP J. Ward, California C. Hardin, CRCPD cag J-338

Minnesota Public Inter* t RHurch Foundation 2412 Unlveralty Avenue S.E. Mlnneapolla, Mlnneeot* 55414 Phone (612) 378-7558 I'&::\ lAJC!<tt ,irJ:,:oER pR J_ 1 ~ 81 PROPOSED RULE r' K-~-40, SZ, C."l!I,../ May g, *i~EJ (_~~ Radioactive Waste ProjeoJ IMY 1s mo:z9 Secretary of the Commissi~,ir.r: o=:- -. ,. *

• u.s. Nuclear Regulatory c~~on~.~-',Li.

Washingt6n, D.C. 20555 8RANCH Re: comments on Proposed Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70, and 72

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Radioactive Waste Project would like to take this opportunity to comment on the NRC proposed rules for decommissioning nuclear facilities. The Project is part of the Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) which represents more than 50,000 members on nine campuses throughout the state. The Radioactive Waste Project is funded through MPIRG's foundation, MPIRF, as a research and education project on nuclear waste transportation and disposal. The Project has provided technical assistance to state legislators on decommissioning, as well as worked with national organizations on this issue, MPIRG has argued against the use of an internal fund to finance decommissioning in hearings before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Thus, over the years, the Project and MPrRG have developed considerable expertise in this area. At the outset, the Commission is to be commended for 1).8, 1 taking an important first step in regulating the decommissioning process, by establishing funding schemes to ensure the availability of adequate financing for decommissioning when plants cease to

                                                                                                      &. \

operate and are no longer generating revenue. However, the proposed rules do not go far enough in addressing the myriad of problems associated with decommissioning nuclear facilities. First, the provision in the proposed rules allowing licensees to fund decommissioning from unsegregated utility accounts and assets (an internal fund) must be eliminated. It is imperative that D.i:z.l.\(Q..) decommissioning funds not be within the sole control and purview of the licensed utility f~two reasons. One, there is no guarantee the licensee will be financially solvent at the time of decommissioning; and two, decommissioning--both cost and method--raise numerous .public policy issues which must be addressed in public forums. Whoever ID3 2 1 z I controls the financing of decommissioning will also control the extent ' ' *' of public input and debate *

         .In addittoa,the proposed rule appears to underestimate the cost of decommissioning nuclear power plants: the information on                                          l).\.l,\

which the proposed rule is based must be updated and made more conservative to ensure the adequacy of funds. Moreover, the Commission I should require *each utility to update its decommissioning cost estimates 0, &.l.~ every five years. MAY * ** Ac1<,i.:;~*,'~s~c ;,y .:.i*d I

                                                                                     ~ o 1985  £Jr/
                                                                              .,,,*,,,,,.,,,.,.,r..__

J-339

page 2 Radioactive Waste Project conunents on Proposed Decommissioning Rule May 9, 1985 The proposed rule gives little substantive guidance on how decommissioning should be conducted. Little or no guidance C 1 '3 is given on how decommissioning methods should be chosen and carried ' ' out in order to minimize the significant radiation risk to workers and the general public. Moreover, the rule does not establish any special requirements for the decommissioning of plants that have experienced a radiological accident where the work is most C.1.,7. \ dangerous and costly. In summary, the proposed rule has several major shortcomings:

1. It permits the use of unreliable funding methods, and underestimates the cost of decommissioning thus jl)* '3.'Z.. I. I l Cl.)

reflecting inadequate consideration of the costs and public health risks;

                                                                      /o.,.,.z.

2. It creates an inadequate and confusing regulatory scheme; I 6.'

3. It violates the National Environmental Policy Act by relying on the 1981 Draft Generic Environmental F, \

Impact Statement on decommissioning which contains . outdated information and does not give adequate consideration of various decommissioning alternatives;

4. It fails to establish standards for conducting decommissioning, especially in the area of minimizing worker exposure and radiation monitoring;

5. It fails to address the specifics of waste disposal, including a delay in the shipment of high level waste to a permanent federal repository; the availability of H.I.\.\

              "low level" and "intermediate* waste disposal sites; and the proper disposal of chemical wastes generated during decommissioning.

1~.1."2.\ The Project supports and endorses the comments on the proposed decommissioning rule submitted by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, and urges the Commission to address the issues and adopt the recommendations proposed by NIRS. Specifics Areas of Concern Regarding Proposed Decommissioning Rule Give

1. The Rule Does Not/Assiirance of Adequate Funding because the costs and risks of decomnu.ssioning have been underestimated.

NRC research has shown that operation and mainten~~practices at reactors could lead to big differences in decommissioning costs depending on the volume of waste and the amount of radioactivity which would entail higher disposal costs. Decommissioning experience shows that the cost of decommissionin.,9 a large reactor with a long l). l * \. ) operating life will in fact be much".'!nan the $100 million figure calculated in the proposed rule. The cost of decommissioning should be made more conservative because acceptable dose rate levels may decrease in the future. In addition, the cost of decommissioning will increase as allowable worker exposure levels are decreased. An addendum to NUREG/CR-0130 (Battelle, 1979) estimated that labor costs woul1 increase by J-340

page 3 Radioactive Waste Project Comments on Proposed Decommissioning Rule May 9, 1985 $2.5 million due to the need to hire additional staff to keep individual worker doses within current allowable limits. ID. \. \. I The rule should require reassessment of costs and readjustment of decommissioning fund at five-year intervals throughout the plant's operating life. It is incredibly poor planning to wait until the D.4.3 eve of decommissioning to require a licensee to reassess those costs and then make up the difference,as provided by the proposed rule.

2. Unreliable Deconunissioning Funding Methods Permitted.

The establishment of an internal reserve should be removed from the proposed rules because it does not provide sufficient assurance that decommissioning funds will be available when the plant is ready for decommissioning. Financial4~olvency or bankruptcy "D."3.'2.1,\(~) would place unsegregated deconunissioning funds at serious risk. Allowing a utility to pledge the assets of one plant to decommission another simply shifts the obligation between the sane pool of debtors without providing any security that decommissioning funds will in fact be available. Although the discussion preceding the rule states that the utility using the internal reserve must have backup insurance, this requirement does not appear in the text of the proposed rule, thus the commission's legal authority to enforce this requirement is questionable. Both the internal reserve and the external sinking fund D,3,,.z., suffer from the weakness of assuming that a licensee will be able to continue making payments into the fund over the life of the plant. If a plant shuts down or stops generating revenues, the licensee may be unable to make those deposits. Any funding scheme which relies on deposits made over time should be backed by insurance for premature shutdown.

3. Decommissioning Regulations Are Unclear and Inadequate.

The way the proposed rule is structured is confusing and unclear. Rather than amending six different parts, it would be I G.. ' better if the Corranission created a separate set of regulations governing decommissioning. A separate part on decommissioning would achieve a number of positive benefits. First, those being regulated, C. \. '3, \ state agencies, and the public would be able to find the appropriate regulations with relative ease. Second, the Conunission could develop a comprehensive scheme for decommissioning including, sufficient guidance to licensees for chosing methods of decommissioning, as well as the development of specific safty reg~ions. Moreover, under the proposed rule the licensing scheme is unclear.

• The result is that the role for meaningful citizen c..,."3 participation in decommissioning decisions is confusing and could result in unfairly limiting public participation in important policy decisions.

Moreover, the proposed rule contains little or no specific guidance for decorranissioning. As recorranended in NUREG/CR-0130; G, 10. \ (Battelle, 1979), the NRC should prepare an index of the existing regualJ;ions applicable to decommissioning. These regUisJl,tions J-341

page 4 Radioactive Waste Project Comments on Proposed Decommissioning Rule May 9, 1985 should be incorporated by reference into a separate set of rules that specifically govern decommissioning. I G.. 10., The rule should provide specific guidance for decommission-ing at three stages of decommissioning: 1) at the planning stage I when a utility weighs the costs and benefits of cheesing a particular C.t.'3 decommissioning method: 2) during any period of "saf~ storage" that is allowed by the NRC1 3) during the actual decommissioning operations. These regulations should provide a framework of safety goals which can be met through a variety of means--thQs- providing flexibility .i to deal with specific problems _which may be unique to a facility. C *I, ., Moreover, some of the safety goals could be suggested in non-binding Regulatory Guides, It is important for the Commission to develop a criteria for choosing among the various decommissioning options. The proposed rule fails to do this. Moreover, the proposed rule should clearly , I B. 3. I, I state that "ENTOMB" or permanent encasement of the facility is not 8 ~

• a viable option for decommissioning nuclear power plants. '

In choosing between immediate decontamination, dismantle- . ment, and removal of the facility ("DECON") or "SAFSTOR", a method of chemically decontaminating immediately and postponing dismantlement to allow for radioactive decay, the licensee is given vague of limited guidance by the proposed rule. Thus, the proposed language leaves the licensee with almost entirely unreviewable discretion to make decommissioning choices that could have significant impacts on public 6. 3.1.' and worker health and safety. The proposed rule does not discuss important considerations which should be factored into a choice between DECON and SAFSTOR; for example, the age of the plant and the corresponding amount of radio-activity that had built up in the plant or the number an extent of accidents/incidents at a plant. The proposed rule also fails to discuss the availability of off-site storage or disposal space for spent reactor fuel, other high level waste, or intermediate and low level wastes. Prolonged 11-\, I. I. I storage might befk~utilities'only choice if no storage space is available for any of these wastes. -"~ The choice of decommissiorumethods raises important public policy considerations which should.not be left to the complete discretion of licensees as the rule proposes. The Commission should establish specific criteria for the choice of a decommissioning method

                                                                           /f:!,3.1,I that provides the maximum possible assurance that the health and safety of workers and the public will be protected. Furthermore, the Commission should establish a forum and procedure whereby the public           C.I,\

can have meaningful input into public policy decisions affecting the C. health and well-being of their lives and the lives of future generations. ,l,3

4. Standards for SAFSTOR Option Must Be Developed.

The proposed rule contains no standards governing the long term storage period inherent in the SAFSTOR decommissioning option. First, the rule should provide criteria by which the appro- 8.4.'3 priate length of time can be determined, balancing the site-specific C, I, '3 cost and benefits. Second, the rule should provide regulations for J-342

page 5 Radioactive Waste Project Comments on Decommissioning Rule May 9, 1985 preparation of the facility for safe storage and ongoing maintenance. jc.1. 3 Third, th~ rule should provide an upper limit to the length of time allowed for mothballing a reactor. The rule should balance any incremental benefits against the ever decreasing assurance that B.~.3 adequate funds will be available as time elapses. Moreover, the rule should set an upper limit for completing the SAFSTOR option. S. Standards for Conducting Decommissioning Must Be Developed. The proposed rule offers no substantive regulations for C.. \.3 the conduct of decommissioning. Thus, the rule as proposed is inade-quate to serve as guidance for nuclear power plant decommissioning. The Commission should devote substantial attention to the I ae~-- of standards to minimize worker exposure during decommis- C.

• I, g * \

sioning, including specific radiation monitoring requirements. Moreover, the Commission should require the registry of workers who participate in decommissioning activities for the dual C.. purpose of properly assessing the health impacts of their cumulative

• I, \O exposures, and for compensation purposes arising from wrongful death law suits in the future.

Furthermore, the Commission should require representatives of workers to be involved in the creation of the decommissioning IC 0

                                                                             * \, o,'2 plans and procedures.

The proposed rule should implement regulations that provide for quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC} throughout the planning and carrying out of decommissioning activities. This C ~ should include the establishment of a QA/QC staff that is independ-

• ent from the engineering and radiation monitoring departments.

Quality assurance regulations, such as those in Part 50 Appendix B for operating plants, should be provided fJ;d.decommissioning. Additionally,just as Part 50 Appendix A provides "General Design Criteria" for the safe operation of nuclear plants, the proposed rule should establish certain safety criteria for decommis- C. 3 sioning. Further, a plant put into "safe storage" should meet certain

• I, security , . inspection, and reporting requirements.

As the proposed rule now stands, a licensee could conduct its decommissioning activities with virtually complete independence.

6. The Safe Disposal of Wastes Must be Addressed.

To ensure safe disposal, the NRC must implement regulations that classify and designate appropriate disposal methods for all H.\.1.1 of the wastes produced from decommissioning, including "intermediate" wastes which are not currently classified or designated for any particular disposal method. The rule should provide guidance fee,- the special problems associated with the proper disposal of chemical wastes generated during decommissioning. The very quality of these chemicals which make them effective for cleaning contaminated systems, also makes the radionuclides ~. I :z.. \ soluble, Thus, chelated wastes containing radioactive material can migrate quickly when disposed of. The NRC should require physical barriers which would prevent these wastes from reaching other nuclear or chemical wastes present in burial grounds. Moreover, the rule should require a licensee to make public the chemical formulas used \-\.1.~.'2. J-343

page 6 Radioactive Waste Project Comments on Decommissioning Rule May*g, 1985 in the decontaminants, and demonstrate adequate levels of testing and scientific review to ensure that the chemical agents can and will be stabilized or deactivated.

• The rule should require licensees to minimize the amount of waste produced, holding them to an "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" Ic.. l. l Y t-l.i.,.S" standard. Licensees should also be required to show that the wastes produced will be accepted by appropriate disposal sites.

Decommissioning plans should show how the decommissioning activities will be affected should there be a delay in the shipping of decommissioning wastes. I a-\ 1 \.2.. C. I, IS"

7. Rule Should Apply to All Reactors *

          . The rule as proposed would exclude a small number of reactors that will have been permanently shutdown when certain provisions of the rule go into effect. Rather than the current          C.. q blanket exception for reactors already shutdown, it would be better to create an exemption procedure in the regulations, thereby ensuring the consistent application of NRC's safety regulations.

8. The DGEIS Is Insufficient to Support the Proposed Rule.

The DGEIS should identify the environmental impacts of decommissioning and weigh the costs and benefits of various decomm-issioning alternatives with sufficient detail and accuracy to assist the NRC's choice between the alternatives. The DGEIS is inadequate for a number of reasons. First, the information in the DGEIS is out of date. Second, the DGEIS does not discuss the cumulative impacts / 5 of decommissioning all of the of the nation's nuclear plants.

• NRC' s '-'
• contractors estimate that the decommissioning of each reactor will contribute~ volume o f ~ level waste approximate!y""°equivalent to one-quarter of the total annual waste currently produced. Nor are the impacts of the disposal of high level and itermediate wastes considerated or the disposal of chelated wastes. Third,the DGEIS fails to discuss the ways in which the availability of disposal sites could affect decommissioning choices. Finally, the DGEIS fails to adequately address the effects of accidents on decommissioning or the impacts of using chelating agents during decontamination. Thus the DGEIS provides no real guidance for a choice between decommissioning options.

I appreciate the opportunity to present these conunents for your consideration and urge you to address the areas of concern which have been raised. In the long run it will be easier, cheaper, and faster for the Commission to develop a comprehensive set of

                                                                        ~-'

regulations for decommissioning than to enforce the proposed rule under consideration. If you have questions or comments, please call me at (612) 376-7556. Very truly yours, cc. Minnesota Congressional representatives

                                    ~~r:::::*. CL-_

Barbara J. J~~nsol; attorney Project Director J-344

PO. BOX 5000

• CLEVELAND. OHIO <<101
• TELEPHONE (216) 622*9900
• ILLUMINATING BLOG - 55 PU8LICS0UARE Ser.-,nq T.'*r:1 Best lo.::a1*on tn 1he Nauon

                                                                                                        " 1' 'I.,. T -

• I * ..,~',:: I C.L t.tJRRAY R. EDaMAN ..!S~fr.'.:

VICE PRESIDENT NUCUAR

                                                                                                  '85 HAY 15 P4 :19 f.lay  10, 1985 PY-CEI/NRR-0257L Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, o.c.             20555 Re:    Proposed Rule Regarding Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 Federal Register 5600

Dear Mr. Ch ilk:

The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company appreciates the oppor-tunity to comment on the proposed rule for decommissioning nuclear facilities. These comments will address two areas--the $100 million certification option and the internal reserve ~ethod for funding. The s100 Million certification option The proposed rule states that the amount of funds assured for decom-missioning can be based on a site-specific study or a certification that at least $100 million of funding will be provided. The alterna-tive n,ethod of determining the amount of funds is very troublesome. It_ should only be based on a site-specific study which, clearly, is more accurate. The other method, while maybe a well intentioned administrative tool, will create unwarranted problems ~or those utili-ties who diligently undertake site specific studies. The amount of

  $100 million is too low by our cost estimate. Nevertheless, the $100                                                     'D, '2, l (<l.)

million certification will, or could, put a ceiling on the amount of decommissioning costs which may ta rec .c;rec through rates by state regulators, regardless of the result of a carefully conducted site-specific study. Indeed, a utility may be asked to justify any cost estimate which is higher than the certification amount. The Company already has a site-specific &tudy, completed in 1984, which shows a cost estimate higher than $100 million, although the study does in-clude costs for demolition of nonradioactive structures and site restoration. Justifying a cost*estimate higher than the $100 million certification would be unduly burdensome and counterproductive. 1 Adfflow'-!.:1t1 i, . - MAY _J.. J 1985

                                                                        . * "  "l! ru. . , , ,*,-,,-,*,-.".*,*,~

J-345

If the certification alternative is not omitted from the proposed rule, ample explanation to put this alternative an~unt into proper context, as to its applicability and reliability, is needed. Further, ( ) it is not clear in the rule that the amoul'lt is not intended to cover D. '2, I b the costs of demolishing nonradioactive structures and site-restora-tion. This fact must be brought out. Additionally, it should be stressed that a site-specific study is a better alternative than the certification option. The Internal Reserve Method for Funding The Company is pleased that the proposed rule provides for a variety of alternatives for decommissioning cost funding. The internal re-ID. '3. \ serve method would be the most appropriate and likely choice for electric utilities because of the economics of the method. Indeed, the Commission recognizes, in its regulatory analysis, that the other alternatives tend to be more costly and adopts the estimates that the external sinking fund and prepayment method are approximately 2 to 3 times the cost of the internal reserve (50 Federal Register 5608, Col.

1)

• Does the internal reserve method provide reasonable assurance? The Company believes so. The funds received for decommissioning can be invested into the utility's assets, and bonds would be issued against these assets to raise funds for decommissioning. In this situation, D,::i,.,. I,\ (b) it is the utility who stands behind the fund, However, the utility ~'

must stand behind the other methods also. Hence, it is the utility's financial integrity which provides the assurar.ce under any method. The Commission also requested comments regarding the possibility of insolvency and its impact on decommissioning funds. As the proposed rules indicate, the internal reserve method would be appropriate for utilities owning more than one generating facility, Bence, a utility would have a broad base of assets with which to cover the costs of decon.missioning. Additionally, it is doubtful if a utility in finan-cial straits would be forced to close since it has an obligation to l provide electric service, and would have cash resulting from opera-tions for decommissioning funding, The funding method a utility eventually elects for decommissioning should be one decided upon by regulators and the utility. Each case 1),8,3. l will have unique characteristics which will help to dictate the appro-priate funding method. Closing comment The proposed rule would require that an applicant for an operating J-346

license provide information regarding the assurance of funds for decon,missioning. It appears that it is not the Commission's intent to 'D.4.L2-impose this requirement on applications for operating licenses which have been filed prior to the effective date of the rule. Thls should be clarified in the rules. Sincerely,

                                    \1...,.....Jl'V..{t....._

Murray R. Edelman Vice President-Nuclear MRE:ms 3 J-347

Ban D w~ners Vee Presdenl Nay 13, 1985

                                                              '85 HAY 16 A9 :59 Secretary of the Comml**ion U.S. lluclear Regulatory Coll:lllisaion Waahington DC 20555

Dear Sir:

Conments on Propoaed Dec011111iasioning Criteria for lluclear Facilities Portland General Klectric Company (PGK) baa reviewed the proposed lnlC rule* on decommlsaioning criteria for nuclear facilitie* (February 11, 1985, Federal Regiater). PGK aupport* the concept of providing re..onable tech-nological and financial assurance that nuclear facilitiea will be decomml*- aioned in a safe and effective manner. Toward this end, PGK has a state-approved deco11111issioning financial plan in place and has been accumulating a deconmissioning reserve fund since 1978. c;, I The proposed rule is, in general, conaistent with the aim of assuring safe and effective decol!Wllisaioning. However, certain aspects of the rule would, in our opinion, result in unnecessarily increasing costs to utility ratepayers without providing any increased assurance that decoll'Aissioning will occur. our comments on the proposed rule are as follows: A. General Comments

l. The IIRC's principal concern in regard to deconmissioning should be to ensure that nuclear facilities will be deco11111isaioned in a safe and effective manner. A.a long as funding can be reasonably assured by the licensee, the IIRC should not be concerned with whether the funding plan i* cost-effective or which method of funding is chosen. In the case of utilities, these decision* are more appropriately left to State Public Utility Co11111issions and/or the Federal Inergy Regulatory Coamission, whose responsibilities include allowing the recovery of appropriate costs in rates.

2. There appear to be some inconsistencies between the proposed rule and the Supplementary Information provided in the rule. For D. 3. 2. '2.1 example, in the Supplementary Information, Page 5608, the opinion 'D, 3. "3. 2 la expressed that "the internal reserve method is acceptable only if supplemented by a mechanism providing additional assurance such a* insurance or surety arrangement", while in the proposed rule, Section 50.33Ck>C*>, it is indicated that the internal reserve J-348

Secret&r7 of The Coaa.laalon llaJ 13, 1985 Page 2

        ..thod 1* acceptable for an electric utllltJ onlJ if the utllltJ D. 3.Z. 2.. t Olilllll more than one generating facility. The rule and the Supple-   'D. '3."3. 2
        ..ntary Information should be carefully revlevecl to ellainate th***

inconsistencies. I, Specific Coaaent* 1, The amount of the required deco111111lasionlng fund ($100,000,000 in D. \. \. l 1984 dollars) appears high compared to other estimate* made by Batlelle *orthwest Laboratories and the Atoaic Industrial Fonua. In addition, the deco111111iaaioning coat figure ls specific to the location, aize, and type of facility. The rule should not mandate t). "2. ' ( <1.) a minimum cost figure but should require that a cost estimate be made for each individual plant when the decoaaissloning plan 1* submitted to the nc.

2. Th* amount of increase per year of twice the rate of inflation l*

unrealistic. An increase at twice the rate of inflation for 30 years will result in a real cost increase of four to five times th* coat estimate suggested of $100,000,000. It ls inappropriate to asawae that an increase of twice the rate of inflation, as noted in the last two year*, will continue for the next 30 years. On Page 5608 of the Supplementary Information, it state* t:1at "the proposed rule would require that decolllllliaaioning funding plans 1), '2.. I ( b) contain provision* for a periodic review and adjustment to assure that funds would be adequate at the tiae of decoaaissioning. Por aanJ cases, routine adjustments for changes ln inflation and interest rates might be done annuallJ by the llcensM and could be reported in the annual financial report without the need for DC approval. A technical review of the information in the preliminarJ plans or the cost estimate for a funding plan could be done l*** frequently and submitted to nc for approval." This propoaed requirement waa translated into the rule as requiring onlJ one update, at 5 years before the end of facility operation [Section 50.54(cc)(4)J. It ls our opinion that a periodic review requirement, auch as proposed in the Supplementary Information should be substituted for the current requirement in the rule that costs be escalated at twice the rate of inflation. The periodic review would account for inflation and interest rat* adjustments and for adjustments in technology as appropriate. The** periodic r.vl..,. could be completed at thr.e- to five-year intervals.

3. Sur.tJ bonds or insurance are not neceHary for the internal fund-ing method during or after the plant'* operation. Utilities, like other corporations, llllSt demonstrate financial integritJ to D. '3.2. L \ (b) investors to have sufficient eaC"nings above the fina'* fixed financial obligations. In addition, the utility industry has, in general, been evaluated by the investment community as being more J-349

sicc-etal'J of Th* coau11lon lay 13, 1985 Page 3 flnanclally *table than other lndustrl*** If a flna'a llablllti** have been atated properly, the fund* c-ecovered for decoaaissloning will continue to be available for that purpose. lxtr... condition* could exiat and poae a threat to th* availability of fund* with internal funding; however, similar condltlons could also exi1t for funds held 8Xtefflally (eg, funda in a bank COUld be l09t if the

1) 7

                                                                                *;I' '2, \' r b'

( I) bank becomes lnaolvent). The level of a11urance of having fund* available ii nearly equal for both lnte.mal funding and external funding. To require additional in1urance or 1uret1 bonds for the I intemal funding method would only result. in increased costs to conaumen.

   "*   In the propoaed rul...king, juatlflcation to delay decOIIDlaaioning beyond the end of the plant 1ervlce life ls based upon safety con-    B. 3, I,\

aideratlons. C011parative costs of the altematlv* *thods of deccmalsaloning ahould alao be included as juatification for delay.

5. Proposed 10 C1'K 50.33(k)<*><lv) states that an internal reserve method of accumulating funds la acceptable for "an electric utility owning more than one generating facility". The rule (and the Supplemental'J Information) does not define whether a "generating 1),'3,'3,2.

facility" 11 a nuclear power plant or may be soma other type of generating facility (daa, fossil-fueled plant, etc). rurthet'IIIOre, lt la not explained why this particular requirement would provide aasurance of the avallabillty of funda from lin lntemal reserve account. we hope that th*** comants wlll be helpful in creating a final rule that provides reasonable assurance that nuclear facility decoaalaaioning will be accoapliahed in a safe and cost-effective manner. Sincerely, C'r~~1W" Bart D. Wlthen Vice President lluclear Attaclaant c: Kr. Lynn Frank, Director state of Oregon Department of Inergy J-350

                                                       =-*=P.8;4?4";6?' £-la./

Minnesota (5a F~ s"°Q) ~ Environmental Quality Board 'l!..v

• .; '~ 100 Capitol Square Building 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Phone Q1]tr4ET£:

iJSNRC 15 MY 16 A10 :ot t,FFIC[ Or~ S:1..,K~ ;;. .

• OOCKE TING & SEfl'.'lf.i May 13, 1985 BRANCH Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ref: Comment on NRC proposed rules for decommissioning nuclear facilities. 50 FR 5608

Dear Secretary:

The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board has been coordinating Minnesota's comments on the above referenced rules. Several agencies are preparing comments. One, the Department of Public Service, has sent its comments to you. The others are in the process of completing their review. You should receive all of Minnesota's comments by the end of May. I realize that the comment deadline is May 13; however, I ask that you consider the additional comments when they arrive. Since~relY,,

      ~~-

Tom Tr p tt Chairman IAY 1819$~ AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYE~ bJ card.,,,,*.-,*,..-.-.-.,.,

                                                .-..~

J-351

i'~=Jt

                          &tate of New Jersey DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY JOHN FITCH PLAZA, CN027, TRENTON, N.J. Oll25 May 7, 1985
                                                                      '85 NAY 16 AJO :02 OfF,C: iF SE1.i:::.. *. :* ~

OOCX£T1HG & S(~*o11c1. Secretary of the Commission BRANCH

u. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Secretary:

We are encouraged by the NRC proposed rule for decommissioning criteria for nuclear facilities (50 FR 5600). We hope that the deliberate assessment of radiation sites prior to license termina-tion will minimize the number of contaminated sites which could &.I develop in New Jersey. The proposed rule places heavy emphasis on having decommissioning funding plans for facilities, with de-commissioning standards to be developed under a separate rulemaking action in the future. However, without some indication of the accep-table level of residual radioactivity appropriate for unrestricted use, £.1 it is difficult to judge the adequacy of required amounts of financial assurance stated. Based on our past experience with nuclear :acilities which pro-cess raw material, thus producing large quantities of low specific activity bulk waste, it is doubtful the financial limits proposed of $500,000 or less are adequate. Specifically in the case of w. R. -Grace and Stepan Chemical, NRC licensed facilities which are now the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the DOE has 1). <o.'3. l spent approximately $2-4 million dollars to remove contaminated soil from offsite vicinity properties and storing that contaminated material on the nearby processing sites. At a presently active NRC licensed facility, Shieldalloy, there is approximately 50,000 yd3 of slag accumulated on a 20-acre site. Based on our experience with other sites, it is questionable that this site can be decontaminated with funds on the order of $500,000. Also, we are concerned that there exists the potential for reduc-ing companies' liability for decontamination activities should the NRC approved funding plan be inadequate. Poor financial judgment made by D,'l.Z,3 the NRC in evaluating and approving funding plans and the uncertainty i~herent in forecasting economic conditions may result in having dras-tically reduced funds available at time of decommissioning. In addi-tion, since it may be quite a few years before a facility undertakes , 1).~."3.2. N,w J,my /, h Eq**I OPf"'"""Y Empfo,*" WIY 1 & f;lJS 'f'--

                                                 ~~ledal(f bf~ ................. .

J-352

Secretary of Commission May 7, 1985 decommissioning, the dollar value listed for financial assurance for ,'D."1,3,'2. decommissioning should be adjusted for inflation. Further, we believe that the NRC should require state consulta-tion in the decommissioning process since these NRC licensed radia-tion facilities will revert to unrestricted use, thus of no concern ~.-z. to the NRC, after license termination. Consultation will reduce the potential for disagreement between NRC and state over the adequacy of decontamination limits and the residual radioactivity levels. Since there may be questions from future property owners or the general public, documentation of the license termination procedures, radiation '-,12 surveys of site, record of material licensed and how those materials were disposed should be archived for potential future evaluations. Finally, the scope of licensee's liability in decontamination should include off-site contamination. The licensee should be re-quired to examine waste streams and their impact offsite such as the c:;.13 discharge within permissible limits of treated liquid wastes. Concen-trations released under license may result in unacceptable contamina-tion based on decontamination and decommissioning standards at the time of license termination and release for unrestricted use by the general public. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the NRC's proposed rule. Sincerely, U.1f) A .T:)9-Donald A. Deieso, Ph.D. Director J-353

                                    ~    Wllllll
                                   -        pa   Pj:tJ!j.sa el,,._/       NRC-85-94

(!StJ Flt'"' d]) . . 1 WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORPORATION ' *

• P.O. Box 700, Green Bay, Wisconsin 54305 QO(i'ET*'

J311RC

                                                              . "85 HAY 16 AJO :02 May 13, 1985 Secretary of the Commission Attention Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen:

Docket 50-305 Operating License DPR-43 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Proposed Rule on Oec011111issioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities

Reference:

Deconmissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, Proposed Rule 10 CFR 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72, Federal Register VollJlle 50, No. 28 da~ed February 11, 1985 We have reviewed the proposed rule regarding deconmissioning as published in the Federal Register of February 11, 1985. The proposed rule would amend NRC regu-lations by specifying technical and financial criteria for the deconmissioning of nuclear facilities. Specifically, the proposed amendment addresses decom-missioning planning needs, funding mechanisms, timing, and environmental review requirements~ The intent of the rule is to assure the safe and timely decom-missioning of nuclear facilities and the availability of adequate funding. The Atomic Industrial Forum's Subconmittee on Deconmissioning has provided the NRC with comments to this proposed rule. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (WPSC) is in agreement with those corrments, and would like to also offer the following for your consideration. In general, WPSC supports the NRC's rulemaking efforts in the area of decom-missioning. We believe that the proposed amendments will provide a foundation from which acceptable decommissioning planning and implementation programs can <S. I be developed. We urge the Commission to encourage, in its rulemaking, the use of a realistic approach to decommissioning cost estimates.

                                                                              .'(181985
                                                         ~ , a d bf ..................~

J-354

Secretary of the C011111isston May 13, 1985 Page 2 In this light, WPSC strongly supports the use of site-specific studies in esti-mating costs. We believe that generic studies may not prove realistic for spe-cific application to some of today's nuclear power plants and would have an /1):z. 1(4-) I inherent propensity for misuse by the various groups which must remain cognizant of the funding process. To this end, WPSC reconmends that the proposed rule be revised to stipulate the use of site-specific studies as a preferred method in cost determination, allowing generic studies to be used only as a contingency "I). -z. I ( b) approach. WPSC also urges that decommissioning funding mechanisms utilize the ultimate expected dollar amount (future dollars), not current dollars. This approach will assure equitable treatment to future generations of customers who will also D. 3,2.2.~ pay their fair portion of the costs of deconmissioning plants which are operating today. This is the approach which has been adopted by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin. Finally, WPSC believes that, when forecasting the ultimate expected dollar amount of deconmissioning, it ts imperative that a realistic long-term inflation rate be used. Thus, the NRC should clarify that the proposed inflation rate of D2. 1(0..) twice the Consumer Price Index, which was determined by observing the net increase of deconmissioning cost estimates over the last few years, is intended D,"2. I (b) to represent short-term estimates of inflation. This high inflation rate, which reflects recent regulatory turbulence of the nuclear industry, is not suitable from a long-term pr*spective and may well mislead regulators who are attempting to forecast the ult:* *ate cost of deconmissfoning. In closing, WPSC believes that the Conmission should strive for the promulgation of a rule which will meet its stated intent as well as creating an environment where site-specific, realistic, and equitable deconmissioning plans can be developed and implemented. j/'i7""* D. C. Hintz Manager - Nuclear Power MSL/js cc - Mr. S. A. Varga. US NRC Mr. Robert Nelson, US NRC J-355

IDl,Jl,tl I W t l l K " ~ _.J.. I .,l.lc.;.Ltiai* .::>uucomm1. ttee Q19 IHU' - ~ saCR,.,f National Energy Committee a**- -- 854 Henley Place l~,:/l :S'<) ~ Charlotte, NC 28207

                                  ~            May 13, 1g85 SIERRA CLUB 530 Bush Street San Francisco.California 94108 (415)981-8634
                                                                       '.'.IOCKE TEO
                                                                            "':'IRC Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC          20555                                 "85 ttAY 16 IU 1:03 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

,ff . :- ...

                                                               **r*" . . ..

Comments: Decommissioning Criteria for Nucieir~f*~~i.ities The Nuclear Subcommittee appreciates the difficulty in establishing criteria for an operation in which experience is minimal. <:;.,\ However other, related experience points to a number of improvements which can be made in the proposed criteria.

1. Decommissioning a plant which has had a release accident, as at TMI-2, is a different matter than a plant which has ~perated within normal parameters. Though generalized procedures can be C. l.17. I proposed for the latter, accident situations must be handled on a case-by-case basis.

2. Even for normal shutdowns the funding criteria are inadequate. Rather than setting a limit of $100,000,000 ll984J the applicant snould be required to provide a detailed projection ID. 'Z, I (<t.)

of subsequent cost, subject to staff analysis and approval, based on current information, to be updated every five years until actual decommissioning. Funding provisions should match these projections. Io. q. "3

        ). Funding must be external to provide reasonable assurance that other claims on a utility's resources will not deplete a                            ,1).'3. 'Z. I. I (A.)

decommissioning fund.

4. The coat of just the cleanup of t_he T.MI-2 accident makes clear that the decommissioning cost after a serious accident can exceed anticipated normal decommisssioning cost by at least an order of magnitude. lt would be both impractical and inequitable to require of every utility an external decommissioning fund of the order of $1-2 billion. It appears to us to be the responsibility D. "3. -z.'2.. \

of the NRC to devise appropriate provisions and criteria for the funding of the decommissioning of a plant more than normally contaminated as the result of a serious accident. fossible means would include the setting up of a fund to be administered by the 1,RC in which all licensees made annual contributions while operating.

 ~nis would be similar to the uninsured motorist sunds which operate in a number of states.

5. We oppose the "Entomb 11 option, favor "Decon" and "Safstor 11 B. S-II I

depending on appropriateness for the specific site. NRC staff, not the applicant, should have the responsibility and authority for 6.~.~ determining which is more feasible. In a site of higher potential for a seismic event, "Decon" would. be preferred. The presence of 6.'-1.Z. spent fuel in the fuel pool would be a substantial consideration. J-356

ment

6. For entomb/to be reliable the NRC would be required correctly to predict the behavior or peoples tor 1;housands or years.

There is little enough success in short term prediction--consider the utility ind~stry*s prediction or growth in electrical demand, affirmed by the AEC/NRC and F~C/FERC. Curiosity and response to 6.5" challenge may be around tor a long time. Entombed sites built near present populated regions will be a challenge. The development of a tamper proof entombment technology is unlikely; the demonstration is not possible.

7. We would like to s~e the NRC require a decommissioning license, just as a construction permit and an operating license are required. There will be, as in these other instances, radiation exposure hazards to the workers, to the general public

c. \.?>. \

in the vicinity, along transport routes, and in the region of disposal of the debris. License issuance should require an Application, an 411virorunental Report, a ~SAR and a FSAR. The applicatio~ should be given notice and the opportunity of intervention provided. For a matter with such manifest long term consequences F. I the Environmental ~olicy Act must be realized in actuality as well as nominally.

8. Decontamination by chelating agents raises problems simultaneously with solving others. Hy making radionuclides water soluble the problem or retention in isolation is greatly increased.

We propose a requirement that the chelate solution be concentrated without the escape or volatile radioactivity and the concentrate 11.,.2., incinerated to destroy the organic chelating agent. The radioactive ash would be incorporated in a suitable form for storage as high level waste, in ceramic, glass, or concrete.

9. The linkage or decommissioning to the availability or high level waste repositories; the possible development or means 8.3, I for dealing with intermediate level wastes; and the generation of low level waste repositories under the compact sys~em is direct.

In the absence or repositories for the various kinds or decommissioning H.1.Ll waste, "Safstor" will be the unavoidable procedure. It would be well for the criteria to explicitly deal with this matter. l-\. \.1.'4

10. The Criteria should be explicit and detailed on procedural criteria. It will be best if the NRC devises these criteria. It will presumably make available the best, disinterested lfinancially) c.. '* \

expertise; it will remove from the applicants a needless burden which they are not established to undertake; lt will reduce the number or differences requiring resolution and make for a more cost and time effective licensing process.

11. The Ci teria should require explicit standards for radiation J C \ g \

exposure or workers and effectuate these on a life-time basis. By relating the individual's exposure records to social security number a retrievable h1atory or exposure would be made available to a current employer. There is no room tor another "sponge" controversy. I * ' ' C, \, \ o l~. Equipment and supplies used in a decomissioning program should be subject to specification and quality assurance procedures. This should be the case for decontamination, demolition, transport, c.~ and waste isolation. Health physics procedures and monitoring J-357

                             -J-would come under the same rubric.

lJ. The Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on decommissioning has not 1et issued. We propose the issuance ot G,. I a revised set ot Criteria atter issuance ot the FGEIS which ia in accord with it, and which will be subject to comment. Sincerel1'/. AO,Ut 1rt<-k

                                  ~se L. Ri~, chair J-358

 ..,r3r :,:r. .. r,,cr,-t.ary:
 .*lP&f!e   Acc,.pt thiF l,.tt,..r a~ "'Y c:>111:nents ,n tlY n,,!~sed .:iule .    ,,n .:.iec,mmisei ) ~

f'>r Nucl,-u FacilitiPs,  ;:>c.: ,F"/{ ..~"if C ( 2 -1/ *6 5-_ There arP. !lla.ny dE'ficiencie~ ,nthfii:;P. pr,piBP.d Criteria. 15 MY 17 M) :<<) 1.** ThP J.eficiniti,,n!'; -,f ".J!-;C1?i", "*;AF-*TJn", 1,.~:; "~'T*J,*lli" ares,, sh'U't and 1 non-specific ae t, bP :neaninr,less. .iJPpPading ,n futlire nogulat:>ry G_ui_dE's(if;f,~INrGsECnt!Ar

                                 .                                                           DOC      , SERVIC:I
 &11 thP decisi?n111 "n thP NilC ~ taff with little cha.nee fJr thF public t? ev ANCH B.2.1 Jcn-,w what d~cisii>ns ar"' being mad,.. The Reg Guides are not published in thf>

Federal Register putting thP knowle~e :,f these dPcisi:>ns out ,,r the reach 8. ?,, I. '

 ?f' the average citiz,.n and evPn his lawy.. r dP.spite any direct.a. ffect that the RP.~ GuidP w'>uld have ,n them . .

2. There are n:> real dec:>mmissioning standards f:,r t?ta.l w:>rker PXposure, total public eapi,sure, t,,tal aa'>unt(not Cl)ncentrati.,n) -,f releases and really n'>

Ic..1., standards f:,r n?n~radi'>logical wastes. InsidP. a reactor decommissioning,

PA standards may n?t C'lntr'>l -:,r even be invitPd- allowing PCP, PBB, :2..

                                                                                                                 \i. I I chlirinated solvents to be disp,sed of haphazardly.

( Funding assurances are n,t guaranteed. \n fact, the proposed rule depends heavily

   .p,n the utility not 111!1.neuvering to ta2:P. early profits an:l. all'JW bankruptcy I
                                                                                                             ' 'D, '?>. z. 1. \ (CL) to av,,id future risk and decommissioning costs. This maneuver of 1:la*ruptcy is pr~m'>tid by assuming a very small decommissioning c:,st.

4. ThP most devaPta.tingly deficiP.nt :is,rt of the rule is n?t mentioneu in th~

pr"p:>:;-=,i r-.:1* . E"lforcP.ment in the ,~c is against thosP. that dQ not couit the ViQlation. Fines, which~ the enforcPment tool,&:t are not levied againtt the act?r or the m&nagP.r. The fine is ulti!ll&tely paid by the ratepyer, taxpayer

 ?r the stock h<:>ld_er. The actual person who COllllllitted the violation is not forced t~ pay the fine, and l)ften he ,,r she continues to w:,rk for the same compay in the sa.mP p?iition. This dPficiencj in enforaement is compoundP.d because the pPrpP.trator is removed from his act by as much as JO or 40 years, Inotherwords
 & dPcisi?n that affects the dec'>mmissi ning n *:, dur.ng construction in violation of the regulat?ry guidance may Mt be disc,,vered for faurty years add fining or calling the vi,,lator to justice at that late date WQuld often be impossible.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                        ~~~~\

M. I. LE.Wi~ 654M- BRADFORD TERR. PHIIA, PA. 19141

                                                          ~~Z.~.#...~.~~~d-J-359

p. o. Box 466 Pinedale, CA. 93650 OOC.l'.ETEr Kay 12, 1985 USH~C "15 IIY 17 MO :41 Secretary of the Commission l.lFflCt OF Sti,Kt. lior BRO DOCKETING & SEilVIC.I BRANCH Washington, D. c. 20555

Dear Sir:

This is to inform you that I do not want my decommissioning dollars to go to phantom funds. Therefore, I am against "internal unsegregated funds" D. ~. '2. ,.1 (a.) and I am for "external segregated funds" which are not controlled by private utilities or invested in utility assets. (Charles c. Williams)

                                                !                   ~-.,-t\~,G.

I .

                                                                     **G
                                                   . ~ ... -. ~ ._;  .
                                                .. _,..; ..... -.'*J.:\

e,:O:.., (: _w.t"'". _,-.* ~ .. ' ~.' ,J. 1

                                                                           '              -   ...\ . . ~-... \.ii ,1:.}~*.
                                                                     , _ v .... ___.... * * ,, . . . . . **-  .*.

J-360

JUUII

                 ~ IUll
                         -*pg.!~~    .           7
                                                        ~ r...:JP mjl c~~.hoCarl A. Ziebell&. Eller,r Policy Aaa1yli led,roocl Alliaace P.O.Bo1Z93 Arca&&, ca. 95521
                                         <m>m-7114 <101> azz-,m May 1.c.191, Secrewy or the Coaaissioa
      'l'ulliA1toa. D.C. m,,

US. Nuclear Re1u11&ory Coeeinioa AWi: Docteua1 ud Ser,icn Bruch 15 ltAY 17 AIO :44 VFFtlE Di- .:t'-'"t. ~~ To Ylloa it may coacena: OOCKEi1NG !. SEil,H i BRANCH Attached pleue r&Ad the COAUUAII of ReclYOod AWIAce OA tile Rucleu Re1u11&ory Coemi11ioa*s propoled rule for Decom*imioaiA1 Ctileri& for Nucleat Facilit.in. u published iA the Fadetal Btcwc OA February 11, '"'* ud lffecua1 10 CD Pans 30.40. ,0. ,1. 70, and 72. On May 13th I discuaed tile coauat. period for tllil propoted rule Yidl Ill. Clmeriae I. ll&Ulea or the NRC Office or Re1u1&1ory Reteuch. Ml. M&Ulea iAronud ae that a prom.pt subaiU&l or tile au.ached coaunla *ould euure their careful ud ruu coasidel'IUoa by tile Come;n;oa. despite tile fact UW t.hey an beiAI subail&ed Iller t.he uaouacecl dudliae for* coauala. She fUttber iafor...t me UW there ii a pollillllity t.hat the comment period would be enended. RedYoocl AWIAce hopes f.blt the au.ached coaunea&s receive f.be Comeinioa's full coasidetltioa. Rechroocl AW&llce *ilhn to be iAformed of uy emasioa of tile coaaeat. period, should ,,. (1Ad it aeccelllt')' to tffile or emad our reaarb. 'l'e eacour11e t.he CoeeiNioa to. enead the com.meat period iC there an uy or1u.izlWHls or iAc11Tiduals Yllo Yilh to com.meat, but have beea unable to complete f.beit coaunts iA tiu. Tllil is IA _ . of *tious iapon for t.he couat.ry. ud a ruu di&lo1 oa f.be merill or t.he propolld rule llloulcl *rn to eahuce policy clecisiou loa1 iato tile fUture. Tb&At you ror your considera&Joa or tills m.auer. Siacere~ youn.,...-- .

                                           /~j'I// /1 ;,.,£, . ,,
                                          /A;.:.t.:_ / ; * , t.{4 .

Carl A. ZicheU:- * ~ ..___ for RedYoocl AWIAce cc. aoa. A1lu Cnmt.on. Hoa. Dou,w B. 8otco Mr. Broots YN1er. Sierra Club YubiA1ton Office Mr. Michael Sller,roocl, Sierra Club Lepl Defea* Fund Ml. S&Uy lliada&n. Public Citizen

                                                                         - t O198S
                                                      ~ bf Cllfttoo*** I i i i I'; I i ... **7t1--

J-361

SUIIIIAIT OP COIIIIINTS

l. Deco11cninionin1 Eovironmenl&l lapact Swemencs should be requited or all licentee clulif'ica&.ions in all cues. <,.o

2. Oa1y JEON aaa S.AFST(lt decoataillioain1 alletlla&ffet should be considered accepl&ble Cot nuclear facilities. (fl)

3. The ENTOMB option should be dropped Croa coosideral.ion. (pl)

4. Site specific Cacton should be the cletermiouts in clecidiJl1 decoeeinionin1 allerutive ud Liaio1 ror DECON. (f.2)

5. Neu-tera decoaaillionin1 should be requited uceft in cues *here enenultin1 circulllSWlctt--such u the presence or racton atrecLiA1 fUblic health ud .Cety--eli.st. (pl)

6. Criteria Cot such circumt&Aces should be formally dneloped, Yuh public input (pp2&3)

7. Eneuive prelimiouy pl&Gnin1 ror decoaaissioai.D1 should be required. (p.3) *

a. To a.ure the availability or funds, lite specific cott etC-ieelin1 should be required. (p.3)

9. CoSl est.ieetes should be upda&ed re1u.1atty to insure accuracy. (p.3)

10. IniLi&! clecomminioJ1iJl1 plus should be required or liceue applicuts. ud early decoamitsionin1 plus should be required or liceuen with opera&lo.ul facilities. (p.3)

11. Plans ror collecLiA1. denlopin1. ae.uue.i.D.iJll ud reca1lill1 records should include indeli.D.1 or such records. (p.4)

12. Fiaa.l decocnminionin1 plus should be requited at lNlt one yeu prior to plaaned terai.D.a&.ion. (p.4)

13. Financial p1&Gllin1 ror clecomminioai.D1 should be requited ror all reactors rep.tdJns or their operal.ioul stawt. (p.4)

14. AclnAce pl&Anin1 tor IIXDN or reactors in SAFST(lt should be requited.

15. Residual radiation limits aJ..lo,rable Ullder the l&Y should be revised do,rnntd u reueuch indica&es a need to do IO. (p.,)

16. Decocnminionin1 cost esrimeses should be requited or all licensees imcntditU:ly. and updated periodice.lty. (p.,)

17. lnterul fundiJl1 mechuisms provide u ulllltil'act.ory lenl or Atlut&Ace.

(p.6)

11. lllterul a.ecbuises are pl&ced iJl doubt by uUUty iJllOvency: eneme.1 Ollet ate not. (p.6)

19. SUMI lllillioll is i.udeqUtU: ror nuclear decocnmissiolliJl1. (tp.7Y)

20. Certification should be dropped rroa consideratiOll. (p.S)

J-362

SUIIIIAIY OP a>IIIIINTS PAGB2

21. OllJy eneraal tuadi!l1 mechuisms. such u pre,aymeat ud Ellerall SiAti.DI Fuad lbould qualil'p for coalideratloa to ruauce auclear decoe*illioaiA1.

(p.l)

22. Iaterul *c.b.u_, should be disre&anled. (p.l)

23. Aautuce is die most importut criMlria by Ybicll tuadiA1 aecblllisau an jud&N. (p.9)

U For die NRC. coa ii u iil&11propri&Y couideratloa of CUad.ia1 meclwaila suitability. (p.9) 2'. FuadiA1 eechuis.m.s !or elistia1 licea1HS should be enera&l tuads. Tbe eubliabmeat or di... CUacll lhou14 be Ntui:red wilhiil & yeu at aoa. (p.10) J-363

a>IIIIINTS OF UDWOOD ALLIANCI ON TRI PIOPOSID IULI POI DICOIIIIISSIONING aITIIJA POI NUC.IAI PACILITIIS IIAY l.f, 1915 The Redwood AllilJ1ce, a public interest, community supported orawzation concerned with eneray, environmental amd rate issues, h11 the Collowina comments on the Nuclear Reaulatory Commission (NRC) proposed rule settina forth decommissionina aiteria ror nuclear facilities. It is aratil'yina that, at Iona last, there is some auidance Crom the NRC reaardina the retirement d nuclear facilities. This is, as PIRG and others noted in their oriainal petition for decommissionma rulemakin& eiaht years qo, a mountina problem. Redwood Alliance has some serious concerns, G.I however, with some d the ru1e*s provisions, and we reel that in some cases these provisions may defeat the avowed purpose d their intent This is particularly true in the areas d assurance and environmental impact assessment A point-by-point aitique: ISSUE.$ ADDR&5SIID: The proposed rule set forth live issues related to decommissionma it would address: decommissionma alternatives, timing, planniaa, Cinan.ci&l assurance.and residual radioactivity. ledwood Alliance 1troq.ly di,aaree1 witll tile 1tateaeat. *1, becaae appareai tllal eaviroaaeatal review requireaeat.1 could be reduced.* We feel that there is little in the e1perience d nuclear f a("lities that suggesu that even eiistiJla environmental review require menu suffice. On the contrary, nuclear licensees have shattered public confidence in their ability to satety and respomibty handle their environmental obligations thus rar. In sucb a complicated and potentially dangerous process u nuclear decommissionina, t=. l where tarae quantities d hiahly radioactive materials must be removed, shipped, and where eitensive chemical decontamination efforts will be necx:essary, more stringent, indeed the a01l strinaent environmental assessment requiremenu should be mandated, such that full public participation is encouraaed. laviroaaeatal lapact Siateaeat.1 11lould be required ol *II Uceatee da11iricatioa1 la *II ca1e1. J-364

a>IIIIINTS OP IID1'00D ALLIANCI llay 14. 1915 DICOIIIIISSIONING CIITDIA FOi NUa.lll DICOIIIIISSIONING: PIOPOSBD IULI DIQ>MMISSIQNING ALTERNATIYBS: Redwood Alliance feels that OD1J Ille DICON ud SAPSTOI decoa aiHiOIWII alter111Uve1 1laould be coa1idered u acceptable r<< audear racWUet. In Lhe case or power reactors, Lhe ENTOMB option 8.5 is inadequate in our view, to ensure Iona-term isolatioll ot radiation from the environment and to ensure public health and safety. We favor options which require reaulatory oversipt ol less Lhan 50 years, and ideally less than 30. The quandaries ot nuclear wute disposal will be with us for millelliL It is foolhardy to assume a cont.islued interest in the manaaement ol relired facilities by ulility companies (presumably boldiq "possession-only" licenses) who are relliziDa no fiDIDcial return on them. The aovernment then, will at some point have to usume control or Lhese facilities. It may even be unduly optimistic to assume Lhat aovernment will be eager to assume such responsibility I century or more into the future, aiven financial and policy consiraints'. The public interesi then is best served by dec:ommissioruna alternatives which reach conclusion less than 30-50 years after cessation or operations. ENTOMB does not fulfill this requiremenl It is unlikely, given the presence ol activation elements in Lhe steel and concrete ot reactor vessels and sbroudina, that delayed dismanUement can be avoided in the ENTOMB option. NRC discussion on 'B,5 the proposed rule ac:knowledaes the increased difficulty and cost ot such a delayed dismanUement ettorL Tile BNTOIII altenaalive 11lo11ld be dropped rroa coa1ideratioa. TIMING: Redwood AlliaDce agrees Lhat lite 1pecificity 1laoald be Ille deteraiaiq laclal' ia decidilla Ille alterulin ud liaiaa ol DBCON. It is prudent to consider the possibility ot SAFSTOR in individual cases where safety considerations dictate. Barly dec:ommissionina -is the optimum choice in all other instances. As noted ill the NRC discussion ol 8, '1. '2. the proposed rule "1 review or the tedulicll data base shows Lhat, for DBDN, occupatioul e1posure rates can be kept realODlble." Lona-lived activation elements would preclude any advantqe beina. realized ill this area ii deferral ezceeds 30-50 years. Therefore. 11ear tera decoaai11ioaill& 1110111d ** requited escept la ca** wit.ere

• • te***tiaa drcaa1taace1 e:dat. Criteria I
• 1acll citcaa1taace1 IB. 3. ,. \

2 J-365

a>IIIIBNTS OF IID1'00D ALLIANCB llay 14, 1915 DICOIIIIISSIONING QITIIIA POI NUC.IAI DICOIIIIISSIONING: PIOPOSID IULI 1Jaould be developed, bl tile fora ol a propo1ed rule, or auidaace docuaeat for W. rule. IB, 3.1. \ PRELIMINARY PLANNING: Redwood Alliance reels that ezteuive prellaiauy plaenloa for c. 2. \ decoaai11ioalq 1Jaould be required. As discussion on the proposed rule notes, CiDl.nciaJ assurance plannina should be an early and I "D, '*L "3 oCt-reviewed function. Decommissionina etroru will be severely hindered l'[),8,\ by any shortfall ot runds. Cost estimates should not, however, be based upon so-called "aeneric" models, completed 2-5 years qo and which have little buis in present reality. These models have value only in providing the format by which site specific cost estimates may be arrived al D. '2.. \. (a.) Site 1pecllic COit e1tiaate1 1hould be required ii HIUraace 1oal1 are to be aet. Regional differences in labor, materials, inflation and escalation rates and other costs, will play a very substantial role in creatina I wide disparity in actual decommissionina cosu. Site 1pecil'ic COit e1tiaate1 1hould be updated rea*larly to luure accuracy. Redwood Alliance supports the proposed rule's requirement in this area, but suaaests further that more regular intervllJ (before 5 years before decommissionina) be required tor estimate review and revision, to ensure that sutricient runds tor decommissionina are beina collected in advance. This auarantees tairness to ratepayers, who would otherwise sutrer an unneccessary increue oC paymenu in later years oC the reactor's lite it tarae adjustments become imperitave to ensure the availability oC funds tor decommissionina. laltial decoaailaioalq plaaa 1hoald be reqalred dariaa 1Ubai11ion for Uceue appllcatiou. Decommissionina is best planned at the time reactors are designed and planned tor operation. Consideration oC decommissionina during the installation oC a reactor could areatly tacillitate its later retirement Too little attention hu been a!forded this ract in the past, the consequences oC which have yet to be fully realized. C, 2. I That lactlq, aa early decoaai11ioalq pJaa. coaplete ,ritll operational data aad facillty bacideat aad accident iaforaat.ioa. periodically updated aad rnie,red, would prnide tile beat approacll for Hie decoaailaloalq for read<<a wJllcla are already operational. Procrutinatina until just before, or worse, just arter decommissionina could create an atmosphere where the possibility for error and/or miscalculation is enhanced. 3 J-366

a>IIIIINTS OF IIDWOOD ALLIANCI llay 14, 1915 DICOIIIIISSIONING CIITDIA FOi NUC.IAI DICOIIIIISSIONING: PIOPOSID IULI led,rood Alluce 1apport1 tile rule'* requireaeal aaada&i.aa Uae deYelopaeat al plau tor deYelopiq, collecuq, aaiataiaiaa, aad realliaa record* aad arclliye tllH wllicll iaelude a1-bullt c. /, ' aad a1-reYiled dra1riq1, 1peciticaliou aad operalioaal occvreace1 wllicll could 1qaificantly etteci decoaai11ioajq. llorener, UaeN 11lould be aade public. The rule Curt.her specifies that indeiiq ol each individual document will not be required, further statiq that the intent ol the rule .iJ to a.uur, /Jul all illlporlaJJI illforJ116liOD j~ i,pr UDliJ 1,rllliJ16liOJJ of' Jiet111s, 6JJd I/J61 ii ,,,, rt1adily at:ct1ssi/JJ, rv/J,D JJ,,d,d. Indeiiq would appear to enJwlce that aoal. ladeziq al docuaeau 11lould be required. I c.,.~ FINAL PLANNING Redwood Alliance reels that tiul deco a ai11iODU11 plu1 11lould be required al licea1ee1 oae year prior to plaaaed teraia.alioa. Thil

c. '2, 3 should be required ol all licensee classifications. For reactors which have shut down prior to the effective date ol the CiDal rule, the NRC should require that dec:ommissionina plans be immediately promutaated. This C.. Gl should be done to ensure that Cull consideration will be aiven to the technical ud Cinucia1 requirements ot decomm.iJsioniq in advece ot liceue termination. Ideally, plaanin1 ror dec:omm.ilsionina should have

~ been done at the time liceues were oriainallY applied ror. Reawatoty nealiaence ud industry indifference were the reasons this wu not done. ThiJ rule should be seeking to rectify Lb.ii situation. Allcnriaa a detettal C.-z..1 al decoaai11i0Aiq plaaolaa ualll 1ucla liae ** u applli:alioa tw liceue teraiaalloa ii Hbllilted, utile proposed rule would, ii aot 10uad reautaiory policy aad iaiaical to tile public iatere1L la part.icular, tlaaacial plaoaia1 tor decoaai11i0Aiq 11lo*ld be aaadated t<< au reactor1, reaardle11 al tlleir operalioaal 1talU1. For plants placed in SAFSTOR with delayed DECON, decomm.iJsionina planning sbould not be deterred into the future. Althouah technological improve1Qents in the dec:omm.iJsioo.ing process are inevitable , it .iJ unlikely c.. 10 that all advance planning will be rendered useless. Rather, it .iJ likely that innovations can be tailored to be incorporated into ei.iJting plans, and that the correspondina cost savings or inaeases that may result may be more accurately refiected in cost estimates over the accrual period. Adjustments needed to the fund can then be more precisely made. In Lb.ii way advance 4 J-367

COIUIINTS OF IID1J00D ALLIANa llay 14, I 915 DICOIUUSSIONlNG CIITIIIA POI HUa.JAI DICOIIIIISSIONING: PIOPOSID IULI needed to the fund can then be more precisely made. In this way advance pl1naia1 can enhance both assurance and public health and safety. c. \0 Advuce pl1ooio1 few DICON few reac&on ia SAFSTOI 11lould be required. ELEMENTS OF DECOMMISSIONING PLANS:

t. Qecommissinpins Atterp.auve We support the components cl this analysis, with more detail, and assuming that, as mentioned above, ENTOMB .is not a viable option.

jI 6. '3, \, I

6. 'i. "2.

g,s

2. Itsbnical and EQviropmenta1 plans F. \

As noted above, an Environmental Impact Statement should be required.

3. Iecmioel radiation survey We support lhe components cl lhis analysis with continued research into the effects d low-level radiation. Residual radiation thresholds should reflect conservative estimates cl eiposure such that the public health .is E. \. \

sareauarded at sites released for unrestricted use. lesidual radiatioa llaiu all01r1ble uader Ule law 11lould be adjusted do,rawud u reseuc:11 iadicate1 a aeed IO do IO.

                    ~- Cost Estimate Decoaai11ioaiaa cotl estia1te1 1bould be required of all liceuee1 iaaediately, ud updated periodically. Plau ud e1tiaate1 1bould aol be deferred uatil appllcatiou few llceue leraiaatioa ue 1ubailted. As discussion on the rule notes, advance submission, and NRC consideration cl decomm.issionina plaas can expedite decommissioning activities folbwing the end ol facility operations.

5 J-368

a>IIIIINTS OF IIDWOOD ALLIANa llaJ 14. 1915 DICOIUUSSIONING QITIIIA POI NOC.BAI DICOIIIIISSIONING: PIOPOSID IULB FINANCIAL ASSURANCE: laaerul fuadiq aecllaai1a1 prnide u uual.ilfac:IOrJ leYel ol , 1). "3, 2.1. I (a.) a11111'aace tut fuad1 wW be aYailable for decoaail1ioaiq. Blternal rundi.ng mechanisms, either Prepayment or e1ternal Sintina Fund methods provide I biaher level ot assurance than do internal mecbmism1. t). 3, Z.'2.. \ When coupled with in1urance and/or 1urety protec:lion, they are not placed in I shorltall position by premature shutdown. la&erul fuadiq aeclaaai1a1 ue placed la doubt bJ utilitJ ialOIYeay; ezteraal aec.llaai*** ue aoL Utility imolvency, once believed to be nearly impossible, is a distinct possibility today. Many utilities are overly obligated to nuclear tecb.!loloaies, and the lact ol diversity hu put them at risk. Noteworthy amoaa these is Lona lslmd Liahti.ng Company (LILCO) ol New York. LILCO officials have stated publicly that the company would told it its S<t.2 billion Shoreham plmt doe1 not reach the rate base. There are questions about the adequacy ol the facility's construction and quality control proarams. Should the reactor ao "on-line" and enter the rate base, LILCO's problems would not cease. Rates will skyrocket, conservation increase, and despite the ina'eased rates, utility revenues dwindle. Any accident could so severly damqe the company that insolvency would be a toregone conclusion. D, 3 . z. , . ' (er.) And LIi.CO is not alone. Most utilities in the US. are not greatly diversified. Fear ol beina placed in LILCO's shoes has convinced I number ol utilities to abandon major nuclear projects, amona them Midlmd 2 (Qmumer1 Power), Zimmer l (Cinc:innatti G&B. r.otumbus and Southern Obio Electric Co., and Dayton P&L), and Marble Hill 11&2 (Public Service ol lndim.a, Wabash Valley Power Assn.). The accident at Three Mile Islmd has made believers ol many utility encutives, who real.ire. that the horrendous costs associated with nuclear accidents could mean the end ol the line tor their companies. The municipal bond debacle at WPPSS in Wasbiqton State bas had a similarly cbillina effect on _municipal utilities. What would become ot decommislionina funds held in internal tundiq accounts? Decommissioniq funds so collected are typically invested back into the utility company, as plant or tor operatiq costs. Such money is not discerlllble from other utility assets, and is likely to be attached by creditors in the ICJ'amble that would inevitably tollO'fl I utility's failure. Such a situation, not only possible but probable in I bankruptcy situation, Would endmaer the public health and satety by destroyina a IMD Utility's ability to pay tor decommissioniq. 6 J-369

COIIIIENTS OF UDWOOD ALLIANCI llayl4, 1915 DBCOIIIIISSIONING QITDIA FOi NUa.lAI DBCOIIIIISSIONING: PIOPOSBD IULI What could potentially amount to hundreds ol millions ol dollars for decommissioning--ratepayer contributions and the earnings on that money-- could be lost in the fallout rollowiq utility default. The public D. 3. 2 . \ . \ ( c:t) would then be subjected to a sort ol "double whammy," with decommissioning delayed and the potential for health and safety difficulties, ud having to pay aaaia for decommissioning. Further discussion on rundina mechanisms follows. Mcsb*oisms roe Requiring Financial Assurance : Certit'icatiog of s1oo millio0 roe decommissiqpioa; The fiaure or I I 00 alllion it inadequate for decoaai11ioD.iq the *1ecoad aeaerauoa* or U.S. power reactors. This figure may, in ID. "Z. I (a.) fact, prove to be too low for even the first generation of power reactors. The Elk River reactor, for instance, cost more to decommission than it did to build. The Shippingport reactor in Pennsylvania is predicted to cost fully S80 million to dismantle, yet it is only one-tenth the size ol today's reactors, and built to far less rigorous speci!ications. Similarly, the Humboldt Bay reactor in northern Calif'ornia is estimated to cost nearly three times its construction cost to decommission. Humboldt Bay cost 1ppro1imately S21 million to construct, and will take an estimated S61.5 million to decommission--11'estim1tes are accurate, and there is little in "D. \.I,\ the way ol historical justification to indicate that they will be. Indeed, the rea>rd tells quite a different tale. Public policy analyst Carole Douglls, in a 198-C article in the Jf tlaatic Moat~IT, quotes one Rand Corporation study which indicates that costs for untried technologies, such as nuclear decommissioning, typically climb to between <fOO and 10001 ol the costs originally predicted. Elperience with the construction phase of nuclear power development seem to bear this out. A February I 985 survey ol 35 new nuclear power projects done by For/Jt11 magwne indicated that construction costs for these projects ranged from sil to eight times the amount e1pected. If decommissioning estimates are IS inaccurate IS construction estimates have been. decommissionina could run into the tens ol billion ol dollars as opposed to the S100 million the NRC suggests is sufficient. As Cornell University 7 J-370

COIIIIINTS OF IIDWOOD ALLIANCI llayl4, 1915 DBCOIIIIISSIONING CIITBIIA POI NUQ.IAI DICOIIIIISSIONING: PJlOPOSBD IULI economist Duane Chapman bas stated, " It will cost as much to dismantle the plants as it did to build them-- I think on averaae $3 billion apiece in 'D. \

• l * \

today's terms...Given a sil percent inflation rate, a reactor aoiq on-line today will cost seventeen billion dollars to dismantle in 201-f." Tile I l 00 aillloa Cert.ificatioa ia .iaadequate ao a11ure tile availability ol ruad1 roe dec:oaailsioai.q. The cost escalation problems noted above may prove to be analogous tor other licensees as well as for reactor operatort. Stalin& that the regulation could be modified 'D. "2. * \ ( o...) at a later time, should the need arise, does not address the issue ot assurance. Only site specil'ic estimates, periodically adjusted as needed cu project decommissiooina costs with reasonable accuracy (provided the assumptions are realistic). Tile Cert.ificatioa aetllod should be dropped rroa coasideratioa. Fundi.na Methods: As discussed above under FINANCIAL ASSURANCE, page 6, oaly external ruadiaa aecllaai1a1 such H Prepayaeat aad 11:teraal D. 3 * '* 2. * \ Sintina Fund should quality foe coasideratioa to fillaace nudear decoa ailsioaiaa. Internal reserve, as the NRC discussion on the rule notes, is vulnerable to "events or situations that undermine the financial solvency of a licensee." Couplina the reserve with some form ol insurance D. '3. '2. 1. \ (a.) or surety will help, but the internal reserve mechanism is still deficient in ability to assure the availability ol funds for decommissiooina when compared to the eiternal mechanisms. There may be some question as to the availability ot such insurance ror many licensees experiencing financial difficulties, such as those resultina from construction cost overruns experienced in advance ol reactor t). ~ . 2. '2... \ operation. Similarly, insurance may not be an option for those licensees who have experienced numerous incidents and accidents in the operatina history ot presently rumii.na reactors. One can expect a degree ot reticence on the part ol an insurer to provide coverqe ror such utilities as Com moowealth Edison. The up-front risk ot default may simply be too bard D. 3 . 2 . \ . \ ( <1.) to swallow. If tile aoal is to provide a11uraace that funds roe decoaailsioaiaa will be available, tllea lateraal aecllaai1a1 aust be disrqarded. 8 J-371

COIIIIINTS OP IIDWOOD ALLIANa llayl4, 1915 DBCOIHUSSIONING QITDIA POI NUCLIAI DIICOIIIIISSIONINO: P&OPOSID &ULI O:iteri* toe funding Mec;hanisms: or au criteria used to Juda* the 1uitabilitJ ol

• particular laadilla aecllaai1a for decoaai11ioaiq, A11uruce it paraaouat. The NRC is c:otrect when it states that its primary responsibility is to protect the health and sarety d the public. All other comideratiom must be subordinate to this one. Assurma the availability ol D. ":3. -z.. a. ' ( <<-)

funds for decommissiOllina is aiticaJ to protecting the public health and sarety, 11 safety related decommissionina activities could be delayed it funds are not available to pay for the wort. By the NRC's own lllllysis, the Prepayment and Blternal Sin.king Fund options provide the lliahest degrees d Assufance d the considered mechanisms. They therefore best protect the health and sarety d the public. Assurance for the Elternal Sin.kin& Fund cu be further ea.lwlced by sttucturiog the payment schedule such that more money is collected in the 1), ~. '2. z. ' earlier years d the fund, or by coupJ.ina it with a deposit. ilurmce, or surety protection. For the NIC. co1t i1 u hi.appropriate comideratioa ol f uadilla aecllaai1a 1uitability. As noted in the NRC discussion. State Utilities

• r.ommissions have traditionally set retail rates eublina the utilities to recover the cost d electricity production, plus realize I return on investmenL As decommissioning is an ancillary cost ol that production, it is within the purview d. the state r.ommissions to address the recx,very ol decommissioning costs from the ratepayers. The State r.ommissions may be far better equipped than the NRC to do 90. In addition to the aiteria ol Assuran,ce and Coat, these r.ommissions con1ider additional criteria. These include Equity (fairness to ratepayers in assi&nma charges and cost recovery schedules), and Flt1ibility (the adaptability ol a fund to cha.Dae). D. 3. z. '. 'Z The NRC's approach is only a partial con1ideratioa ol the issues, and strays from the primary mandate it is bound to-- satety. It is arguable that my decision on financing nuclear decommissionina should be left to State C.Ommissions.

It should be noted that at least one study cited in this rule (NURBG/0584, or Assuring the Availability Funds ror Dea>mmissi9Pios. Robert s. Wood) indicates that cost is d minor importance reaarding decommissionina finmc:iq. Accordina to the abovementioned study, "'despite the difference in cost ol the three plant-specific funding alternatives (prepayment, external and internal sillkina funds) round _by most ~ the studies under many assumed conditions, the overall impact Oil increased revenue requirements--ie. the ratepayer's bill--ol the most e1pensive options is estimated to be less than 11" (Rev. 2, p.37). 9 J-372

COIIIIINTS OF IID1'00D ALLIAND llayl4. 1915 DICOIIIIISSIONING CIITDIA POI NUO.IAI DICOIIIIISSIONING: PIOPOSID IULI Periodic Beviev: Redwood Alliance supports the rule's prov111om requarUll periodic review d decommissioning pl1J1s for fundin& adequacy. review intervals, 1). L.\. "3 however, should be presa-ibed to ensure at least a minimal degree d updatin& over the life d a fund. ElistiAa Licensees: Fuadiq aeclaaai1a1 for e:d1tiq liceuee1 11lould be e:1teraal fund1. The e1tabli11laent ol 1uc:Ja funds should be required wltJa.ia a year at aOIL There appears litUe justification for delayin& the l), L\ . I . \ development d a fund for decommissioning when a shorter time frame e1ists for the accumulation d sufficient amounts d capital Extended QecommissioniQ11 Period: For facilities in SAFSTOR, funds should be Blterllll Sinkin& Funds in all cases, regardless d surety, insurance or other options. ID DO case should the fund be IJ1 Internal Fund or Certification. As discussed above in some detail, Internal Funds 1J1d Certification provide IJ1 unacceptably low level D* 3

• l\

d 11sur1J1ce relative to the e1terllll methods. Al there is DO incentive for utililies to provide tor decommissionin& in SAFSTOR cases, 1J1d stability d the utility miaht be in doubt, it is especially important to ensure that the fund _is the m01t riaidly protected. 10 J-373

a=:--:-~11

                                                 ~ _{~-CJ~
                                                                                               ~

Texas Department of Health Robert Bernstein, M.D., F.A.C.P. 1100 West 491h Slreet Robert A.~=#°* Commissioner Deputy Com '. E. Austin, Texas 78756-3189 OOtKETEO (512) 45&-7111 USMRC Profeui~ . . . . . I/!' t.:Mlller Raclation Control Commissioner (512)a3s-1000 ~ MY 17 MO :4 pment and Administration Hay 10, 1985 Secretary of the Commission U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTH: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to 10 CFR Parts 30, 110, 50, 51, 70 and 72 regarding decommissioning criteria for nuclear facilities. Staff of the Bureau of Radiation Control have reviewed the document and offer the following coanents:

1) The lower limits on the quantity of radioactive material established in paragraph 30,35 (c) as criteria for financial assurance may, in some D. (p, 3 cases, be too restrictive. for example, the amount of Americium-2111 in unsealed form which would require financial assurance of at least

                   $500,000 is 10 millicuries.

2) The requirement for a permanent record of spills and other unusual occurrences is a necessary one. It is likely that the personnel responsible for decommissioning at the closure of a facility will not C 7 I include all the individuals who opened or operated the plant. Records * '

are a valuable tool in this regard. Moreover, knowing the history of a facility will enable licensees to decommission a facility in a timely and scientific manner with adequate financial resources being provided "UP-front." If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact us. David K. Lacker, Chief Bureau of Radiation Control cc: Donald A. Nussba11Der Office of State Programs

                                                                             *-:0!1
                                                         ._.....,bJCIMi*******    ;,*,,,?~

J-374

Omaha PUbllc Power Dlsb1d 1623 Harney Omaha. Nebraska 68102 402/536*4000 DJlKC:TU May 13, 1985 (;SNRC . LIC-85-200 "BS HAY 17 A10 :SO Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission (,FT

                                                                               ~& s'{

• a* *,,.- . . .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission COCri(T:fiG Washington, DC 20555 BHANCH r '.

• ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Reference:

Docket No. 50-285

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Notice of Proposed Rule Regarding Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 Federal Register 5600, dated February 11, 1985 The subject notice requested comments on a series of amendments to 10 CFR intended to set forth technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed facili-ties. The Omaha Public Power District, holder of Facility Operating License DPR-40, and owner/operator of Fort Calhoun Station, Unit No. 1, offers the following com-ments. We believe, as a general comment, that the rule should contain a provision which would allow the individual licensee to submit different plans for decommissioning C.t.{.3 to the NRC for approval. We also wish to endorse the comments made by LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby &MacRae. The comments are concerned with Issue D, as stated in the "Description of Policy and Proposed Ru 1e." D. Financial Assurance

1. Although the proposed rules do provide for individual facility-specific cost estimates, the use of these individual studies should be encouraged more positively by the decommissioning rules. Accordingly, the arbitrary estimate of $100,000,000 (1984 dollars) for a decommissio~ing funding should be limi- D.2.1 (a.)

ted to a fall back position where a utili .1 has :liled to make its own study. D. 2. I ( b) Acceptable decorrrnissioning studies should include the three major approaches that are in general use. The first is to conduct, as with construction esti-mates, a detailed step-by-step assessment of the tasks and activities to de-contaminate, secure, place in storage, and/or dismantle a specific plant. The second method is to take an existing estimate and adjust it for regional effects, differences in the plant, and inflation in costs with time. The third is to scale costs from actual decommissioning experience. _ . , ......!'!.~1-~ Employment with Equal Opportumt~ Male/Female J-375

LIC-85-200 Page 2

• Important factors that should be considered in ~lanning are:

a) Regional variation in labor rates b) Amount of reinforcing in concrete structures c) Size of plant d) Type of plant D. 2.1 (a..) e) Plant operations during its lifetime f) Availability and location of waste disposal sites g) Use of an appropriate cost escalator that reflects regional price levels, such as the Handy-Whitman Index of Public Utn Hy Construction Costs by region h) A periodic evaluation review of the base cost estimate to account for changes that may affect the base estimate. Such items include: techno-logical change; adjusting of price escalator; base assumptions review; D.~.3 the waste disposal environment, and all other factors that have cost im-pact which may have changed since the previous review. Periodic evalua-tions should be made every three to five years~ 2, In the proposed rule, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires an an-nual cost escalator of two times the Consumer Price Index (CPI) applied to the decommissioning cost estimate. Both the index and the multiplier used with it are strongly recommended for reconsideration. l).Z.1(4.) The use of the CPI* for decommissioning cost escalation is not appropri-ate. This index is composed of factors intended to relate to consumer retail markets and have only an indirect impact on costs associate with nuclear plant decolllllissioning. Although no perfect decommissioning index has been found, the Handy-Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Costs appears to be more appropriate and is in general use in the utility industry. This index is certainly not a "destruction" index, but it shares many corrrnon fac- D.2.1(b) tors with those that escalate the decorrrnissioning cost. In addition, Handy-Whitman is available on a regional basis. The availability of local cost information provides a strong argument for this index be-cause regional cost differences are very significant in making decom-missioning cost estimates. J-376

LIC-85-200 Page 3 Multiplication of the CPI by a factor of two appears to provide for un-certainty in the total decommissioning cost estimate. Uncertainty in the total decommissioning estimate is limited to aspects connected with storage and disposal of high-level radioactive waste. Much of the re-maining decommissioning cost estimate involves available technology which can be estimated accurately today, subject only to normal price escalation. Uncertainty in the decorrrnissioning estimate should be accounted for by the estimate itself. D. 2. , (c1..) A multiplier on the index does not provide a satisfactory way to account for those cost components which cannot be estimated accurately at the D.2.1(b) origination of the base estimate. Changes in the costs of each component that varied from normal escalation would be made on a three to five year review schedule. Accordingly, periodic reviews would be much more accur-ate than the arbitrary multiplier on the escalation over a period of years. In summary, it is recommended that the Handy-Whitman Index of Public Util-ity Construction Costs be used rather than the Consumer Price Index and the multiplier effect of any index be eliminated in favor of a procedure requirement for periodic reviews of the base estimate using a review cycle of three to five years. The Orraha Public Power District respectfully requests your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, 9.£~ ~ R. L. Andrews Division Manager Nuclear Production RLA/DJM/dao cc: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036 J-377

HIL.lllt 41111111: 100 INTERPACE PARKWAY . . . Ollllli!I ..... iUll P", nJs4.~.llJ

                                                               ~/        TILEl'HONI:

201-2s3r~~0:r PARSIPPANY, N.J. 07054 (  !)O Pi~.:-!J-(d}o/ (§i) .J.;. \,,,

                                                                                   '85 HAY 17 Al 1 :Q3
                                                      ~lay 13, 1985 SNEC 85-020
                                                                                  *.,,.,rt...*:.   . J *, :1:.f Mr, Samuel J, Chilk                                                                     ?k~i~C~

3ecretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Re 6ulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear c-lr. Chilk:

Subject:

Request for Comments on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities Proposed Rule The Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation herewith submits comments on the subject proposed rule. Comments were requested in a February 11, 1985 Federal Re 6 ister notice (50FR5600). Saxton Nuclear Experimental Cor;,oration endorses the comments sent to the Commission by the Atomic Industrial Forum Subcommittee on Decommissioning. We find these comments to be comprehensive and complete. Saxton Nuclear Ex~erimental Corporation suggests that the Commission codify the concept of "possession only" licenses within 10CFR, This would clarify the time frame within which licensees would be able to reduce the C.I.G> requirements of such items as the Security Plan, Emer 6ency Plan, Operator Requalification Trainin 6 , and other requirements of the standard Class 103 license, all of which now are done on a case-by-case basis, via Regulatory Guide 1.86. Very truly yours, Saxton Nuclear Ex;,erimental Corporation

                                                        ~K~

Hichael B. Roche Vice President l1BR/brh J-378

                                                          "'"'- ""111 a,L. *u l                                II Southern California f dlton Company
                                               ~ o aaa aoo II** W"LNUT OIIOVI. AVI .. UI Otl(KET!:,.

JSNRC IIOIIIUAO CA~IP'OIINIA t 17t0 II. O. 1110 JOIID ,,~1,.. 011111 11111 Ml*ll61

• • -**** 11uc1.111i* ~******"*

May ll. 1985 '85 NAY 17 A11 :15 Mr. Samuel J. Ch\lk Secretary of the Comn1ss,on U.S. Nuclear Regulatory COffll\1ss\on 1717 H Strttt Wash1~gton. o.c. 20555

Subject:

NRC proposed ru1, on deco11M1Ss1on1ng D11r Mr, CM lk: ln response to the NRC Proposed Rule entered \n the Federal Register on February 11, 1985, SCE offers the follow,ng two conrnents. lt 1s requested that the f~nal rule reconrnend that s\te spec\f1c cost est\mates for d1smantl1ng and deconrn1ss1on1ng nuclear power plants bt used instead of gener1c stuG1es, and that gener\c cost est\mates only be ustd when D. 2. I (a...) no s\te spec1f\c study has been performed. Add1t1onally, gener\c cost estimates should only be ut111zed w1th the prov1s1on that the un1que 1),2.,(b) chiracttr1st1cs of the nuclear un\t and s1te be taken 1nto cons1derat1on. Further110re. the NRC shou1d clearly state th,t such a 91neral est1R11t1 represents only a rough approx1mat1on for the cost of dtc011111ss\on1ng. Further, SCE endorses the co111111nts of the Ut111ty Deconn1sslon1ng Group 1nd the Subcomn1ttee on Deconn\ss1onlng of the Atom\c lndustr1al forum. S1nce the 1ntent of the Proposed Rule \1 to assure that Sift decorm11ss1onlno

     ~f nuclear fac111t1es w111 be accomplished and that adequate funds will be                            C. LI.LI available for th\s purpose. and because technology ei1sts te accompl1sh the deconn1ss\on1ng of nuclear fac111t1es, th\s fact need not be demonstrated by the l1censee \n the decorrrn1ss1on,n9 plan. The dec0111111ss1on\no plan should not                      c. i4,5 be a l1cense cond\t1on. but rather, the plan should bt sub*ltttd to the NRC subseQutnt to the \ssuanct of the op1rat\n9 l\cense.

lf you have any Questions or cOffllllnts, please contact 1111; very truly yours, 1/11.t,~ J-379

Geo*;:a Pcy.er (Of'f"ICa"'v 333 P edrror-1 Aver ... e M! 3n1a Gt=-0rg J 3:]2B Te,Pcro"'e JGJ 5.:t ~0 1 :0 ~13.,,...::: l'.,":r)*~iS ,:':,:>'. *JII ,:f ~: 1 .!:J: !I.*  :;nta GeJrg*a ]JJ:)2 William L. WHlbrook Se" or V*ce Pres*dent .lccc- .... "'! "9 Jr-:d F nance May 15, 1985 .1--0 Secre'.a*v

                                                             '85 H.~Y 17 All :56 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c. 20555 Re: Proposed Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 FR 5600)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Georgia Power Company is pleased to offer its comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed nuclear decommissioning rule, specifically on the topic of financial assurance. Attached are said comments. Sincerely, uJ~w. uJL<,~'2)~ L. Westbrook WLW:bjw Attachment J-380

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED NRC RULE, DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES Georgia Power Company is pleased to offer its comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed nuclear decommissioning rule, primarily as it concerns the topic of financial assurance. With regard to the Commissioners' concerns permitting the use of unsegregated internal funding, Georgia Power Company strongly supports the inclusion of the internal reserve method as a funding alternative. The Company agrees with the NRC staff's position that the internal reserve method provides a reasonable assurance of funding capability by allowing utilities to invest in company assets. In Georgia Power's case, this investment earns a higher rate of D. 3. 2. L , (b) return than may be achievable if an external fund or prepay-ment method were used. Since internal funding costs less to administer than the other methods, significant savings can be realized over the operational life of the plant. Therefore, ratepayers receive the benefit of lower electrical rates than may otherwise result by using the alternative funding methods. Since none of the other funding alternatives provide a combination of a) savings to the ratepayer, b) financial flexibility to the utility, and c) reasonable funding assurance, to the degree provided by the internal reserve method, Georgia Power strongly supports the inclusion of the internal funding method as an option. J-381

                              -,t.-

The Company recognizes, however, that all utilities are not financially equivalent and that certain utilities may be subject to greater financial vulnerability. Georgia Power believes that the NRC has addressed this point ad~quately for electric utilities by allowing for the internal reserve method, while recognizing that the insurance separately required by 10 CFR S0.54(W) provides assurance in reducing / D.:1.2.2.t uncertainties about the availability of funds. Furthermore, the requirements that decommissioning funding plans contain D. ~. 2. I.\ ( b) provisions for periodic review and adjustment over the life of the facility, and that an updated cost estimate be submitted five years prior to the projected end of operation "D. 3. 2.. I. 2 - all of which is subject to NRC review - provide an even greater level of assurance that the funding methods.and amount are both accurate and adequate. Georgia Power believes that the current federal tax law does not provide adequate financial incentive for utilities to externally fund nuclear decommissioning costs. The internal reserve method, more so than any other funding alternative, best adapts to current federal tax law. The D.5 passage of additional federal tax laws could provide incentives for a utility to adopt a segregated, external fund method. such incentives could include current year tax deductions for entire decommissioning contributions to a qualified segregated fund and tax exemptions of any resulting earnings. J-382

Although not specifically addrensed in the proposed rule, there are other related issues which are of concern to Georgia Power Company. First, the Company recognizes that the proper ratemaking treatment of the costs arising from any nuclear decommissioning technique and funding method is essential. Improper ratemaking treatment can affect not only the specific utility involved but other utilities due to the regulatory and legal procedures established. To ensure equity to the utility, state regulatory commissions "D,'3, 2.2.'1 must allow the proper recovery of costs incurred. A second and related topic concerns licensees who share ownership interests in a nuclear facility. If the co-owners are all investor-owned utilities, consistent state regulatory treatment may become an issue. In the instance where co-owners are municipalities, cooperatives and investor-owned utilities, regulatory treatment, or the absence thereof, must be recognized as a potential issue. Georgia Power suggests that the planned regulatory guidelines specify freedom of funding alternative selection among co-owner licensees. The Company supports the use of any one of the four funding alternatives for co-owner licensees and believes reasonable financial assurance can be given through the combined total of the four funding methods available to the co-owners. J-383

The NRC requests comments on whether to set a prescribed amount as the basis for the level of financial assurance (i.e., the amount of $100 million adjusted for inflation at a rate of twice the Consumer Price Index, per nuclear reactor). Georgia Power prefers the facility-specific cost estimate as the basis on which to fund decommissioning costs. A prescribed amount potentially 1). '2. l (o_.) could lead to inaccuracies in the decommissioning fund. If ratemaking treatment allowed only the prescribed amount on the basis that it is the amount referenced by the NRC, utilities with greater amounts may face disallowance of appropriate, realistic decommissioning costs. Therefore, Georgia Power Company suggests that the licensee be allowed to provide a certification using a facility-specific cost estimate as the basis for the level of financial assurance. However, if the NRC adopts any prescribed amount as the basis for the level of financial assurance, an inflation rate consistent with the .b.Alil Consumer Price Index is more D. 2.t(b) appropriate. While an inflation rate twice that of the Consumer Price Index may represent past trends in decommissioning costs, Georgia Power believes it is not l), 2. I (ex..) indicative of future trends. With regard to the issue of timing, Georgia Power would like to emphasize that many nuclear power 13,Y,Z. installations have two or more reactors on site, each having a license under 10 CFR 50 with different expiration dates. J-384

The development of the final decommissioning rule should specifically allow for this timing difference. Inter-connection of common systems and buildings on multiple reactor sites would not allow for an efficient and straight-forward decommissioning until all spent fuel is offsite. The rule should also recognize that the presence of an operating unit or spent fuel on the site reduces the urgency in the decommissioning of the shut down plant. As a final point, Georgia Power has also reviewed the Atomic Industrial Forum's (AIF) comments on the proposed rule and agrees with the comments on the issues Georgia Power does not specifically address.

Mailing Addreu AlacidrTia Pov.er Company 600 No*th , a:n *Street Post 011,ce Bo, 26~ 1 B,,rr,,n;!'am ..\lat:ama J::291 Te1e;;n~n" 205 ~5J*6C90 R. P. McDonald St:>:'*\lr V*ce President F*1n1ridge Building May 15, 1985

                                                                  '85 HAY 17 Alt :55 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Attention: Docketing and Services Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20S55 Re:        Proposed Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 FR 5600)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Alabama Power Company (Alabama) is p1eased to offer its comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities. Alabama has also reviewed the Atomic Industrial Forum's (AIF) comments on the proposed rule and agrees with them except as noted herein. The proposed amendments to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations address I decommissioning planning needs, funding mechanisms, and environmental review requirements and specifically omit the issue of residual radioactivity levels acceptable for the release of property for unrestricted use. Alabama generally agrees with the NRC's proposals on environmental review 'F. I requirements. The following comments are offered on funding mechanisms and the timing of these mechanisms. These comments are suggested as improvements to the proposed rule so the final rule may be as reasonable and equitable as possible for all concerned parties. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed amendments require each non-government licensee to provide financial assurance for decommissioning. The NRC also allows the licensee the ability to use an alternative funding ,..,...,,.'2..1.I (b) method if the licensee can demonstrate that the alternative method provides \,,' comparable assurance. Alabama fully endorses the inclusion of the internal reserve method as a designated funding method for an investor-owned electric utility in the proposed amendments. J-386

Proposed Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 FR 5600) Pa e 2 The NRC considered two primary criteria in evaluating funding methods - the degree of assurance of the availability of funds and the cost of providing assurance. Alabama agrees that the internal reserve funding method performs adequately under both of these criteria. The internal reserve method is clearly an economical means of providing financial assurance. It is the least expensive of the four funding alternatives because of the company's ability to reduce revenue requirements by investing decommissioning contributions in its 1),*3.z.1.1 (b) own assets. In an external funding nethod such as the prepayment or external sinking fund methods, decommissioning contributions are placed in a segregated fund comprised of high grade government and municipal securities. The surety or insurance method is more expensive than the other type methods due to the additional cost incurred above the normal decommissioning expense to purchase insurance or a surety bond. Consideration should be given licensees who share ownership interests in a nuclear facility. If the co-owners are all investor-owned utilities, consistent state regulatory treatment may become an issue. In the instance where co-owners are municipalities, cooperatives and investor-owned utilities, P.~.5 regulatory treatment, or the absence thereof, must be recognized as a potential issue. Alabama suggests that the planned regulatory guidelines specifically state that co-owner licensees may adopt different funding alternatives and funding amounts based on their percent of ownership. Although the NRC considers the degree of assurance to be the most important criterion in selecting a funding method, it is not the only factor which must be considered. The cost of providing assurance is also of critical importance, particularly when viewed from the state utility commission 1). 'tr. '3. I perspective. It is the responsibility of state utility commissions to ensure that ratepayers are equitably charged for the services which they receive. Thus, these commissions may consider significant cost differences between funding options to be of major importance. The purpose of a funding method is to provide reasonable assurance of the availability of funds. There must be a balancing between assurance and the cost of providing that assurance. For those companies which qualify under the rule, the internal reserve funding method provides a reasonable degree of assurance for decommissioning and it does so at a reasonable cost. 'D."3.2. \, I (b) Furthermore, the requirements that decommissioning funding plans contain provisions for periodic review and adjustment over the life of the facility, and that an updated cost estimate be submitted five years prior to the ~. '3."Z. I. 2 projected end of operation - all of which is subject to NRC review - provide an even greater level of assurance that the funding methods and amount are both accurate and adequate. J-387

Proposed Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear F~cilities (SD FR 5600) Pa e 3 The proposed rule contains an option for the submittal of a decommissioning funding plan or a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in an amount at least equal to $100 million (1984 dollars) adjusted annually at a rate of twice the Consumer Price Index. Alabama strongly believes that the specification of a dollar value for the total D. '2. I (a.) decommissioning cost is inappropriate in a rulemaking. Each utility can prepare a facility-specific cost estimate that reflects the unique situation at their plant. The utilization of these estimates would greatly reduce the potential for over or under collection of the money for decommissioning. In order for facility-specific cost estimates to be realistic, specific detailed technical criteria must be developed to clarify acceptable / '8. '3. I. I decommissioning alternatives. Of particular concern to Alabama, as also noted in the AIF comments, is the implication in the Supplementary Information that / 13. 5 entombment may be precluded as a viable option. Alabama strongly urges the Commission to expedite its current development efforts on decommissioning alternative requirements and residual radioactivity level limits in order that E. I.\ more accurate decommissioning estimates can be developed. Many nuclear power installations have two or more reactors on site, each having a license under 10 CFR 50 with different expiration dates. The development of the final decommissioning rule should specifically allow for this timing difference. Interconnection of common systems and buildings on 13.4.'"2.. multiple reactor sites would not allow for an efficient and straight-forward decommissioning until all spent fuel is offsite. The rule should also recognize that the presence of an operating unit or spent fuel on the site reduces the urgency in the decommissioning of the shut down plant. In conclusion, Alabama generally supports the AIF's comments as noted above and the NRC's decision to include the internal reserve method in its proposed amendments as a designated funding method for electric utilities. It is Alabama's belief that the internal reserve funding method will provide a 'D. 3 .2.1. 1(b) reasonable degree of assurance of availability of decommissioning funds and will provide that assurance in the most cost efficient manner. Aaditionally, / if the timing for multiple reactor sites, and the responsibilities of multiple 1),'t,5' owners can be clarified, the final decommissioning rule on financial considerations will be much more effective and efficient. RPM/MDR:cl J-388

DuKE POWER GoMPANY P.O. BOX 00189 OJLUU.OTl'E, llf.O. 28242 BAL 8. TUCKER Hay 13, 1985 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Pl :02 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co11111ission Washington, D.C. 20555 ~FF,c~ o.=- s~c::.::. i ...,

• GOC~ETING & SEPVIU aRANCH .

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Duke Power Company Comments on 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 - Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (Proposed Rule)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The NRC requested in a Federal Register Notice dated February 11, 1985 (Volume 50, Number 28, FR 5600) comments on the subject proposed rule, In response, Duke Power Company offers the following for consideration. First and forelll)st Duke would like to point out that it joins in and sup-ports the comments filed by the law firm of Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds, which were filed on behalf of the Utility Decommissioning Group. The general and specific comments offered below refer to those aspects of the proposed rule which, because of their potentially large impact on the industry, merit special emphasis. General Comments The Commission's proposed rule on decommissioning nuclear facilities is comprehen.sive and reflects considerable effort by the Commission and its * &. I staff. Nevertheless, in light of this effort and the Commission's concern, Duke Power Company is of the opinion that the proposed rule and associated requirements *are overly restrictive placing unnecessary and costly con- T"\ v,o,~ \ straints on the initiatives of the Nuclear Power Industry. Knowing some of the general NRC concerns and feeling that some for111 of promulgated regulation will eventually evolve from the Proposed Rule, we will focus specific comments on aspects of the rule which require lll)dification. Specific Comments

• The conclusion that $100 million will "provide sufficient funds" to cover the costs to decommission "most" power reactors (50 FED at 5606, D. 2. \(a.')

Col. 3) substantially understates the cost to decommission a large scale commercial power reactor and is generally not an acceptable figure to the Nuclear Power Industry. Funding alll)unts and methods of J-389

Hr, Saa.iel J, Chilk, Secretary Hay 13, 1985 Page 2 j 'D. 2. I (a.) I funding should be eliminated from the rule (emphasis added). If, for some reason, this information is considered necessary then it would be preferable to state the funding amount as a minimum funding amount that entitles a licensee to use the certification option and does not and D.2.1 (b ~ is not intended to reflect actual costs for any power reactor. The rulemaking must give the licensee the option and the flexibility as to the methods of funding (internal as well as external). I D.S. I Comment Discussion As indicated in general comments this rule as formed could result in increased costs for the customers of all Utilities with respect to the question of financial assurance. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, particularly Commissioners Bernthal and Asselst+/-ne, clearly favors seg-regated, external funding of anticipated decommissioning costs. Duke D. 3,2. 2. s-Power Company now uses a mechanism of mingled, internal funding to pro-vide for future decommissioning expenses. The proposed rule does permit the use of the depreciation mechanism or other internal approaches to fund estimated decommissioning costs, but it includes an explicit pre-ference for using external, segregated approaches. The Commission seems unable to reconcile itself to dealing with corporations or local governments which, by definition, have limited resources. The Federal Government is the only licensee in this country for which the Commission can know without doubt that funds will be available for all the ultimate costs of decommissioning. All other licensees have limited resource in that they depend directly or indirectly upon taxes or business revenues for all resources, including access to the capital markets. Furthermore, Commissioner Bernthal voices concern that licensees lack any incentive to "dedicate funds in advance for successful completion of decom-missioning." This is a correct observation, as the proposal itself analyzes, in cases which licensees have more productive use of funds than thirty year escrow accounts. It is not an observation, however, that should cause con-D.~. I cern. The Commission should screen corporations and local governments for financial integrity before issuing licenses, It then serves the best inter-ests of all parties including the public to permit the licensee to operate in an economical manner to maximize the likelihood that adequate resources will be available for all obligations associated with its nuclear facility. Decoamdssioning costs are but one of many obligations of licensees. Isolat-ing this cost and focusing on it to the detriment of the economic prosperity of the licensee does not serve the overall goals of the Commission or the best interests of the public. This would be true even if licensees could precisely project their decommissioning liabilities, which is clearly impos-sible at this time. J-390

Mr, Samuel J, Chilk 1 Secretary May 13, 1985 Page 3 Duke Power Company now uses a depreciation method to provide for decom-missioning costs. The Company may or may not continue using that approach. The problem with the proposed rule is not that it is biased against all such internal funding approaches. The problem is that it is biased at all. t>. i' \ Once the Commission has found a corporation credit-worthy enough to receive a license. it should not impede that corporation in its business operations. The Commission should permit licensees the greatest flexibility. To- whatever extent new regulations reduce the economic strength of licensees, the 'D. '3' \ "improved" financial assurance is illusory. Prudent management of corporate assets, unencumbered by unnecessary regulations. may well offset any addi-tional security stemming from external segregation or insurance policies. The Commission should screen out financially unqualified applicants during licensing proceedings and should not thereafter intercede in the financial management of the licensees. If the Commission feels a licensee is no longer likely to fulfill its financial obligations, it could consider whether that license should be revoked. Insurance (50 Fed. Reg. at 5607, Item 4) Insurance is a funding method used when costs may be incurred by an unex-pected event (fire insurance) or by an expected event at an unknown time (life insurance). Funding for an expected event at a known time is not insurance (normal decommissioning). Nuclear property insurance funds would be available for premature decom-missioning only if an insured event under the policy was responsible for the prematu-re decommissioning and only in the amount that would have been necessary to repair the plant for the damages caused by the accident. Premature decommissioning costs due to regulatory mandate not associated t). "3,'2.'2... \ with an accident at the insured plant is not covered. Surety Bonds (50 Fed. Reg. at 5607, ::em 4) Surety bonds for $100 million are not generally available. Also a surety bond could be cancelled by the surety which would leave the utility without a financial guarantee. Performance Bonds do not provide funding, they simply guarantee performance by an entity. Should the entity default and the surety pay the obligation, the surety then requires reimbursement from the default-ing entity. Surety bonds or insurance are not viable alternatives for normal decollllllissioning or premature decoDDDissioning not associated with an accident. The NRC must utilize the provisions of paragraph 50,33(4) in order to main-tain the credibility of internal funding,

• Paragraph 50.33(2) requires "total annual operating costs for each of the first five years of operation of the facility." This information <:,. I g is not related to the issue and should not be a part of the rulemaking, J-391

Hr. Sa111Jel J. Chilk, Secretary Hay 13, 1985 Page 4

• Duke urges the Commission to revise sections 50.54(cc) and (dd) of the proposed regulation so that regulatory requirements associated with decommissioning are not imposed as license conditions (emphasis added).

Making these requirements license conditions does not enhance in any way their enforceability. Instead, it may force the Commission to hold unnecessary trial-type hearings at the behest of intervenors even though there is no safety concern with plant operation. Section 189a of the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. §2239, requires a hearing upon request in any proceeding to amend a license or construction permit. If the require-ments relating to submission and approval of decommissioning funding plans and record keeping are incorporated into operating licenses, it c.,.'2.. may, for example, be possible to construe any change to an approved fund- 1) I if, 'i ing plan and any exemption from these requirements as license amendments. That would trigger the notice and hearing procedures of section 189, despite the fact that these requirements have no impact on the safe operation of a power plant. For this reason, the Commission should avoid imposing nonsafety-related requirements as license conditions, and should instead follow the usual practice of incorporating into licenses only those matters relating to reactor operations. These difficulties can be avoided or substantially lessened by simply impos-ing the decommissioning funding and record keeping requirements by regulation rather than license condition.

• The definition of "Decommissioning" must be clarified. The proposed Statement of Considerations suggests that decommissioning means to remove "nuclear facilities" from service, including "the site, build-ings and contents, and equipment associated with any NRC licensed activity," (SO FED REG at 5600, Col. 3.) This statement is much too s.,.z.'

broad; the removal of all buildings and equipment associated with NRC licensed activities at the site is not within the generally understood I scope of decommissioning and contradicts proposed section 30.4(y).

• The decommissioning alternative of ENTOMB should be specific. As pro- 6. 4-. 3 posed the ENTOMB criteria indicates "within a period on the order of '8. 5" 100 years." This criteria arbitrarily imposes unnecessary constraints on the licensee.

We appreciate this opportunity to provide you with our comments. We trust that our comments will be considered and that the Commission will move promptly to resolve this proposed rule. If there are any questions or problems concerning this subject, please advise. Very truly yours, ~ 4 z(f?L____ H. B. Tucker J\llhsmh J-392

~PB.ma.

(SO J==/l, s~oo) @)

                                                                             "o efa.l CCJ1'1ENTS OF THE NUCLEAR INFORMATICJ,I ANO RESOURCE SERVICE CJ,I NRC'S PROPOSED RULE:   0 0ECCJ1'11SSICJ,1ING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES,"

58 FED, REG, 5688, FEBRUARY II, 1985. * *. *!"""': lntroductjon '85 NAY 20 AJO :53 1ddr1ssing th, fo11()1,ijing five c1tegories: 1lt1rn1tiv1s, ti11ing, pl1nning, fin1nci1l 1ssur1nc* 1nd residu1l r1dio1ctivi ty. Howevtr, the rule gives littl, or no guid1nc1 reg1rding how deconnissioning m*thods should b1 chos,n ind c1rri1d out in order to m1nimiz* th, risks to d*connissioning workers ind th, gener1l public inste1d dtferring consid1r1tion of such issues to the issu1nc1 of Regul1tory Guid1s 1ddr*1sing: I) deconnissioning 1ltern1t1ves (rr,,ision of Reg. Guidi 1,86), 2) hctors 1Hecting the tilling, 3) 1ddi tion1l B.3.1. \ guid1nce on providing fin1nci1l 1ssur1nce, ind 4) guid1nc* for the form1t ind content of d.connissioning pl1n1 for P1rt 38, 48 ind 78 license*s. Nor c1n such guid1nce b* found in th* Drift Generic Environment&! Imp1ct St1tem*nt

<NUREG-8586) on deconnissioning, published in J1nu1ry 1981, which provides only the briefest discussion of deconrnissioning 11ethods ind their imp1cts.

Inste1d, the rule focuses on est1blishing 11inim1l reporting requirements ind 1 bro1d r1nge of funding schemes for licensees. D. 3, '2.. I.\ ( ct.)

                                                                  -, ... .-........-p Aolmowfedged by ca~ . . 2 II 1'~-~

J-393

                                                                                                                    /v. 3. 2. u(a..)
                                                                                   'f). 1. \ . \

th* costs and public h*alth risks of d*connissioning. Th* Connission has also radiation exposur* incurred during deconnissionin9. Finally, the rule does (. I, 17. *l work of deconnissioning plants that hav* experienced a radiological accid*nt. ready for decainissionin9 by the y*ar 2888. Deconnissionin9 activities have alrudy stuted at a handfol of plants <e.g. Dresden-I, Puchbottom-1, D.~., Humboldt Bay, Indian Point-I, Fermi-I) that are now being handled on a case by c:;. \ with spe*d. Th* own*rs of th* nation's op*ratin9 reactors, particularly thos* with older plants, should begin coll*cting funds for deconnissioning at a D, q. \. \ realistic level set by the Connission, at the earli*st possible date. Clearly, to dat*, utilities have not gathered funds at a rate proportional to the total sums that will e,ventually be required. S** Tabl* 4, "Dismantling the Myths About Nuclear Oeconrnissioning,* Public Citizen/Environmental Action, 1),4 .G.. \ Apri 1 1985 at 16, For example, the 32% owner/operator of the Vermont Yankee plant, which has operat*d for 13 years, has collected only t.6 million despite an *stimat*d cost of decainissioning of t82.9 ($1983). J-394

The propoud rult hu thrH raajor shortca1ings1 l) it perraih the UH of /n.~.'2..1.\(Cl.) unreliable funding ~ethods and under,stiraates the costs of dec0111111issioning1 2> , t). I * \ * \ it crHtH a confusing and inadequate regulatory 1ch1n1e1 and .. 3> it viohtH ie..,., l p. I the National Environm,ntal Policy Act. These problems are discussed belaw.

1. Tht Rult PPt! Not Pcoyidt A11uc1nc1 of Adrgyatt Funding, A. Costs and Risks of OecOIMlissioning Underestimated.

The propostd rult requires that utilities which do not submit a proposed dtcOfftllissioning funding plan raust set aside at least 1118 rail lion <1984 dollars, adjusted annually for inflation using an inflation rate twice that indicated by the change in the Con11111er Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor>. Proposed 11 C.F,R. 51,33<k><1>, Presumably, th* Commission 1110 con1idtrs this tlll rail lion figure to be I benchmarr. for me1suring the 1d,qu1cy of deconnissioning funding plans. Ironic111y, th*

                                                                                      "D. 1. l. \

nuclear industry's Atomic Industrial Forum believes that the average cost of dec011111i11ioning I cannercial reactor will range over this 1188 rail lion benchmark, frani 1121 to 1178 million (11985), Nucleonic1 Week, April 25, 1985 at 8, Those utilities submitting decanflissioning funding plans will not be required to set aside 1ny predetermined rainimum lfflount for decommissioning, T~us, the rule leaves a potentially huge gap in the 1ssur1nce that adequate l),2. \ ( C.) funding will be collected. The proposed dec011111issioning rule, while allowing for the sut:nitta1 of such pl1ns, does not contain any criteria by which th* NRC Staff, the public and even state public utility connissions can judge J-395

                                       -4'-

their 1dequ1cy, Tht rule 1110 doe, not *1t1bli1h th1t pl1n1 proposing I fund with IHI thin the 11ini11U11 figure should COYtr 111 uptch of dtconninioning, including, for exnplt, deconhntiution proctdurH and 1111st* tr1n1porhtion, both of which c1n b* 1ub1tantial. HortOYtr, th* C1111111i11ion's txptritnct with nucltar pllnt clunup and dtc1111111inioning, 1long with th* rtst1rch of its con1ult1nts 1 d1111onstr1tts that th* rule 111y 11riou1ly undtrtsti111t* dtcora11issioning costs. Th* NRC b1sts its cost t1timates for tht dtconnissioning of connerci1l pCMer reactors on NRC-funded studies done by 81ttelle's Pacific Northwtst Laboratory. "Technology, Safety, and Costs cH DKonninioning

• Rtftrtnc*

Pressurized Water Reactor PCMer Station,* NUREG/CR-8138 1 Jun* 1978 and 1),1.1.\ "Technology, Safety, and Cost, of Dtconnissioning a Reftrtnc* Boiling ~ater Reactor Power Station,* NUREG/CR-8672, June 1988, These studies 111,re bastd on d1h gathered in 1978 using *refertnc*" pCMtr ructors that had optr&ted 6 years or less. The cost analyses perfor11ed by Battelle art dtficient in 11any ways, As Battell* itstlf points out, without rtgulations sttting th* residual radiation levels, it is difficult to calcu11te the costs of dtcont1111inating 111t1rials. NUREG/CR-8138 at 2-15 and 9-5, Estimates of occupational r1diation txposurt, 1nd thus costs, ire sensit1v~ to managt11ent philosophy and th* dtconrnissioning methods utilized and thus vary significantly frcn plant to plant. However, NRC calculated the tl88 11i*llion figure in th* proposed rule by adjusting the Battelle f1gurts for inflation only. Jt is clear that more than inflation wi 11 incren* the cost of dtconwnissioning, In October 1983 1 NRC research showtd that operating and 11aintenence J-396

pruticH could lud to big cost diff*nncH in d*cmninioning. lntidf NRC, Octob*r 31 1 1983 at 4, For *x&111pl*, a lic*nsH'I flilur* to 1uinhin a good

 ***l on porous concr*t* 1urfac*1 will re1ult in     *or* cont111inated concr*t*.

Id, This, in turn, will r11ult in larger volume, of wast, and henct hightr disposal co1t1 1 a factor alr*ady idtntifi*d by Batt*ll* and other, to b* a primary ccnpon*nt of deconninioning costs: Ironically, tht artu of optrating and mainttnanct art usu1lly th* fir1t to 1ufftr cutbacKs by utiliti*s with financial difficulti*s. Additionally, NRC consultants have point*d out th1t during deconniuioning operations the entir* pllnt corns under scrutiny and must be considered for decontamination. *oecont111ination Processes for Rtstorative Operations and as a Precursor to DecO!llfflissionlng: A Literature Revi...,,* Nay 1981, NUREG/CR-1915 at 18, The s*condary 1ysttm, which uses different wattr ch~istry and thtrtfort has difftrent corro1ion 'D. I. I. I product,, may beccn* cont1111inated du* to l*ak1 in the 1t*111 g*nerators. Dtspite storage systtms dtsigned to contain radioactivity, leak, dut to d*t*rioration of ccnponents and op*rational *rror can b* expected. P*rmeabl* ~

 *attrials likt concrett will b* cont111in1t*d lnttrnally a, can ,oils, D*contanination of such materials requires ,. ..oval of surfaces to the d*pth of contanin1tion, which may be signific1nt particul1rly lf tht concrete is uncoated and the cont1111inant is in liquid form. NUREG/CR-1915 at 18-14.

Housekeeping or operating philosphy has betn id*ntifitd as critic1l for tht expected radiation fields and plant *xposur* rates. NUREG/CR-8138 at 7-36 and NUREG/CR-1915 at 11, Nor*over, sen* data simply does not *xi,t, For *xampl*, there is no inforrution on tht depth of pot*ntial contanination of concret. over a 38-48 J-397

y*ar op*rating history. Batt*ll* stat*s that 11*asur ..*nts of activat*d 1tainl*11 st**I irradiat*d ov*r It y*ars ar* n**d*d for th* purpos* of d*t*r11ining th* growth of long-liv*d radionuclid** such as Ni-59 and Nb-94. NUREG-1131 at 2-15. Si11ilarly 1 m*asur111*nt1 of th* gr<Mth of radionuclid*s in th* biological shi*ld for lr,1*1* of Europium-152 and Europiu11-154 ar* nHd*d. In addition, studi*s to d*t*r11in* th* actual 1..,.1, of radioactivity on th* soil surfac*s n*arby an op*rating r*actor would help to charact*riz* th* r*sidual radioactivity that can b* *xp*ct*d aft*r a 48 y*ars of op*ration. NUREG/CR-8138 at 2-15, Batt*ll*'s study on Pl,,CRs conclud*s that: *, ** th* data pr*s*ntly available ar* not ad*quate to p*r11it *xtrapolation to thirty years 1),\.1.' of ful 1 pow*r op*ration, u shown in Figur* 7.4-2 ... A 1o1id* rang* of don rat*s s**n in th* tabl* (fron1 8.811 to 31r/hr) ar* po1tulat*d to b* typical for the reference PWR aft*r final shutdown and b*for* any chemical d*contamination *fforts.* NUREG/CR-8138 at 2-15. Jt is important to not* that figure 7,4-2 only is carri*d out to 16 Eff*ctiv* Full Pow*r Y*ars <EFPY> of op*ration. Indicativ* of th* 11any pot*ntial unknowns is th* *xperi*nc* of di1t11antling th* Elk River reactor which only op*rat*d at 2,5 EFPY. There, J..,*ls of Na-22 and Eu-152 w*r* 11*asured -- isotop*s that hadn't ..,.n b**n expected to occur in the ref*r*nc* Pl,,CR, Tabl* 7.3-5 NUREG./CR-1131, Amor* r*c*nt study don* by two Becht*l Pow*r researchers, reported in th* July 19, 1984 issue of Public Utilities Fortnightly, states, "CTlhe curr*nt practic* of adjusting an *sti11at* for *scalation <*ff*cts of D. L\. "3 inflation> on a p*riodic basis, without a conc<nitant *x111ination of cost compon*nts r*lativ* to today's t*chnical bas*, plant op*rating history, and r*gulations could r*sult in an understat111ent of current costs.* An An4lyiis J-398

of Deconni11ioninq Coit E1tt~1t1d for Nucl11r Op1r1ting Plant,, Rich1rd R. But& ind Robert E, P&l~er, 1t 47-49, The &uthors concluded: *our study strongly 1uggest* th&t deconnis1ioning *sti~*t*s ~*d* in e1rli*r y*1rs -- ind upd*t*d only for inflation -- r*sult in an und*rstaten*nt of curr*nt costs reg1rdles1 of the deconnissioning ~ethod." This i* p1rticul1rly relrvant D.~.3 considering the current lack of r*gul1tory requiren*nts g011erning op*rating and d*sign f*atur*1 th1t would f1cilit1t* d*connissioning. Oiscuss*d below, such fe1tur*s hive b**n sugg*st*d by f*d*r1I contr1ctors such 11 Rockwell Jntern1tion1l <in conjunction with th* di1111ntl.ment of th* Sodium R*1ctor Exp*rim*nt> and 81tt*II*. See Section II .8.4. The 81tt*lle studies w*r* b11*d in p1rt on the country's limit*d

• xp*ri*nc* with deconnissioning ind dism1ntlem*nt, Whil* a tot1I of fiv*

lic*ns*d pow*r r*1ctors, four denionstr1tion r*1ctors, six lic*ns*d t*st r*1ctor1, 28 r*s*1rch r*1ctor1, ind 22 critic1I t*st f1ciliti*1 hive been d*connissioned, 81tt*II* conclud*d: "B*c1use of diff*r*nc*s in r*1ctor size, typ* ind d*sign, op*r1ting tim*, lic*nsing r*quiren1*nt1 1 loc1tion, motiv* for install1tion of th* facility, 1nd conditions of concern <*.g. costs, 1hutdown D. I. I.\ r1di1tion lev*ls, lfflounts of r1dio1ctiv* wast*> *xtr1pol1tions fron th*s* experienc*s to larg* c011111*ric1l r*1ctors are consider*d to b* g*n*r1lly unre1sonabl*." NUREG 8318 1t 3-1, This d*corrrnissioning *xp*rienc* its*lf, howev*r, shows th1t th* cost of deccnrnissioning I l1rg* re1ctor with a long op*rating life will in f1ct b* ~uch high*r thin 1188 ~ii lion (11985). The Dr*sd*n-1 pl1nt, for *xifflpl*, is r*l1tiv*ly sm1ll <287t'lile> 1nd with a r*lativ*ly short op*r1ting lif* (19 y*1rs>. Y*t, the d*contifflination phis* of its d*connissioning 1lone cost 148 million, not including th* cost of w1ste J-399

treat111*nt, 1hipa*nt and dilpoul, which according to NRC'1 CMn rn*arch ii the 1ujor ccnponent of d*conhnination co1h. Jn,idt NRC, Octob*r 31, 1983 at 6, Th* d*contaraination 1tructur* built at Dr*sd*n-1 wa1 int*nd*d for op*rational d.contaraiution for all thrH units, how.....,er, the exp*ri*nce ,till illustratH a point1 Battell* e1tt11ated that decontil!lination of a PWR would cost <exclusive of waste disposal and transporation) $288,393 to t4J4,713 (t1984>, approxi111at*ly 96 time, low*r than one third of th* cost of the Dresden decont.v11ination. D*contil!lination of a plant four or five time, the size of Dresden-I that had operated twice a1 long would cost much more. And this would not account for the other costs of dec01111i11ioning, 1uch 11 di1111antling the plant and shipping th* wastes. Even the deconni11ioning of the much 11uller <72 11,,ie) Department of En*rgy Shippingport reactor is now expected to cost t79 million. This *stimate 11ay be particularly low because the reactor D. '.'. ' vess*l will be shipped intact and disposed of in a (tax-subsidized) military waste dump <Hanford), two things that utilities with larger reactors will be unable to acccnplish, Even after a, 11uch a, a 188-year delay, the internal components of a reactor would still have to be sectioned underwat*r. NUREG/CR-8138 at 9-51, This is also true of the reactor vess*l and parts of the b101hield for under 58 years of storag* and possibly pi~ing which would at least have to be m*asur*d for Co-68 lrvels. Id. Horeover, this estimation is not necessarily realistic, when viewed in coniparison with current cost estimates for deccnni11ioning the smaller Humboldt Bay reactor. Pacific Gas & El*ctric Co. estimates that d*conni11ioning the 65 ttife Hu11boldt r*actor will cost t688 million (12815). Testimony of Junona Klein, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Befor* the California J-400

Public Utiliti*1 Conni11ion, April 23, 1984, Tr1n1cript at 536. Thi1 cannot b* r*concil*d with Portland G*n*r11 El*ctric'1 *1tim1t* th1t d*conni11ioning of the much l1rger <1131 l'i'i*> Troj1n Nucl*1r Power Plant will cost only tl73 million <t2111> in the Y**r 2111, Th*1* gro111y di1p1r1te and D. ,. i. I di1proportion1te cost e1tim1te1 denon1tr1te th1t deca1111i11ioning cost, m1y vary widely frora plant to plant, ind p*rh1p1 more importantly, th1t *stim1te1 m1y vary widely b1s*d on diff*ring 1nd inconsist*nt 1s1umptions m1de by lic*nnu. Th*y 1lso strongly suggut th1t d*cCll!Wllinioning of lug* .ructors is lik*ly to cost much mor* thin 1188 million (tl985), Th* Connission should r...,i...., curr*nt m1t*ri11 on d*conni1sioning costs and incorpor1t* 1 high*r, more re1li1tic estim1te of deconnis1ioning costs in the rule. Th* cost *1tim1t* for d*connissioning also should b* mor* cons1rv1tiv* b*c1use 1cc*pt1bl* dos* rite levels for d*conni11ioning work*rs m1y deer**** in th* future. The cost of d*connissioning is likely to incre1s1 11 1llow1bl1 worker exposure levels 1r* decre111d, 1 General Accounting Office report concluded. Report to Congr*ss by the COlllptroller G*n*ral of the U.S.,

*c1e1ning Up th* Remains of Nucl1ar F1ciliti11 -- A Hultibillion Dollar 1), I. I. l Problen,* Jun* 1977,         Jt is likely that such dos* ra~e, will be d*cre111d by the time most r11ctor1 undergo d*conni11ioning, 11 naw information on th*

he1lth and genetic ri1k1 of low r1diation dos*1 b*cOffl* mor* clear. Hany scientists h1v1 already called for a ten-fold reduction in existing allowable work*r 1xposures. For 1x&11pl1, Dr. ECM1rd Radford rec0fflfflend1 th1t for 1.: ...

'"', !~.~ -.tandard for muimum exposures should be cut frOffl 5 rlffl <average annual dose) to l,S rem, Such a reduction in exposur* lr,,els would require a utility to hire more workers thus incre11ing the labor cost of J-401

• ..;~ A gro,s f1llur* of th* propo1*d rul* i, that it do*s not 11,ur* 1ccur1t*

cost *sti~*t*, ~h*n th*Y 1r* ne*d*d most: during th* tim* th* utility is coll*cting the fund,, The propo11l r*quir*s I lic*ns** to ,ubmit d*connissioning cost *stim1te1 twic*: first, upon 1pplic1tion for 1n 1).~. 3 operating license <or for license holders, two y*ars following promulgation of the rule>1 ind 1*cond, ibout five years before the project*d end of operation, Thus, 1 licensee ~*Y very ~ell go for twenty-fiv* year, ~ithout updating deconrnissioning costs *stim1tes, In that time, industry""\llid* experience or ev*nt, 1t th* plant may show that th* originAl estimate w11 far too low, In their study of deconrnissioning cost esti~1tes the two Becht*l Power r*se1rcher, r*ported "the 1v*r1g* cost and range of *stim1ted cost, for studies ccnpleted between 1979 ind 1983 hive significantly *xc**d*d si~il1r costs for tho,e ,tudies publish*d during 1975 to 1978 and 1dju1t*d to 1983 dollars only for inflation,* According to their figures, the cost of dE-c<<: * ***.;.rose frm 1n av*r1ge of t91 million <tl983> to 1n 1ver1ge of tl23 million Ctl983), A 1979 Rand Corporation study which looV.ed 6 1 ,ost 1), l, I. l e'.:-c ., - ',cir\ for "first of I kind" technologies shCMed that large, un1nticip1ted cost overruns 1ver1ged around 488X for construction projects completed b*tween 1956 ind 1977. "OiMaantling the Myths About Nuclear Oeconnissioning,* at 27,

                        .* * .* official Christoph*r Meyers has concluded: "One of the key factor, leading to potential errors in cost estimation for deconnissioning might b* th* l*ngth of ti~e the *stimation is made [before] the time ~ork ii actually to be complet*d."            Jd, 1t 28. Thus, it can be a,sumed that initial estimations of dec01N11issioning costs will be low, perhaps extremely ICM,               Jt J-402

is v*ry poor planning to wait until th*..,. of d*connissioning to r*quir* 1 lic*ns** to r*a11*11 thos* costs and to quickly m1k* up th* diff*r*nc* in its d*conni11ioning fund, Furth*rmor*, th* timing of coll*ction of rr...i*nu*s is significants th* *1rli*r funds 1r* coll*ct*d from custom*rs th* mor* th* total d*connissioning *xp*ns* is cov*r*d by int*r*st pa)'ffl*nts rath*r than D.'-1.3 r1t*p1y*rs. Th* rul* should r*quir* r*ass*11111*nt of costs and r*1djustm*nt of th* d*connissioning fund at five-y*1r intervals throughout th* operating lif* of a plant.

8. Unr*li1bl* Deconrnitsioning Funding Methods P*rmitted, Th* proposed rul* requir*s utiliti*s to set aside a deconrnissioning fund of at least tll8 million, Y..D..!.t!.1 the utility provides NRC with 1 "deconn1issioning funding plan.* The proposal allows utiliti*s to choose from ll'IIOng 1r...i*r1l financing sch1n1es, including pr*p&)'fflent, *xternal sinking fund, a sur*ty m*thod or insur1nc*, and an int*rnal reserv*, Prep1ym*nt constitut*s a pr*-op*rational deposit of an amount of money which, with earned interest, would &ecru* to th* necessary 1J11ount by th* tim* of deconnissioning. It may 1). 3. 2. I. I (a...)

be in th* form of I trust, *screw accol*nt, government fund, certificah of d*posit, or deposit of gov*rnm*nt securities. An external sinking fund would also consist of I separat*, ind*pend*nt account, with payments to be made over tim* rath*r than 111 at once. Under the third option, th* lic*nsee would obt~in a guar1nt** of deconnissioning funds in th* form of a sur*ty bond, l*tt*r of cr*dit, Jin* of cr*dit, s*cur*d inttr*st, or oth*r gu1r1nt** method, Finally, th* rule pert1its establishment of an internal reserve account, not s*gr*gattd from th* licensee's assets and within the licensee's control, J-403

Th*** funds could b* inv*1t*d in th* lic*n***'* a11*t1 and th*n th*or*tically b* r*claim*d by i11uanc* of bond1 at th* ti~* of d*connis1ioning. Und*r th* rul*, in ord*r to UH thi1 option, an *hctric utility ~u1t own ~or* than ou g*n*rating facility. Th* l11t option, *1t1bli1~*nt of an int*rnal r*1e,rv*, 1hould b* rl'llov*d frcn th* propo1*d rul* b*cau1* it provid*1 littl* a11urance that d*conni11ioning funds will b* availabl* wh*n a plant i1 r*ady for d*conni1sioning, As wid*ly r*cogniz*d, financial assurance is a concern in

                                                                                      'D.3.'2.1. \ (a..)

part b*caus* of qu*1tions r*garding th* long-t*r~ futur* financial h*alth of th* *l*ctric industry as a whole. In testimony on b*half of the Missouri Public Servic* Connission Staff in August 1984 1 Dr, Carolyn Snith, Senior Consultant with J.W. Wilson and Associates Inc., point*d out that "At th* time that deconnissioning occurs, th* c11h needed to pay for d*ccnnissioning must be obtained front investors. For this reason, th* net n*gativ* 11lv1g* approach p*rfor~s poorly with r*1p*ct to th* financial 11suranc* criterion.,,,Adoption of th* n*t n*gativ* salvag* approach could cau1* 1*riou1 cash flow probl<<as for Union El*ctric at th* ti~* d*conni11ioning occurs,

*sp*cially und*r an inn*diat* di1111ntl..-iient plan.*  Furth*r~ore, th*

Connission may s*t the stag* for another financial cri1i1 in th* utility industry if it fail1 to require th* collection of adequate fund1 over t1m*. Nu~erous reactors will be deconni11ioned at approxi~ately th* 1111* ti~* and 11 th*** r*actor1 ar* shut down, utilities will b* attempting to replac* then with n~ capacity. Id, at 24. Contrary to th* Conni11ion'1 conclu1ion that "Th* int*rnal r*1*rve method t*nd1 to be less *xpensiv***** th* financial D.1.,.1. '2. assurance Pf'OVided by *xternal funding method is a valuable connodity -- on* J-404

that is r*9ul1rly bou9ht and sold in our *conony. Surr*buttal T*stiraony of Or, Carolyn Snith, N011.rnb*r 1984, B*for* th* Hi11ouri Public S*rvic* Conniuion. Th* 111*t1 that ar* *xp*ct*d to fund d*conni11ionin9 111y: l~s* valu* orb* claira*d by creditor, before I plant is d*conni1sion*d. For in1t1nc*, the 111*t1 of th* WPPSS CW11hin9ton Public P°"'er Supply Sy1t111) and Thre* Mil* I1l1nd plant,, or any other canc*ll*d or shutdown plant,, n°"' have little valu* for purpo1*s of r1isin9 d*conn1s1ionin9 funds for oth*r nucl*ar plant, owned by tho1* utiliti*1. Financial insolvency or bankruptcy ~ould 1110 place uns*gre91t*d d*conni11ioning funds at 1*riou1 risk. Financial problem, could, for *x111ple, drive I utility to sell its assets at 1 1011, thus jeopardizing deconnis1ionin9 funds. In the event of a bankruptcy, th* fate of deconni11ionin9 funds is unclear, No nucl*ar licensee ha, d*clared bankruptcy 11 y*t, but 1ev*ral have been on th* v*rge. We are aware of no f*deral 1~ 'D.3.2. I.\ (CL) that would place assets designated 11 coll1t*r1l for deconni1sionin9 cost, beyond th* r*ach of creditor, in I ba~kruptcy proc**ding. The Conni11ion has fttta1pt*d to bolster th* r*liability of internal rn*rve1 in thrH r*sp*ch. First, it would r*quir* that I utility own raor* than one 9enerating facility in order to av11l it1*1f of th* internal reserve option. H°"'ever, that approach pr011ides no *xtr& c*rtainty that funds will b* available because it does not require that the inv*stment be made in facilities other than nucl*ar power plant,. A1 such, it constitut** robbing Pet*r to pay Paul. Whether a utility owns on* nuclear plant or five, it will have to d*connis1ion **ch of those plants. Thu,, the pl*dging of on* plant's J-405

a11ets to deconni11ion another si~ply 1hift1 the obli9ation betw.en the 1111e pool of debtor, without adding any security, The Ccnrais1ion states in the 11)* 3 2. I. I ( a,) discussion preceeding the actual rule that a utility that u,e, an internal res*rv* au,t hav* backup insuranc*, 58 Fed. R*9* at 5688, This requir ..ent do** not appear in th* t*xt of the propos*d rule, hOlllever. Its tnforctability is thus unclear, Hortovtr, th* NRC 1t1te1 that for *o*t *ltctric utilities, tht post-accidtnt insuranct r,quirtd by NRC rtgulations will bt 1ufficitnt to ~eet th, rtquirt111ent. It ii difficult to Ht how this insurance, _which covtrs

• onsitt proptrty damag,,* <II C.F.R. 58.54<w>>, could bt used to covtr tht costs of ordinary plant decanninioning. Dr, David H, Rosenbau11 of Technical Analy1i1 Corporation, a consultant for tht Hi11ouri Public Strvict Conni11ion- V. s. -z..z. I Staff, recently concluded, "No [accident) insurance sold by any principle sourc, would pay the costs associated with non-accidental prt111ture shutdown and decClfff1'issioning of a nuclear project.* Direct Testi~ony, August 29, 1984, IER-84-168, Even whert dtconninioning followed a_n accidf': '. 1 it i; uncltar hOIII 11uch of H- ,. *  ; :<-~*-* * : ... ,.:-,;ld actually offset th* cost of deconninioning, if. at al 1.

The Conni11ion states in it, pre11Dblt that a utility cont1111plating u,, of the SAFSTOR option 11u1t use external funds, thus prohibiting use of internal funding 11echani1111 while tht plant lits dormant for **tended periods, This li11itation on tht us, of the less reliabl* int*rnal funding 11tchanism1 will 'D.3.2..1., hav* no real tffect, Lic-ensets who wish to hk* aa,,,anhgt of th* internal rts*rv* 11echani1111 11 a source of capital can 1i11ply state at the outs*t that they intend to deconnission i11111ediately, whether or not they actually intend to choos* that option. J-406

Finally, both th, internal r11*rv1 and th, *xt*rnal sinking fund 1uff1r fran1 th, w*akn111 that they a11u~, that a lic1n111 will b1 able to continu* ~*king d1po1it1 °"*r th, lift of th, plant. If a plant 1hut, down pranatur,ly and stop, g1n1rating rev1nu11, th, lic1n111 ~ay b1 unable to make tho11 deposit,. As the technical problems a1,ociat1d with aging ~at1ri&l1 and corrosion <1.g. lntergranular Stress Corrosion Cracking, Pr11suriz1d Thermal D. 3. 2 . -z . \ Shock, Stel/11 G1n1rator tub, degr1dation) incr1as1 with a reactor's age, and new 1af1ty infor~ation btcOffles available on certain plant, <1uch as th, 1ei11Aic siting issues for Humboldt Bay and S1n Onofr,-1> it is incre1singly likely that utiliti11 will find it financi1lly advisable to prematurely 1hut down plants p,r~anently. Any funding schtn* that relies on deposit, mad, O\ltr ti~* should thus be required to be backed by insurance for pr1111ture shutdown. J-407

                                    -1,-

II, PtsPll!A**ionjnq R,aulati901 Act Llacl11c IQd lnad1gy1t1, arHnchenh to ih *xi1ting r*gul1tion1. Thu1j for th* d*comni11ioning of nuclur pow*r phnh, th* COIWlinion propo1H ch1ngH to 11 C.F.R. Parts 51 and 71, This approach, whil* 1impl*, both cr*at** gr*at confusion about the actual 1t1te of a license pending and during d*connis1ioning, and fails to supply suffici*nt guidanc* to lic*ns*** for d*connissioning, and to th* NRC Staff which ii rHpon1ibl* for rrvi.w1, Ironically, in a r*c*nt notic* of C. 1.3. I Well-Logging Operations,* th* Connission grappl*d with th* 11111* issu* and ord*r to *provid* compr*hen1ive and consi1t*nt r*gul1tions,* and becaus*

• curr*nt r*gulations do not provid* sp*cific requir111*nts.* Th* propo1*d rule on w*ll-logging oo*s on to say:

A new _part is n*ed*d b*cause thes* operations us* byproduct material, sourc* material, and special nuclear material, If th*se safety requir111*nts w*re not included in one part, they would hav* be r*p*at*d in Parts 38 (byproduct mat*rial>, 48 (sourc* material) and 71 <special nuclear mat*rial), I I I Furth*rmore, if the safety requir111*nts w*re fra~.nted throughout Parts 38 1 41, and 78, license*s, NRC licensing rrvi.wers, and NRC inspectors could have difficulty in determining the regulations applicabl* to a specific situation. rul*s which will 1111end a few regulations in lieu of providing a whole new part. As a result, NRC proposed rules on d*c01111is1ioning ar* unclear and inconsistent and there are no canprehensive safety requir11111nts. J-403

A, Thf Lic*nsjng Schtfflt Govrrning Drconni11jonin9 11 111-0*fin*d, It ii not cl*ar frOII th* propo1*d rul* what, if any, lic*n1* will gov*rn the deconni11ioning <including any *,af* ,torag** p*riod> of a nuclear po..,er plant. For *x1111pl*, th* propo1*d 1111*nci'llent1 to Part 58 contain 1r.1*ral conflicting provi1ions. Propo,ed section 58 .. 51 provid*1 that unl*ss application for r*n.wal of a lic*n1* i1 made, a lic*n1ee must apply to t*rminat* the license no later than one year prior to the licen1*'s expiration date. Thi, appears to 1u99est that ren.wal of a <Part 58) operating license is for the purpos* of operating a plant, and that deconrnissioning occurs upon the granting of the reque,t to t*rminat* th* lic*nse. This provision also se<<111 to contain the a,,umption that the licens* will expire unless it ii ren~ed. This is a logical schem* for operating lic*ns*1. On the other hand, proposed Section 58.82, "Application, for ter~inations of licenses,* allo..,s C. I. I the Connission to terminate the license when it finds that the plant has been decannissioned properly. The period in betwe*n this (58.82> application for termination filed by the utility and an actual Connission decision to terminate, appears to be govern*d by a Connission *order* (proposed 18 C.F.R, 58.82<*>> which authorizes deconni11ioning upon approval of the deconnissioning plan. It is thus unclear frcn the rule wheth*r deconnissioning is actually governed by a Part 58 license. The proposed 1111enanents to Part 78, which regulates possession of nuclear material, are ,lightly more clear, After a Part 71 license expir*s, the license continues in effect until the plant is deconrnissioned. 18 C.F.R. J-409

71.38<*>. How...,*r, th* Ccnni11ion l*av*s uncl*ar wh*th*r th* Part 71 lic*ns* <which in ~ost cas*s is incorporat*d into a Part~* full pow*r op*rating lic*ns*> is r*nM11*d or r*i11u*d in ord*r to p*r~it d*connissioning. It is also uncl*ar wh*th*r th* Part 71 lic*ns* *xclusiv*ly gov*rns d*connissioning, or wh*th*r it is ~*r*ly includ*d in an sora* sort of modifi*d "poss*ssion-only" Part ~8 op*rating licens*. Clarification of thn* points is utr9'Hly important to guarantH ~*aningful public participation in any deconrnissioning decision. Th* granting of authority to deconnission a plant involv*s *ith*r a lic*ns* 111*ndm*nt or C. I.\ th* issuanc* of an..., lic*ns** Eith*r of thos* actions trigg*rs h*aring rights und*r the Atomic Energy Act. The public is entitl*d to notice of th* natur* of the lic*nse or amencil*nts, and what regulations and statutory provisions th* licensee ~ust comply with in ord*r to obtain th* r*qu*sted approval, Oth*rwis* prospectiv* interv*nors and int*rest*d stat*s hav* no ~*ans of rvaluating wh*th*r th* lic*nsing action ccnpli*s with applicabl* law, In this cas*, th* NRC has left uncl*ar what typ* of a lic*nsing action is constitut*d by d*ccnnissioning approval and what r*gulations will gov*rn both its approval of deconmissioning plans and actual decommissioning activiti*s. NIRS conclud*s that the Connission should hav* establish*d a n.w r*gulatory section governing decommissioning of nucl*ar pow*r plants, Whether th* Connission chos* to 111*nd lic*ns*s to allow "deconnissioning only" or to C.l.'3,\ issue n..., decOl'Mllissioning licens*s, th*s* r*gulations would exclusively gov*rn deconnissioning. Not only would such a st*p clarify the nature of th*

c. I. '3 Connission's lic*nsing action, but it would force the NRC to define what J-410

                                      -1,-

r*gulation, apply to d*ca11n1i11ionin9. As it stands now, a plant b*ing I c.1. 3 d*conni11ion*d und*r Part 58 is subj*ct to a host of r*gulation, that ~ay or ~ay not b* applicabl* to d*comrnissioning in a practical 1*n1*, as many r*lat* to plant op*ration. Hor* iffiportantly, n*ith*r Part 58 nor Part 78 contain C. I. \ 1p*cific guidanc* for d*comrni,sioning. Furthermor*, a, r*connend*d in NUREG/CR-8131, th* NRC should prep1r* &n index of th* *xisting r*gul&tions applicable to decomrnissioning. Thes* r*gulations should b* incorporat*d by G.10.1 r*f*renc* into a separat* s*t of rules th&t sp*cifically gov*rn d*connissioning. Th* rul* should provid* specific guidanc* for decomrnissioning at th* three stag*s of dec011W11ission1ng1 at th* planning stag* wh*n a utility weighs C 1,3 th* costs and ben*fits of choosing a particular alternativ*1 during any period of *safe storage* that is allowed by NRC; and during the actual d*ca,nissioning op*rations. Th*s* regulations n*ed not addr*11 d*comrni11ioning in exhaustiv* detail, Lit.* the NRC's *xisting r*gulation1 for nucle&r powtr plant operation, thty should providt a frilll9'11ort. of safety goals C.1,4 which then can be ffiet through a vari*ty of ffi*ans, s0111* of which will be 1ugg1st*d in associated, nonbinding, Regulatory Guid*s. Deconrnissioning r*gulations would include, for *xillple, definitions of t,rms, license application requir111111nts, and qualifications for subcontractors. I, Criteria for Deconnissioning Choic11, J-411

Th* propos-<<f rul* giv** lic*n**** a choic* of thr** altttrnattv* **thods of d*conni1sioning1 "DECCJ,1,* or i11111*di1t* d*contaaination, di1111ntl ..*nt and r.nioval of nucl*ar faciliti*s; 0 SAFSTOR,* a **thod r*ducing occupational

• xposur** by i1m1ediat* ch@llical d*cont111ination with di111antleni*nt postpon*d to a11ow for radioactiv* d*c1y1 and "ENTcttB," or p*r111n.nt *ncum*nt of th*

facility. Jn the rul*'* pr*f*c*, th* Connission r*j*cts ENTcttB as a viabl*

• • thod for d*conrnissioning nucl*ar pow*r plants, but th* propos*d rul* do**

not sp*cif1c1lly stat* this, It should cl*arly r*j*ct ENTcttB 11 an option for nuclear power plants. Th* rul* contains only vagu* and lirait*d criteria that provid* an inadequat* basis for judging th* r*lativ* 11erit1 of a utility's choic* of d*ccnnissioning m*thods. Th* rul* r*quires that lic*nsees choose a deconnissioning rHthod, and shtn that "Alternative 11ethod1 for deconni Hi on i ng 1oth i ch si gnif i can tly delay ccnp 1*ti on of d*conni ssi on i ng such 11 use of I storag* period, will b* acceptable if suffici*nt b*n*fit r*su1ts,* B. 3. 1.1 Propos*d IB C,F,R. 58.82, The Connission does not 1xplain 1othat a "sig~ificant* delay is, or what the COlll!lission consid*rs *suffici*nt ben*fit" to consist of, This languag* leav*s the licens** with 1l1101t *ntir*ly unre,vi..,.able discr*tion to mak* d*cannissioning choices that could hav* significant i11pact1 on public health and safety. Th* rult gives little infor11ation that would allow the NRC or anyone 1lse to evaluate the wisdOIII of a particular dec011111is1ionin9 timing choic*, Jn th* first place, the Ccnnission does not e,v*n giv* a full description B.2. \ of the deconnissioning alternatives. Only th* bri*fest <<Mscription of DECCJ,I, J-412

SAFESTOR, and ENTCJ1B, is giv*n, Nor can any d*tail C0111paring th* cost, and b*n*fits of th* alt*rnat1v** b* found in th* Draft G*n*ric Environm*ntal Impact Staten*nt < DGE1S,* NUREG-1586) that is cit*d in support of th* rul*. 0 Th* rul* do*s not giv* a fair pictur* of th* carnpl*xiti*s involv*d with *ith*r m*thod. For *xampl*, according to docum*nt, cit*d by NRC in support of th* rul*, curr*nt d*conni11ioning t*chnology r*li** h*avily on th* us* of chenicals to d*contillinat* plant b*for* it is dismantl*d. Although th*** a B. 2. l ch1n1icals can significantly r*duc* radiation uposur* of d*conniuioning work*rs, th* ch*lat*d wast*s produc*d in th* d*cont1111ination proc*ss ar*

• xtrM11ely pot*nt and pot*ntially dang*rou, to d*ca,wnissioning work*rs.

N*ith*r th* rul* nor th* OGEIS discuss** th* pot*ntial h*alth and

• nvironmental impact, of this asp*ct of d*connissioning, Nor do th*y att11111pt to addr*ss th* cost, and b*n*fits of ch1n1ical d*cont1111ination.

Hor*ov*r, th* rul* only hints at th* difficulty in balancing th* costs and b*n*fits of inn*diat* d*c011r11i11ioning v*rsus storag* p*nding furth*r radioactiv* d*cay, Th* pr*1111bl* m*ntion, that SAFSTOR will r*sult in r*duc*d radiation *xposur* of d*cC111111issioning work*rs, and that it may b* advantag*ous wh*r* disposal spac* is unavailabl*. It doH n~t discuss, howev*r, oth*r important consid*rations that should b* factor*d into a choic* b*tw**n DEC~ (3, 3. \. \ and SAFSTOR. For instanc*, an important factor to consid*r would b* th* ag* of th* plant and th* corr*sponding 1111ount of radioactivity that had built up. O*ccnnissioning small*r r*actors, or r*actors that have not op*rat*d for v*ry long, will undoubt*dly involv* a 1111ll*r d*gr** of work*r *xposur* than d*cannissioning larg*r or mor* long-liv*d r*actors. It is g*n*rally agr**d that th*r* ar* consid*rations for *ach plant that mak* choosing an alt*rnativ* J-413

IB, 3.1. I Th* ru1* 1110 fails to discuss th* availability of offsit* 1tor1g* or disposal Prolong*d 1tor1g* or *ntaitn*nt might b* a utility's only choic*1 if no offsite 1tor1g* spic* is availabl* for any of th*** ~**t*** Th* I H.1.1. I 6.'3. \. I rul* should discu11 wheth*r th* unavailability of offsit* 1tor1g* 1p1c* can b* 11-\. \. \. \ th* 011erridin9 con1id*r1tion in choosing b*tw**n deconnissioning options. Th* rul* should 1110 pr011id* criteria for th* *ngin**ring and 1.curity measur** G,2\ necHsary to prohct spent fu*l should it r1111in on-sit* aft*r ructor

shutdCMn, Th* choice of deconni11ioning alt*rnativ*1 is too important to l**v* to the coiapl*t* discr*tion of lic*ns*** as th* rul* propo**** Th* Cammission should *stablish sp*cific crit*ria for th* choic* of a deconni11ioning m*thod that pr011ide1 th* maximum po11ible 111ur1nc* that th* h*alth and saf*ty of

13. '3. I. I public and work*r* will b* prot*ct*d, Th*** crit*ria should includ* at l*ast th* follca.iing con1ideration11 occupational radiation *xposur*s, g*n*ration and disposal of wast**, assuranc* that d*connissioning will tak* plac*, radiation doH1 to th* public, and th* quality of deca1111i11ioning operation,.

2, Standards for Storage Period. NRC's propo1*d rul* contains no standards g011*rning the long t*rm 1tor1g* P*riod inh*r*nt in th* SAFSTOR d*conminioning option. First, th* rul* should 8.~. 3 provide crit*ria by which the appropriat* l*ngth of ti** can b* d*t*rmin*d, J-414

b1l1ncing the 1ite-1pecific co1t1 1nd benefit,. Such con1ideration1 might include th* de1ign 1nd 1iz* of th* plant, th* financial h*alth of the utility <i.*. pro1pects that it will be solv*nt 1t th* ti~* of d*c01W1i11ioning), and the condition of th* plant (1,*, co1t1 and occupational *xpo1ur* a11ociat*d

                                                                                     \3. '-1. 3 with pr*paring th* plant for SAFSTOR ~ay b* high*r wh*r* a plant i1 cont111in1ted> -- 111 of which aff*ct th* pot*nti&l occupational *xpo1ur*1 and th* volum* of waste likely to be produc*d,          S*cond, th* rul* should provide r*gulation1 for pr*p1r1tion of th* facility for 1af* stor1g* and ongoing o     th* n**d for ind 1t1nd1rd1 govl'f"ning warning m1rk*r1 both in1id* and outside th* pl1nt; 0    *quip,1ent t1gging require111*nt1 to *n1ur* th* b*st po11ibl* information is avail&bl* 111h1tn d1!ll'lantl1,rn.nt i1 initi1hd;                                C.,  I. 3 o     s*curity m*a1ur1t1, including physical barri*rs and p*r1onn*l r*quir~n.n ts; o    r*quire111*nts for th* scope and frequency of insp*ction1; o    r1di1tion monitoring rul1t1; and o    contingency plans in th* r.11tnt that radiation containm*nt syst1111 fail.

Third, th* rule should provide an upp*r li~it to th* length of tim* allowed for ~othballing a r*actor. The upp*r limit g*ner111y con1ider*d i1 fifty yur,, although most of th* significant ben*ficial changH hav* already occurr*d 1t a plant 1ft*r thirty year,. Th* rule should balance any po11ible increni*ntal b*nefits against th* ev*r d*creasing assuranc* that adequate funding will b* 1vailable 11 time *laps*** Furth*rmore, th* rule should set an upp*r limit for completing the SAFSTOR option.

3. Standards for Conducting D*conni,1ionjng, J-415

c.. I. "3 plants. A ccnpl*t* d*connissioning rul* Must also addr***, at a *ini*um, th* follCMing i11u*11 Th* *fhch of occupational .xposures constitute the priaary h*alth costs c.1.t.1 involv*d in choosing th* timing and **thod of d*connii11ioning, y*t NRC'I rul* do** not pr01,1id* any inc*ntive to limit doses nor direction to do 10. And, substantially affects th* d*gre* of occupational radiation *xposur*, th* I B. 3. I. I C0111111i11ion pr01,1id*1 littl* guidanc* for making that choic*. Hor*o,.,*r, th* Conni11ion minimiz** th* radiation risks of d*cannissioning in gen*ral, and fails to prescribe specific steps for limiting occupational exposure,. Each lic*n*** is consid*r*d to b* gC)l.l*rn*d by the "As LCM As R*a~onably I c..,.8.\ Achil'Vable" (ALAIIA> standard <II C.F.R. Part 21>, to limit th* total cumulativ* *xposur*s to work*rs and is r*quired to ***t th* restrictions regarding individual exposure,. NRC relies on the Battelle studies to show 13.3.~ that the total doses to workers will be relativ*ly insignificant. Howl'Ver, the NRC's ccnplet* lack of experience with deconnissioning large aged r*actors, ccnbined with the THI-2 cl*anup experience <where, although lower than doses frcn operation, workers have already been exposed to six times th* J-416

• • p*ct*d 111ount1>, 1ugg*1t that th*s* studi*s grossly und*r*1tim1t* th* do***

that will b* incurr*d. Calculating th* h*alth *ff*cts frcn th*** dos*s l*ads to ...,.n 11or* diff*r*nc*s of opinion. It ii difficult to 1ddr*s1 th* i1su* of occupational *xpo,ur*s in th* cont*xt of th* propos*d rul* du* to th* curr*nt critical st1t* of hum1n h*alth studi*s, particul1rly th* r*ass*ssm*nt of data front Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 1nd th* possibility th1t NRC may rrvis* the current P1rt 28 r*gulations r*lating to occupational doses. Curr*nt proposals by th* International Connission on Radiological Prot*ction (ICRP> would allow for yery large increases in the current limits on int*rn1l radiation doses to certain organs. B.3.2. Tw*nty-thr** of 49 lr,,,*ls for internal doses frcn specific radionuclid*s would increase, scne 1s much as 17-fold, if thes* reconrnend1tion1 ar* accepted by NRC. On the other hand, many sci*ntists haYe been reconnending for ye1r1 that the allc:,,.,,able 5 r111 aYer19e annual external dose for workers be reduced by 1 f1ctor of ten. The DGEJS does not ad*quately addr*ss health and genetic effects and fails entirely to consider th* developing nature of information in this field. ~lthout this analysis, neither NRC nor the licensees can properly assess the costs and b*nefits 1ttributable to the alternatiYe timing plans. NRC should assume conseryatiYe health effect projection, rather than the most benign. The Commission should d.... ote substantial attention to the d...,elopment of standards to 11inimiu worker exposure during deconrniuioning, irocluding C, I. '8. I specific radiation monitoring require11ents. B1ttelle 1nd others haYe pointed out that deconnissioning can best be carried olri- inrnedi1tely following J-417

C .-,. I C.7.5 d*corniuioning ii don* follCMing a SAFSTOR p*riod that 11uch of this typ* of inforrution continuu to b* avai hbl*. NUREG/CR-1131 at 4-6. Th* Conninion should 1110 con,id*r a nu11b*r of oth*r 1ugg*1tion1 that hav* b**n 111d* for C.l.8. l d*cr*11ing occupational do1*1, 11id* from th* 11f*ty rul*1 di1cu11*d b*low, On* would r*quir* th* r*gi1try of work*r1 who participat* in d*ca11ni11ioning activities, for the dual purpose of prop*rly ass*ssing th* h*alth and genetic C. \. I0 I impacts of their cunulativ* *xpo1ur*1, and for ccnp*n1ation purposes arising c..,.~.-z. decC11nissioning plans and proc*dur,,. b, Quality Assuranc1/Quality Control N*ed*d Throughout th* Planning tnd Impltn1tntation of Oeconnis1ionin9. As stated abov*, it is uncl*ar if curr*nt Part 58 r*gulation,, which during d*connissioning. On* a1p*ct of th* Part 51 r*gulation, is quality assurance/quality control, which should play an i11portant rol* in deconniuioning activiti*s. Th* proposed rul* should i11pllfflent r*gulation, that pr011id* for QA/QC throughout th* planning and carrying out of radiation monitoring d*partments, Prior to actual deconni,sioning op,rations, for ex111ple, QA/QC should1 J-418

o rr.,itw th* d*connissioning plans and assur* ad*quat* QA involv.,-.*nt in th* d*connissioning activit*s; o rr.,iaw d*signs of t*st and oth*r *quip111*nt1 o insp*ct *quip,1*nt us*d for QA function11 o v*rify th* quality control of suppli*rs of shipping cont1in*rs, monitoring ind t*st *quipm*nt, ind oth*r *quip,1*nt 1nd ~*t*ri1ls1 o pr*p1r* t*st ind insp*ction proc*dur*s for subcontractors; prep1r* t*st, insp*ction ind QA proc*dur*s for wist* p1ct.aging and transport; and o finaliz* th* plan's QA progr111. c.~ o th* n**d to provid* QA ov*r procur.,-.*nt op*rations; auditing of suppli*rs 1nd oth*r progr1n1 1ctivit*s; o monitoring th* p*rform1nc* of 1p*cialists and contractor11 o v*rifying compli1nc* with rul*s on pact.aging and shipping of wast*s; o ~aint1ining docum*ntation. involv*d in radiological status .valuation using 1n ind*p*nd*nt h*alth physics t*111. In sum, quality assuranc* r*gulations, such 11 thos* in Part ,a App*ndix B for op*rating plants, should b* provid*d for d*connissioning. C, Th* Rult Should Include B1sic Saf*ty Criteria for Dec011111issioning. Just u Part ,a App*ndix A providn "Geural Dnign Crit*ria" for th* c. 1.4 saf* operation of nuclear plants, the proposed rul* should *stablish certain

1afety criteria for d*canni11ioning. Th11* GDC 1hould 1 in turn, bt inttrpret*d by 1t1nd1rd1 incorporated in th* r*gul1tion1 and el1bor1t1d upon in Rtgulatory Guid*** Nany of th*** 11f1ty goals hav* b**n id*ntifitd in the C..1.i.t littratur* and, in fact, have oft*n b**n lncorporattd into the 111U11Ption1 111d1 by NRC's contractors about radiation dosH 1 cost 11ti111t11 *tc. The 1st1bli1h11*nt of 1uch criteria and regulation, would r*quir*, for *xampl* that1 o a lic*n*** havt *xp*rt contractor, involved with or r*1pon,ibl* for th* dtvtlopmtnt of 11quencing and procedur11 for blasting, as well 11 for the blasting itself, should *xplosiv** b* us*d in th* dtconnissioning tffort; o schtduling and d1cont1111in1tion and cleaning m*thods bt chosen to 11ini11iz* th* sc1tt*r of d1bri1 and occupational 1xpo1ur111 0 packaging and shipmtnt b* conduct*d to 11ini11iz1 occupational **po1ur11 and r*duc* cro,, cont111in1tion of cltan artas;

                                                                                   /c.1.1'3 o     structur*s and barri*rs be u,ed to prtv*nt th* 1pr*ad of radiation and for 1hi*ldin9 work1r1; 0     1111pl* 1nalysi1 b* pr0111pt to prot*ct worktr1 from unn*c*s11ry txposur*s;    C.1. ~. I o     work*rs bt train*d in 11ildly radioactiv* areas befort working in highly radioactive ar111 in ord*r to rtduct individuals' exposure11 o     activ* strvict lin*s should b* prottct*d frCIIII disruption during o,,.ra ti on11 0     nM!f **curity and radiation 11onitoring 1y1t111, be installed;              IC. I. q o    certain saf*ty tquipment bt deactivated, others disabltd and saftty audit, conducttd of d*activated and optrational tquipment; 0    tagging of tquipni*nt bt perfor11td;                                        c.,.3 o    revis*d firt prot*ction d*tection and suppr.-sion *quipm*nt and proctdur** b* put in place; o    t111p1r-proof barri*rs bt installed; and o    111l1nt1 1   filtration and vtnting devic*s be us*d,

• Additionally, a plant put into 11ft 1tor19* should m**t c*rtain ,,curity, insp*ction and reporting r*quir91111nts.

J-420

A licensee's application to decannission 1hould be required to include di1cu11ion of and cannit,..nt, to .... ts o c*rtain h.b*I I ing, Hcuri ty and transportation precaution,; o design and p*rfort1ance c_riteria for proc*dur** and equiP11ent 1 especially exp*rim*ntal equipnent and waste handling1 operating and tn*rgency procedure11 o and radiation monitoring, 1sses111ent and cont1111in1tion control, A lic*ns*e's plan for decont1111ination, both in methods and sch*duling, should saf*ty, production of waste, personnel *xposure, potential r*cont1111in1tion of previously cleaned 1urf1ce1 1 storage of cont1111in1t*d materials, and pot*ntial (:.1.3 for offsite release, For ex1111pl*, th* us* of sen* decont1111ination ch1111ic1l1 requir*s 1111nu1l scrubbing causing *xpo1ur* of worker, to both radiation and chan1icals. Th*s* cht1111ic1l1 includ* oxalic acid, other caustic 1cid1, and carcinogens. Hany of th*** chan1ic1l1 are strong oxidants and therefor* pose a fir* hazard, thus requiring op*rator training. NUREG/CR-191:5 at 22 - 29, Th*** are but a few cf the kinds of saf*ty criteria that should be incorporat*d into th* propos*d rule. NRC propos*s to addr*ss sp*cific saf*ty iuues in Regulatory GuidH, How.-ver, 1 Regulatory Guid* 111erely suggH.h ways to meet a regulation, and are not binding tor 1 11cen1ee. If this rule ii implllfteftted 11 it now 1t1nd1 1 a license* could conduct it, deconnissioning activites with virtually ccnplet* ind*pend*nc*.

d. Th* Rul* Should Addr111 Pv11tion1 R*oardinq wa1t11,

                                                                                            -ft.J.1.}

There ar1 ***-- ;r, .,,~,ich NRC should pr011ide regulations to ensure 1 J-421

that th* production and disposal of radioactiv* w1st*1 r*1ulting frcn d*conni11ioning i1 carri*d out in th* l*11t hazardous mann*r, Th* first conc*rns th* production and disposal of 10-call*d 'int*r**dlat* 1..,.1 w11t*1,* Th*** wast** (which includ* son* concr*t* and r*actor int*rnals> ar* not curr*ntly clas1ifi*d or d*slgnat*d for any particular disposal **thod. Th*y ar* not cl111ifl*d 11 high-1.v*l d*1pit* th* fact that th*y includ* long-liv*d H. ,. 1. \ radioactive isotopes such as Nick11-59, Carbon-14, and Niobium-94, Y*t, under curr*nt rul*1 1 th11* wastes could b* disposed of in a lcw-1.v*l wast* dump (sh1llC11o1 land burial>. To *nsur* saf* disposal, NRC*must implen*nt r*gulations that classify and designate appropriat* disposal **thods for 111 of th* wast*s produced froni deconni11ioning, Second, th, rul* should provide guidance for th* special problens associated with the proper disposal of chenical w11te1 gen*rated during deconnis1ioning. The proposed rule contemplates the use of decontaminants relativ*ly little experience with decontamination for decannissionlng rather than continued operation. NUREG/CR-1915 at 15, These ch1n1ic1l1 are likely to H-\.2. I contain chelating agents <EDTA and its h0111ologues 1 NTA and OPTA> which ccnplex with th* radioactive materials pr*sent in the reactor systems. The very, quality of these agents that ~ak*s then effective for ch1n1ically cleaning conta11in1ted system, also makes the radionuclide, soluble. Thus, chelated wastes containing radioactive material can migrate quickly when placed in di1po11l, NRC's proposed rules should require physical barriers which would pr..,*nt any chelat*d wast** fron r*aching other nuclear or ch111ical wastes pr*sent in burial grounds. The rule should 1110 require a licensee to make J-422

public th* chMical for11ulH uHd in th* d*conhrainanh <11any ar* consid*r*d propri*tary and ar* th*r*for* *x ...pt frCIII public scrutiny> and da110nstrat* I i\. ,. ,. 'Z. ad*quat* 19Y*1s of t*sting and sci*ntific r..,ilW to assur* that th* ch*lat*d 1-\. ,:z.. ' ag*nts can and wi11 b* stabi1iHd or dHctivatM for transport and burial purposH. 1-\.\.1.S .quantiti** of wast* 1iab1* to b* produc*d in d*cC111111issioning activiti*s, th* ru1* should r*quir* 1ic*ns**s to 11ini11iz* th* 111ount of wast* produc*d, holding th .. to an "As Low as R*asonably Achi..,abl*" standard. Lic*ns*** should also b* r*quir*d to show that th* wast** th*y produc* will b* acc*pt*d \-\, 1.1.Z. by appropriat* wast* du11p1, 11at*rial int*gri ty r*quir**nh to prr..*nt thffl frcn hl I ing apart du* to 1-\. \. \. 5"" corrosion, i11prop*r packing, eff*ch of ch111icah such as ch*hting agenh, and *xposur* to th* *191D*nts. Finally, d*canni11ioning plans should show how I th* d*ca1111is1ioning activiti** will b* aff*ct*d should th*r* be a d*lay, short C.. l,lS" or long, in th* shipping of d*ccnndssioning wast***

     ** The Rul* Shoyld Apply to All R*actors.

Th* propos*d ru1*, ** writt*n, would *xclud* a handful of plant, that will hav* b**n p*r11an*ntly shutdown at th* ti11* th* rul* go*s into *ff*ct frCIIII c*rtain of its provisions. Curr*ntly, th* rul* would r*quir* lic*ns*es to subllit applications for dec011111i11ioning at least one y*ar prior to *xpiration of th*ir op*rating licens*. For tho** plants which hav* p*r11an*ntly c*as*d to op*rat* prior to th* *xpiration, an application must b* sul:lllitted no later J-423

than 2 y**r* follCMing *hutdCMn. HCM.,..*r, NRC ha* includ*d a blank*t

• xclu*ion frcn th*** ti*ing r~ir111*nt* fot" 111 plant* having ~rman*ntly c*a**d op*ration prior to finalization of th* rul*, Oth*r prc,.,i*ion* of th*

rul*, I,*, th* r*porting r*quir111*nt* and funding plan*, would apply in 1

• modifi*d,* although un*p*cifi*d, fashion, a* th* rul* is curr*ntly writt*n, Th*r* is no rational r*11on for *liminating th*** plants frOIII th* r*quir111*nts

(.~ of th* d*connis1ioning rul*, *xc*pt wh*r* NRC h11 alr*ady tak*n 1ignificant action*. An 1ppropri1t* **thod to pr.,..*nt unn*c*s1ary and unfair hardship to tho1* utiliti*1 having alr*ady had NRC'1 informal ord*rs impos*d upon th111 would b* to apply fot" an *x111ption. An *x111ption claus* in th* r*gulations, rath*r than th* curr*nt blank*t **c*ption for r*1ctor1 alr*ady 1hutdCMn 1 would

• nsur* th* consist*nt application of NRC's saf*ty r*gul1tion1.

4. Op*r1ting Proc*dur*s and Dt1iqn F*aturts Could F1cilitat1 o,connjssionino.

NRC r*conm*nds in th* di1cu11ion proc**ding th* rul* that op*rating proc*dur*1 and d*1ign f*atur*s that could facilitat* d*conni11ioning b* incorporat*d by utiliti*1, but, **c*pt for *1t1blishing r*porting c.i r*quir1n1*nt1, d*clin*s to institut* r*gulations r*quiring such m*asur*s, Whil* such ~1ign r*quir111*nts would hav* no application to curr*ntly op*rating plant,, th*y could substantially r*duc* th* d*conmissioning costs and hazards for n..,. plants. HRC consultants, and oth*rs who hav* conduct*d di111antlt1111ent op*rations, hav* r*conn*nded a nurab*r of b*n*ficial **11ur*1. For *xarapl*, on* of th* Batt*ll* 1tudi*1, <NUREG/CR-1131 Vol, I> points out that NRC'1 regulations include a d*sign obJ*ctiv* for fu*l r*1* ,., J-424

0 *1rly con1id*r1tion to *quipn*nt d*sign and location, acc*11ibility ind shi*lding r*quir1n1*nt1, ind other d*sign fe1tur*1 which could *P**d deconni11ioning, reduc* occup1tion1l *xposur*, and cr**t* l*ss w11t*1 c.. ~ o syst<<aatic ar1ng1t1*nt of ccnpon*nts (short pipelin*s and transport p1th1); o analysis of hcilUy duign ind layout b1Hd on probabl* r1di1tion contamination of 1y1teras 1t final shutd°'111nl o d*sign of plant components to suit th*ir function including th* type of m1t*rial, *a** of cl*aning and diS11antl ...*nt and cl*ar d*sign; protection of 1urfac*1 that ar* difficult to d*contaminate <*.g. concr*t*> with appropriat* mat*rials; o joints w*ld*d to facilitat* m*ch1nical cutting; Mvdular concr*t* 1tructur*1 and/or structures with two layers built into the design 10th* inn*r lay*r will contain 111 th* induc*d activation; s*lection of material with regard to induc*d radiation effects; o plans for assessing contamination in concrete 1tructur*1 and surrounding soi 1

• prepar*d concurr*ntly with th* conc*ptual d*sign of th* facility and r9Yised C, z. ,

111. !bt l>GEIS 11 In1ufficirnt to support thr Propplfd Ru1,. Th* Ccnmission states that in prcnulgating th* propos*d rul*, it reli*s in part on th* 1981 Draft G*n*ric Environmental Impact Stat .... nt on J-425

deccnnh1ioning, plus ccnnenh on the DGEJS, J t h i11po11lbh to det*r11in. what cannents might have affected the ~Cllfti1sion'1 evaluation of the enviro1111ental impacts of deccnnis1ioning; and thus the rule, because no final GEJS has been issued, Presu11ably 1 this will beccn* clear when th* CGl'Mllission finalizes this docunent1 howr.ier, on its own, th* existing analysis cannot support th* proposed rul*, The DGEJS should identify the *nviron11ental i11pact1 of deconraissioning and w*igh the costs and benefits of various deconni11ioning alternativ** with sufficient detail and accuracy to assist in the NRC'1 choic* betw**n th* alternatives. It does not serve this functi~n ad*quat*ly 1 for a number of reasons. First, the information tn the DGEJS is out of dat*. Nost of the information and assumptions used are based on the Battelle studies, most of which ar* at l*ast, years old. For exa11pl*, th* cost-b*n*fit analyses us* unr*alistic cost *1ti11at*1 bas*d on inflation only, rather than on op*rating experienc*. Si11ilarly, th* discussion of occupational *xposur* th* most serious enviroMental impact of decanaissioning aside frcn the production of vast quantities of waste -- does not b*gin to analyze conservatively the potential occupational exposures. Just as serious is the failure altogether to consid*r th* health and ;*n*tic *ffec+* o~ O<.upational exposur*s ba1*d on current knowledge of radiation health effects. In fact, th* Battelle 1tudi*1 do not even consider gonads *critical" organs. Second, th* DGEJS does not discuss th* cumulative i11pacts of decC11111is1ioning all of the nation's nuclear plants. Th*1* i11.,.cts include th* production and disposal of low, inter11ediate and high-level wastes, and the J-426

production and di*posa1 of ch*lat*d wast*** Th* a*sociat*d probl ...

• with finding *it*s in which to bury th*s* residues are also not con*idered. Th*r*

are curr911tly only thr** dispo*al sit*s for low-1...,*I wastes; NRC's contractors *stimat* that th* deconni**ioning of **ch r*actor will contribut* a vol1111* of low*l...,*1 wast* approximately *quiv*lent to one quart*r of the total annual waste curr9ntly produc*d. For instanc*, th* DGEIS gives a little or no att*ntion to th* *ff*cts of accidents on decC11111issioning or th* ifflpacts associat*d with th* us* of ch*lating ag*nts during d*cont&111in1tion. Nor do*s the ru1* discuss the ways in which the availability of disposal *ites could aff*ct deconni*sioning choic*s. In short, th* DGEIS provid*s no r*al guidance for a choic* b*tw**n d*connissioning options. Finally, th* rul* propos*s to r*quir* issuanc* of Environ11*ntal Ass*ssm*nt* in li*u of Environm*ntal Impact Stat ...*nts und*r th* National Environm*ntal Policy Act, Bas*d on th* gross insuffici*ncy of th* DGEJS and th* lik*lihood that **ch plant will r*pr*s*nt a uniqu* ccnbination of op*rational history and propos*d d*conta,aination and d*connissioning m*thods, NRC should r*quir* a full EIS to b* ccnpl*t*d for **ch plant, If, at SOl'II* f, l point in th* futur* follCMing th* succ*ssfu1 d*conni*sioning of many diff*r*nt r*actor typ*s, NRC conclud*s that this proc**s is not n*c*ssary, th*n it may a11*nd th* rul*s to m*r*IY r*quir* an *nvironm*ntal 1ss*1Sffl*nt. Th*r* is curr*ntly no basis, how...,*r, to tr*at th* decanmissioning of a particular r*actor as if it w*r* not a significant action with an associat*d ccnplex s*t of costs and benefits. Nor*ov*r, an adequate asse1111ent of the costs and b9R*fits of a particular d*connissioning plan cannot be mad* *ar1y in th* construction or op*ration phas* of a r*actor du* to th* changing natur* of th* J-427

w11te di1po1al 1ituation, th* und*r1tanding of occupati0fta1 health hazards, d*cC11111i11ioning technology, *tc. The public ii entitled to a1 conplet* and accurat* an evaluation a1 ii po11ible at th* ti~* NRC ii con1id*ring a lic*n1**'1 request to begin d*ccn,ai11ioning.

                                                     / , )

Date: May 14, 1985 / -~ - *y'_, ,l :;c;J !_______---.

                                                                         /
                                       ----   Nina Bell, Assistant Director Nuclear Information and Resource Service J-428

ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY POST OFFICE BOX 551 ume ROCK. AAKANSAS 72203 (5011371~ May 13, 1985 DIC:KETEO USNRC

                                                                                             '85 MAY 20 All :05 0CAN058507 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission ATTN:      Docketing and Service Branch U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

Arkansas Nuclear One - Units 1 & 2 Docket Nos. 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos. DPR-51 and NPF-6 Proposed Rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities Gentlemen: We welcome the opportunity to comment on the regulations proposed in the February 11, 1985 Federal Register regarding Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities. Due to the fact that we are a part 50 licensee, our attached comments apply primarily to the proposed regulations in 10CFR50 and to the impact on part 50 licensees and their customers. The attached comments point out a number of problems and complications that the proposed regulations raise. We believe that the currently existing regulations in this area are quite adequate. Therefore, we suggest that the resolution of our attached comments is best accomplished by withdrawal of the proposed regulation. This will avoid the many problems which are inherent in the proposed regulation and avoid the issuance of another federal regulation in an area where no more regulation is needed. We believe that issuance of these proposed regulations will needlessly cost taxpayers and electric utility ratepayers (who are the same people) with no G. I increase in their health and safety. - If any regulation is needed in this area it should be nothing more than criteria for the termination or alteration of licenses at the time a nuclear facility is removed from service. Even here, this would best be accomplished by regulatory guidance in conjunction with the existing 10CFR50.82 instead of by additional regulation. Aacnow 111W 2 0 - leog9C! bJ C8nf. , , , ,*rm i 1 ' i r ; ~ ME""81!R .... OOl.E SOUTM UTILITIES SYSTEM J-429

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk May 13, 1985 Further details regarding the problems with the proposed regulation and adequacy of existing regulation can be found in the attached comments. v,,yd~ JTE:MCS:ds d Ted Enos Manager, Licensing Attachment J-430

COMMENTS

1. The introduction of the terms DECON, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB was intended "to reduce the confusion and misunderstanding that existed with the previous terms used to designate decomissioning alternatives".

However, the nomenclature of Regulatory Guide 1.86 has been used with good consistency and little confusion for several years and introduction of new terminology into a technology with relatively stable nomenclature would seem to be counter-productive to the stated 15.2,2 intent. In fact, since the introduction of this terminology, decommissioning discussions have been forced to use two sets of terminology often erroneously trying to match up the Regulatory Guide 1.86 terminology with the new terminology. Introduction of the new terminology has in actual practice caused greater confusion. This terminology should immediately be withdrawn so that decommissioning can return to a single set of well accepted terms for decommissioning alternatives.

2. Discussions of pros and cons of the three basic decommissioning alternatives, e.g., page 5604, totally neglect the reduced transportation risks and reduced waste disposal site capacity Is. '1. '2.

8.~. I requirements for mothballing and entombment. This is prejudicial to / 6. 5" the use of these altneratives. The supplementary information should not so blatantly prejudice the implementation options of the rule. / 13.'i,'Z.

3. Since, as stated in the supplementary information published with the proposed rule, "decommissioning is not an imminent health and safety problem", there is no reason to limit site activities for licensees beyond the limitations already in place in their license. For example, if a licensee under Part 50 is permitted to remove major components of a system or even whole systems and replace them under the requirements of their technical specification, there is no reason to require separate approval by NRC to not replace them as long as the technical specification pr any separate license requirements continue to be met.

By definition, if these license requirements are met, no health and ~ safety problem is created. Yet, for Part 50 licensees, proposed ~. I,.;;> 50.82(e) implies that approval is required before decommissioning can take place. This implication is strengthened in the supplementary information by frequent references to approval. In fact, in column three of page 5605, the supplementary information states that plans "would have to be approved by NRC before the start of the major decontamination activities." According to the next page, first column, licensees under parts 30, 40 and 70 are only required to file detail plans "where decommissioning could significantly increase health and safety impacts over those of normal operation". There is no reason to leave Part 50 licensees out of this provision. The only approvals required should be for activities that do not meet the requirements of the license currently held by the licensee. This should be clear in the rule. 3 J-4:31

4. The main thrust of the proposed regulation is to establish a level of cost that a licensee will incur in meeting certain NRC requirements and assure that the licensee will collect the funds to cover those costs.

This is quite a departure from past NRC practice. We can think of no other establishment of revenue requirements by the NRC. Even in setting requirements for how much insurance must be carried, the NRC 'D. "2

• I ( a.)

does not specify how much must be paid for it. Nor has NRC in the past proposed to establish collection methods for the expenses of its licensees. Indeed, both the establishment of revenue requirements and of revenue collection methods encroach on the authority and regulations of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and of State and Local Public Service Commissions, which are expressly protected from NRC encroachment by Chapter 19 of the Atomic Energy Act. In the supplementary information NRC even goes so far as make specifications on the rate of collection by specifying the period of time over which past collection shortages should be made up in the third column on page D,t.l.~. I 5608. In Matter of Houston Lighting & Power Company (South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2), 5 NRC 1303, 1312, n.8 (1977), NRC stated that they had no authority to regulate certain economic aspects of nuclear power plants, such as rates". Promulgation of the proposed rule effectively does attempt to regulate rates. In 1963 the AEC stated that in its view, the Atomic Energy Act does not provide the Commission the requisite authority to require licensees to post bonds. As a result, they requested in a proposal to the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy that the Atomic Energy Act be amended to provide the Commission with such authority. They were unsuccessful. D, 8. I NRC can satisfy its financial assurance objectives without exceeding D.8. 3. \ their authority by requiring a certification by the State Regulatory Commission (and/or FERC) that the licensee (or applicant) is a regulated utility pursuant to State (and/or Federal) law. The Regulatory Commission could demonstrate by citation to appropriate law, that it has authority over the applicant with regard to ratemaking and other economic regulation. We suggest that such an approach be pursued in lieu of the approach proposed in the proposed rule. We believe that NRC's proposed approach transcends their authority and is unnecessary to assure adequate funds for decommissioning.

5. Stating what amounts to a default value for the cost of decommissioning creates the need for an escalation factor. The escalation factor used in the proposed regulation bears only a limited relation to actual total decommissioning cost escalation. Total decommissioning costs are made of such diverse component costs as to preclude any single T\ ( \

escalation index from effectively representing total decommissioning 1,..1. 2. I 'LJ cost escalation even as an approximation. Such inherent limitation on any decommissioning cost escalation factor appears to be recognized in column three of page 5606 by projecting a need to modify the regulation in the future to correct for innaccuracies in the escalation factor. This, in effect, acknowledges that use of an escalation factor creates a built in obsolescence for the proposed rule. 4 J-432

6. Probably the only way to eliminate the need for the escalation factor is to eliminate any use of default value, i.e., not state a value that can be used for decommissioning costs in the absence of showing that another value is appropriate. The objective of having such a default value appears to be to minimize the need for licensees to do plant specific studies. In fact, utility licensees will have to do plant specific studies for their rate regulators anyway. In addition, there is no value that is suitable. Decommissioning costs vary widely (by as much as $100,000,000) from site to site (even between units on the same site), because of the wide variance that exists in the factors that input to the total cost. There doesn't even seem to be a value about which a large majority of plants cluster. As a result, any single value will misrepreserit most plant~, either high or low or some of each. Furthermore, any such value may be significantly affected by the separate rulemaking under development on permissible levels of residual radioactivity. We suggest that such misrepresentation and obsolescence

  -can be avoided by eliminating any use of a default value of any size.

Since there really is no benefit in having one, this should not be D.2. ,(d..) detrimental in any way. The capability to produce quality site specific cost estimates has improved greatly in the past several years. A big step forward in this capability will be taken this summer when the National Environmental Studies Project issues their guidelines on producing decommissioning cost estimates. Preparation of these guidelines has made use of input from utilities, equipment suppliers, contractors, NRC, State Regulatory Commissions, FERC, NARUC and others. With tools such as this guideline to use, there is no reason to degrade the planning in the area of the decommissioning by using a default value or generic estimates.

7. The supplementary information encourages the use of the PNL studies for cost estimates. These studies were never intended to be used as a basis for estimating the decommissioning cost for a specific plant.

They were intended to provide the NRC staff with an understanding of the order of magnitude of the costs they were dealing with. In fact, the PNL studies themselves discourage their use in developing plant specific costs. Such use is inappropriate. Encouraging such use through this rulemaking is even more inappropriate.

8. We, and others, have long been concerned that the Commission would pdropose ruf~es h~ving insufficieTnt flexibility t1o ~ctuall~ provide 1), 3, I a equate 1nanc1al assurance. he proposed rue ,s sufficiently flexible, particularly relative to funding methods. However, as noted above, we believe funding method issues to be totally within the jurisdiction of other regulatory bodies. In addition, we believe the staff has not correctly determined the degree of assurance inherent in each of the methods, so we wish to caution the Commission against 'C>. 8, \

narrowing the range without having a better understanding of each funding method than we believe now exists. The Commission should 1),g, 3, \ recognize that revenue rate regulators often place a high degree of reliance upon the NRC Staff conclusions and, if not careful, may 5 J-433

require funding methods that are detrimental to the interests of D. '*I ratepayers and the financial viability of the utility, and that could D.S'."3.1 actually reduce financial assurance. Also, Commissioners Bernthal and Asselstine have expressed interest in comments on the vulnerability of the internal funding mechanism for decommissioning funds. A number of clues in the work of the staff, some of which have carried over to the proposed rule, suggest the staff does not fully understand the funding methods and the degree of financial assurance each provides. Greater financial assurance for external funding methods than for internal funding methods has been taken as a given. This attitude is appropriate only if the NRC concludes that revenue rate regulators will not regulate licensees in a manner that will provide financial viability in the future. The degree of financial assurance rests in part on the speed with which funds are collected from ratepayers and in part on the ability to obtain *the cash for decommissioning. The speed of collection is discussed later. With external funding, cash comes either directly or indirectly from the issuer of securities. It would come directly at the maturity of the securities and would come indirectly through the market's valuation of those securities at the time they are sold to obtain the cash for decommissioning. While revenue rate regulators cannot excuse licensees D.,.2.1.,(b) from the liability for decommissioning, they can effectively shift the responsibility for providing the cash from licensees to others. An example is Pennsylvania where licensees are required to externally fund through purchases of the bonds of Pennsylvania municipalities or of the Commonwealth. Thus, Pennsylvania has effectively put the responsibility for providing the cash on its taxpayers. It is unlikely that that provides as much assurance as does a financially viable utility having a large amount of bondable property at the time of decommissioning. As mentioned earlier, there are two aspects to financial assurance. The ability to obtain the cash for decommissioning was discussed above. The second aspect is the speed with which the fund builds. The Commission realizes that the various funding methods create differences in the costs to be borne by ratepayers. However, these differences may be far greater than the Commission realizes, because the work of the Staff and its consultants have been expressed in terms of the present value of the costs to ratepayers and not in terms of the actual costs. Since depreciation provisions affect rate base, determination of the true impact of any funding method requires consideration of both the depreciation expense and return components of revenue requirements. Revenue requirements in this situation consist of annual depreciation expense, return on rate base, and the income taxes associated with return. The rate base produced by decommissioning expense is negative. The lowest combination of depreciation expense and return and income taxes over the life of any item of property is for Straight-line Depreciation. The Proposed Rules do not mention the existence of Straight-line Depreciation, which might be interpreted as not allowing/ the use of Straight-line Depreciation. Such an interpretation would I),3.'3,'3 significantly decrease the degree of financial assurance. 6 J-434

The vast differences in the costs to be borne by ratepayers are illustrated by the patterns of cumulative revenue requirements over plant life on attached Figure 1. The criteria used for the calculations are shown on Table 1. While the criteria on Table 1 are generic, they are not unrealistic. It should be noted that the timing of decommissioning and the magnitude of decommissioning costs are i dent i ca 1 for each alternative fu_ndi ng method and have been se 1ected for example purposes only. They do not significantly affect the conclusions. With inflation, the decommissioning cost increases from $120 million at current price level to approximately $1.4 billion at the end of plant life. Figure 1 shows cumulative revenue requirements, ranging from ratepayers paying a total of $907 million for Progressively Paid Invested Fund to being given credit for a total of $1.624 billion for Straight-line Depreciation. For Prepaid Invested Fund, the total payments would be $798 million and for Sinking Fund Depreciation $103 million. Remaining life depreciation with inflation recognized as it occurs is shown to be highly decelerated, which is what causes the ratepayer payments to be the highest ($467 million) of the internal funding methods. t>."3.'2. \. I (b) A straight-line on Figure 1 indicates equal annual revenue requirements, an upward curvature indicates continually increasing annual amounts, and a downward curvature indicates continually decreasing annual amounts. Horizontal line segments indicate zero annual amounts. The external methods are sensitive to the after-tax earnings rate used to determine the required fund contributions. The internal methods are sensitive to the pattern of depreciation expenses. All methods are sensitive to the magnitude of inflation. The revenue requirement patterns on Figure 1 are based on normalizing the difference between book depreciation and income tax depreciation. Other alternatives currently available are flow-through for either internal or external funding, and tax deductible at the time of collection for qualifying external funding. Revenue rate regulators usually require normalizing for nuclear decommissioning costs. The annual revenue requirements for flow-through in early years are higher than for normalization, but total revenue requirements are lower for flow-through. The lowest revenue requirements are for deductible at the time of collection. The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 contains a special tax benefit for utilities that use a qualified Progressively Paid Invested Fund, and perhaps that use a Prepaid Invested Fund. At first glance, this appears to be a ratepayer benefit. It is not. The total revenue requirements are almost always higher for any form of external funding with favorable tax treatment (deductible) than for any form of internal funding with unfavorable tax treatment (normalization or flow-through). It may be the intention of the NRC that all five funding methods shown / on Figure 1 be allowable under the Proposed Rules, but that intention 0.3.3.3 is not clear. All five have been authorized by revenue rate regulatory 7 J-435

bodies for use by utilities, and all but Prepaid Invested Fund have been implemented. As the names imply, Prepaid Invested Fund has a single initial investment and Progressively Paid Invested Fund has multiple investments. Prepaid Invested Fund is what the Commission calls Prepayment. Progressively Paid Invested Fund is what the Commission describes as External Sinking Fund and Segregated Internal Reserve. Straight-line Depreciation recovers at a constant rate the estimated decommissioning costs at the price level expected at the time of incurrence. Sinking Fund Depreciation is a procedure for calculating decelerated depreciation. It gives the erroneous impression of being cheaper that other alternatives, which makes it appealing to anyone interested in reducing current revenue rates. Both Straight-line Depreciation and Sinking Fund Depreciation are what the Commission calls Internal Reserve. There has been considerable confusion concerning the significance of the interest rate used to calculate the sinking fund annuity. The interest rate has no significance; it is merely a component of a procedure to calculate decelerated depreciation. The degree of deceleration is controlled by the magnitude of the interest rate used in the calculation. The higher the interest rate, the more decelerated is the pattern of recovery. In fact, Straight-line Depreciation can be thought of in terms of Sinking Fund calculated using an interest rate 0.3.3. 3 of zero. Remaining Life Depreciation with Inflation Recognized as it Occurs is based on costs estimated at the price level at the time of measurement rather than the time of incurrence, so is a decelerated procedure for calculating depreciation. It is much more decelerated than Sinking Fund Depreciation, and, like Sinking Fund, has been used to soften the impact on ratepayers of implementing the recovery of decommissioning costs. The Proposed Rules should not single out any of the three internal funding methods shown on Figure 1, since this can imply which are allowable. Since the Proposed Rules mention only Sinking Fund Depreciation, the Commission may be limiting internal funding to Sinking Fund. Such a limit significantly decreases the degree of financial assurance that is obtainable. There is nothing in the Proposed Rules that indicates that collections currently must be based on the costs measured at the price level expected at the time of decommissioning. The pattern of collections from customers when inflation is recognized as it occurs rather than up front, pushes recovery heavily into the future. Several state regulatory jurisdictions and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have required use of this funding method. This funding method provides much less financial assurance than the other methods. The speed with which the different funding methods build their funds is easily illustrated, again using the calculation criteria on Table 1. i),'3,2. \. 2 Figure 2 compares the funding methods with the decommissioning cost 8

measured at each year during the life of the plant. The curves for internal funding methods represent the book reserve and for external methods represent the fund level. The curves show the cumulative difference between the reserve or fund amounts at each year and the cost to decommission in that year. Prepaid Invested Fund is structured so that the fund exactly equals the decommissioning cost each year, so there is no difference between the fund amount and the cost. Only two (Prepaid Invested Fund and Straight-line Depreciation) provide sufficient funds to accomplish decommissioning prior to the normal end of plant life. As shown by the Figure, Progressively Paid Investment Fund plays catch up until the end of plant life and Sinking Fund Depreciation and Inflation Recognized as it Occurs build up a large 'J). 3. z. 2. I deficiency and recover only after the end of plant life. If the speed with which the fund is built up is a measure of financial assurance (we believe it is), internal funding through Straight-line Depreciation provides by far the highest level of assurance, given the same ability 'D. '2 z I *z to turn the fund into cash. * ;.), *

• In describing the criteria for funding methods the Commission states in the supplemental information that, "Under normal circumstances, the internal reserve would be similar to the external sinking fund in the pattern of funds set aside and should provide adequate funds if a nuclear facility is decommissioned at the end of its expected life" (page 5608). While there are instances of using Sinking Fund Depreciation for high cost facilities, and a few utilities use Sinking Fund for decommissioning cost, utility book depreciation accrual is normally straight-line. As is illustrated on Figure 2, Straight-line Deprecation and External Sinking Fund {Progressively Paid Invested Fund) are not similar.

The Commissioners should be aware that unsegregated internal funding through Straight-line Depreciation will produce greater financial assurance than other funding methods, provided licensees are subjected to competent revenue rate regulation in the future. Whether regulation is competent or not, it is extremely unlikely that electric service will cease to be provided. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that an ent1*~y having the responsibility and the fi~ancial wh~re~it~all to p*, 3.2... \. ,(b) accomp 11sh decommissioning will exist at the t1me decomm1ss1on1ng needs to occur. The argument for eliminating internal unsegregated funding is spurious, often resting on the unsupportPd {and unsupportable) claim that internal funding coes no~ provi ~ an ?,equate degree of financial assurance but that external funding does. Shifting from internal to external funding based on such a claim is really a self-fulling prophesy, because the shift itself decreases the financial viability of the licensee, thereby decreasing financial assurance. Internal funding provides a high degree of financial assurance. If the NRC staff feels compelled to discuss funding methods, the advantages of internal I

• funding should be more accurately acknowledged. Since funding methods 1), 8'. 3. \

are totally within the jurisdiction of other regulatory bodies they 9. should not be discussed at all. There also seems to be a lack of understanding of the impact on utility financial viability of revenue requirements of the size anticipated for decommissioning. While the revenue requirements are certainly not ID.3 '2.\.\(b) 9 J-437

trivial, for most utilities large enough to have built a nuclear power plant, the cash flow requirements created during a decommissioning project are of nowhere near the magnitude needed to raise a credible question regarding the issue of reasonable assurance of the availability of funds. Implications in the supplementary information that issuing bonds against properties purchased or developed with internally held decommissioning collections is the only means of paying decommissioning bills with the "internal reserve" funding method simply D.3. l. I. l (b) ignore the fact that average monthly revenue requirements during a decommissioning project will only be around $2,000,000 and that the consequences of a project slowdown in the unlikely event of limited funds during a finite period are quite small. The lack of understanding of this fact is really highlighted by a statement in the supplementary information that assurance is the most important criterion for funding methods. Many utilities may elect simply to plan their finances in such a way as to provide the decommissioning funds from internally generated income at the time of decommissioning rather than issue bonds or to provide a substantial portion of those funds in that manner. Of course the option of issuing bonds is certainly available if needed or preferred for some other reason. Under these conditions, the impact on the economic health of individual ratepayers "D.3.3.5' and whole communities due to the widely varying costs of the various funding methods becomes as important a criterion, if not more important, than assurance. De-emphasizing the economic impact on the public is inconsistent with the NRC' s responsibilities under the Atomic 1). '3. z..1.1 (k,) Energy Act. Even considering the criterion of assurance, the single most important factor influencing the level of assurance is the long-term financial integrity of the utility. As a result of this fact, the provision in proposed 10CFR50.82(c)(l) seems inconsistent with providing assurance since it could require a utility using an internal reserve to produce the total amount needed to fund a 5-6 year decommissioning project at one time perhaps only because they prefer to wait until other units on the same site are ready to decommission. This is based on interpreting the term "fund certification" to mean the certification option proposed in 10CFR50.33(k) as an alternative to a 1).3.~ funding plan. The description of this requirement in the supplementary information in column 1 of page 5603 appears to be even more restrictive and, therefore, more detrimental to a utility's financial integrity at the time of permanent unit shutdown. All of this seems to be indicative of an NRC preoccupation with assurance in a way that is actually detrimental to assurance and under conditions when assurance should really not be a prominent issue.

10. It is entirely appropriate that NRC has distinguished between post-accident cleanup and decommissioning. While decommissioning may follow pL~t-accident cleanup the two are distinctly different <:;, II I

activities. Post-accident cleanup funds are adequately assured by regulatory provisions for property insurance and should not be at issue in matters concerning decommissioning.

11. Proposed 10CFR50.54(dd) is good advice. However, the actual impact on public health and safety is negligible. The main impact of a lack of C '} I such records is to complicate the decommissioning activities somewhat * '

and perhaps, as a result, to increase the cost a small amount. The 10 J-438

proposed requirement seems to us to be a classic example of unnecessary / C.?. I regulation and should be deleted, or at worst relegated to a regulatory guidance document. Most, if not all, of these records are kept for other reasons but a regulation for this purpose will require unnecessary documentation of compliance.

12. Imposing the proposed requirements as conditions of operating licenses appears to unnecessarily raise administrative issues regarding modifications to specific funding plans or record keeping provisions. C. l.z Recent rulings on the "good cause" exception to notice and comment requirements (50 Fed. Reg. 13006) leave in question whether notice and opportunity for comment could be eliminated for rules that specifically D.'-l.'-1 amend operating licenses and procedural difficulties have recently arisen in similar situations (Union of Concerned Scientists v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 711 F.2d 370). These issues can be avoided by /

imposing such requirements by regulation instead of also as license conditions without undermining NRC's enforcement authority at all.

13. The definition of decommissioning implies that release for unrestricted use is necessary to provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety. This has certainly never been shown to be the case. If a licensee can provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety some way other than by release for unrestricted use, then NRC has no authority to preclude it. Common usage and any dictionary will define decommissioning as "removal from service". There is no reason to misuse the word in the proposed regulation by linking it with the definition of something else. The definition given is really for decommissioning and decontamination. As presented in the proposed 8.1,3 regulation, this definition tends to preclude any option that does not transform fixed radioactive materials to portable ones, place those portable radioactive materials on the nation's transportation system, and place them in another location that may not provide the public with as much protection as some options involving leaving the material on the site location in which it became radioactive. The proposed regulation should not distort the meaning of this common English word nor should it propose to exceed regulatory authority by precluding decommissioning methods that provide reasonable assurance of public health and safety without releasing the site for unrestricted use.

This can be corrected by removing all words in the definition following the word "service".

14. The Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (GEIS) properly concludes that the costs and environmental impacts at decommissioning are small compared to the total costs and impacts of building and operating a major facility such as a reactor. F. I It is therefore, appropriate that decommissioning be treated with an environmental assessment rather than an environmental impact statement.

We strongly support this conclusion and widely documented facts do also. However, we should point out that the GEIS is still in draft form. In support of this conclusion it should be made final. We have previously submitted comments on the draft GEIS, many of which are relevant to the proposed rule as well. Accordingly, we hereby I~. '2.0 11 J-439

incorporate our previously submitted comments on the draft GEIS as part of these comments. Those previous comments were submitted on April 30, 1981, by letter from David C. Trimble to the Deconvnissioning Program I G.Zo Manager in the Office of Standards Development.

15. There are some ambiguities in the proposed rule related to unique ownership situations that do not directly impact AP&L. However, in the interest of quality regulation we wish to mention them for consideration.

The proposed 10CFRS0.33(k)(4)(iv) restricts the acceptability of an internal reserve funding option to "an electric utility owning more than one generating facility". The existence of a wide variety of partial ownership and multiple licensee situations makes this phrase ambiguous. It should be clarified. D.3.3.2 Do collections for decommissioning costs by non-licensee owners partially satisfy the requirements of the proposed rule? Are they subject to the same restrictions? Other questions of this nature may arise from the proposed regulation since decommissioning costs bear more of a relation to ownership issues than to operational issues.

16. The timing of submittals required under the proposed regulation is tied to the effective date of the proposed regulation. We believe it should be tied to the date of issuance of regulatory guidance in this area.

Two years is a reasonable time for preparation of these submittals if regulatory guidance is available at the beginning of the two years. D.'f.t.l Past experience (10CFR50 Appendix R submittals are prime examples), indicate that submittal preparation efforts can be made to be exercises in futility by the issuance of regulatory guidance after the submittal preparation efforts have begun. This is made even more important by the fact that the issuance of regulatory guidance frequently lags considerably behind the effective date of its associated regulation.

17. Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal have specifically requested comments on the need to consider insolvency and its impact on the continued availability of decommissioning funds. The probability of an electric utility becoming insolvent is extremely remote. It has been over 50 years since an electric utility has gone bankrupt. In addition, as noted in the supplementary information to the proposed rule, "[e]ven financially troubled utilities have sufficient assets to cover the costs of decommissioning". The costs of decommissioning are 1), 3. 2.1.I (b) small compared to the assets of utilities with nuclear power plants.

Even in the case of insolvency, since electricity service is considered to be an essential service there will of necessity be a successor to an insolvent utility. Such successor will retain the obligation to decommission. There is no indication that delays in decommissioning caused by such a situation will have any impact on the health and safety of the public. The NRC's own consultant has generally corroborated these conclusions in NUREG/CR-3899. In short, it is our position that utility insolvency is extremely improbable and that its impact on the continued availability of decommissioning funds, even if it occurred, would be negligible. 12 J-440

18. Conunissioner Bernthal's separate views also deserve some comments. His statement that there are no requirements independent from financial review requirements to provide assurance that decommissioning will be accomplished safely is not incorrect. First, there is already a requirement in 10CFR50.33(f) to show reasonable assurance of possessing or obtaining funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of permanently shutting the facility down and maintaining it in a safe condition. The issue of the need for an environmental impact statement for decommissioning is addressed in 10CFR51.5. Decom~issioning is referred to in five separate parts of appendices C and F to 10CFR50.

The requirements for occupational radiation exposure in the decommissioning process are covered in 10CFR20. In addition and perhaps most obvious, 10CFR50.82 gives ~RC broad powers to intervene in the decommissioning process and insures basic safety standards by explicity extending the generic standards in 10CFR to cover decommissioning. In addition to regulations, but still within the NRC's regulatory scheme, Regulatory Guide 1.86 provides a comprehensive discussion of criteria for decommissioning. Indeed the above mentioned pieces of the NRC's regulatory scheme for decommissioning are but the most prominent. Seven pages of titles of ~egulations and regulatory 'D. 8, \ guidance and standards for decommissioning are listed in NUREG/CR-0671. As for abandonment, the above cited regulations do not permit it and the sites on which nuclear power plants are located are of considerable value to utilities. As noted in earlier comments, the costs of decommissioning are a small part of the cost of utility operation. There really would be little if any incentive to abandon such a valuable site, even from an economic viewpoint. When the aspects of community responsibility, legal liability and existing regulatory requirements are factored in, the likelihood of abandonment becomes absurd. Regarding incentive to dedicate funds in advance, if there is no such incentive (as Commissioner Bernthal suggests) why does virtually every utility do so? A survey of more than 30 investor-owned utilities in October 1983 found only one state not presently allowing recovery of decommissioning costs in present rates and that one state had only deferred recovery of decommissioning costs pending the outcome of a_generic proceeding. Utilities also have an interest in collecting funds for decommissioning from the customers benefiting from the plant to be decommissioned (instead of customers at the time of decommissioning), because that is equitable. In short, Commissioner Bernthal's separate views do not take into account existing regulatory requirements, utility incentives even without the proposed regulations and the fact that the industry has taken the initiative to address decommissioning concerns even without the proposed regulations. 13 J-441

TABLE 1 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF REVENUE REQUIREMENTS

1. Decommissioning cost $120,000,000 at current price level.

2. Decommissioning to take six years, with planning starting two years prior to end of operating life.

3. Annual inflation rate - 6.0%.

4. Plant operating life - 40 years.

5. Effective tax rate - 46%.

6. After-tax earnings from external investments equal to inflation.

7. Capital structure and cost COST NET OF COMPONENT STRUCTURE CONVENTIONAL TAX Long-term Debt 55 12.0 6.24 Preferred Stock 10 12.0 12.00 Common Stock 35 15.0 15.0 100 13.05 10.01

8. Sinking fund calculations based on al" ordinary annuity and Modified Sinking Fund Depreciati~n.

14 J-442

Figure 1 Nuclear Decommissioning Funding Eff .ect oi Funditr3 M-tr,xl Progressively Paid Invested Fund

                                                                                               ....+***

0.8 0.6

                                                                       -- ..,,,,... --~
                                                                                      -**  ~--
                                                                                            -.~-           Prepaid Invested Fund 0.4 0.2           .. ,-,,,,.   -----*** --
                                                                                                      .I .

Renaining Life Depreciation with Inflation Recognized as it Occurs

 '"C              ~: - ....

_.....*r~

                                      .... -:--~--:                               *-*-*-'4J -*

I, Sinking Fund .r-;r" - 0 Depreciation

  ~

:, 0.L'I Ill: C

 !c~

0

       ;: -0.4    I

,5e -o.s

       .                                                                \\.
          -0.8                                                                       \

~ I -1 I \ u

          -1.2                                                                              \
          -1.4
                                                                                              \I
          -1.6                                                                                     \       Straight-line Depreciation
          -1.8                I 1955       1~95                   2005                    2015                  20:5 J-443

Figure 2 Nuclt1Jr Oecornrnissioning Funding D~11i--: ~*f AHurJr,:~ 4tf1 ~-----r-----,,----.----,-:-, Straight-line Depreciation Cost and Prepaid Invested Fund 1n:-1 -+---~~----+-----1----;--, *********** Progressively Paid Invested Fund Remaining Life

-31x, -i-----1f----+:~.;:-,----ir----,--;                Depreci~tion with
                                    *,                    Inflation
                                       *,.      .I       Recognized as it Occurs

-4110 +-----1f----+---"'""4~. ....,:--..__-':".~r-1 J-444

T1lepllone (412) 313-toOO NuclNrGroup P.O. Box, llllpplngport, PA t5077-ooc>4 May 9, 1985 DOtK(Tf , USIIRC () Secretary of the Co11111ission 'B5 IMY 20 111 :07 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co11111ission Washington, DC 20555 OF'F'11:r Ji 'EC"' . 00CKtTING& S~t,,.*A.,

• Attention: Docketfog and Service Branch BRANCH'""vu.,.

Gentlemen: The Duquesne Light Company welcomes the opportunity to provide conments on this issue of deco11111issioning. We share the same concerns as the NRC in that adequate planning must exist in order to assure successful deconmission-ing. A draft deconrnissioning study has already been prepared for Beaver Valley Unit 1 and a trust fund has been established for the purpose of funding our deconmissioning effort. We will have a method of assuring that deconmis-sioning can be perfonned at our units, and believe that regulations providing acceptance criteria are beneficial, however, several aspects of the proposed rule on the deconmissioning criteria require conment: Conment 1: A rule specifically requ1r1ng a demonstration of the capability to finance deconrnissioning is not necessary for electric utility licenses. This corm,ent is consistent with the action taken by the NRC in September D, sr. \ 1984 to eliminate financial qualifications from the operating license review,* since financial qualifications had already been determined during the con-struction license review. Co11111ent 2: The ColTITiission should make a generic finding that the utility ratemaking process and the financial structure of the utility industry provide sufficient financial assurance. Conrnent 3: Any rule should acknowledge that the selection of specific funding methods is the prerogative of utility rate regulators. I "D. g, 3. I

                                                   ~ - by card***.       !!,.~,9~

J-445

Secretary of the Corrm1ss1on Hay 9, 1985 Page 2 Conrnent 4: Any rule should recognize that the purpose of the generic cost estimates done during the NRC's re-evaluation are for bench marking costs and have no applicability to specific units. A number of rate regulatory jurisdictions have placed undue reliance on generic cost estimates in regulatory proceedings when the effect of using such estimates was to reduce the total cost. Many of these instances were in D. 2. I (cL) proceedings having site-specific cost estimates. The original NRC decorrmissioning studies prov)ded beneficial information but the cost information has been misused. The AIF/NESP study on decorrmis-s i oni ng guide 1i nes now underway would provide 1i censees a methodo 1ogy for developing site-specific cost estimates that would be accepted by regulators. The rul~ should state that the $100 million cost is not fixed but one that has been developed for reference purposes only. "D. "2.., I ( b) Individual regulatory agencies must be left with the responsibility of determining the utility cost requirement. Corrment 5: Any rule should not impose regulatory requirements as conditions of operating licenses. Including decorrmissioning requirements as part of operating license C., 7, '2. conditions provides an opportunity for continued plant operations to be placed in jeopardy if the financing plan does not meet the NRC Staff's approval, even P. ~.4 though there is no safety concern. Various programs referenced in the regulations are inplace at all util-ities and exist without being a condition of the operating 1 icense. An acceptable decorrmissioning plan with the regulations as its basis is an acceptable approach which .does not require addition to the operating license. I ColllllE!nt 6: From a technical standpoint, the current NRC regulations as applicable to C:r. I decorrmissioning in 10CFRSO are adequate. Corrment 7: Any rulemaking should be oriented toward the objective of licens,e ter-/ £. L l mination rather than on the decorrmissioning process. J-446

Secretary of the Co11111iss1on May 91 1985 Page 3 Conwnent 8: Maxilll.lm flexibility should be included in a rule in order that a final C. '2. '2. decision regarding deco11111issioning can be made by the utility at a time nearer the cessation of plant operation. Conment 9: Existing record-keeping requirements are sufficient for termination of license activities and should not be amended. However, if direction is provided in a final rule, it should be limited to those events resulting in C... 7. I the spread of contamination outside of radiologically controlled areas iden-tified in the Updated FSAR. The rule should recognize established programs as being successful in accomplishing this concern. Conment 10: The residual radioactivity limit of 50 mREM/yr which the NRC staff is considering appears to be reasonable but should be adaptable to site-specific E.; I. I factors. Compliance using realistic pathway analysis is feasible and desir-able. Since the Coirmission is considering radiological criteria for decorrmis-sioning under separate rulemaking action, it would appear prudent to not issue a final decorrmissioning rule until 10CFR Part 20 has been finalized containing specific limits on residual radioactivity. These criteria are an integral £.2 part of any decoirmissioning plan and proper cross-references between the two regulatory actions is needed. The proposed rulemaking contains ambiguous and unquantifiable terms which should be removed and replaced with specific references to parts of 10CFR20. (i.e., 10CFR30.36.c.l.ii contains the wording " *** to the extent practicable .** ") The Corrmission states in this proposed rulemaking that " *.. it is expected that contamination levels considered suitable for release for unrestricted use will not be changed significantly enough to affect cost estimates ... ". Since E. I. I the cost of decorrmissioning is significantly dependent on the criteria which will be applied, it is requested that a thorough cost benefit analysis be performed prior to codifying residual radioactivity levels. Corrment 11: Proposed section 51.55 contains a requirement for the applicant to retain 109 additional copies of the environmental report or any supplement to the report. The purpose is to have additional copies available for distribution to parties and Boards in the NRC proceeding for federal, state and local B, S officials and any affected Indian tribes. We understand the intent of this proposed regulation is to assure affected parties have access to this information. J-447

Secretary of the Comnission May 9

• 1985 Page 4 It 1s not our desire to withhold information that will be useful in resolving contentions which may arise in any future proceedings. However. all docketed information 1s available through the NRC public document room and copies could be made available upon request from various agencies. A require-ment to have available 109 additional copies appears to be arbitrary and without basis. It is. therefore. requested that this part of the proposed rule be deleted.

These conments are reflective of the Utility Decorrrnissioning Group and the Atomic Industrial Forum and we endorse those co0100n points of concern regarding this rulemaking. Nuclear cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrrnission c/o Document Management Branch Washington, DC 20555 J-448

CHARLES CENTER* PO. BOX 1475*BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21203 THOfWIIAS F'. BRACY A11,1,a .. T Sc:c*c:1**"'

          **o May 13, 1985
                                                                                          '85 NAY 20 All :14 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.                   20555 Attention:                 Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is pleased to comment on the Commission's proposed rule, "Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities," published in the Federal Register on February 11, 1985. BG&E is an investor-owned utility engaged primarily in the business of pro-ducing and selling electricity and purchasing and selling natural gas. The Company, which is the oldest gas utility and one of the oldest electric utilities in the United States, serves an area which includes Baltimore City and all or part of nine central Maryland counties. The area served with electricity approximaces 2,300 square miles with 2,343,000 residents while the area served with gas includes 600 square miles with a population of 1,807,000. The rates charged by the Company to provide these services are established in formal rate proceedings before the Public Service Commission of Maryland. Because over half of the Company's electric genera-tion is produced by the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, the Company is very in-terested in the Commission's proposed decommissioning rules. In general, BG&E considers the determination of the funding method to be the most critical issue and is strictly a question of specifying what is an acceptable level of risk for funding the decommissioning operation in light of the associated costs. It is obvious that a prefunding approach minimizes the risk, but could prove to be unjustified in the appropriate circumstances where the inherent risk of the funding operation does not warrant the much higher costs which would be borne by (b) ratepayers. The Company strongly supports the features of the proposal that provide "D,>.2.1.\ for the continued acceptability of internal reserve as an appropriate method of funding decommissioning costs. The Company believes that in its circumstances an internal reserve provides reasonable assurance of availability of funds, The ability to assemble the necessary funds through internal generation and the capital markets is a basic premise on which the Company's overall business is conducted. Furthermore, the Company's internal reserve method is less costly than the other alternative funding methods thereby shielding our ratepayers from undue costs with-out the incurrence ;;if unnecessary risks. Thus, in order to best meet the needs of I both electric customers and the public in general, the decision as to which funding 'C), 3, \ method to employ must be made on a case by case basis, Sincerely,

                                                                                                   -     2 0 196-
                                                                "~*.fJ!.'l'?(j;-e,j by C1!"Cf IBl:i!:l
                                                                                                                 ~
                                                                                                                          ,,),/

J-449

consumers Power David J VandeWalle company Diru1or of Nuckar Llctrumr Gone<al Oflicn: 1945 Wnt Parnall Road. Jackson, Ml 49201 , (5171 788-1 SJ& Hay 10, 1985

                                                                              '85 HAY 20 All :13 C,Ffi'.::°: :- .)~l..ik_,,;._.

{jQCr'.Ei1:1(, & S(rVI* , 6RAHCH Samuel J, Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 'commission Washington, DC 20555 Att: Docketing and Service Branch Consumers Power Company appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule regarding decommissioning criteria for nuclear facilities (50FR5600). After careful review and evaluation by various Consumers Power Company personnel, our comments on the proposed rule are:

1. Consumers Power Company disagrees with the proposed use of an inflation rate of twice that indicated by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The use of a "2x" multiplier does not take into consideration technological improvements in decommissioning or the use of regional burial facilities. The following table shows the impact of doubling the CPI when the prescribed amount ($100,000,000) is inflated to the year 2000 when, for example, the operating license for our Big Rock Point Plant will expire. D.2.1(a.)

CPI lx 2x 3% $160,470,000 $254,035,000 5% $218,287,000 $459,497,000 7% $275,903,000 $713,794,000 We believe that the increase in annual decommissioning funding caused by using the "2x" multiplier represents an unnecessary burden to the I ) customer and may result in overfunding. Decommissioning funding amounts are based on the estimated decommissioning cost at the time a plant is retired. Periodic review on a three-to-five year basis would I allow for adjustments to be made for inflation and changes in the 1) *2. I ( 'It, interest rate of an external fund is used.

2. The requirement of the proposed addition to 10CFR50.54(cc)(l) to provide financial assurance for decommissioning two years after the 'D, 4.1, I effective date of the final rule is considered to be too restrictive.

Consumers Power Company recommends a period of 5 years after the OC0585-0004A-NL03 J-450

2 effective date of the final rule, but not later than 5 years prior to the projected end of plant operations. I D,4.1, I In conclusion, Consumers Power Company agrees that a rule such as the one ID, t. l proposed is beneficial in that it will help assure the availability of funds necessary to carry out decommissioning. I (:,. I 4/u,lt!tld~ DJVandeWalle Director, Nuclear Licensing OC0585-0004A-NL03 J-451

!:":RPR-.,t14a 57J e:hLI (t>o ~IL..s-6'00)~

PUBLIC SERVICE COMP~ OF NEW MEXICO ALVARADO SQUARE ALBUQUERQUE. NEW MEXICO 871S8 _ - - - Kay 16, 1985 Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 "85 MY 20 Alt :17

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Regulations Regarding FT"** . .. Dec011111issioning Criteria for Nuclear Faciliti~cKiiNG:::i'"st1i\~iff BRANCH

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) wishes to c011111ent on 10 CFR, parts 50 and 51 of the proposed regulations published in the Federal Register, Volume 50, Number 28,- In order to select a dec011111issioning funding alternative which minimizes the impact to its ratepayers and also provides adequate funding assurance, 11), 3. I it is important that electric utilities have a number of alternatives from which to choose. PNM, therefore, would oppose the deletion of any of the four alternatives proposed in the subject regulations. In addition, 1).'3. -z. l.l ( b) PNM supports the Staff recommendation which would permit the use of unsegregated internal funding for electric utilities, PNM agrees that decommissioning funding methods need to be adjusted periodically for inflation but instead of annual adjustments, these i)Z.t(b) adjustments should be made at five-year intervals, Inflation adjustments at iive-year intervals would serve to mitigate annual perturbations in t>. ~. 3 the Consumer Price Index, Finally, PNM opposes any regulation which sets. a prescribed amount for the level of funding assurance. The amount of funds assured should be "D '2.-1 (a..) based on a facility-specific cost estimate and not on the generic scenarios outlined in NUREG/CR-0130 and 0672. If you wish to discuss any of the comments I have offered above, please contact me at (505) 848-4453. Sincerely, LMJla.~ Donald A. Begley Manager, Rates and egul ion JEW:wp J-452

                                         ==*~'[2~,(So Fi IOWA STATE COMMERCE COMMISSION O
                                                                                  ~~ e-fa_/   (!§j)

Comm,ss,oners hecu11vt Secrelary. Andrew Varley Rober! G. Hlletz Christine A. Hanun Paul Frannnllu~ May 10, 1985 2~~

• r*. *

.;',riiii.

                                                                      '85 HAY 20 All :23 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:   Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

This is to comment on your proposed rules for decommissioning of nuclear facilities in the Federal Register for February 11, 1985, beginning at 50 FR 5600. Our interest is primarily in the mechanisms for requiring financial assurance for electric utility production facilities under Part SO. At 50 FR 5609 it states that NRC Commissioners Asselstine and Bernthal would like comments on whether to allow unsegregated internal funding or not allow unsegregated internal funding 1). '3. ,. 1. I ( b) for decommissioning. This relates to the possibility of insolvency and impact on availability of decommissioning funds. Please retain the proposed rule which allows unsegregated internal funding. The level of financial risk should be accepeable and may result in lower rates to electricity consumers. The opportunity to comment is appreciated. Sincerely,

             ~Uil.

Chairman -- -V AV:gb MAY 2 O79ar LUCAS O,,ICE 8UILDING - DU IIOINU. IOWA 50311 .. *****-;iz_ J-453

Eschels Chawrmn ST,.,_TE Of W"5HINCTON ENERGY FACILITY SITE EVALUATION COUNCIL MJtl Slop PY* 11

• 0/yrrp,.i. W.ishmsron 98:i<>' * /106) -15%-190 * (SCAN) 585~-190 May 14, 198.5

                                                               '85 MY 20 All :24 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.c. 2055.5 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch

Dear Secretary:

The Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council has reviewed the proposed amendments addressing decommissioning criteria for nuclear facilities as they may apply to power reactors. The statutory authority of the Council extends to nuclear power plants with a generating capacity of two hundred fifty thousand kilowatts or more. The Council's immediate assessment of the proposed amendments is that several very D. '8. I necessary concepts have been incorporated and refined as a part of the decommis- <;.I sioning program. These are the five major issues of decommissioning: alternatives, timing, planning, financial assurance and residual radioactivity. Of these five, the single most important may evolve to be that of financial assurance. We are concerned that under the proposed amendments an unusually long period may exist at any power reactor where no decommissioning plan has been prepared. This C, '2. '3 results from the plan development process being triggered by the licensee's decision to terminate operations. This requirement appears to omit the untimely or unprogrammed termination resulting from an accident or unpredictable technological event. It is suggested that a preliminary plan development process begin immediately following commencement of commercial operations. I C. '2.. I During the final plan development process there should be cooperative three-way discussions between the power reactor licensee, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Washington State. This is particularly appropriate for agreement states in general, fr, 2. and more so where specific agreements have been executed concerning the decommis-sioning of nuclear facilities such as with the state of Washington. These requirements should be provided for in the proposed amendments.

                                                     -~*

J-454

Secretary of the Commission May 14, 1985 Page 2 Lastly, it is suggested that the NRC conduct a series of public hearings throughout the country to inform the people of the purpose and scope of the proposed amendments. This is essential to the public's understanding and perception of nuclear power. The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is appreciative of the opportunity to I~- I comment on the proposed amendments. Sincerely, Curtis Eschels Chairman CE:WLF:ab J-455

80 Pd, k Pldta. Newar ~. NJ 07101 / 201 430 8217 MAIL ING ADDRESS/ P.O. Box 570, Newark, NJ 07101 Robert L. Mittl GenPral Mdnayer NuclPar Assuranrn and Re,iu!dtron

). r~~

May 13, 1985 ~~-~*fRC Mr. Samuel J. Chilk

                                                                           '85 MY 20 All :25 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                 tF'fi~;: *J= 5:Cn. ,;,

• Washington, DC 20555 OOCKE:TlkCi & SEflVICI BRANCH

Dear Mr. Chilk:

DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES 5 0 FR 5 6 0 0; 10 CFR 3 0, 4 0, 5 0, 51, 7 0, 7 2 We have reviewed the February 11, 1985 Federal Register publication of NRC's proposed rule setting forth technical and financial criteria for the decommissioning of licensed facilities. We support the intent of the proposed rule-- I11), G. I J. 2. ,. \ ( b) to provide reasonable assurance that adequate f9nds are available to ensure that decommissioning is accomplished in a safe manner. We find acceptable the four alternatives available to a licensee for funding. The funding level I 1).3., specified in the proposal for electric utility licensees,

       $100,000,000 (1984 dollars) per unit, is in agreement with current industry estimates.

ID. I, I, I l). 2. \ ( \,) However, the proposal for the inflation adjustment is of concern. The recommended factor of two times the change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is excessive. An adjustment 1). 2. I ( <<..J equivalent to inflation would be sufficient to maintain the j).2.1(b,) necessary funding. Even though, under the proposal, the excessively high inflation adjustment index could be reduced if experience warranted, its use would be detrimental to PSE&G since it would r~quire an excessiv~ and unnecessary provision of funds. In summary, we support the NRC's proposed funding alternatives as outlined in the proposed rulemaking, with the exception of D.i, I the provision for escalation at twice the CPI. Very truly yours, Tr,e Er~rgv Peool-? Admow'-"--' b MAY 2 v 1~

                                                               ' _...., Ycerd. *, * *T*Tr****.rn~

J-456

1111 Nuclear GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway Pars,ppany, New Jersey 07054* 1149 (201 J 263-6500 TELEX 136-482 Writer's Direct o,al Number:

":t*E~r.*,

                                                                                                        *i::,
                                                                                          "85 lfAY 20 A11 :26 May 13, 1985 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Coll1llission U.S. Nuc*lear Regulatory Coll1llission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Subject:

Request for CorTITlents on DecorTITlissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities Proposed Rule The staff of GPU Nuclear Corporation (GPUN) herewith submits corrrnents on the subject proposed rule. Corrrnents were requested in a February 11, 1985 Federal Register notice (50 FR 5600). GPUN endorses the corrrnents sent to the Corrrnission by the Atomic Industrial Forum Subcorrrnittee on Decorrrnissioning. We find these corrrnents to be fairly comprehensive and complete. We do, however, wish to emphasize two points made by the AIF and add one coll1llent of our own. Item 7 of the AIF cormients states that there is need for the NRC to develop suitable criteria for residual radioactivity limits. We believe that this is an essential precursor for any decoll1llissioning planning. If the definition of acceptable level of residual radioactivity for the release of f property for unrestricted usage is not established, how can a licensee .'2.. finalize a deco01T1issioning plan? Those involved in decontamination work have seen that the cost of reducing the radioactivity level, say, 90% might cost X millions of dollars and the next 5-6% might cost another X millions,

• doubling the cost. Therefore, not knowing ahead of time just "how clean is clean enough" leaves licensees with an open-ended planning co01T1itment.

Another AIF cormient we would like to expand upon is item 12b. As the AIF states it, this cormient deals wit the possibility of both a Part 50 and a Part 72 installation being situated at the same site with one license expiring before the other, and the desirability of having "decoll1llissioningN await the ~. 4. '2 completion of all site operations. GPUN endorses this idea, but suggests that the same scenario can and does exist where both units hold Part 50 licenses and the regulations should emphasize the value of deconrnissioning more than one unit at the same time. GPU Nuclear Corporation ,s a subs1d1ary of General Public Ut11it1es Corporation MAY 2 O 98S Acknowled~ed by card ..... ,, **., ** 1.~~ J-457

Lastly, GPUN suggests that thought be given to codifying the concept of "possession only" licenses within 10 CFR. This would clarify the time frame within which licensees would be able to reduce the requirements of such items C. l. G, as the Security Plan, Emergency Plan, Operator Requalification Training and other requirements of the standard Class 103 license, all of which now are done on a case-by-case basis, via Regulatory Guide 1.86. Sincerely, 11'-"'

                                       *,)~

j( ,*y~-. J. R. Thorpe . Director

                                   *Licensing &Regulatory Affairs RPJ:dls:1785f J-458

                                                   .., IUIIIU'pin 99¥l!B IUlf JJ. -~ 4(/, 57J ~ /

C5"1 l=1e s~oo) <JJ1) Arizona Public Service Company P.O. BOX 21664

• PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85036 PAUL A WILLIAMS 11 V*CE NIIES10f.~T

  .t.fr\10 TREASURE. ..                   May 16, 1985                               -.. ,.. I    ~* *

• Ji., .... : .

                                                                                            ***;*li,C Office of the Secretary of the Commission                                        "85 HAY 20 P12 :18 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.c. 20555 Attn:              Docketing and Service Branch Re:            Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 10 C.F.R. Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72, 50 Federal Register 5600, February 11, 1985 Gentlemen:

Arizona Public Service Company (*Aps* or the *company*) hereby submits its comments in response to the above-captioned notice of proposed rule amendment (the *Proposed Rule*). APS is an investor-owned utility engaged in the genera-tion, transmission, distribution and sale of electricity to approximately 500,000 customers within the State of Arizona. APS is also a principal participant in and the Operating Agent of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) located within the State of Arizona. The Company is a member of the Atomic Industrial Forum c*AIF*), which is a participant in these proceedings. APS endorses the comments of AIF as submitted in these proceedings and will therefore only comment briefly on certain aspects of the Proposed Rule. As discussed in the Proposed Rule, the *wide diversity in types of nuclear facilities necessitates that the NRC allow latitude in the use of funding methods* (50 ~ . Reg. 5607). ) The Internal Reserve is among the funding alternatives which 't), 3,2.1. l(b the NRC has determined would provide reasonable assurance of funding. APS endorses this method as the most effective funding mechanism available to utilities while at the same time providing reasonable assurance of funds. ActrnowtQd~ by card .. ~-.~-~-~ * .f./- J-459

Office of Secretary of the Commission May 16, 1985 Page 2 APS is pleased to note in the discussion in the Proposed Rule that the NRC's concern regarding *premature decommis-sioning* has been somewhat alleviated. As stated (at 50 Fed. Reg. 5606), the availability of funds for post-accident cleanup is related to financial assurance for decommissioning. However, while the two may, in certain circumstances, be related, they are two separate functions. Assurance of funds for post-accident cleanup is more properly covered by use of

p. 3. '2.. '2. I insurance, while decommissioning is not a function of insurance. Accordingly (and quite properly), the NRC did not include the funding requirements for accident cleanup in the Proposed Rule but is considering them in 10 C.F.R. S S0.54(W),

which is currently being revised. (See Mandatory Property Insurance for Decontamination of Nuclear Reactors - 10 C.F.R. Part 50, 49 ~ - Reg. 44645, November 8, 1984.) APS appreciates the opportunity to comment in these proceedings. If your office has any questions or APS can be of any assistance, please contact Norm Cocanour, APS Risk Management Administraton, at (602) 271-2916. Sincerely,

                              '(fl%-~ ,_~-I/~:

P~ A. Williams* II Vice President and Treasurer PAW/TLH/mk J-460

                                                   *- -*en*-!J * ,&i.f4n~
                                                                    $6~)          cl!:v e:lrJ LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION P.O. aox 818, NORTH COUNTRY ROAD* WADING RIVER, N.V. 11792 QOC.K::Tff JOHN D. LEONARD, JR.                                                              USHRC VICI ,RUIDENT

• NUCLEAR a.lRATIONS May 20, 1985 '85 HAY 22 P1:43 t:;FF1::.::: ;:;~ SEti-a,.io)j,
• DOCKfilHG a. S£iN1:.f Mr. Saauel J. Oti.lk, Secretary BRANCH

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Camlission W&shington, D. C. 20555

&lbject: Request for public o::mrent on the proposed rule changes to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 - Deocmni.ssioning Criteria for tllclear Facilities.

Dear Mr. Oti.lk:

Ql M:n:lay, February 11, 1985, the NIC published the subject request for o::mrent in the Federal Register. 'nl8 tong Island Lighting CClrpany wishes to provide the following cx:mnents am observations on the subject. OJr views cm the financial assurance of deocmni.ssioning generally mincide with those of the Utility Deo:mnissioning Group (t.IXi) and the Ediscm Electric Institute (EEI) as ) endo%Ced by the Atanic Industrial Forum. In short, a utility operating a power ' t). 3, 2 . I . l ( Ii, ma.ct.or facility will build into the rate base an acoeptable furding process to ensw:e decannissioning CX>Sts. <kl Septerrber 12, 1984, (Vol. 49 FR No. 178) the camdssion issued its Final ~e eliminating the need for a financial qualifications review for electric utility ~licants for operating licenses. LILCO believes that rulemaking on financing of deoannissioning might well be viewed in the sane category. While the oost of decannissioning is intrinsically a .large Slml of m::mey, it represents a relatively anal.l portion of a utility's total oost of service am it is carparable to other costs such as the NIC' s safety requirements which were at issue in the financial D, i, I qualifications rulemaking. As the canni.ssion recently noted in the financial qualificatioos matter, it has been long established that utilities are bound by their J:espective utility c:xmnissions to set their rates such that all reasonable CX>Sts of serving the public are covered. (See Vol. 49 FR No. 178 at pg. 35748). subnit that decx:mnissioning represents legitimate oosts that can reasonably be ractored into the rate base established for a cxmrercially operating nuclear reactor pc::M!r plant to reoover the esti.JM.ted costs of dec:xmnissioning aloog with other legitimate and recx>gni.zed oosts of electric power generation.

                                                              ~bJ-******** . *******p~

1AY 21

• J-461

Page 2 Additionally, Lll.CO agrees with UDG's and EEI's views that xequlatory requirerrents that result fran deoc:mni.ssiooi.ng rulemaking should not be irrposed as conditions of c.7.2. the operating license. For exanple, a regulatory requirement, if needed, to subnit periodic financial plans slnlld be in the regulations but sho.lld not be a license \).~.~ oond.itioo. As such, it \oO.lld be enforceable witlnlt possibly placing continued plant operation technically in jeopardy. LIUX> wishes to thank the camli.ssion for this q,portunity to express its views on this .i.np,rtant issue which reviews the questions of decxmni.ssioning of nuclear power stations at the eoo of operations. Very truly yours, J-462

OOC.KETEr USNRC May 13, 1985 FEDERAL EXPRESS 15 NAY 23 P1 :40 ZAP MAIL Secretary of the Commission LFF,::E Oi- 5tL;ilt .,r U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCKETING & *SEF<VIU BRANCH Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service er*anch RE: Proposed Rule - Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities~ 50 Federal Register 5600 (February 11, 1985).

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Sequoyah F~els Corporation owns and operates a uranium con-version facility near Gore, Oklahoma. Since the subject pro-posed rule, if promulgated, would change the manner in which Sequoyah Fuels provides financial assurance for decommissioning, the following comments are submitted thereon. Proposed Rule 10 CFR 40.36 provides two methods for nongovern-ment licensees with existing facilities to demonstrate their financial ability to decommission those facilities. Such financial assurance can be provided either through surety methods or an external sinking fund. Should a licensee want to use another funding method, it must *demonstrate* to the Commission that this method is *comparable* to those mentioned above. D, ~. '-t, 11 2 Sequoyah Fuels does not use either of the methods proposed to D, ~ * .14. 2.. fulfill the Commission's financial assurance requirements. - Since it is difficult to determine in advance whether the Commission would find this company's method *comparable" to those in the proposed rule, Sequoyah Fuels respectfully requests that it be included in the final rule. The company's method for assuring decommissioning funds can be described as follows: MAY 23 tall

                                        \ckno,,yl~ by aitd . .... ;.n ..... ; 1)1:t:_

J-463

.. , Secretary of the Commission SO Federal Register 5600 (comments) May 13, 1985 Pa9e Two

1. Decanmiaaioning coats are estimated.

2. A reserve account in the amount established in No. l above is established and updated annually.

3. The reserve account rec09nizes the decommissioning costs as an expense and income is reduced accordingly.

4. An independent public accounting firm examines the company's financial statement and accounting records and reports to the Commission concerning the existence and amount of the reserve account for decommissioning the facility in ques-tion.

Sequoyah Fuels believes that this method of financial assurance is preferable to those. proposed since it does not involve the cost of a surety bond, and it allows the continued use of these funds until decommissioning is due to commence. Further, the reliability of this method is currently being demonstrated by the company in its decommissioning of the Cimarron Facility *

    .we urge the Commission to adopt the reserve account method in 10 CFR 40.36(c).

If yo~ have any questions, please call me at (405) 270-2623. Very truly yours,

                                     ~Cd'!-~

f'~.c. Stauter, Director Nuclear Licensing, Regulation JCS/br J-464

                                           =--;;~,44 C~o ,:.

Washington Public Power Supply System a,'dc, ftJ el,,._/

                                                                            /117'\
                                                                            ~

3000 George Washington Way P.O. Box 968 Richland, Washington 99352-0968 (509)372-5000 May 17, 1985 602-85-256 00( f.E;([ USNRC "85 HAY 23 Al1 :24 Mr

• S* J. Ch i1 k Secretary of the Corrmission GFF:~::r,~;;;,,.t. ~-

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission DOCKC:ilNG &SER'.1(;1 BRANCH Washington, D.C. 20555 *

Dear Mr. Ch ilk:

Subject:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES ON DECOMMISSIONING The Washington Public Power Supply System has reviewed the proposed rules on decorrmissioning. We have forwarded our corrments to the Atomic Industrial Forum, and they have incorporated our corrments into their submittal. We would like to be on record as supporting the AIF position on decorrmissioning. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ~~ G. C. Sorensen, Manager Regulatory Programs CVH/kr cc: W. L. Fitch, EFSEC E. Revell, BPA (399) N. S. Reynolds, BLCP&R T. Tipton, AIF J-465

---

GATechnologies __________________

GA Tec:hnologlH Inc. PO BOX 85608 SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA 92* 38 16* 9) ,55.3000 LAW DEPARTMENT May 22, 1985 "85 MAY 28 All :43 Secretary of the Commission -~FF.~: ~  :;. I L Nuclear Regulatory Commission DOCX ti IN(. 4 0 BRANCl-l m~v,* .'.* Washington, D,C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen: These comments are in response to the Commission's proposed amendments to 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72, Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, as published in the Federal Register for February 11, 1985. We believe that the proposed rulemaking suffers from several defects.

1. At the bottom of the first column on page 5601 of the Federal Register it is said that *classes of facilities licensed under Parts 50 and 72 are considered major facilities all of which will require a significant decommissioning effort.* It has been NRC' s practice to treat Parts 50 and 72 installations as major facilities for purposes of the National Environmental Pol icy Act.

Nevertheless, it is dubious that all classes of facilities licensed under Parts 50 and 72 may categorically be considered major facilities for purposes other than NEPA. Some of them (such as small research reactors) are i.1 fact G. s, I not likely to demand *significant decommissioning effort*. The differences in size, mass, exposure, contamination, and handling ease which prevail between typical large power reactors on the one hand and on the other small research reactors are simply too great to be dismissed by simple statements that they are all major facilities and that they will all equally demand significant effort in their decommissioning. It seems arbitrary and inappropriate to lump together, as though indistinguishable, a decommissioning cost that will exceed $100,000,000 for a large commercial facility and MAY 2 9 l9li Acknowitdpd bf ..... -~~.:.~~l,L 10955 JOHN JAY HOPKINS OR SAN DIEGO. CAUFORNIA 92121 J-466

Secretary of the Commission May 22, 1985 the cost for a small research reactor's decommissioning, likely to be substantially less than 101 of that. The G. '3. \ la_tter ~ill in many cases be manageable within a licensee's normal financial planning and budgets.

2. In the background discussion of *A. Decommissioning Alternatives*, on the same page and elsewhere, there are passages which appear to contemplate that NRC intends to make economic judgments a significant element of the determination, presumably made effectively by NRC, of the acceptability of alternative methods of decommissioning.

For example, it is stated that an alternative decommis- l3. 3. I. '2 sioning method which delays the date when a license is no longer needed (or as sometimes phrased, when there is

  *unrestricted release* of a site) would be acceptable in cases where "sufficient* benefit results. We suggest that, provided the licensee observes its statutory and common law obligations to protect the public health and safety, it is improper to import the NEPA concept of cost-benefit balancing into licensing decisions to be made by NRC staff. There are similar indications of this inten-tion in the discussion of *a. Timing", on the same page.

3. We urge NRC to get on with preparing standards for

  *unrestricted release*, and to issue such a rulemaking for comment before adopting rules about financing decommis-sioning. To appraise the decommissioning burden, a licensee has to know to what degree it must diminish radioactivity or residual materials so as to satisfy NRC that they are at the level below which a license is not      E,2 required. Ultimately, of course, that is a statutory question, but one concerning which the agency's regulatory standards may be almost conclusive.      To deal with financing the decommissioning process and to impose regulations about it before decontamination standards are adopted puts the cart before the: :se.

It seems unreasonable to adopt new decommissioning finance regulations without first defining the radioactivity and contamination levels to which a facility must be returned before it is freed of the need for NRC licenses.

4. The proposed regulations make a distinction between private licensees and federal, state or local government licensees, requiring decommissioning plans and financial assurances of the former, but demanding of the D."*'-'*"3 governmental licensees only a prediction that some J-467

Secretary of the Commission May 22, 1985 government entity will guarantee decommissioning funds. (Actually, the word used is *certification* that there will be-a guarantee, but it will necessarily be a prediction.) That is troubling. In many instances the nongovernmental licensees will be large, stable, well financed and thoroughly reliable, with assets and income that may exceed those of many of the licensed governmental establishments. If governmental licensees may provide financial assurance through a *certification*, it is fair to ask why private organizations must all categorically be denied the same opportunity. Realistically, a

  *certification* from a government organization may be      'D. C:,. ~. \. 3 worth a lot less than a comparable *certification" from a large private organization. To pose only one example, in the federal system itself agencies are forbidden to commit themselves financially beyond currently available appropriations, subject to some exceptions which may or may not obtain in the circumstances adumbrated by Part 50's proposed amendments. The same policy is applicable in various state and local government systems. Notice for example, the implications of California Government Code Sections 11006, 16304 and 13337.5 and Public Contract Code Section 10125. We are told that Rhode Island, for another example, forbids accumulating public funds for contingencies.

5. We are unable to discern why NRC assumes in Part 61 that it is proper to accept that a waste form or container can be contrived to be stable for periods of over 300 years, while in the proposed Part 50 amendments apparently B.'1.3 judging and denying the acceptability of any entombment method for plant decommissioning unless it will be relied on for less than 100 years. Surely, a reactor designed to B.S" withstand seismic assault and other such events can be so entombed as to last as long and provide as much protection for the environment and the population as stable waste forms and containers in shallow land burial. Isn't there an incongruity here which should be reduced?

JPH/lm J-468

ia:111 IUIIIUPR

                                                                  - - - 1111.1-:fS~ 6a, S'/

DUKE POWER COMPANY ( 5a F/2., .sfd)q}""1tJ, 72. Eu:~ic C1tNTIE". P.O. Box 33189. CHAM.OTTIE. N.C. 28242 @ ................ (70*> 373.5959 May 9, 1985 Mr. Sarooel J. Chilk '85 NAY 30 All :Jl Secretary of the Co!l111ission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co!l111ission 1717 H. Street Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Duke Power Company is pleased to submit these additional co1T111ents on the proposed rule, "Deco!l111issioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities," published in the Federal Register on Monday, February 11, 1985. Duke Power has been active in reviewing this issue through its membership in the Utility Deconvnissioning Group and the Atomic Industrial Forum. It is the opinion of Duke that new rules are not required to assure that nuclear power plants are safely deco!l111issioned from a technical perspective. The basic premise for the new rule, as outlined in the Regulatory Analysis, is the "lack of unifonnity of application, inefficiency on the part of the licensee and NRC in implementation, and finally a lack of timeliness and comprehensiveness that affects proper application of the ALARA principle in G,, I carrying out NRC licensing responsibilities" as it relates to present licensees. The current regulations governing operating licenses is a case in point. Additional regulation has not achieved unifonnity, efficiency, timeliness or comprehensiveness. Since these plants are either operational or under construction, each should be handled on a case by case basis just as each was handled during the operating license phase. The more appropriate way to handle this issue is through revision of Regulatory Guide 1.86 and issuance of additional guidance through a NUREG. It C.7.'2.. is of utmost importance to assure that activities affecting deco!l111issioning not be allowed to become license conditions. In addition to the obvious problems this causes licensees it is contrary to the conclusion drawn in the v.tt.'-1 regulatory guidance that license conditions can "result in inefficient use of co!l111ission and licensee staff time and could result in an inconsistent application of policy." From the financial perspective, the Nuclear Regulatory Co!l111ission should refrain from rulemaking in areas that are the province of state public utility co11111issions. Any discussion of deconmissioning costs is l 1). g. l 1>, 8'. 3. ' inappropriate since each station is individual and cannot be adequately addressed by general funding amounts or criteria. j D. 2. 1 ( B-') J-469

Mr. Samuel J. Chi1k Page 2 May 13, 1985 .,* ~~ Where ever utilities choose to invest funds collected from decommissioning is also outside the domain of the NRC. Attempting to assure fund availability through prepayment, insurance or external sinking funds is not in the best I 'i). tr. 0.8.3. \

                                                                                                 \

interest of the ratepayer as h evidenced by the Commonwealtli..of Pennsylvania where licensees are required to externally fund through purchase of bonds of Pennsylvania municipalities or of the Commonwealth. This method has effectively put the responsibility for providing decommissioning funds on the 1). ~. '2. l.' ( b) taxpayers. -It is unlikely that this process provides as much assurance as does a ff~ancially viable utility having a large amount of bondable property at the time of deconmissioning. Again the preferred solution to the problem is through the issuance of a NUREG and Regulatory Guide. This solution will provide the NRC with the assurance it needs while simultaneously providing the utility industry the flexibility it needs. Very truly yours, 12J.31:i?- ~ e R. B. Priory, V~e President Design Engineering Department RBP/pam J-470

W"':PR-3t14 ~ s;,Ji;

( S~ Fil ~~)/i7a'i minnesota department of health l!!Y l 717 1.1. d1l1w,,.. 11. (6121623-5000 p.o. box 9441 minneapolls 55440 May 29, 1985 c;~-: =-_~£:.

                                                                                          ~. ,rC Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                                  '85 JUN -3 All :55 Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention:         Docketing and Service Branch                        i..,Fr: ;}.. _*_'": ~:*.. **.L -

OOC .. c., r:.i .,, ,c:: 1

• 6RANCH .*

Dear Sir/Madam:

This is in response to your request for comments regarding the

 *oecommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities* which appeared in the Federal Register Vol. 50, No.* 28, February 11, 1985.

1) Part 30. 36 (a) (1) (ii):

Removal of contamination to the *extent practicable* does not adequately quantify the extent to which decontamination C. 1. l" should be performed. A limit or standard should be delineated (e.g., 100 dpm/100 cm 2 ) below which further decontamination is not necessary. Furthermore, the basis for these limits and the health impacts on occupational workers and the public should be assessed.

2) Part 30.36 (c)(2)(i)(A),(B),&(C):

The term "significantly greater* with respect to surface contamination, radiation levels, airborne concentrations and environmental releases needs to be properly quantified for C, ~- I each of these subject areas. Such limits or ranges are necessary to insure uniform clean-up and/or decommissioning activities at all licensees in all States.

3) Part 40

• 4 2 (c ) ( l) ( i i ) :

See Part 30.36 (a) (1) (ii) co1111J1ents.

                                                                                                              /c.1.1G.

4) Part 40. 4 2 (a) ( 2) ( i ) ( A) , (B) , &(C) :

See Part 30.36 (c) (2) (i) (A), (B) ,& (C) comments. Ic. 4. \

5) Part 50. 82 (b) (2):

The requirement for a "description of the controls and limits on procedures and equipment to prctect **. public health and safety" should be expanded to include recommended (or IlE I I required) limits and controls for residual radioactivity levels, waste management procedures, etc. The assumptions

                                                                                                                ~* :*r3 an equal opportunity employer AditcwledpO by card .*

r, _ A~ ...r!..!~ ~ J-471

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission May 29, 1985 and modeling used to generate these standards should be identified, as should the occupational, environmental, and £.1. \ public health risks associated with the use of these standards. Such information needs to be delineated for each of the decommissioning alternatives. In addition to the inclusion of these standards into the description requirements, mention should be made of the need to assess the impacts and risks associated with the radioactive wastes generated in the decommissioning process. Ic. ,. 3. 2. These impacts and risks should also be addressed for accidents related to decommissioning. I C. I, 17. Z. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposed amendments. Sincerely,

                         'f'~,..Je,J.~

Raymond w. Thran, Ph.D., P.E., Director Division of Environmental Health RWT/8D/yw J-472

(:JtJ ~ S'1 oq) {s4) ECOLOGY CENTER OF SOUTHERN CALIFOhNIA Prqect o1 Ed.Jcoto-ol Cetrrn.nCOficns. Inc l'v'olng Adctess PO Box - Lo~ Angele~ CA_, 90035 35473 Teie!:t-ae (213) 5 59 -9'160 Di>t"~7r'." UShRC May 15, 1985 Secretary of the Commission U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atten: Docketing & Service Branch Re: Decommissioning The NRC has issued an unacceptable proposed rule for decommissioning reactors. We wish to express our concern that the proposed \(4 rule and the questionable use of unsegregated decommissioning D.3.7.L funds are, in effect, phantom funds, because they can be used by the utility for financing construction of new plants. This would seem to go against the intent of protective laws on such issues, and as a consequence, we oppose. Sincerely,

                 ~~~

Associate Director ES/lm J-473

Henry Peck 534 Bookwalter New Carlisle, Ohio, 45344 May 29, 1985 "85 tlAY 31 Pl2:t6 C.FF '. E .;* ;~*... L .~ OOC~t~IN .. .!. SERvl;i BRANCH Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C., 20555

Dear Sir:

Although the 13 May deadline for comments is past, I shall do so anyway, I respectfully oppose "internal segregated funds" to be used for nuclear power 1),'3.2.1.l(d) plants. Instead, I prefer external segregated funds from my taxes which are not contr~lled by utilities or utility assets. Thank you for your attention. JUN 41QII _.._ .. - .........*=71..- J-474

                                        )
               .~:.a IIUM~I\
               ..- w~a,so,s,,PR                  CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR SNEC SAFETY c/o James H. El derOlt:l<ETEl'.I

(,50 F~ ~ 70,7~ Wa 11 St Ext Saxton, Pa 1667B USN~C S*cr*tary of th* Commission May 6 ' 198 :5 135 JM 10 AI0:19 US Nucl*ar R*gulatory Commission Washington, DC 20:5:5S ~£ 0/:' SEC?.*

                                                                                  ,ETING & SE!

Attention: Dock*tinQ and S*rvic*s Branch BRANCH Rea Decommissioning Cr'ite,-ia fo,- Nuclear F*cilitias SO Fed. Reg. S600, Fabruary 11, 1985 Conc*rned Citiz*ns for SNEC Safety is an organiz;ation which has be*n involved in representing local r*sidents as regards the Saxton Nuclear Exp*rimental Corporation's reactor' during its dismantlement phase. Therefor'* we have* very personal stake in the NRC's regulations in this area. We have researched the pr'oblems involved in dismantlement carefully so that w* can help loc*l r'esidents protect themselves f,-om possible harm. After' studyinQ the pr'oposed rule fo,- decommissioning we have concluded that it contains several ser"ious flaws. It is surprising that a ,-ule which has been wor"ked on since 1977 is so lacking in specifics on the topic it addr'eS"Ses. The rule must be dr'astically modified to become an adequate fr"amewor'k for the 54!.c. decommissioning process. We will address this problem using the C ol"l"'lme.."'" \- real experience of what has occurred at Saxton, where the plant was parti&lly decommissioned in 1973 and then put into storage for L,.t\,r eventual dismantlement.

• tJo, 'S' I The decision to change the present requirement for a full Environmental Impact Statement when a final decommissioning plan is developed and to substitute a review is not acceptable. The change in knowledge and techniques during the life of a reactor is considerable and there are certain to be vast differences between the original planninQ and the actual site-specific situation after 30 or 40 years. This is clearly the cas* at Saxton only 12 years after its initial decommissioning plan was developed.

In addition, the preparation of a 4u11 Envir'onmental Impact Statement is the only guarantee that the site-specific knowledge of local government officials and citizens will be made a part of the plan which is carried out. It is important that the views of those most affected by decommissioning decisions, the local residents and workers, be made a part of the final plans. The prime consideration in decommissioning decisions must be public health and safety since that is the legal mandate of the NRC. The proposed rule appears to give only lip service to this requirement. It is mentioned, but nowhere are methods or performance goals for achieving safe decommissioning written into the rule. Instead. this topic is left for later action by the JUN * " ,ssS AcknO\"'"*ched by card . ..* , ... , , *** , ** * ; J-475

NRC. when it should b* the re*l subst*nce of this rula. One of the most import*nt decisions in dacommissionin9 is wh*ther to use DECON <immediate dism*ntlement>, SAFSTOR <temporary star*;* 111ith l*t*r dism*ntlement> or ENTOMB <parm*nent on-site stora;e>. Vat there is no criteria ;iven in the rul* for ho111 to m*ke the choice amen; these options. Even the inform*tion supplied 111ith the rule m*kes a cle*r case for how to ev*luate th*** options, but th* rule itsalf gives no guidanca. ENTOMB is not a raalistic alternative and th* rule should state that. Thar* will obviously be special raasons *t particular sites to choose th* DECON option becausa of raasons such as poor original siting of a raactor, but in ganeral th* avidence suggests that parti*l decommissioning followed by a ,o-year storage pariod

<SAFSTOR> will be the best option in terms of the public health and safety. Radiation exposure to workers and th* surrounding araa will be lower and, equally as important, there will be a si;nificant reduction in the radioactive wastes produced.

While SAFSTOR might slightly increase the total co*t cf decommissioning, the public benefits justify that cost. The rule should require that the choice of method be based on a detailad Se., assessment of the effects on public health and safety so that a rational decision can be made. There shou(d be clear critaria (:o.,..., rnc l\t available for NRC review of that decision. Again the need for preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement as part of a Lc..\\er final site-specific plan is shown to be justifiad.

• II.lo, 51 Another extremely important part of th* decommissioning process is not addressed by the rule at all. Proper requirements for quality assurance and quality control during decommissioning ar* *ssential, including adequat* monitoring by the NRC itself.

This need is very apparent at Saxton. The original work in 1973 was supposed to have cleaned up several auxiliary buildings for unrestricted use. The AEC did not inspect for 13 months while work progressed. When an inspection finally occurred it was discovered that the buildings remained contam1nated. Since the owner <General Public Utilities> had already dispersed its workers, those buildings remain contaminated today. Strict requirements for quality assurance must b* a part of the rule. We cannot unde~st~nd why the rule specifically exclud*s f~om its requirements reactor9 which have already been permanently shut down. Saxton falls into this category and we think we should receive as much protection as anyone else who lives near a reactor. ** The experience at Saxton also casts severe doubt on the adequacy of the proposed rule for estimating the costs of decommissioning. In 1973 GPU estimated that the total decommissioning cost, excluding continued maintenance for SAFSTOR of the plant, would be t57~,000. Even after the initial decontamination work had been done. in 1983 GPU's minimum estimate of the cost for the remaining work was S12,454,000 or more than 21 times the original total estimate. Obviously not *ll of this increase ~as due to inflation. Saxton 1s only a 35 thermal J-476

meg*w*tt re*ctor and GPU'* cost estim*t** **sume the re*ctor vessel c*n be removed in one piece. To think th*t 1100,000,000 is

• ~aximum figure for decommissioning pl*nts 300 to 400 times the size of S*xton is unr**listic.

The proposed rule should be ch*nged to require* decommissioning fund equ*l to the best estim*t* possible for the cost of decommissioning* particul*r site, *nd th*t estim*te should be revised every five ye*rs so th*t an *ppropri*te fund c*n be built up. Otherwise when the time comes to *ctu*lly decommission* pl*nt only* fr*ction of th* funds required

• • Y be av*il*ble.

The experience of GPU in *ppro*ching bankruptcy, with its

• • in *ssets being inoper*ble nucle*r pl*nts, indic*tes why the
  • t-*sid* funding for future decommissioning must be in extern*l sinking funds which *re l*g*lly sep*r*te from* utility's other
    • • ts. GPU h** not been *ble to get* bl*nk check from Pennsylv*ni* r*t*p*yers even in its emergency situ*tion *nd Sec::.

therefore its cl e*nup *t TMI-2 h** been del *yed. If the funds it h*d set **id* for future decommissioning were p*rt of its norm*l Co ,.,., tv1-<- t1.-\-

• • • • ts there would be no money *v*il*ble tod*y for work *t S*xton.

We *ppreci*te the f*ct th*t th* Pennsylv*ni* Public Utility Commission L c.:~\ c: r requires extern*l reserves for decommissioning funds *nd the NRC ~o. S\ should require the **me method, *long with insurAnce to provide funding in c*se of the e*rly retirement of* pl*nt such AS h*ppened *t TMI-2. The definition given for the term "decommissioning" is not complete in the proposed rule. Since the objective of de~ommissioning is to return* site to the s*me possibilities of use th*t the site possessed before* reactor w*s built en it, the definition should include language stating that the limit for residual radioactivity remaining should be the amount of natur*l background radiation at the site before construction of the plant. This is the only definition which can be acceptable by local residents whose children will be using the site in the future. To summarize, the proposed rule is not complete since it does not provide specific criteria for m*king decisions about decommissioning and it leaves out sever*l import*nt topics. The rule should be redrafted *nd ag*in submitted for public comment before it is *ccepted by the ~RC. Sincerely, J*mes H. Elder Chairman J-477

  -. *~ .. ..    .' - ...
  ,-t4.,*J"ri,,.k11/
                                                                                         /hJ0ffA~:l*~;_"f;ti~;' ..
  .\udn*, ( t-,TtllOll)                                                                  o,,.,jt,mc, N111T /1'c,,
                                                                                         /b,.hn1m1t! I 't,\'IIIMI .J (_"f1/

PR~ii.4<1, 5/J .do-t

(_~ Fil ~~ @J_) June 10, 1985 ~ VIRGINIA 1"0WVI OOtKETH-US'iP.C Secretary of the Commission Serial No. 85-160 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission'85 JIN 14 AJ1 :19NO/JOH:acm Attn: Docketing and Service Branch* Docket Nos. 50-280 Washington, D. C. 20555 50-281 50-338 50-339

Dear Mr. Secretary:

License Nos. DPR-32 DPR-37 NPF-4 NPF-7 VIRGINIA POl.'ER CO~l~IENTS 01' DEC0!-1:1 I SS ION ING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES KOTICE OF PROPOSED RCLE MAKING (SOFR5600) Virginia Po.:er is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the proposed subject rulemaking. We can appreciate the Commission's efforts to address the various issues involved in the decommissioning process, G.I ho.:ever .:e feel that the proposed rule is not necessary and recommend that it be 1.i thdr ai.-n. The ~~C issued a rule on September 12, 1984 (49FR35747) eliminating the reviei.* of financial qualifications of electric utilities in operating license reviews and hearings for nuclear power plants. This rule was based partly on the fact that electric utilities have the ability "to recover, to a sufficient degree, all or portions of the costs of construction and sufficient costs of safe operation through the T),i,J ratemaking process. It is well established that public utility commissions (PUCs) are legally bound to set a utility's rates such that 'D, ~. 3. ' all reasonable costs of serving the public are recovered, assuming prudent management of the utility." This argument applies also to decommissioning activities carried on by electric utilities. Decommissioning costs are small compared to construction and operating costs, and the utilities are able to collect them through the ratemaking process without the proposed regulation. Indeed, the proposed l\~C rule could have the effect of inducing those public utility commissions that have adopted favorable approaches to the recovery of decommissioning costs to revise those approaches to conform to a relatively less advantageous NRC policy. The proposed rule also seems to be at odds with the Commission policy stated in the 1985 Policy and Planning Guidance (PPPG). The PPPG indicates the Commission's intent to have less prescriptive regulations, 6,. I and to see that new requirements imposed on the regulated industry have a "positive contribution to the public health and safety," i.hile "existing J-478

regulatory requirements should be reviewed to see if some could be eliminated i.ithout compromising safety." The safety of decommissioning activities is already ensured by other regulations, and will not be enhanced or affected in any manner by the proposed new rule. Therefore, we recommend that the proposed regulation be withdra~'Tl on the &,I basis that it is not necessary, it does not enhance public health and safety, and does not compl)* 1d th current Commission policy towards simpler and less prescriptive regulations. tr.e\*ertheless, if the Co1111Cission continues to favor issuance of the proposed rule, we recommend that it be revised to take into account the following comments:

1) The rule should clarify the means by which changes and updates in I1).4."3 I

the decommissioning funding plans are to be made. It should explicitly state that the plans are not part of the licenses and that changes and updates i.ill not constitute license amendments. D,'4.~

2) The rule should make clear that utilities should collect funds towards total decommissioning of the facilities, not just decontamination of the nuclear parts.

ID,'-1.2.I

3) The figure of $100,000,000 should be deleted because it can be misinterpreted as indicating a minimum or maximum cost of decommissioning. The cost of decommissioning is very plant 11), '2. I("-)

specific, and there is no basis to believe that the $100 million figure is representative for a number of plants.

4) The rule should be modified to require submission of the decommissioning funding plans two years after issuance of the necessary regulatory guides and other regulatory guidance, rather I1), '/.1. I than two years after the effective date of the rule.

5) The proposed rule would require that the estimated cost of decommis*

sioning, in 1984 dollars, be adjusted annually for inflation at a rate twice the change in the Consumers Price Index (CPI). We acknowledge that the CPI is intended to represent a measure of inflation by approximating the ~ost*of*living index, but that it D, 2.1 (a.) would prove inadequate for an endeavor such as decommissioning. As such, we recommend that the utilities be allowed to make their best D. 2.1 (b) estimate of the increase of the decommissioning costs based on changes in the physical facilities and changes in the costs associated with the different activities associated i.ith the J-479

decommissioning plan. These factors, when evaluated in conjunction with appropriate indicators of economic change, would provide 'D'2,l(o...) more comprehensive criteria for price adjustments than simply using twice the CPI.

                                                                          / D.2..\lb)

6) The rule should state explicitly that it is not intended to supplant any state public utility commission rule or policy concerning the recovery of decommissioning costs or the maintenance of a decommissioning reserve that provides equal or greater assurances that the utilities subject to that commission's jurisdiction will be financially capable of meeting all of the financial requirements for decommissioning "D. 8'. 3. \

activities.

7) Recognize that decommissioning of nuclear facilities is different from other industrial plants because there are disposal costs that are not retrievable from the sale of scrap material. In this regard the collection of funds from the customers using electricity from a nuclear power plant to be decommissioned is valid.

8) The rulemaking should distinguish between the ability of diversified utilities and single asset (nuclear) utilities to I D 3 *'3,

• 2.

I provide financial assurance of their ability to decommission nuclear facilities.

9) The mention of generic studies such as the PNL study should be D ( )

removed from the rule in keeping with the remarks in item 8. This , 2. I Cl. study is outdated in respect to costs and could mislead the PUCs in rate-making processes if applied to individual cases.

10) The rulemaking should not require the approval of a decommission*

ing plan prior to the commencement of actual decommissioning work, IC:.. i. If; if such work is within the limits of the license or violates no other rules. Some work could begin almost immediately after the termination of operation when the optimum work force is available.

11) There is a need to examine the criteria for decommissioning and its relationship to the criteria for site residual radioactivity limits. It would be more appropriate if these criteria were broadened to encompass alternate modes of decommissioning which could be established to fit the normal financial and tax structure of the utility industry. The rule should also distinguish the nonradioactive portion of a facility from the radioactive portion.

In this regard it is almost certain that the majority of utilities I 13, l,Z. I J-480

will not relinquish present sites to the use of the general public j 13.1.7.. \ but will continue to find functional use of the sites. Conflicts in the rulemaking could also occur where there is more than one unit 'B, q, "2. and they do not have licenses that expire simultaneously.

12) It appears that the specificity of the recordkeeping requirements in the proposed rule is not necessary for regulation. l C, 7. \

13) Spent fuel storage facilities and other storage facilities are licensed under Part 72 whereas power stations are licensed under Part SO. The rule should be specific as to what is addressed. B.1.2.2 Part 72 installations for fuel storage should require only superficial decommissioning, if any, after the fuel is gone.

If the proposed rule is adopted we would endorse, in particular, the following features: p,1.2.1.l(b) 1, Inclusion in the proposed rule of internal reserves as an option where utilities can place their decommissioning funds. We urge that this option be maintained. 2' A distinction between the routine decommissioning of facilities at the end of their normal lifetime and a forced decommissioning following an accident.

3) The exclusion of decommission funding plans from the NEPA process.

This should be emphasized in the final rule.

4) The recognition that both entombment (ENTOMB) and intermediate storage (SAFSTOR) are viable options before the commencement of decommissioning the radioactive portions of the facility.

In addition, Virginia Power supports the detailed comments submitted by the Utility Decommissioning Group (Bishop, Liberman, Cook, Purcell and Reynolds) and by the Atomic Industrial Forum Subcommittee on Decommissioning. Very truly yours , (\ LV( \~ W. L. Stewart J-481

cc: Mr. William J. L. Kennedy Chairman, AIF Committee on Environment Atomic Industrial Forum J-482

Medicine H111th Physics Indus trial Hygiene Toxicology Medical Department/3M 3M Center SI. Paul. Minnesota 55144 612/7331110 June 13, 1985 3NI Secretary of the Commission c.:u::m: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i.JSN!~C Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch '85 JUN 18 AID :51 Gentlemen: uff1L.E O; Si:.t,11., ,,:.. OOCKETiNG & SEi<V!U The following comments are submitted in response to the prop~CH rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities as published in the Federal Register, Volume 50, No. 28, Monday, February 11, 1985, In particular the comments address Section D., Financial Assurance. In the proposed rule three methods of financial assurance are suggested for Part 30 and Part 40 licensees; (1) prepayment, (2) surety method or insurance, and (3) an external sinking fund coupled with a surety method, We believe that for Part 30 and Part 40 licensees a fourth method, based on a financial test, would also be appropriate. This test could be similar to the one used by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for financial assurance for closure and post-closure care as specified in Subpart Hof 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265. The financial test specified in the EPA regulations relates the estimated cost of closure and post-closure care to various D. ~.4.1. \ assets or financial ratings of the facility owner or operator. Included in the test are such things as the tangible net worth of the organization, the amount of assets in the United States, the ratings of the most recent bond issuance, net working capital, and ratio of assets to liabilities. Two alternatives are offered in the regulations to satisfy the financial assurance requirements. (Refer to Federal Regt)ter Volume 47, No. 67, Wednesday, April 7, 1982, page 1503 . It appears that the financial test ;romulb~ted by the EPA for closure and post-closure care could be applied by the NRC for decommissioning of Part 30 and Part 40 licensees. 3M recommends its addition to the proposed rule. Si~~~ - ~~t

  ~4~      G. Wissink Chairman, Isotope Committee RGW:lmo J-483

_St11tr of lRnint

                        ~rttzdr <Cqnmbrr
                           .6..u9uoln, lRninr 0*1333 IOU<ETEO USHilC June 14, 1985
                                                                          '85 JUN 20 P2 :51 Nunzio Palladino, Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission                                         re   '.~J' Washington, D. C. 20555                                                    ~I~..   -

Dear Chairman Palladino:

We are pleased that the Commission is proposing regulattons / <=, I on nuclear decommissioning. However, this does raise one broad

• concern: possible pre-emption of state laws on that subject.

The State of Maine enacted the Nuclear Decommissionning Financing Act (35 MRSA §§3351-3376) in 1982 in order to ensure that the necessary funds will be available when our nuclear powerplant is decommissioned. We strongly support minimum federal standards, but would object strongly to pre-emption of Dg 3 ) more stringent state laws. 1 *

• Therefore we recommend that the regulations include a specific statement that "any state may adopt and enforce decommissioning financing requirements which are more stringent than requirements of federal law."

Enclosed for your information is a copy of the applicable portion of Maine's law. We also have supplied these to Paul Lohaus, State Coordinator for Region I. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, c;.,,._,;, e 1~ s/K: Ju) c. Kany Chair, Low-level Radio-active Waste Siting Commission cc: Paul Lohaus, Region I 2401 11*<,w,.. JUN 2 O\985 t,y ""'* **** i. ;;; "* *~,. P"- J-484

A1om1c lndustroal Forum, Inc.

                    ~ ~ltiif'hlHlt~ JI 111 6!,J. J;:1JfJ rwx       7108:J*>,;,,:;,.; OMIC FOR cc Nat,c*,..il Er,, onmental DGC.KETEri                      St., ...:~£*S uss~c                          P*0,ect June 20, 1985
                                                             '85 JJN 21 A10 :42 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The Atomic Industrial Forum's Subcommittee on Decommissioning is pl eased to submit comm en ts on the proposed rule, "Deco:nmi s s i oning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities", published in the Federal Register on Monday, February 11, 1985. Our Subcommittee has been active in reviewing this issue since the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued in 1978, including most recently a presentation of its views to the Commission on September 20, 1984, In general, the Subcommittee finds that the proposed rule offers many positive features that will be of assistance in the overall planning and implementation of acceptable decommissioning projects ~.l during the coming years; however, as discussed in earlier comments, it is believed that present NRC regulations in the technical area are adequate to protect public health and safety. A number of key issues of previous concern to the Subcommittee have been adequately addressed in the proposed rule. For example, the proposed policy on the use of the internal funding mechanism for utilities will make it 1). 3. 2. I.\ (b) possible for the most effective funding mechanism to be utilized while at the same time providing reasonable assurance of funds at the time of decommissioning. In addition, the NEPA process has been addressed by the Commission in a manner which will minimize F. I regulatory requirements not germane to the prime issue of protection of public health and safety. Our principal comments on the proposed rule are both technical and financial in nature. In the Subcommittee's judgement, further improvement could be achieved if the rule could be focused on the need for site-specific, realistic decommissioning cost estimates D. '2. I (ci.) rather than the specification of sums that may not be realistic for present-day typical nuclear power plants. Use of site-specific decollllllissioning studies would provide more accurate information for state regulatory bodies who would then not have to depend on generic studies for use in the rate-setting process. Also, the rule seems to discourage consideration of the entombment option for nuclear power plants at a point in time when foreclosure of possible decommissioning options is not technically justified. All options 6,5' should be left open so that needed decommissioning research can proceed.

                                                              "'*-.JW.___,      .... ... .

• 9 1 ~ n,,/ _

JUN ,*'lrttr.~

                                                                      ........, VT Cl1v,  1 * * *

• 1 ,

J-485

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk June 20. 1985 The proposed rule includes in Section 50.54 provisions related to decommissioning funding as conditions of license. The Subcommittee views, this issue as non-safety related and recommends removing 'D LI 4 funding aspects from this section of the rule which would assist in ' ' removing possible uncertainties associated with the operating license and avoid unnecessary procedural requirements. The proposed rule does not include a provision for residual radioactivity limits which is being handled separately as an amendment to 10CFR Part 20. The NRC is encouraged to proceed with I the development of this limit which is needed in the decommissioning E.1, planning process. If it would expedite the rulemaking process, the NRC may wish to consider separating the issue of a site residual radioactivity limit from other overall radiological~its that may be involved in decommissioning. The Subcommittee would be pleased to discuss these comments with the staff. Sincerely, 1-/-IA~ William J.L. Kennedy Chairman AIF Committee on Environment WJK:hbb Attachment J-486

COMMESTS ON PROPOSED NRC RULE, DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES, PREPARED BY AIF SUBCOMMITTEE ON DECOMMISSIOSING June 20, 198S The AIF Subcommittee on Decommissioning has reviewed the proposed rule, Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, published in the Federal Register of Monday, February 11, 1985. The Subcommittee believes that the proposed rule contains many features which will contribute to the overall regulation of nuclear power plants. Over the period of time since the AIF

                                                                   ~. \

commented on the original Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 1978, the NRC staff has incorporated many beneficial features into the development of this proposed rule. The Subcommittee offers the following comments for considera-tion by the NRC in writing the final rule. These recommenda-tions, in the judgement of the Subcommittee, would result in a more efficient regulatory process relating to decommissioning D. '3. 2. 1. I( b) and provide adequate health and safety protection for the public. The proposed rule has approached the decommissioning funding issue in a realistic manner by correctly concluding that internal reserve is an appropriate method for funding decommissioning. In addition, the proposed rule makes it clear that no additional environmental review reqLirements will be imposed with the new decommissioning regulations and categori* f: I cally excludes decollimissioning funding plans from the NEPA process. The Subcommittee believes this to be an appropriate way of addressing the NEPA issue and favors its inclusion in the final rule. The Subcommittee has identified the following comments which, in its judgement, would improve the proposed rule:

1. The proposed rule requires that Part SO licensees submit either a site-specific decommissioning funding plan or a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning be provided in an amount at least equal to $100,000,000 (1984 dollars) adjusted annually for inflation. The NRC's 1) ( )

objective for including this type of provision in the rule

• 2..1 a..

is to assure that adequate funds are available for decommis-sioning a nuclear facility at the end of its useful lifetime. The industry also shares this objective of assuring the availability of decommissioning funds when needed. The AIF Subcommittee believes that the preferred approach is to base the decommissioning cost estimate on a site-specific study, rather than to include a specified minimum or generic amount that the Commission has described as "sufficient" to cover decommissioning costs for "most" J-487

po~er reactor licensees as described in the Supplemental Information (page 5606, Column 3) . One of the major

  ~roblems facing a utility is the need to assure that electric rate regulators use decommissioning cost estimates that are botn adequate and realistic for the plant in question in establishing the rates for collecting these funds. Experience has shown that rate regulators often rely heavily on NRC-sanctioned generic cost estimates. The availability of site-specific decommissioning cost estimates to state rate-regulatory bodies would provide them with       1):2. I (a.,')

more accurate information and avoid the necessity for their having to depend on generic studies in the rate process. In this connection, it is the Subcommittee's judgement that the $100 million identified in the proposed rule is not representative of the decommissioning costs for most of today's nuclear power plants. Current experience with site- D.1.1.1 specific studies of large-scale nuclear power plants have shown the costs to be substantially higher. Therefore, the rule should encourage the use of site-specific studies in lieu of a generic certification amount. If the Commission should find it necessary to specify actual fund amounts in the rule, the specified amount should be sufficiently high so that it is adequate to include realistic decommissioning costs. It is appropriate that specified amounts be higher than current site-specific cost estimates since the generic certification provision of the proposed rule is intended to reflect a conservative t>.z.1(b) upper bound estimate. Adopting an inadequate amount in the rule may be misleading in rate proceedings and could be counter-productive to NRC's objective of financial assurance. In addition, the NRC should specify clearly in the rule what this certified amount is to include, such as contingencies, etc. so there will be no misunderstanding as to its intended scope. Also, the NRC should consider means for adjusting the specified amount based on plant size, design, and other site-specific factors.

2. The Supplementary Information under the "Preliminary Planning" section (page 5604, Column 3) suggests that the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNLJ decommissioning studies can be used for initial cost estimates with suitable adjustments for inflation and for site-specific factors.

Past experience with the PNL studies, which yield insuffi- D.z.. I (a.) cient cost estimates, have resulted in rate regulators using the lowest available cost estimates. Therefore, the Subcommmittee urges that the sentence referring to this use of the studies be deleted since they are outdated in the cost area. The use of generic studies to project realistic deco111missioning cost estimates has inherent problems and should generally be discouraged in favor of site-specific studies. J-488

3. A major objective should be to achieve consistent estimates among various plants that reflect realistic decommissioning costs. To this end, AIF's National Environmental Studies Project currently is supporting a study to develop decommissioning cost estimate guidelines. In order to assure the maximum degree of acceptance, this study is being conducted with the cooperation of NRC staff, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC} as well as representatives of the nuclear industry. This D. 2 . t ( '1-')

project will be COillpleted durinf the summer of 1985, Because of the technical input rom the various organiza-tions having an interest in this subject, the NRC and others should find that the final report represents a suitable method for utilities to use in developing realistic site-specific cost estimates to meet NRC and State requirements. _Use of these guidelines would support NRC's and the industry's objective of adequate decommission-ing cost estimates for funding purposes and be beneficial in implementing the new decommissioning rule,

4. The proposed inflation rate also puts an unnecessary barrier in front of the utility similiar to the $100 million certification level. It effectively puts a ceiling on future decommissioning increases if these increases are 02..1 *(4.,)

  $reater than twice the Consumer Price Index (CPI}. In the      DZ. I Cb)

Judgement of the Subcommittee, there has not been a strong relationship between the CPI and the increase in decommis-sioning cost estimates over the past few years. To the extent that revised estimates for decommissioning a plant are to be conducted every several years for purposes of rate justification, the actual inflation rate, whether upward or downward, will, in fact, be built in. S. The Subcommittee recommends that the proposed regulations be written (section SO.S4) to remove the funding aspects of decommissioning as conditions of license. Funding aspects '[).4.4 have no direct impact on safety and removing these provi-sions as license conditions would alleviate possible uncertainties associated with the operating license, as well as avoid unnecessary procedural requirements. In a related area, the proposed rule does not make provisions for the case of pending applications for operating licenses. Proposed 10CFR 50.33 tk)(l) provides that each application for an operating license submitted by an electric utility must contain information providing reasonable assurance that funds will be available to 1).'-!.1.2. decommission the facility. Unlike proposed 10CFR SO.S4 (cc}ll) and l2), 10CFR S0.33 (k)(l) contains no provision for delayed effectiveness. Consequently, unless the proposed rule is modified, applications for operating licenses still pending when the rule becomes effective will have to be amended. More important, the potential for the J-489

introduction of new contentions - and therefore for delay - in operating license hearings would be substantial. It would appear that a solution to this potential problem

• 1).4.1.2.

would be to insert the following language (underscored) in 10CFR 50.33 (k)(l): "For an application for an operating license for a production or utilization facility, filed on or after (insert the effective date of the final rule) .***** 11

6. The Supplementary Information preceding the proposed rule implies that entombment may be precluded as a viable decom-missioning mode (page 5603, Column 3); the proposed rule itself does not make reference to this aspect. Because of the potential advantages through reduced occupational radiation exposures, reduced waste volumes generated, and the time available for making final decisions on decommis-sioning, the Subcommittee believes that no potential options for the future should be foreclosed, either through a rule or by implication at this time. Therefore, the Subcommittee urges that the wording in the Supplementary Information clearly indicate that entombment may, in fact, be a possible option for decommissioning in the future under certain cir- B.5" cumstances. It is inappropriate at this time to specifical-ly preclude any decommissioning alternative in a rulemaking, since decommissioning is a developing technology. Such a restriction would discourage research into alternative methods which could reduce costs and/or radiation exposure associated with decommissioning.

With reference to ENTOMB, cost considerations should be the province of the license holder. A statement on the effi-ciency of a decommissioning option based on an evaluation of cost at this time should not be included in the Supplementary Information. The basis for the 100 year period during which radionuclides would decay to levels permissible for unrestricted use for the ENTOMB option, does not appear to be completely consis-tent with other NRC regulations. In 10CFR61 and the associated background information published in the Federal B'.'-1.3 Register notice of final rulemaking (Vol. 47, No. 248, 8.5" Monday, December 27, 1982, pp 57446-57482), credit is taken for stability of waste form (either solidification or disposal in high integrity containers) for periods of over 300 years. ENTOMB options could be at least as effective in providing waste form stability as the disposal of stable waste forms in shallow land burial facilities. Without making specific reference to individual isotopes, it would be more appropriate to have a generic requirement that isotopes be characterized as to plant-specific measure-

6. 3. I. l inents or records. Based on this information, decommission-ing mode and timing could be selected.

J-490

7. There is a need for NRC to develop suitable residual radioactivity limits as an important step in determining overall decommissioning policy. The staff has such limits under development at the present time. We understand that there is some ongoing discussion involving the ACRS relative to the technical merits of a single limit that would apply to many facets of decommissioning, including E. 1. l the site limit and recycled materials. Because of the importance of having site limits for use in planning, the SubcomJOittee suggests that the residual radioactivity issue be phased so that site limits could be developed apart from other related aspects of this topic since they have an important relationship to the costs of decommissioning.

8. Paragraph 50.82 (2)(e) of the proposed rule and the Supplementary Information (page 5605, Column 2) state that Commission approval is required prior to the initiation of any decommissioning activity by the licensee. There are numerous procedures that can and should be accomplished after cessation of plant operation, including the dismantle- C.1.5" ment of certain systems. This provision would effec-tively prohibit activities that are presently permitted by the technical specifications under Section 50.59. The Subcommittee recommends that the wording of paragraph 50.82 (2)(e) be modified to permit certain operations that would eventually be included in an overall decommissioning plan.

9. The definition of "decommission" contained in the proposed rule is somewhat restrictive compared with the usage normally applied to decommissioning; i.e. the process for f etting to the end point which is termination of the icense. The Subcommittee recommends that the definition 8.1.1. 2.

be carefully worded so that it is clear that it is the process being addressed by the term "decommission". The actual end point of termination of license with unrestric-ted use of the property could be termed "decontamination and termination of license". Also the definition should clarify that decommissioning for purposes of the rule does not apply to non-radioactive portions of the facility.

10. The specificity of recordkeeping requirements for just IB.1.2.1 decommissioning does not appear necessary for regulatory purposes. Recordkeeping is a normal process in the C. 7. \

construction and operation of nuclear power plants. Standard recordkeeping procedures should include those records important to decommissioning.

11. The Supplementary Information should be revised to grant publicly owned power reactors, not subject to regulation a state utility commission, the same treatment as other publicly owned facilities. Section 40.36(d)(4J of the proposed rule provides that in the case of federal, state

                                         .J-491

• l or local licensees, assurance of funds can be satisfi~d through a certif~cat!on that the f '[).3.2. 3 appropr1ate government entity 1s guarantor o decommissioning funds. This should also be added to Part SO.

12. (a) The proposed rule applies also to facilities licensed under Part 72. The Commission intends to license the Department of Energy's Monitored Retriev-able Storage facility under that Part. The considera-tions which primarily motivate the proposed rule, particularly cost and funding concerns, clearly do not apply to a federal agency. Decommissioning of the Monitored Retrievable Storage facility will, on 1),"7 the other hand, be guided by considerations quite unrelated to other licensed facilities. For those reasons we recommend that the funding aspect of the proposed rule specifically be waived for NRC-licensed federal facilities. Compliance with future Commission regulations with respect to residual radiation levels may be made a condition of the MRS license.

(b) Due to the probable overlap of some Part SO and Part 72 installations at the same site and the probable differences in license expiration dates, attention 'B.4.2.* should be paid to this potentially conflicting situation in the rule. One license may expire at a site while another is still active, and the desirable decommissioning approach may be to await completion of all site "operations." In these cases, definition CI 2 2 of when the final decommissioning plans must be * *

• submitted based on "permanent cessation of operations" may need to be modified.

(cJ NRC has previously stated with regard to 10CFR Part 72 that (lJ Part 72 storage facilities and Part SO plants are very different in nature, (2) storage of spent fuel is a low risk operation, and (3) the conditions that could lead to release and dispersal of significant quantities of radioactive materials are no~ presen t at 1a storaHge facili tty as at abnl t C:,. '3. 2 operating nuc 1 ear pant. owever, he pream e o the proposed rule seems to lose this distinction and should be revised accordin,ly to reflect the potentially different requirements for decommission-ing between Part SO and Part 72 installations. Part 72 is not a facility license and may not require a significant decommissioning effort due to the nature of some storage options. It is intended to .be a one-step licensing process, and, therefore, should not be assumed to be similar to Part SO in terms of decommissioning. J-492

ld) Since Part 72 is defined as a one-step licensing process, detailed explanation of how this proposed two-phase decommissioning review is to be incorpor-ated procedurally into Part 72 needs to be added. Licensing confusion may otherwise develop. J-493

Northem StatH Po_, Company 414 N,collet Mall Harry W. Spell Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401 Senior Vice PrHldent Telephone (612) 330-5774 Finance July 3, 1985 HC.KETEI! VSNilC Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '85 JI. -8 Alt :08 Washington, D.C. 20555 OFFICE O* SEC. .t :., Re: Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear FacilitiOOC~ETING & SERI/iii BRANCH Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Northern States Power Company (NSP) submits these comments in response .to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed regulations regarding the decommissioning criteria for nuclear facilities published in the Federal Register on February 11, 1985. NSP is an operating public utility engaged in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Michigan and the distribution of gas in Minnesota, North Dakota, Wisconsin and Michigan. NSP owns and operates three nuclear generating units. The Company's earliest facility is a 536 megawatt unit at Monticello, Minnesota, which was placed in service on June 30, 1971. The Company's remaining facilities include a 503 and 500 megawatt unit at Red Wing, Minnesota. These units were placed in service on December 16, 1973, and December 24, 1974, respectively. The Company's first comment relates to the use of the $100

• million inflation adjusted figure as a proxy for estimated decommissioning costs. This amount may be appropriate for an interim time period between the date when financial assistance D. '2. I (a.)

is required and the first date when a site specific decommissioning cost estimate could be produced. To protect 'D. 2. I ( b) both utilities and their ratepayers, financial assurance for decommissioning should be based upon the best site specific engineering estimates of the expected decommissioning costs. Accordingly, it is the Company's recommendation that the Commission require that financial assurance for decommissioning be based upon periodic engineering estimates of site specific D.Y.3 decommissioning costs. A reasonable time interval for periodic updates of such an engineering study would be every five years. The Company's second comment relates to the alternatives available for financial assurance. NSP uses an internal reserve sinking fund to recover future decommissioning costs. J-494

Secretary of the Commission July 3, 1985 Page Two NSP believes this method is both cost effective and provides reasonable assurance of the availability of funds for decommissioning at the termination of the plant's operation. The Commission is to be commended for continuing to include D. '3.2. 1.1 ( I>) this method as an acceptable alternative for electric utilities. Questions regarding these comments may be addressed to Lee Carlson at (612) 330-5567. Respectfully submitted, ~~-- Senior Vice President Finance HWS/DMS/ccj J-495

AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER Service Corporation I J Riverside Plaza (614) llJ-1000 P.O. Box J66JJ Colr"nbus, Ohio 4J1 /6-66J I

                                                                                                                        . - .. ;*-, 111oaUtT W      ....u1MOfr\l A .JOl(l'M OOWO                                                                                                                      THQUAS S        A.SHl-011110 11....0lfll VICI -,s,OIHT 4"'60 a, ......l. cova,,SIL                              Writer's Direct Dial No.                         s,...,o* .a.no*..,t"S J0Hflif Ill au*TON                                                                                                                   (QWAltQ .J      a111tAOY v1CI ll'llllttDl ... f SIC*IT.t.*'l' 4frril0 Df"v'" C.l"'l'U,1,. COv,.,111,.

VtCI ,..,,,o, . . , ....o .JOHN, Chl.Olll(NZO JIii IIIICHAIIIO M

                           *ssoc**Tl McMOIIUIIOW c., ... , ..... C0UJtoS1L 614/223-1622
                                                                                                                \) ~  -

5(-..*0* **Tl COv ... Sh MA.VI"" I lll($fltll( l(lV"'" J ou,11v MAIIISHA Ill $Cl"t(f11Mllt

............ , v*Cl ... ,,,o, .. , GOVl ......u ... T.a.1,. . , , .... ,
                                                                                                                                    *a.fl COv11rtlh l((NN(TH I[

.JOHN. SHIHNOCll <:. ....,. ** ,..,, -..cOOfr\lOl..CiH

                                                                                                                                                      .,,o.,.., . .

WILLIAM C HAIIIVlY Jl,,flllV .. WHtTI July S, 1985 l,. IIIACH(L I C(Alllflllf:V &Sl1IT&NT Gl..,IIIIIA1,. COV"illl. ,U"1TH0 ... Y ( '41U.(111 IC,ATHIIIYN L fr\lEVMAN WILLIAM OAVII KILL If K(YI"- 0 "4ACI( T** cnv .. 111. J(tl=Flll(V O CIIIOSS 81tA01"01110 1111 S1CiN(T OANIIL W O ... VAN a1t1lfA11,jT , ** C0v"iSl1.

                                                                                                                                     .,,o,...,.....

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, SO Fed. Reg. 5600, February 11, 1985 Gentlemen: Indiana & Michigan Electric Company ( IMECo) wishes to amend the comments submitted on May 13 on its behalf in this rulemaking. IMECo understands that the period for filing com-ments has been extended to July 12, 1985. This amendment ampli-fies our discussion of funding methods, and we ask that you substitute this letter for the May 13 submission. IMECo owns and operates the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, . which has two nuclear units with a combined rating of 2,130 megawatts. IMECo shares the Commission's concern about G. I assuring that the decommissioning will be accomplished in a safe and timely manner and that adequate licensee funds will be available for this purpose. The following comments are made in the interest of strengthening and/or clarifying the proposed amendments:

1. Decommissioning Funds

a. We have no basis for disagreeing with the $100 million except that it would be helpful to add t>.'2.1 ('t>)

detail supporting the reasonableness of this as a J-496

Secretary ot the Commission July 5, 1985 Page 2. generic estimate of actual decommissioning costs. In lieu of generic standards, IMECo has presented testimony before certain regulatory commissions as to its preferred method of decommissioning and estimated cost. The Commission's rule should clearly state that if a licensee site-specific cost estimate for decommissioning is available, it should be used in lieu of the $100 million figure. We also recommend clarifying whether the $100 D '2 I ( b) million is per unit or per plant (which may have *

• more than one unit). If per unit, then some consideration should be given to requiring less that $100 million per unit at a plant having more than one unit on the assumption that the units will be decommissioned in the same time frame, resulting in a more efficient, less costly pro-gram.

b. We are concerned with what we perceive to be a problem in timing. In order to obtain NRC ap-proval of a funding plan, it is assumed that a utility must select the decommissioning method. B.3. i. l Otherwise, it will not be possible to estimate D,-i.1 (c.,)

costs for the plan. Yet, the Commission's guid-ance on critical issues such as timing and accept- E,l, I able levels of residual radioactivity for release of property for unrestricted use will not be available until some later, unspecified date. Accordingly, the two-year period during which a ID. 4.1. I plan is to be prepared may not be long enough. We urge the Commission to issue as soon as possible all of the technical criteria by which a decommis- D.2.1(c.') sioning funding plan will be judged.

2. Funding Methods We think that of the four methods proposed, the external sinking fund and internal reserve will receive ( )

the most attention. We favor the external fund because 'D.'3,'2.1.l a. of the assurance of its continued availability for the purpose of decommissioning. Also, due to the absence l),'3.4 of an established funding source during the decommis-sioning period the internal reserve can be risky from an assurance viewpoint particularly for an essentially single-asset company. Generally, it should be limited to those cases where the liability is small in relation "'D. 3. 2.1. "2. to the company and the company has a strong financial position. However, we also agree with the Commission's' statement (see second column, page 5609) that it is 'D. 8. ~. \ J-497

Secretary of the Commission July 5, 1985 Page 3. neither necessary nor desirable for the Commission to require a specific financing method for collecting decommissioning funds. Instead, the choice between the 'D, 8.3. \ internal and external funding methods should be made by thJ! state and federal ratemaking bodies.

3. Existing Licenses

a. The section on Existing Licenses at page 5608 \

highlights the need, as noted in our earlier 'D, '2.. \ ( C-J comment, for the Commission to identify very soon the criteria for approving funding plans. Includ-ed "in this section is an apparent criterion which says the period of time for building to the acceptable funding .level is 5 years or one-third of the remaining license period, whichever is greater. This criterion, however, is not stated in the proposed amendment. Is it a condition of approval of a plan?

b. The following questions should be answered: D, 4. ~. \

1. Does the "catch-up" requirement apply to electric utilities? The text (see line 19, third column, page 5608) implies that the presence of the Section 50. 54 (w) insurance for electric utilities eliminates the need for the catch-up.

2. What is an "adequate decommissioning fund"?

The projected costs of decommissioning or the level that would have been attained if funds had been accumulated from the beginning of facility life? We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments. Respectfully submitted, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company JBS/lb J-498

c: - . . '. ~ NEIL F. HARTIGAN u)', *,... ATTORNEY OENERAL STATE OF ILLINOIS

                                                               *as        JUL 12 Al 1 .1 0 July 11, 1985                     i. r OOC,i ~ I
                                                                             ** J  ',  ;
                                                                                         ~~    .

BRANCi. Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washing ton, o. c. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (1985),

Dear Secretary of the Commission:

Enclosed is one copy of the Comments of the People of the State of Illinois with attachments to be filed in the above cap-tioned rulemaking. Sincerely,

                                     ~~-~~c+a John w. Mccaffrey Chief, Public Utilities Division JWMc:gp Enclosures Public Utilities Division 100 West Randolph Street 12th Floor Chicago, Illinois    60601 (312) 917-:5119 JUL : 2 1985           rf_

Ack now l"'°1Z~ by ca rd .....*. , , , ,, ... ~ J-499

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t.., I I "' PROPOSED RULE DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR

                                                                            *as    JUL IL All .10 NUCLEAR FACILITIES COMMENTS OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS The Peoµle of the Stale of Illinois by and through their Attorney, NEIL F.

HARTIGAN, Illinois Attorney General, file these comments concerning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ("NRC's") proposed rule or Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facililies, 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (1985). INTRODUCTION The People or the State of Illinois ("People of Illinois") are limiting their com-ments on this proposed rule to the funding assurance requirements for nuclear power electric generating facility licensees and to the environmental review pro-posed for nuclear facility licensees. The reason for not commenting on other Is-sues, such as the lack of standards for the final r~diologic survey, Is not because E. I. \ the People cl Illinois find those issues unimportant. Rather, these comments locus on the financial funding and environmental review issues because of their pre-eminent importance In this particular rule-making. The NRC has identified the funding assurance issue and the establishment of a prescribed amount for the level 1). g' \ of assurance as issues that have proved particularly difficult to resolve. 50 Fed. G.. I Reg. 5603 (1985). The People o{ Illinois agree that these Issues are important and that a prompt resolution is in the public Interest. These comments support the

• 1*

J-500

NRC's proposals with respect to funding assurance requirements with certain sug.

                                                                                      , 1).  'l, I gestions for modifications that will enhance the impact of the rules on funding assurance for decommissioning nuclear power electric generating facilities. With respect to the environmental review requirements, these comments urge the NRC F. I to retain its present regulations and not reduce the level of environmental review at the time of decommissioning.

RECOMMENDATIONS With respect lo funding assurance, the People of Illinois are making four recommendations, three of which suggest modification to,the proposed rules. First, the People of Illinois endorse the requirement in the proposed Part 50.82(c) that any decommissioning plan which anticipates a period of temporary storage must be D. 3.~ funded by a prepaid external fund. Second, the People of Illinois suggest that the external fund requirement be extended to any decommissioning plan that antici-pates immediate disassembly that will take longer than one (1) year to complete. Third, the People of Illinois suggest a modification to the option, provided in the proposed Part 50.33(k)(1 ), of allowing a certificate of assurance of funds equivalent 1).'2.\(b) to $100,000,000 in the 1984 dollars. That option should be allowed only if the applicant demonstrates that, from the best evidence available, the actual decom-missioning expense will be less than $100,000,000 in 1984 dollars. Finally, the People of Illinois suggest modifying the proposed part 50.33(k)(4)(iv). Specifically, the use of an internal fund should be allowed only after the applicant has failed to D, 3. '2

• I , '2.

obtain the agreement of a government agency to act as trustee of an external fund and there is no external fund otherwise available which generates non-taxable income.

                                         *2*

J-501

With respect to environmenlal review, the People of Illinois maintain that the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") (42 U.S.C. sec. 4321 ~~-)and con. siderations of sound environmental policy require that site specific environmental impact statements be conducted at the lime that detailed decommissioning plans and detailed funding plans are submitted by licensees. Consequently, the NRC should retain its present regulations with respect to environmental review at the time of a nuclear power plant decommissioning. COMMENTS FUNDING ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Much of the analytical approach utilized in developing these comments is taken from the Final Report on Funding Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning prepared by Burns, ~ ~-. of the National Regulatory Research Institute for the United State Department of Energy ("NARI Report*). 1 Since the analysis in the NARI Report is referenced throughout these comments, a copy has been attached for ease of reference. The NARI Report is extremely helpful in establishing an analytical method for comparing alternative funding methods by equaling the risk inherent in each meth-od. However, risk equalization is not sufficient to decide among competing funding alternatives. The NRC's regulation in this area must be designed to minimize intru. D.S.3. l sion into the traditional state jurisdiction of economic regulation of intrastate electric utility rates. This would allow the state and its utilities lo choose among alternative decommissioning funding methods by considering the cost to ratepayers of any particular alternative, and the ability of the alternative to recover the cost from those

                                           . 3.

J-502

ratepayers who are experiencing the benefits or the facility, as well as funding assurance criteria. ID. l?. 3. I Utilizing those criteria the Illinois Attorney General's Office has evaluated the proposed rule published in 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (1985) and, on behalf of the People , l).&. I or Illinois, supporls, in large part, !he lunding requirements set forth. In particular,

!he People of Illinois strongly endorse the requirement of an external fund for all decommissioning activity requiring temporary on-site storage. 10 C.F.R. 50.82(c) as proposed in 50 Fed. Reg. 5620 (1985). The People of Illinois also suggest In the following comments !hat modifications to three sections of the proposed rule would enhance the funding assurance by:

1. extending !he external funding requirement of proposed Part 50.82(c) to any decommissioning activity which will require more than one year to 2.

accomplish; limiting the circumstances within which the certification of funding capped al $100 million may be used to instances where it Is shown that I D,2 i(b) I the expected cost will no! exceed that amount: and

3. placing some qualifications on the use of the Internal funding alternative sel forth in !he proposed Par! 50.33(k)(4)(iv) !hat lirst would require a D. 3. '2 . I , 2 good laith effort to establish a leas! cost external fund.

The People or !he SI~~- of Illinois Endorse the Proposed 10 C.F.R. Part 50.82(c) A key proposed amendment to 10 C.F.R. Part 50 is the NRC's proposed 10 C.F.R. Part 50.82(c), which requires !hat any applicant proposing a decommission- 1). 3. 4 ing plan which anticipates delays in completion "by including a period of storage or long-term surveillance* must provide a prepaid external fund or surety. 50 Fed .

                                             . 4.

J-503

Reg. 5620 (1985). The People of ffflnols strongly endorse the requirement of an external fund in such circumstances. There are two reasons for this endorsement: the facility is no longer capable of generating revenue, thus.. allowing the cost-causer to avoid the burden of decommissioning If funds are accumulated post operation; and the use or an external fund will ensure ellicient, the highest return for a given market risk, portfolio management, which minimizes the cost of assur-ing the availability of the funds. Before elaborating on the reasons for this endorsement a point of clarification is necessary. The proposed Part 50.82(c) allows the use of a "fund certification* maintained in accordance with the criteria proposed In Part 50.33(k). Discussions with the NRC staff have indicated that this refers solely lo certification under the 1).3.~ proposed Part 50.33(k)(3)(iv) which is restricted to government licensees. The Peo-ple or Illinois" endorsement of the proposed Part 50.82(c) is subject lo clarifying language that restricts the use of fund certification to government licensees. The primary reason compelling the People of Illinois" endorsement is the fact that the facility is no longer capable of generating revenue lo fund a decommission-ing plan. A proper approach lo decommissioning funds will attempt to obtain the funds for decommissioning from those customers who benefit from the electricity generated by .the facility. The further away in time after cessation of operation that funds are raised. the less likely that the proper individuals are funding the decom-missioning. In instances where temporary storage in SAFSTOR could fast 20-30 years (the proposed rule allows for 100 years) this becomes a severe problem .

                                         . 5.

J-504

Furthermore, if a prepaid external fund is not required, then there could be a con-flict between the need for funds lo replace the generating capacity being decom-missioned and the need for decommissioning funds. In that latter instance, further delay ot decommissioning could occur, not for safety related reasons, but simply to minimize cash now problems associated with a construction program. An additional reason of endorsing the proposed Part 50.82(C) Is that an ex-ternal fund will result in a diversified portfolio of investment. This diversified Invest-ment is efficient in that the greatest return is earned for .a given market value of risk. That result is not likely if the funds are invested entirely In the applicant's assets, because the funds are exp.,~ed lo the unsystematic risk of the applicant's returns. This characteristic of external runds, and their Inherent superiority over internal runds, will be discussed in more detail in the last section of these comments.2 D.3.4 Thus, the People or Illinois support the NRC's proposal that any decommis-sioning plan which anticipates temporary storage of the facility on-site must provide a prepaid external fund or its equivalent at the lime that decommissioning commen. ces. This endorsement is subject to clarification that only government licensees may make uso of the cerlification option. The People ol th~ Slate of Illinois Suggest That the NRC Extend the Proposed E{eguirement or Part 50.82(c) to Certain Immediate Decommissioning Plans. Furthermore, the People of Illinois suggest that the external funding require. ments proposed in Part 50.82(c) be extenaed lo Include any decommissioning plan that anticipates immediate disassembly of the facility if the decommissioning will lake longer than one year to complete. The reasons for this suggestion are identi-cal to those supporting the endorsement of the proposed Part 50.82(c). Primary, of

                                           *6*

J-505

course, is the reality that the facility is incapable of generating addilional revenues during decommissioning. However, extending the Part 50.82(c) requirements to Immediate decommis-sioning activity would have a desirable incentive effect on the funding method utilized during the operating life of the plan!. Any facility owner faced with the D, 3.'1 absolute requirement of creating an external fund lor any decommissioning which will lake longer than one year to complete will chose the method of accumulating funds most likely to result in sufficient funds to meet that requirement. In addition, there is an Incentive to chose a method which accumulates those funds over the tile of the facility from the individuals enjoying the benefits of the facility. !t:!_e_J'eople of the State of Illinois Syggest Thal the Option of Part 50~33(k)(1 l, Which Caps Funding Requirements at $100,000,000, Be Modified. The proposed Part 50.33(k)(1) allows an electric utility, In lieu of a decommis-sion funding plan, lo provide *certification that financial assurance for decommis-sioning will be provided in an amount at least equal lo $100,000,000 (1984 dollar)." 50 Fed. Reg. 5618 (1985). While the cost estimates provided to the NRC Indicate a D. '2. I (b) mid-point estimate that is below $100,000,000 for decommissioning a reference nuclear power plant, they also indicate that the high end of the cost range is in excess of that amount. The full range of possible costs, as reported in the NRRI Report is from $47.2 million to $145.8 million in 1982. dollars. NARI Report at 36. The People of Illinois suggest that the certilication option of Part 50.33(k)1) should be allowed only upon a showing by the applicant that its expected cost will not exceed SI00,000,000 in 1984 dollars. II Is only common sense that the NRC not

                                            *7-J-506

allow the $100.000,000 certification option as a method for avoiding the necessity

                                                                                       /o.-z.1(b) of guaranteeing a greater amount.

There remains significant uncertainty about the actual cost of decommission-ing a nuclear reactor. Two !actors continue lo contribute to this uncertainty. They are, the ability of the facility owner to dismantle the facility without excessive oc-cupational radiation exposure and the determination of the quantity of waste which will require deep geologic disposal. Both of these factors will become less uncer-lain as more experience is gained. However, for at least the next several years, the uncertainty is sufficient to prohibit assuming lhal the maximum cost is S100,000,000 in 1984 dollars. Decommissioning is a labor intensive activity and any change in the ability of laborers to dismantle the facility, particularly In the early years when the levels of 1). I* 1- \ 60-Coball are especially high, could result in significant cost Increases. However, studies provided lo the NRC indicate thal probable effect of such increased labor cost in not excessive.3 That is not true of possible cost increases due lo radioactive waste disposal issues. The Addendum to NUREG/CR-01304 reports the results of a sensitivity study of the cost e§timate for decommissioning a pressurized water reactor. The Addendum reports that if all the waste contaminated with long-lived radlonuclides were disposed of in a deep geologic disposal sile, as opposed lo shallow land burial, the cost could increase by $191 million in 1984 dollars.5 This would clearly overwhelm lhe decommissioning cost and impose sever burdens of facility owners. Yel even !hat sensitivity result was obtained using the lowest available estimate of deep geologic disposal costs, S7,100/m3. If the full range of possible deep

                                          - 8.

J-507

geoiogic disposal costs. $7,IOO/m3 to $21,000/m3, 6 were used, then the $191 'D. I. I. I million could be tripled. Since no large, 1,100 megawall, unit has yet completed a full life cycle, there remains considerable uncertainty about the true cost of decommissioning. A con. servative approach dictates the suggestion lhal the use of lhe fund certification cap be limited until such experience is gained. For the reasons outlined in this subsection the People of Illinois suggest that the NRC not allow automatic use of the funding certification option in the proposed D, 2. I ( b) Parl 50.33(k)(1) without a showing thal lhe expected costs lo lhe applicant will not exceed $ I 00 million. Finally,_!.he People ol the Slate or llli,::i9is Suggest That the NRC Limit the Use of lhe Funding Option Under Part 50.33(c)(2)(iv). The proposed amendm!'!nl published as 10 C.F.R. Part 50.33(k)(2)(iv) allows for internal funding during the operating lile of a nuclear facility. Because the dis-D.:3.2.1.1(a.) count rate most commonly used in establishing the present value of the future decommissioning costs results In the negative salvage funding method appearing artificially less costly than external methods, and because of the superior portfolio management aspects of external funds, the NRC should allow the use of internal funding for nuclear power plant decommissioning only in limited circumstances. 1), 3. 2 . I . '2 The circumstances include when the facility owner is unable lo obtain the agree-ment of a government entity to act as trustee of the external fund and there is no other external funding arrangement that can generate tax free income. If the funding alternatives are properly adjusted lo equalize the rel~tive risk of j D.3.'2. 1.1 (a.) each fund the most important factor affecting the relative cost of each fund is the

                                              . 9.

J-508

tax elfect. An excellent discussion of both the proper method for equalizing the risk of the alternatives and of the tax effects of each alternative is provided In detail in the NARI Report. The following discussion is a rough outline or the central points or the NARI Report to facilitate the analysis in these comments. First, the NARI Report demonstrates that all the proposed funding alterna-tives can be equalized for relative dillerences in risk with the use of the proper discount factor. A two step process Is outlined in which the future uncertain revenue of a funding method is converted to present value with the expected inter-est rate inherent to the particular funding alternative. This present value is next converted into a future certain value with a risk free discount rate (or a discount rate less than the risk free rate). NARI Report at 80-87. By equating the future uncertain value and the future certain value of all the alternatives a risk free com- D. ~. 2. I. I ( a..) parison can be conducted. The most important consequence of making such risk equivalent comparison is lhat it demonstrates that there is no inherent difference between internal and external mechanisms as long as the tax treatment and assurance of funding are the same for both. Thus, a properly calculated internal fund In not necessarily less costly to implement as long as the amount collected is calculated with this risk free method. The problem is that, as a practical matter, no state regulatory agency is going lo implement an internal funding method using such a discount rate. To do so significantly increases the amount of funds which must be collected each year on the basic premise that the future revenue earnings of the utility are random and uncertain. Traditionally such internal funding methods utilize the utilities allowed rate of return as the discount rate. This results in the internal funding method

                                         . 10.

J-509

appearing to be significantly less costly than external funding methods. II is an illusion, and internal funding methods based on such a discount rate run a signifi-cant risk of generating insufficient funds by the lime of decommissioning. However. even if an internal funding method Is properly implemented with a risk free discount rate, the lax effect on most external funding methods continues to make them more costly than the Internal negative net salvage method. This is D . .3. 2..1,1 (~) because the income to the external trust is taxed. and II would not be efficient to place all of the external funds in government bonds. The only type of external fund not confronted with this problem Is one in which the government is the trustee. Thus, as a practical matter, the only real cost effective choices available to a facility licensee are an external fund with the government as trustee and an internal un-segregated fund such as negative net salvage. NARI Report at 114. One factor which may be sufficient to overcome the tax effect on income of an external fund Is the reduced risk associated with the diverse portfolio of a prop-erly run external fund. An internal fund will normally invest its funds entirely In the licensee's facilities. Such investment Is subject to the unsystematic risk of the 'utility as well as market risk. A properly run external fund will invest in a diverse 1),J,2.1.1(a..) portfolio of securities thus eliminating any unsystematic risk and exposing itself only to market risk. This feature makP.S exlern:il fundir ~ methods inherently superi-or lo internal funding methods. However, it Is questionable whether this is suffi-cient to overcome the tax effect on an external fund's Income. If the trustee is the government, then a fund's Income is tax free and the external fund Is clearly superior to any internal lund. Thus, the People of Illinois D. 3, 2. l, '2 suggest that the use of an Internal funding method should only be allowed In those

                                          - 1t

• J-510

circumstance where the licensee has shown that it is unable to get a government agency to agree to act as trustee of an external fund. Or, in the event that Con-D. '3. 2. I. 7... gress creates an exception where decommissioning funds can be placed in trusts whose income will not be taxed, then such an external fund must be utilized. gNVIRO!i~_!:NTAL REVIEW REQUIREMENTS II is fundamental that NEPA requires NRC to make *a case-by-case balancing judgment* of the particular economic and technical benefits of a planned action against its environmental costs: "[m]uch will depend on the particular magnitudes Involved in particular cases .... The point of the individualized !)alancing ;'lnalysis Is to ensure th11t, with possible alterations, the optimally beneficial action is finally taken." Qalvert_ Cliffs* Coordinating Committee v. U.S. Atomic Energy Comm*n. 449 F.2d 1109, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 1971). (Emphasis added.) Despite this well-established mandate of NEPA, the NRC proposes to elimi-F. I nate the present requirement that an environmental Impact statement ("EIS") be prepared at the lime a license amendment is issued authorizing the decommission-ing of a nuclear power reactor or othf:'r facility licensed under Parts 50 or 72 of the NRC"s regulations. This proposal is based primarily upon the generic environmen-tal impact statement ("GEIS") and its supporting technical data base. While a generic EIS may be sufficient when it contains all the analysis required by NEPA (U.S. v. 162.20 Acres of Lanq, 733 F.2d 377, 381 (5th Cir. 1984)), it is clear that where there are variations in the proposed actions, a site-specific EIS must be conducted. See Ore_g_~~~~ironmental Council v. Kunzman, 714 F.2d 901, 904-05 (9th Cir. 1983); Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n., 606 F.2d 1261, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1979) .

                                        . 12

• J-511

In* Lower Alloways Cr~~k Township v. Public Service Electric & Gas Co., 687 F.2d 732 (3rd Cir. 1982), the Court admonished the NRC regarding use of a generic EIS: As for GEIS. ii is clear Iha! the NRC cannot use that doeu. ment as a proxy for the more Individualized consideration of a particular expansion proposal that NEPA would ap. pear lo require ***

• 687 F.2d al 748 The NRC's proposed reduction or the environmental review requirements runs afoul of that admonition. The NRC itself recognizes that the costs and environmental impacts of decommissioning are dependent upon the specific decommissioning procedures selected by the licensee. (50 Fed. Reg. 5609 (1985)) Yet the NRC proposes lo rely upon lhe GEIS
• which by definition Is not site specific - and the EIS prepared al the operating license stage
• which Is conducted before a particular Fl decommissioning plan has been selected.

In this light, the proposal lo eliminate the requirement for an EIS In favor of an environmental assessment ("EA") Is clearly improper under NEPA. As stated by !tie court in Lower _A.!!g~_i!E.C:reek Town5.htP, ~.!:!P.@ at 741, the difference between an EIS and an EA is *considerable*: An Environmental (Assessment) is a *concise* and "brief" statement discussing whether an EIS is necessary and evaluating the environmental Impacts and alternatives of a proposal. By contrast, an EIS ls an elaborate document which, according lo lhe Acl, musl be "detailed". It is a detailed assessment that NEPA requires when there will be significant variations in the proposed actions as well as in the site-specific circumstances In which those actions will be conducted, as in the instant case. Consequently, the

• 13
• J-512

NRC's proposed elimination of a required EIS for decommissioning activities would be contrary lo NEPA. As a mailer or policy, reduction of lhe environmental review requirements for decommissioning actions is Inappropriate lor several reasons. f:irslly, decommis-sioning technology is largely unproven: decommissioning has not been conducted at a large-scale commercial reactor since no such facility has yet completed its life cycle. Secondly, under the proposed rules, decommissioning techniques will vary significantly from site to site. Moreover, each facility site is environmentally dif. F, I ferenl; many sites are unique in I heir environmental and -geophyslcal circumstanc-es. Thus, it Is inappropriate and, indeed, not feasible to h!J!y and accurately assess the environmental impacts of varying decommissioning techniques in different environmental settings. Furthermore, the financial condition of licensees will vary tremendously at the lime of decommissioning and is difficult to predict at present, as the NRC con-cedes. (50 Fed. Reg. 5606 (1985)) In addition, lhe funding assurance plans will differ depending upon the licensee's choice and decisions of state ratemaking authorities. In these circumstances, ii is especially important to conduct a par-ticularized evaluation of each licensee's funding assurance plan as part of the EIS cost-benefit analysis. Consequently, the NRC's proposed elimination of runding assurance plan approval lrom the environmental review process is ill-advised. In summary, a site-specific environmental impact statement that includes an evaluation of the licensee's funding assurance plan Is required by NEPA. Therefore, a reduction of the environmental review requirements and complete elimination of

• 14
• J-513

the funding assurance plan assessment would be contrary to. law and sound envi-F. I ronmental policy. CONCLUSION In conclusion. the People of the State of lllinols for all the reasons described above recommend the followlng:

t. that the proposed Part 50.82(c) is proper, subject to the clarification that the fund certification option is available only to government licensees;

2. that the proposed Part 50.82(c) be extended to immediate disassembly plans that will require more than one year lo complete;

3. tho.I the proposed Part 50.33(k)(1) be modified to exclude the use or rund certification for $100,000,000 unless the applicant demcnstrates that its actual cost will be less than that amount;

4. that the funding options available under the proposed Part 50.33(k)(4)(iv) be subject to the prior requirement that the applicant make a good faith effort to obtain either a government agency as trustee of an external fund or some equivalent which is capable or generating tax free income; and

5. that the environmental review for decommissioning actions, including the assessment of funding assurance plans, not be reduced.

• 15 -

J-514

Respectrully Submilled NEIL F. HARTIGAN Illinois Attorney General 8y~~1~ e tL(bt: Senior Law Student A.~..,. J~:'tfccarrrey Gu. ~ ~r~ Supervising Attorney Chier, Public Utililies Division Allen Samelson Assistant Attorney General John w. Mccaffrey Chier, Public Utilities Division Allen Samelson Assistant Attorney General Michael P. Hurst Senior Law Student Illinois Attorney General Suite 1200 100 West Randolph Street Chicago, Illinois 60601

• 16 -

J-515

NOTES 1Robert E. Burns, J. Stephen Henderson, William Pollard, Timothy Pryor, and Yea-Mow Chen; Anal Report on Funding Nuclear Power Pli,nt Decommissioning; The National Regulatory Research Institute prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Grant No. DE-FG01-80RG10268 (1982); Hereinafter referred to as the NARI Report. 2see ~so the NARI Report chapter 6. 3R.I. Smith and L.M. Polentz; Technology, Safety and Costs or Decommis-sioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station, Pacific Northwest Laboratory Operated by Battelle Memorial Institute, prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-0130 Addendum (1979), p. 2-7.

     ~!.Q.

5 J.Q ** p. 7 -5. 6!.Q., p. 7-4.

• 17
• J-516

           '1/!1rr:/f*
                                                     .,:e.-=-~R

(-Sa Fi!. .$'~~, '

                                                                       -~fd,       62)   d-.. I~  w COOPERATIVE        *PO B0X811

• 2&15EASTAVE. so. *LACROSS£. W1SC0NS111i $480Hll17 Juq 11, 11815 (IOI) 718-4000 AMES W. TAVI.OA Q1n1rll Mana;er In NPb', pleue Nfer to LAC*llOlT Untt.ed S1&t.e1 Nuclear Re*ulator7 CommlNion ooc,F~::-t, otflce ot the Secret.arT  :.;s~.-.: ~-.

Wuhin1ton, DC 20HIS ALtenlJon: DuckeLws 11.ud Service Branob "85 JJ. 12 P3 :t4 orr::c~ 0 ~ :. , .,.,. _- DOCK£ TING.i s{k"J:'.' SUBJICT; Comment.* on I.he Pn,~d Decommiaaionlnl( Rulei BRANCH Docket. No, &0-409 D&1r7land Power Cooperative, Lfcenaee for the La Oroeae Boilin1 1'111.tir React.or (LACBWR), a SO MWe BWR, hereb7 atat.a* it.a oppoetUon t.o t.he Oom- D,X. l mi11ion'* propoaed rule for t.he ..t.ablillhment. ot reNrve fund, tor react.or decommiaaion~. The propolllll ta eatabliah a fued sum of tl00,000,000 per rwac;Lur tor decommiHionin* purpoaea ta inappropriate, Thia level of coat. u1umea t.hat. all reactor*, both larse and amall, have t.he aame d~mmiaaioninl requirement., We believe t.hat. amall nuclear react.or plant.a 111a7 be moN ...u7 deoommiaaioned due to 1maller dlapoaal volumea, ,mailer 1urtac. decontamination requirement*, and t.he handl1n* of amaller and U.ht.er we1-ht. component.a, Therefor*,

• a..U reactor plant., such u LACIO, abould be permitted to accumulate a leaNr amount. in anticipation of it.a decoauntaaioniq coat.a.

D,2,3 DairJ'land Power, therefore, 1pecificall7 requeat.a Lhat. l.hw propoaed rule be amended to allow amall reactor plant.a (under 100 MW) to provide

• decommtaaion-1n, fUnd Sn th* ord*r ot tZ0,000,000 (19915 dollar*) rather than \he full tl00,000,000 fund, Accumulation ot a decomm1Hlon1n, fund at the *100,000,000 1.-vel prgpoNd impoae* an undue financial burden on t.h* operatora of ...U nucleer rNCt.or plant.a, Further, the application for an enmpUon with the attendant proceutn,,

le*aI, and con1ultant fHI ta a t.ime oonaumin, and ezpen1lve prooeaa in order to obtain relief from auch an unfair rule, Your con11deraUon of thla requeat prior to t.he promuJ.araLion ot Lbe rule la, in our opinion, in t.be public tniereat.. JWT/aJm J-517

AAJJ:r r-uMBiH fDI08EO RULE PR---"'t !lA ,4 . '/

                                                                           ~'~ ~:ta.,

• csa J:/l st~~c)@)

BISHOP, LIBERMAN. COOK, PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 5£V£NT££ .. TM 5T"££T, N.W. WASMIN(HON, o.c 20036 81Sl-iCP, L*8E:~._,.AN & COOK (202) 851-9800 11SS AVENv( 0 " T~[' AM(l=>ICA';, N(W "0~" NCN *Qi:t~ *OOlE TELEX 4"40574 l~TI..AW UI {2*2) 70**:>*00 TE... E 11 222 .. 67 July 12, 1985 WAIT[~ 0 5 ';)1Q[CT  :,.e.'- o~~~:~Q:'5:7-9 s 11 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk "85 JUL 12 p4 :4a Secretary U,S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D,C, 20555 Re: Proposed Rule Regarding Decommissioning Criteria For Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed, Reg. 5600 (February 11, 1985)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On May 13, 1985 the Utility Decommissioning Group ("UDG") filed comments with the Commission regarding the proposed rule on decommissioning criteria, The purpose of these additional com-ments is to respond briefly to the comments filed by several other parties and to bring to the Commission's attention an addi-tional site specific decommissioning cost study that was com-pleted after UDG's May 13 comments had been filed with the Com-mission,_!/ A. The Criticisms Of Various Commenters Do Not Undermine The Correctness Of The Commission's Approval Of Internal Funding The Commission's February 11, 1985 proposed rule correctly 1).3.2.1. \ (b) concludes that internal funding is appropriate for multi-asset utilities and provides reasonable assurance of the availability of decommissioning funds, 50 Fed. Reg. at 5608, Cols. 1-2, Many comments filed support the Commission's conclusion, including state regulatory agencies and numerous investor- and government-l/ As noted in UDG's May 13 comments, the Group consists of 13 power reactor licensees and the Edison Electric Institute, The thirteen licensees ares *Arkansas Power & Light Company, Carolina Power & Light Company, Duke Power Company, Jersey Central Power & Light Company, Metropolitan Edison company, Northeast Utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company, Southern California Edison Company, Texas Utilities Electric Company, Virginia Power Company, and Yankee Atomic Electric Company, Ar l<nc 190!:!9(j b JiJ' * ., ,r~

                                                                                           *-      * ~*
                                                         ~. w        -       YC21"Cf ........,...,* . , , ~

J-518

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 12, 1985 Page 2 owned utilities. These comments also reaffirm the position that / Dg \ the choice between alternative funding methods is for rate regu- * ,3. lators to determine. On the other hand, comments filed by various organizations object to internal funding. These comments, however, offer nothing that has nQt already been fully considered by the Com-mission. For example, the report that Public Citizen/ Environmental Action ("Public Citizen") filed as its comments on the Commission's proposed rule repeats the objections to internal funding that Public Citizen submitted in connection with the D.3.'2.1. 2 September 20, 1984 briefing to the Commission on the financial and technical aspects of decommissioning. Compare, e.~., the report Public Citizen submitted May 3, 1985 as its comments in this rulemaking, p. 6, with the written comments Public Citizen submitted at the September 20, 1984 Commission briefing, pp. 2-3. These views were, therefore, already considered by the Commission and its staff prior to issuance of the Feburary 1985 proposed rule approving internal funding. The basis of these objections is that "since no funds are physically set aside" under the internal funding method, it is not a "guaranteed" fund, and "when compared to" other methods provides lesser assurance.2/ Contrary to these contentions, the issue here is not whether a particular method "guarantees" fund-ing or provides the "highest" level of funding assurance, Instead, the relevant legal standard is whether the internal reserve provides a reasonable level of assurance. That is the standard that governs the Commission's health and safety deter-minations under the Atomic Energy Act. See UDG's May 13 com-ments, pp. 15-17. l),3.2.1.1(\>) The opposing commenters, however, do not even address the reasonable assurance standard. Indeed, they offer nothing to undermine the conclusions of the Commission, its staff and con-sultant, Professor Siegel, reached after very careful, exhaustive consideration, that the internal reserve satisfies the reasonable assurance standard and, in Professor Siegel's words, "provides excellent assurance of the availability of funds." See 50 Fed. Reg. at 5608, Cols. 1-2: NUREG-0584, Rev. 3, Assurini"the Avail-abilit of Funds for Decommissionin Nuclear Facilities, p. 49; NUREG CR-3899, Utilit Financial Stabilit and the Av~ilabilit of Funds for Decommissioning, p. 13. C ., 0 Fed. Reg. at 6 Col. 2 ( "[TJhe Commission does not bel'Ieve it is necessary, or desirable, to require a specific financial method for collecting ~/ ~.~-~*,comments of Public Citizen, p. 6; comments of Citizens Assn. For Sound Energy, p. 3; comments of Maine Nuclear Referendum, p. 2: comments of Redwood Alliance, p. 8. J-519

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 12, 1985 Page 3 decommissioning funds"). Moreover, the internal reserve provides fully adequate funding assurance even in the case of utilities experiencing severe financial difficulty, as both the Commission and Professor Siegel concluded. See SO Fed. Reg. at 5608, Col. 1), '3. 2. I. I ( b) 2: NUREG/CR-3899, p. 10: see alsotroG's May 13 comments, p. 18. In short, the Commission'~pproval of the internal reserve as an

 .  ~

_! appropriate decommissioning funding method is entirely sound and correct.]_/

e. Analysis. Of Comments Filed Underscores The Need To Eliminate The Battelle-Derived $100 Million Certification Method And Emphasize Instead Reliance On Site Specific Cost Studies UDG's May 13 comments explain that the proposed $100 million D.2.1 (a.)

certification method is not sufficient funding in most cases and that site specific studies for large-scale commercial power reactors substantially exceed $100 million. See UDG's May 13 comments, pp. 6-10. UDG's comments also emphasize that the Battelle Studies, NUREG/CR-0130 and NUREG/CR-0672, which are the basis for the $100 million amount, were intended to describe 3/ Public Citizen also suggests that "utilities may use [the Internal reserve] for new investment projects, with no need to insure that the money taken from customers will be available in the future for decommissioning." Comments of Public Citizen, p.

34. Similarly, Redwood Alliance suggests that decommissioning funds can be used to pay operating expenses. Comments of Redwood Alliarce, p, 6, Such contentions have no basis. On the con-trary, as explained during the Commission's September 20, 1984 public meeting on decommissionin9, Tr. 43, 49-50, rate regulatory agencies assure that ratepayer-contributed funds earmarked for decommissioning will be used for that purpose, and ratepayers are fully protected. Public Citizen also suggests that through "holding-company maneuvers," a licensee could be "'spun off' in a financially weak condition," making decommissioning "very diffi-cult financially." Comments of Public Citizen, p. 36, This claim is specious. It has no legal or factual suppqrt.

In addition, the Nuclear Information And Resource Service ("NIRS") suggests that the Commission require insurance to "back up" both internal reserves and external sinking funds in the event that a plant is shut down prematurely for economic reasons. Comments of NIRS, p. 14. There is no such insurance available, however, as NIRS recognizes on the previous page of its comments, Moreover, in approving the shutdown of a plant for economic rea-sons, the rate regulatory authority will provide not only for recovery of decommissioning costs, but also for recovery of the licensee's unamortized investment in the plant. J-520

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 12, 1985 Page 4 decommissioning costs in terms of an order of magnitude only and were not intended as a substitute for site specific cost studies. Id. In addition, UDG explained that although $100 million usu-aTly understates decommissioning costs, the Commission's state-ment that $100 million is sufficient to decommission most reactors, coupled with the Commission's concern for adequate decommissioning funding, will lead utility rate case intervenors to argue that $100 million should be a presumptive cost ceiling in rate cases. ~ . , pp. 10-11. UDG's concerns were justified. Comments filed by a group of wholesale power purchasers describe the $100 million certifica-tion amount as "conservatively high" and state that $100 million "would appear to significantly overstate decommissioning costs for many of the nuclear generating units owned and operated by utilities across the country." See comments of Public Systems, and the accompanying affidavit oT"'Jacob Pous, pp. 3-4. These comments urge the use of the Battelle Studies and the "scaling factors" developed in those studies as a basis for determining p, 2. l (a..) different categories of decommissioning cost as a function of plant size. Comments of Public Systems, p. 14. The same com-ments suggest that "it is not clear that collections from today's ratepayers are necessary in the interest of public safety." Id., P* 32, n. 25. ~ Comments such as these portend the difficulty that utility licensees may encounter in seeking adequate levels of decommis-sioning funding. By describing the Battelle-derived $100 million certification amount as sufficient for most power reactors, the Commission increases that difficulty and unnecessarily injects itself into matters of ratemaking. See UDG's May 13 comments, pp. 6-12. The critical facts here, ~emphasized by the Battelle studies themselves and one of their principal authors, R.I. Smith, is that those studies represent "order of mainitude estim-ates" only and a "realistic estimate" ofthedecommissioning cost for a given reactor requitJS "a 2 ~ite detailed analisis of the specific plant under consideration.",1/ It J.S fort ese reasons that UDG recommends that the Battelle-derived $100 million cer-tification method be deleted from the proposed rule, and the Commission instead rely on site specific cost studies.1/ !/ See UDG's May 13 comments, pp. 7-8, quoting NUREG/CR-0130 Vol, 1, p, 12-9 and letter from R,I, Smith to H,R, Prins, October 29, 1982 (emphasis added), 1/ Alternatively, if the Commission does not delete the certification method, it should increase the amount and clarify the purpose of certification, as explained in UDG's May 13 comments, pp, 11-12. J-521

Mr, Samuel J, Chilk July 12, 1985 Page 5 Finally, UDG wishes to update the list of recent site specific decommissioning cost studies described in UDG's May 13 comments (at p, 9). The updated list is as follows: Removal Cost: Capacity Reactor Date of Removal Cost: Nonradio-(MWe) T:z::~e Stud:z:: Radioactive active Total D. t. \. I 1090 BWR 5/85 $142,435,000 $41,025,000 $183,460,000 \). '2.\(ct) 940 BWR 3/85 117,618,000 43,507,000 161,125,000 6.10 BWR 3/85 lll, 946,000 30,763,000 142,709,000 1150 PWR 5/85 100,510,000 34~743,000 135,253,000 1205 BWR 5/85 138,303,000 49,461,000 187,764,000 An additional site specific study completed at the end of May has been added to this list (the 1205 MWe reactor), and the data for the first reactor listed was revised subsequent to submission of UDG's May 13 comments,6/ Also, as noted in the previous UDG com-ments (at p, 9), this iite specific cost data is shown prior to inclusion of a contingency allowance. Adding a contingency allow-ance will further increase the disparity between these site proposed rule, F

                                              /  J specific studies and the $100 million certification amount in the Respectful!    submitted,
                                                 /

s Counsel to e Utility Deconunissioning Group 6/ Radioactive removal costs increased and non-radioactive removal costs decreased (also the capacity for this plant is 1090 MWe, not 1000 MWe). J-522

iJ ; B *:-< : .1 ~ ;,, ~ . ** *. ~ ~ - .* . * *

                             '85 ._n_n_ 15 Al 1 *28 July 12, 1985 L-85-269 Mr. Samuel J. Chi lk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Florida Power & Light Company would like to take this opportunity to submit its comments on the Proposed Rule - Decommission Criteria for Nuclear Facilities (50 Fed Reg. 5600-5625, 11 February 1985). The Company has reviewed the proposed rule and is submitting its comments in two sections: General Position and Specific Issues. Very truly yours, J. W. Williams, Jr. Group Vice President Nuc:0a ... r E.-ier<,i)' JWW/DAB/eab Attachment PEOPLE. SERVING PEOPLE J-523

GENERAL POSITION The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) hos primary responsibility for ensuring public health end safety with respect to the construction, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants. Working within the guidelines established by the NRC, Florido Power & Light is justifiably proud of its accomplishments in providing safe, reliable, nuclear power. As such, Florido Power & Light does not question the legitimacy of the NRC's desire to assure that I&. \ decommissioning will proceed in a safe, complete manner. Our primary contention with the proposed NRC rulemoking exists only to the extent that the NRC prescribes specific decommissioning criteria, such as financing methods, funding levels and decommissioning methods, on the utility industry. The full responsibility for developing and implementing the details of decommissioning criteria should be between each utility and its regulatory authority of primary jurisdiction. The NRC should hove the authority to review these criteria, but only directly intervene if it con be demonstrated that public health and safety will be adversely affected because a utility or its primary regulatory agency hove foiled to establish any decommissioning policy. There are several reasons why it is appropriate for utilities and their principol regulatory commissions, rather than the NRC, be given the responsibility for 1). ~. I implementing their own decommissioning criteria. First, with respect to financial assurances, state public service commissions (PSCs) and the Federal Energy o.i.3., Regulatory Commission (FERC) have traditionally been responsible for ensuring that utilities ore financially capoble of meeting all their costs and service obligations. In this context, decommissioning should be treated no differently than other utility obligations. Second, State PSCs and FERC hove the jurisdictional responsibility for all rate making matters. Many regulatory agencies, including the NRC, impose quality of service obligations on utilities. However, the imposition of quality of service standards does not extend the authority to interfere in the process by which the costs for this service ore recnv.. reri frrom customers. The final authorities on the price for utility services ore State PSCs and FERC. Third, each utility and its principal regulatory agency are in the best position to determine the decommissioning criteria which will best suit their unique needs. Provided that the criteria selected wi II assure public health and safety, the costs and benefits of each decommissioning alternative as evaluated by each utility and regulatory agency will determine the optimal decommissioning criteria for the nation as a whole. The NRC should not interfer in this process beyond health and safety issues. Finally, it is likely that NRC intervention into decommissioning criteria will lead to regulatory conflicts with G.I State PSCs and FERC. This would only act to delay adeq1.,Jte decommissioning planning, and jeopardize timely implementation. 2 J-524

In particular, financing methods and funding for decommissioning activities can best be developed between State PCSs and utilities. The ability of State PSCs to act in a manner that will allow utilities to collect sufficient funds has been reviewed by the NRC. The NRC, in the proposed rulemaking for eliminating financial qualification review for utilities applying for operating licenses (49 Fed. Reg. 13044-13040, 2 April 1984), stated in the Supplementary Information: The Commission believes it reasonable to conclude that, as a general rule, the rate regulation process assures for regulated electric utilities (or those able to set their own rates) the ability to meet the costs of safe operation of a nuclear power facility. (p. 13045) The fact that nearly all utilities with nuclear facilities have or will shortly initiate collection activities for decommissioning costs under their State PSCs authority testifies to the fact that the present state rate regulation process is capable of accumulating the necessary funds. D, <:"( \ I Florida Power & Light has already been required by its PSC to fund a reserve for decommissioning of its licensed units. That fund, which is an amount less than \), ¥'. 3. \ required in the proposed rule, is an internal reserve being funded by revenue collected through retail rates. The Florida PSC, through its rate setting function, is completely advised as to our financial condition and has statutory authority to require such reports respecting the financial viabil.ty of Florida Power & Light as it deems necessary. The jurisdiction examined by the PSC respecting retail rates is parallel for wholesale rates by the jurisdiction of the FERC. While the NRC has developed a series of NUREG/CR reports on studies of the technology, safety, and costs of decommissioning various kinds of nuclear facilities, the information base for rulemaking is incomplete. Missing from this data base is the existing State PSCs and FERC regulatory framework for developing decommissioning funds and the kind and amount of existing (or planned) decommissioning funds. This information will reveal to the Commission that utilities have taken specific actions in assuring that adequate funding will be available. As was stated earlier, our contention wih the proposed rulemaking is the extent to which specific decommissioning criteria are being proposed for the utility industry. While utilities are developing and implementing decommissioning plans with State PSCs, there are other licensees for whom the NRC is the regulatory authority of primary jurisdiction or secondary jurisdiction through the State Agreement Program. As stated in the proposed rulemaking "Regulatory Analysis", the NRC must "determine which licensees need to provide financial assurance" (p. 8). The staff has stated that "* ,

• the historical record indicates that relatively small licensees (that do not require a radiological contingency pion) may default and may hove the potential for a substantial contamination problem" (pp. 8-9). If the concern is the default or abandonment by small companies of their facilities, the proposed rule should be designed to address that problem. Unless the (:,. I Commission con provide documentation on the likelihood of utilities not having funds available for decommissioning, the proposed rule should only address those 3

J-525

types of licensees who have a high risk of defaulting or abandoning their facilities. Another concern Florida Power and Light has with the proposed rule is that the Commission hos incorrectly focused the purpose of this rulemaking. Rather than delineating the requirements for a licensee to terminate its license, the proposed rulemaking is concerned with the financing of decommissioning, which is only port of the process in terminating a license. The NRC is responsible for developing (,. l decontamination, standards, ensuring the proper handling and disposal of radioactive waste, and setting safety standards, but the proposed rulemaking does not address these issues. The proposed rule would not assist a licensee who would choose to begin actions to terminate its license within the next three years. This proposed rulemaking should be redirected toward clearly defining a licensee's responsibilities and setting specific safety standards for license termination. 4 J-526

SPECIFIC ISSUES Generic Prescribed FlA'lding Level of $100 Million The establishment of a prescribe funding level of $ I00 million ( 1984 dollars) is counter-productive relative to the NRC's concern that utilities be financially capable of satisfying their decommissioning obligations. State PSCs end the FERC determine the costs utilities can charge to customers for decommissioning. Despite the fact that utilities may be able to justify that decommissioning cost will exceed $100 million in the future, state regulators will likely use the NRC prescribed level as an upper limit. Similarly, an NRC t),'2. I (a.) sponsored inflation rate, which may or may not approximate the changes in decommissioning costs in the future, may also be treated by State PSCs in a similar manner. If shareholders are to be expected to poy for the difference between the customer funded level and actual costs, there is a risk that decommissioning may not proceed in a safe, timely manner. Therefore, any prescribed funding level and inflation rate may undermine the NRC objective of financial assurance. Florida Power & Light recommends that proposed Sections 50,33 and 50.54 (cc) be removed from the proposed rulemaking. Funding Mechalisms The NRC's discussion of the appropriate method of recovering for decommissioning costs stems from the concern that utilities provide sufficient financial assurance of the availability of funds at the time nuclear reactors are decommissioned. The NRC's concern with this matter is unwarranted for two reasons: The choice of the appropriate funding mechanism lies outside the NRC's jurisdictional responsibi Ii ties. 1), i. 1 Financial assurance is an inapproprite and incomplete basis for t).8.'3,\ evaiuating the va11ous funding mechanisms. Intervention into the method of funding for decommissioning costs is clearly outside the jurisdictional responsibility of the NRC. State PSCs and FERC are responsible for approving the timing and method of cost recovery for all utility costs. Decommissioning does not warrant unique treatment in this regard. Ratemaking entails more complexity than simply providing financial assurance. The NRC is correct in identifying that many funding mechanisms do exist. It would be entirely inappropriate and unprecedented for the NRC to impose a specific funding mechanism on a utility, its regulators, and customers. Individual utilities crid states are in the best position to determine the funding options which best suit their needs. Also, imposing a specific funding mechanism would be contrary to the conclusion reached in NUREG/CR-3899, "Utility Financial Stability and the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning": "*** from an economic and financial standpoint, any method of funding decommissioning, i.e., external reserves or internal reserves, is acceptable and provides excellent I1) 3 l assurance of the availability of funds." (p.13) s J-527

The NRC's evaluation of funding mechanisms, with respect to the degree of financial assurance provided, is also inappropriate. Assuming that all funding mechanisms ore designed to recover the appropriate dollar amount with accurate monitoring, decommissioning costs will be met. The risk that funds will be insufficient to safely decommission a nuclear unit if it experiences premature shutdown ca, be alleviated through insurance. There are two possible scenarios, however, which may present risks with respect 1), ,:z. z. \ to adequate cost recovery. First, in the event that the NRC prematurely shuts down a safely operating nuclear plant due to oo occident at a comparable plant owned by that utility or another utility, insurance coverage would not be sufficient to cover premature decommissioning costs for the utility that owns the safe plant. In this scenario, any shortfall between the funds actually recovered for decommissioning and actual costs will hove to be covered by shareholders (barring emergency rote relief). The assumption that prepayment (immediate) funding would eliminate this risk would be incorrect. In light of the NRC proposal to establish a generic funding level of $100 million, it is almost certain that prepayment will be insufficient to recover the actual costs of decommissioning. In effect then, the non-occidental shutdown problem is a risk associated with all the funding options. There would be no preferred option should this scenario occur. Second, in the event a utility goes bankrupt, adequate cost recovery may be jeopardized if the internal reserve method is used. However, the potential risk of utility bankruptcy is unlikely and should not be used by the NRC as a basis for selecting a particular funding option. The question of satisfying the financial requirements of decommissioning during periods of financial distress hos been examined by the NRC ("Utility Financial Stability and the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning", NUREG/CR-30999) and it was found: The market value of utilities, even those involved in the most

                                                                                  'D. ~. '2. I. \ ( b) extreme financial crises, is still far in excess of decommissioning costs. Therefore, even if the worst fears of investors are borne out, and the Public Utility Commissions do not allow substantial CWIP [Construction Work in Progress] to be included in the rate base, the value of the remaining assests, both tangible and intangible, ore more than adequate to cover future projected decommissioning costs. (p. 13)

For example, at Florido Power & Light, the cash and accounts receivable balance as of year end December 1984 would cover approximately two times the expected decommissioning costs. Florida Power & Light recommends that section 50.33 (k) be removed from the 1) ..8. \ proposed rulemoking, 6 J-528

License Conditions Proposed Section 50.54 would impose submission of decommissioning funding plans and retention of records as conditions of operating licenses. There are several reasons why operating licenses shou.ld not contain conditions for decommissioning activities. It permits a person to request a hearing any time a utility submits a modification to on approved financial assurance pion or requests on exemption under the notice a,d hearing procedures of 42 U.S.C.- 82239. Hearings ore not only costly and time consuming, but should be restricted to matters of nuclear safety. C..7.?.. Allowing a hearing would provide a means for people who were not successful at the State PSC to rear.gue their case about the decommissioning funding plan with the NRC. u.~.4 Modifications to a license condition (e.g. deadline. for environmental qualification) can cause difficulties both for the NRC and licensees. Section (dd) does not provide information regarding reporting requirements, updating requirements, type of records (i.e., Quality Assurance verified) or storage requirements. Decommissioning has little to do with nuclear plant operation. Criteria for decommissioning activities should be associated with termination of the operating license. Florida Power & light recommends that Sections 50.54 (cc) and (dd) be eliminated from the proposed rulemaking. Submittoi of Decommissioninq Pim Under proposed Section 50.82, a licensee must submit a proposed decommissioning plan within two years after ceasing operation, but no later than one year prior to license expiration, This section is unnecessarily *restrictive and should be rewritten to allow utilities up to five years after ceasing operation to submit their decommissioning plan. NRC hos the responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act to ensure that all nuclear foci Ii ties are safely and completely decontaminated by the license holders and hos e...z.3 the authority to require a decommissioning plan from its licensees. The submitted plan should be accurate, realistic, and feasible so that the NRC can effectively evaluate the proposed actions. Only after core unloading and other termination activities can the plant staff take measurements, inspect equipment and review records so that they may make decisions on decontamination strategies, It is at this time a licensee can develop a plan that will identify what techniques will be undertaken. Requiring a licensee to submit a decommissioning plan after cessation of operation does not negatively impoct the public, since the site will 7 J-529

remain restricted, but favorably impacts the potential to decrease the exposure to employees and reduce decontamination costs since more data is available in c.:z.. 3 developing an effective decommissioning plan. Florida Power & Light recommendes that Section 50.82 (a) be rewritten to allow a decommissioning plan to be submitted independently from an application for termination of license and each licensee be allowed up to five years after ceasing C...'4.2. operation to submit their decommissioning plan. Decommissioning Methods Under proposed Section 50.82 (b), a method for decommissioning which delays completion will be considered acceptable "if sufficient benefit results". This standard of acceptability is vague and may be interpreted too narrowly. The supplementary information to the proposed rule implies that the decay of radioactivity is the sole consideration in determining if a delay is beneficial. While this is an important consideration, other situtions may also be determined to be acceptable, such as: 8. '"3. \. \ waiting for a "newer" plant at a two unit site to cease operation so that both units can be decontaminated at the same time delay in the development of high or low le ,el burial site development of new decontamination techniques. Florida Power & Light recommends that the proposed rule should be redrafted to allow for health, economic, and safety benefits to be co be considered acceptable reasons for delaying completion of decommissioning. Florida Power & Light would like to express its appreciation in allowing us to comment on this proposed rule. 8 J-530

0 Public Service 'Oil:: W Public Service Jill 15 AJ~y of Colorado 2420 W. 26th Avenue, Suite 1000, Denver, Colora'J'-~:.~.1 1=~:J_ :, .

                                                   ~ <C'!"'I,, .., ~t *: !f(.

BRANCH July 5, 1985 Fort St. Vrain Unit No. 1 P-85237 Secretary of the Corrmission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Docket No. 50-267

SUBJECT:

Conments on Proposed Rule Setting Forth Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities Gentlemen: Public Service Company of Colorado (PSC) has reviewed the proposed Decorrmissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities as published in the Federal Register (Vol. 50, No. 28, dated Monday, February 11, 1985) and offers several corrments for consideration. The corrments which are contained in the attachment to this letter address the financial assurance portion of the proposed rulemaking. If there are any questions, please contact Mr. M.H. Holmes at (303) 571-8409. Very truly yours,

                                       ~-{.,CA.(.--<-           ~

H.L. Brey, Manager -( Nuclear Licensing! Fuels Division HLB/SLG:mb Attachment 4cktlOWfldl!4,d hT fJ!I-Ml-,, . Ju. L. *.* .s.. 1.9.e*.s~ J-531

Attachment to P-85237

1. Section 50.33 (k)(2) - This proposed rule would require an electric uti 1ity to submit "either a proposed deconmissioning funding plan or a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning will be provided in an amount at least equal to

  $100,000,000 (1984 dollars) adjusted annually for inflation using an inflation rate twice that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics".

PSC has two* concerns with this proposed rule. The first concern has to do with the use of the Consumer Price Index as the basic inflation indicator; the second concern has to do with the stipulation that annual adjustments for inflation use an inflation rate twice that indicated by the change in the Consumer Price Index. Each concern is discussed below: The Consumer Price Index is one of several measures of the inflation rate reported by the government on a monthly or 1). '2 . \ ( (l.) quarterly basis which are helpful in determining how much inflation is present in the economy. Other widely used measures D.2.1(b) of inflation are the Producer Price Index and the Gross National Product Implicit Price Deflater.

a. Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a monthly measure of the market price of a "basket of goods" commonly purchased by a consumer. The CPI assumes that everyone spends the same percentage of their income in each of seven major categories (food, housing, transportation, medical, apparel, entertainment, and other). The priced goods are weighted to

• approximate the percentage a consumer might actually spend on them. The increase is assumed to be the inflation rate.

The biggest flaw to this statistic is that it is inordinately influenced by new housing prices and the current level of mortgage rates. Since most households do not purchase or refinance their homes each month, the index exaggerates the amount of inflation.

b. The Producer Price Index (PPI) is a measure of the price of raw materials for manufacturers of finished goods. Again, it is a weighted index and is heavily influenced by raw material prices to heavy industry. It has a tendency to reflect the inflation rate on a smaller and smaller percentage of the economy.

J-532

Attachment to P-85237

c. The Gross National Product Implicit Price Deflater (GNP Deflater) is a quarterly measure of inflation in the entire economy. The GNP Deflater measures the increase in cost only of goods actually produced. Because it is reported at the same time as monthly Gross National Product figures (quarterly), it is difficult to use as a short-term measure for planning purposes without keeping track of all the factors which make up the GNP on a monthly basis. One of the shortcomings of the GNP Deflater is that it only measures domestic economic activity and not imported items such as oil. Many authorities consider the GNP Deflater to be the most accurate measure of real inflation because, whereas the CPI is based on the budget of a typical urban family, the GNP Deflater is constructed from a market basket that includes every item that is included in the GNP--that is, every final good and service produced by the economy.

Thus in addition to the prices of consumer goods, the GNP Deflater includes the prices of goods purchased by business, 1). '2.. l (d-) including government services. For purposes of adjusting the $100,000,000 figure annually, the fact that the GNP Deflater is reported on a quarterly basis should pose no D. 2.1 (b) problem. Because the GNP Deflater measures inflation over the entire domestic economy, it would seem to be the most appropriate inflation indicator for the proposed rules. The section of the Federal Register entitled "Rationale for the Proposed Changes" states that the use of an inflation rate of twice that indicated by the CPI is based upon a comparison of net increases in decorrmissioning costs to the general inflation rate over the last several years. PSC believes that such comparisons, made during a period of unprecedented national inflation, produce distorted figures that are not necessarily indicative of long-term inflationary trends. There is no valid reason to expect decommissioning costs in future years to inflate at a rate that is higher than other economic goods and services as measured by the GNP Deflater. However, if decommissioning costs are found to differ significantly in the future from that approximated by the prescribed amount (adjusted for inflation by the GNP Deflater), then action can be taken to modify the regulation. J-533

Attachment to P-85237 Based on the foregoing, PSC recorrmends that Section 50.33(k)(2) be revised as follows:

    " *.* or a certification that financial               assurance for decorrmissionin9 will be provided in an amount at least equal to
  $100,000,000 (1984 dollars) adjusted annually for inflation in accordance with the following formula:

X = 100,000,000 + (100,000,000) (Ir:i -I}, where I X = the adjusted decomissioning fund applicable to a 1).'2.t(b) calendar year after 1984 U.S. Gross National Product Implicit Price Oeflator at the end of the second quarter of the year irrmediately preceding the calendar year for which a calculation is being made.

           =  U.S. Gross National Product Implicit Price Deflater at the end of the second quarter of 1984 (222.40)

2. Section 50.33(k)(2)(i) - If a licensee submits a certification of financial assurance for decorrmissioning that utilizes the prepayment method, it is quite possible that as time elapses, the principal plus accumulated earnings in the segregated account will reach a level larger than is required to reflect the annual adjustment for inflation. This situation could arise because the 1),3.3.~

proposed rule fails to recognize that the accumulated earnings will consist of an inflation adjustment component, a pure interest rate component and a premium-associated-with-risk component. It is recorrmended that the proposed rule for the prepayment method be revised to permit a licensee to withdraw the pure interest rate component and the premium-associated-with-risk component periodically from the trust, escrow account, etc. J-534

0

~ n E/ectnc POWER cOMPANr 231 W. MICHIGAN, P.O. BOX 2046. MILWAUKEE, WI 53201 1S JJ. 15 Aro *47

(,fF,*- . July 12, 1985 iioc)-:.v: ~- . . ncllf,'I.; -'** ~

                                                                              "~ _., S[i,.,, ..

VPNPD-85-217 :JnAf..C.'1 '*' NRC-85-82 Mr.*Samuel J, Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, o.c. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen: COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES In the Federal Register, Vol. 50, No. 28, dated February 11, 1985, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published proposed amendments to its regulations that would set forth techni-cal and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed facilities. The proposed amendments address decommissioning planning needs, timing, funding mec_hanisms, and environmental review requirements. Wisconsin Electric Power Company, owner and operator of the Point Beach Nuclear Plant, has reviewed the proposed amendments and offers the following comments. amendment ~~a:r:/i~~=~ai 0 r~~;;v;h~s r:~~g~~;! 0 ~ 0 ;~ ~~~e~~~l~~ed p, 3. Z. I. I ( b) method of funding for decommissioning, We support this approach and believe that determination of the details of the exact accrual methodology is properly left to arrangement between the utility and the appropriate rate-regulating agency. As other industry D,8.3. \ commenters have pointed out, electric utilities are subject to a comprehensive regulatory process which provides reasonable assur-ance of adequate decommissioning funding. Certainly every funding method has at least some amount of associated risk; we believe that risk is minimized with the internal reserve option, yet has the advantage of maximizing benefit to the ratepayer. In fact, it has been wryly observed that the best investment for an external 'D,3.2.1.l(b) fund might be the utility itself! Any external fund, however, would not maximize benefit to the ratepayer. If we ascribe to the principle that beneficiaries should bear the costs, then we must also support the corollary that ratepayers are entitled to the benefits. Thus, an internal reserve is the logical method of choice. J-535

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 12 , 1 98 5 The straight line negative salvage method is the method currently used and preferred by Wisconsin Electric and many other utilities because it has a low cost to ratepayers while still providing adequate assurance that funds will be available when needed. I 'D.3. 2.1.1 (b) We note a rather wide variety of opinion exists both within and without the industry regarding the cost of decommissioning. While the ease of using a generic figure is extremely attractive, we s~mewhat reluctantly conclude that the diversity of situations will not support such a simple approach. While we suspect that $100 million per unit is too high, others have found such an amount too low for their circumstances. In the case of our own Point Beach Nuclear Plant, the extensive sharing of facilities between the two units and the likelihood of continued use of the site by our utility (which enhances the practicability of entombment) will tend to minimize decommissioning costs. A certain amount of this controversy is based on the desire to apply, at an excessive 'i""\,-,_\(a..) level of accuracy, the principle that beneficiaries should bear L/ ~ costs. However, attempting to account for virtually the last dollar of a project decades in the future is simply unreasonable in view of moving economies, developing technologies, and changing regulations. Furthermore, an attempt at overaccuracy fails to recognize that the body of beneficiaries will not change overnight at the time of decommissioning. Specifically, there is nothing inherently wrong in assuming that some correction for over or under accrual can appropriately be made in the first decade or so after cessation of operation. For these reasons, we recommend that site specific estimates be made without any generic amount ~stablished by regulation. Furthermore, we recommend that the regulation carefully avoid the explicit or implicit requirement of unwarranted accuracy. The level of detail required in specific studies should be left to arrangement between the utility and the rate-regulating agency. It is, after all, at this level that the collection of costs is approved and carried out. For the same or similar reasons, specific inflation indices and multipliers are inappropriate considerations for NRC regulation. In the Supplementary Information accompanying the pro~ posal, new acronyms of SAFSTOR, DECON, and ENTOMB are proposed and defined but are not used in the proposed regulation. We con- 8,z. 2. sider the categories and their definitions appropriate, but we recommend that ordinary phraseology be used in lieu of acronyms and that these definitions be included in the regulation. I It appears likely at this time that the most cost effectivej method of decommissioning would entail a short period of either ~.~. \ safe storage or entombment followed by further decontamination and/or removal. The regulation should clearly permit this approach

• without implication of need for immediate dismantlement. At the same time, changing technology, regulations, and political and B~

environmental perceptions within the overall sphere of waste disposal ' suggest that the possibility of permanent entombment should not be disregarded or precluded.

• J-536

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 12, 1985 As a result of the current level of interest in both waste disposal and decommissioning, there is an urgent need for regulatory definition of de minimis levels of radioactivity. We urge NRC to work toward this goal and note that there is no need to undertake the difficult task of establishing a single limit E.1.1 to apply to all situations. It would be acceptable to develop one set of limits for ordinary landfills, another set for decommissioning with continued site ownership, and another set for decommissioning with total site restoration. The establishment of such levels will.have considerable impact on the costs of decommissioning. At section 50.54, we recommend that NRC provide additional clarification such that approved changes to funding plans, cost estimates, and records cannot be construed as license amendments. The issue is not safety-related and should not be subject to the license amendment process. I <:..7.2.

                                                                        \),'+.4 In Section 50.82, an internal reserve would be converted to an external fund after cessation of operation. This would be an unnecessarily cumbersome requirement. A utility-licensee deemed sufficiently sound to manage an internal reserve during          i).3.~

operation logically can and should continue to manage the reserve after cessation of operation. The timing and manner of payment of these funds is properly left to arrangement between the utility and the appropriate rate-regulating agency. We therefore recommend that the requirement for later establishment of an external fund be eliminated. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. If you have any questions on our views, please feel free to contact us. Very truly you.rs, C. W. Fay Vice P~:~~uclear Power EJL/jg Copy to Public Service Commission of Wisconsin J-537

                                 ,v~~    llllHtdlW PR
                                ~IUM,                 -~~~,5ada)~

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY(5~ FR.., 5~~) <Jw OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY WASHINQTON, DC 20IIO 12 JUL 1985

                                                      '85 Ju'L i o A10 :13 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D. c. 20555

Dear Sir:

This letter provides Department of the Army comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, Title 10 CFR Parts 30, 40, SO, 51, 70 and 72, published in the Federal Register on February 11, 1985. Proposed requirements for Federal agencies appear inconsistent with Federal statute. Proposed 10 CFR 30.35(e)(4), 40.36(d)(4), S0.33(k)(3)(iv), 70,25(e)(4), and 72,18(c)(4), as they apply to the Federal government, require a certification that the appropriate government entity will be guarantor of decommission funds. Since this certification would be required by applicants for licenses far in advance of decommissioning, it would in all likelihood subject the United States to an indefi-nite and uncertain liability, in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 use 134l(a), and the Adequacy of Appropriations Act, 41 USC 11. Furthermore, no provi-sion in either the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 provides the NRC with express statutory authority to impose such a requirement on Federal agencies. To avoid the problem of Federal agency obligation authority, the NRC should spearhead statutory relief or, establish a federal agency funding strategy. This NRC initiative might take one of two forms: o Funds for decommissioning could be included as part of the project appropriation request and then obligated and disbursed to an interest earning trust fund. Decommissioning funds could be disbursed from the fund as required even after the original appropriation had expired. This approach would require congressional approval. J-538

o Under the second approach, the NRC could sponsor an Executive Order similar to the Environmental Protection Agency sponsored Executive Order 12088. The NRC sponsor-ed order could require all Federal agencies to ensure that sufficient funds are requested for the prevention, control and restoration of radioactive contaminated prop-erty caused by Federal agencies. The order should re-quire each agency head to ensure that these funds are D.7 used exclusively for the prevention, control, and abate-ment of Federal agency radioactive contamination. Each proposal requires the use of appropriated funds and recognizes the Army's responsibilities to provide for decommissioning. Accordingly, either proposal should satisfy the intent of the NRC proposed rule. Restoration cost estimates (10 CFR 30.35) appear to be low. Army cost of cleaning up a small wooden mainte-nance building that burned while containing 9 curies of Pm-147 was $300,000 in 1974. Based on that fire, clean-up involving radioactive material could cost between $500,000 to several million dollars. Extensive contami-nation such as occurred at the US Atomic Energy Commission contractor plant at Weldon Spring, Missouri is estimated in excess of $200,000,000. A laboratory complex with milicurie, unsealed, radioactive material operations 'D. ~-3.\ could cost about $700,000 to restore. If done by con-tract, $100,000 minimum base cost would probably be need-ed to cover insurance, legal set aside, initial surveys and planning, with decontamination and disposal costs over and above that first $100,000. The cost of restor-ing four igloos, which were contaminated at Seneca Army Depot by U.S. Atomic Energy Commission ore storage, will cost the Army $300,000 as compared to $1,000,000 if done by contract. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Proposed Rule and hope you incorporate these comments into the Final Rule. Sincerely,

                         ~ ().W~

Lewis D. Walker Deputy for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health, OASA ( I&L) J-539

                                        ~ J IIUldlit.N PIQIDlil1 RULE PR-~ JIA 5lJ ~ 'J,.W/ ")

Minnesota (~~ F/l 5",t9c/ Environmental Quality Board 10C Capitol Square Building 550 Cedar Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Pt,one - - - - - - - - :1:.r ~-~,.., ..

                                                                         * -,'j:<1.
                                                              '85 AUG -1 All :47 July 30, 1985 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corrmisslon Washington, D.C.       20555 Ref:  Comment on NRC proposed rules for decorrmissioning nuclear Fae! titles.      50 FR 5600

Dear Secretary:

The enclosed are the remainder of Minnesota's comments on the above referenced rules. Comments by the Department of Public Service and the Department of Health have been sent to you previously. Enclosed are comments by the Pollution Control Agency. Sincerely, 1RPfrcM John P. Hynes Power Plant Siting Staff AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ,

                                                                               -~UG      * : -~es ~
                                                                                , .. , , ,.-,+,*,,,*I .
                                       ~!!I     ,.:know,-., .... **' --

• J-540

STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT Pollution Control Agency Of/ice Memorandum TO: John Hynes CATE: June 14, 1985 State Planning Agency FROM:

                     ~~"~

Deborah R. Pile, Director PHONE* 6-7799 Office of Planning and Review

SUBJECT:

Proposed NRC Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities My staff has completed its review of the subject proposed rules and the draft comments from the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). Generally, we find that we can concur with the NIRS draft comments. We also add the following observations:

1. The proposed reduction of environmental review requirements relating to deco11111issioning is unacceptable. The NRC proposes to replace the presently required environmental impact statement (EIS) with an e~vironmental assessment.

While an EIS has generally been prepared at the time of licensing of plants, licensing EIS's rarely contain more than a cursory discussion of decommissioning, and in any case would be outdated by the time the licensed facility is due for 1econsnissioning, The draft generic EIS and any final generic EIS are not suf-ficient to address the site specific environmental impacts associated with the deco11111issioning of any specific facility. An EIS must be prepared for each faci-lity at the time that decommissioning is anticipated,

2. The NRC proposes to address the development of appropriate residual radioactivity levels in other rulernaking. These rules apparently are expected to change very little from existing guidelines. We note that if the maximum resi-dual radioactivity levels are reduced, the cost of decommissioning would be expected to increase accordingly. It would, therefore, appear appropriate to lint the development of deco1M1issioning criteria with the determination of resi-dual radioactivity limits.

3. It is also emphasized that the determination of residual radioactivity limits must be accomplished in a timely fashion. The development of decom-missioning plans and environmental review documents will necessarily be dependent upon availability of residual radioactivity limits, which will influence the selection of decommissioning strategies, environmental impacts, and financial expenses.

J-541

ROBERT R LOCX RICHARD H. BR'l'AN STATE OF NEVADA Director Gowmor NUCLEAR WASTE PROJECT OFFICE OFFICE OF THE GO\IERNOR t: . . C*pitol Complex Cuson City. Nev*d* 89710 (702) 88S-3744 EXPRESS MAIL May 10, 1985 Samuel J, Chilk, Secretary Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matomic Building 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Secretary Chilk:

Enclosed please find comments of the State of Nevada regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's proposed rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 FR 5600. Should you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.

                                              /z~_,_~ Sincerely, Robert R. Loux Director RRL/gjb Enclosure J-542

COMMENTS ON NRC'S PROPOSED RULE ON DECOMMISSIONING CRITERIA FOR NUCLEAR FACILITIES, 50 FR 5600 The proposed amendments to 10 CFR parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 regarding the decommissioning criteria for nuclear facilities presupposes that any and all materials in facilities subject to those parts will have removed any spent fuel or other material constituting high-level radioactive waste Crom those facilities by the time that operation of the facility is terminated and decommissioning is therefore appropriate. Any environmental impact statement prepared at the time of licensing at a particular facility, particularly those licensed under part 50, would have analyzed the environmental impacts of decommissioning on that presupposition. The passage of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, providing that title to all high-level radioactive waste existiot; at power reactors would transfer to the United States on a date certain seemed to have confirmed the presupposition upon which decommissioning impacts were originally analyzed and on which NRC's proposed rule is based. Hopefully, the assumption that a federal repository or other facilities will be available in time to allow removal of all high-level radioactive waste from licensed facilities by their date of natural decommissioning will become reality. However, the Department of Energy has been unsuccessful at meeting the early statutory deadlines of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. It is conceivable that the federal govemment will not have a nuclear waste repository or other facilities capable of taking actual possession or the radioactive waste in place when title transfers pursuant to contracts entered as a consequence of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. J-543

The Commission's assumptions underlying the proposed rule are reasonable and fair. The basic construct for dealing with the decommis.,;ioning problem, G.I requirement for authorized termination of an operating license, is a sensible one in which to raise the appropriate decommissioning issues. However, the rule should be clear that a licensee should not be entitled to an authorized termination ot an operating license until all materials which constitute high-level radioactive waste have been physically removed from the licensee's premises. In other words, a licensee should not be able to compel the federal government's physical acceptance of its spent fuel or high-level radioactive waste if the government does not yet have the facilities available to house it just because the licensee wants to f3. 3, I terminate its license and decommission its facility. B,4,2. The Commission has appropriately identified that decommissioning involves l*t. I. I. ' the major question of reduction of radioactive waste volumes. We presume that the waste volume discussed would all be low-level radioactive waste, (see pages 5603, 5605, 5610). The Commission should also consider, however, the high-level radioactive waste issues raised by decommissioning if the facilities contemplated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act are either not yet in operation or have insufficient capacity to accomodate the high-level radioactive waste produced by the facilities about to be decommissioned. Notwithstanding the Commission's logical discussion at page 5610 that environmental impact statements prepared in connection oC the issuance of the construction permit and operating license for a facility have already considered the environmental impacts occurring at decommissioning, no NRC decision which F. 3 permits termination of license and decommissioning prior to the existence of a high-level nuclear waste repository other federal facility capable of accepting physical possession of a facilities high-level nuclear waste should be taken without 2 J-544

some environmental analysis of the altered circumstances which could not have been considered at the time the original environmental statement was prepared. Nevada agrees with the Commission's apparent understanding that the Ii::-. "3 concept of decommissioning does not apply to repositories licensed under 10 CFR 60 in the same way as it does to other facilities. No amendment is proposed to part 60 by this proposal However, we would caution the Commission that S 112(b)(iii) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act contemplates that 10 CFR 60 will C::,, 7 eventually include "technical requirements and criteria that [NRCJ will apply .*. in approving or disapproving - (iii) applications for authorization for closure and decommissioning of such repositories." The general approach taken by the NRC in developing standards and procedures within part 60, namely looking to other parts for general provisions applicable to that part, should not be used in contemplating which approach to use for the deinstitutionalization of monitoring and surveillance of part 60 facilities. 3 J-545

(~!Ct Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Nll-25-GC-06 08C.KETED September 2,198 5USN~C as SEP 1o AJo :o9 u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 GFF(C[ OF SEC,k _. DOCi<ETING & SEh-, ; Attention: Docketing and Service Branch BRANCH .

Subject:

Comments on the Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities: Proposed Rule - Federal Register Volume 50, No.28 (February 11, 1985) Gentlemen: I have reviewed the Proposed Rules in detail and offe: the following comments: Financial Assurance and Preliminary Planning: Pgs 5602, 5604 I do not agree with the Commission's proposed endorsement of a funding level at $100 million (in 1984). For large power reactors (greater than approxiamtely 200 MWe), site-specific estimates prepared by TLG Engineering, Inc. and other independent consultants indicate decommissioning costs (removal of radioactivity) are in the range of $101 to $142 D.1.1. \ million in 1985 without contingency, or $126 to $178 million with 251 contingency. Demolition of the remaining non-radioactive structures and systems add another $30 to $50 million, or $38 to $63 million with 25\ contingency. The overall cost range is $164 to $241 million in 1985 dollars. State public utility commissions predictably have adopted the

    $100 million estimate as the upper limit of allowable costs for decommissioning.

In the Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation case before the New York State Public Service Commission (Case 29070 1985), TLG Engineering, Inc. prepared a detailed component and structure cost estimate on a site-specific basis at a cost of $229 million for complete removal, with 25\ contingency in 1985 dollars. Dr. Harvey Prins of the PSC staff recommended only

    $100 million be allowed for the decommissioning of the 1080 MWe NMP-2 reactor. Therefore the NRC's endorsement of the
    $100 million estimate is counter-productive to providing D. '2. I (a..)

adequate funds for safe decommissioning. I recommend the certification amount be deleted from the Final Rule. Financial Assurance: Pg 5682 The proposed adjustment factor of two times the Consumer Price Index (CPI) is inappropriate for updating decommissioning costs. Factors that affect decommissioning cost are escalating at rates far exceeding the CPI. I recommend the commission provide guidance to group the costs into the (b) categories of labor, equipment and materials, shipping and 1).2.1 burial. Appropriate plant indices may then be applied to each

                                               ~t:DOlf---...:!!..t:,~{1-J-546

Nll*25*GC-96 Page 2 of 2 u~g IIIIIUIIIG cost element using Handy-Whitman for labor and materials, /D.2.l(b) published shipping tariffs, and published burial rates. Financial Assurance: Pg 5692 I disagree that generic studies and specifically the PNL studies should be used to estimate decommissioning costs. Generic studies fail to account for site-specific differences at particular plants, and attempts to adjust for such differences are inadequate and irreconcilable with site-specific studies. Generic studies do not account for the following factors.

1. Site labor costs - management and crew

2. Shipping distances and routing difficulties

3. Regional compact burial costs

4. Facilities available (rail siding, barge docks or truck roadway restrictions)

S. Site factors - seismicity, hydrology, site restoration requirements

6. Site structures - cooling towers, ocean cooling, tsunami 7.

walls, stacks Plant specific factors - PWR: Number and type of steam D. 2. \ (d.) generators - containment design - free standing or steel-lined concrete, steel reinforced or pretensioned

a. Plant specific factors - BWR - Mark I, II or III reactor designs - degree of contamination in secondary systems

9. A/E design differences

10. Plant modifications and backfits

11. Errors in generic vessel and internals radioactive inventory -

curies and weights

12. Allowable exposures to workers

13. Two-shift vs one-shift operations

14. Utility and Decommissioning Operations Contractor (DOC) staffing levels

15. Removal of non-radioactive components and structures to gain access to radioactive components and structures

16. Sorting and segregation of radioactive wastes

17. Waste volume reduction equipment available on-site.

These and other more detailed differences are usually not accounted for adequately in generic studies. Therefore, generic studies should not be used for cost estimating. I trust these comments are constructive. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely,

                                       ~J Thomas  s.

President TSL:lp J-547

NuMOHAWK T NIAGARA NIAQAIIA IIOHAWIC POWIII COIIPOIIATION/300 ERIE BOULEVARD WEST SYRACUSE NY 1320:!J!E,l.EpttONE (315) 474-1511 October 2, 1985 ,.:3 : ... :* p:.J .)1 Honorable Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc,miission Washington, DC 20555 Att: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Jmendments to 10CFR, Parts 30, ~o. 50, 51, 70 and 72, DecOllll\issioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On February 11, 1985, the Nuclear Regulatory C01111ission published for public conment a series of proposed amendments to its regulations concerning the decorrrnissioning of nuclear facilities. 50 Fed. Reg. 5600. The notice requested that interested parties submit COlffllents by ~ay 13, 1985, On May 30, 1985, the Cc,imission extended the c011111ent period to July 12, 1985. 50 Fed. Reg. 23025. On June 20, 1985, the Atomic Industrial Forum's Subcommittee on Decomtissionfng su!Jnitted conments on the proposed rule. The proposed rule requires inter alia that Part 50 licensees provide to the Ccmnission either a site-specific decoownfssioning funding plan or a certification that financial assurance for deconmfssioning has been provided in an amount at least equal to $100,000,000 (1984 dollars). The AIF, in their comments, indicated that ft was their jud~ent that the $100,000,000 specified in the proposed rule was not representative of the deconmissionfng cost for most of today's nuclear power plants. The AIF note~ that utility regulators have D. 2. I (a..') often relied heavily on NRC-sanctioned generic cost estimates and,* accordingly, the inclusion of an inappropriately low generic cost could be misleading and counterproductive to the NRC's objective of adequate financial assurance for decc,r,nissioning. While we recognize that the official conment period has expired, we are writing to underscore the c00111ents su!Jnitted by the AIF because of our own experience regarding decommissioning funding in a recent rate case proceeding before the New York State Public Service CCfflllission.

                                           ~---*-,~~ OCT r .'.. *.qe.~.~        n1' J-548

    ~iagara Mohawk Power Corporation's experience in thfs rate proceeding has been consistent with the AIF's prediction of utility regulator behavior. The New York Public Service Conmission's Staff has reconmended to the Public Service CO'llllission that the sit~-speci fie cost estimate prepared by Niagara Mohawk Power Corpor:ttion for Nine Mile Point Unit 2 deconmissioning costs be          'T\,..,. (,...)

disregarded, and that the C011JT1ission use, instead of tne

• v, 1 . . . .,

site-specific cost estimate, the figure of $100,000,000 as contained in the proposed rule. As a result, Niagara Mohawk faces a potential reduction in funds available for decommissioning. Based on our experience with the New York State Public Service C001111ission, we strongly urge the Nuclear Regulatory C01m1ission to favorably consider the conments of the Atomic Industrial Forum. If the Com1ission feels that it is necessary to specify a precise fund amount in the proposed rule, we urge that the fund amount be established at an appropriately high level to provide a conservative (b) 1evel of funding for deconmi ss ion i ng. Such a ff gure wi 11 encourage 1), '2. I utilities to conduct site-specific studies for their units, and will assure that the NRC's objective of providing financial assurance that nuclear facilities are properly decC711!'1issioned will be achieved; While the official conment period has expired, we urge your consideration of our brief conments relating to this matter which G,. occurred subsequent to the close of the conment period but which provides insight into the impact the proposed regulations will have .on utility regulators. Very truly yours, IZ*~~ Adam Shaffer Assistant Controller AS/GDW/gma J-549

~

• Department of Energy LABOR & INDUSTRIES BUILDING, ROOM 102, SALEM, OREGON 9Jg;0-0831 PHONE 378-4040

                                                                             ~£WE ?>;J~:21-8035 October 3, 1985                     g;:{ ,;*~=) ~~';,'
                                                                               """    i..*

Secretary of Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Convnlssion Hashlngton, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Sir:

We reviewed your proposed rule on nuclear facility deconvnlsslonlng. It was received at an opportune time In that the State of Oregon had already commenced a public review of Issues surrounding the eventual deconvnisslonlng of the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. Unfortunately, the review schedule did not permit us to submit convnents to you before the comment period expiration date. We contacted Keith Steyer of NRC, telling him we still intended to submit comments. He said they would be considered but any action taken In response to them depended upon the status of the rule finalization process. We recognize that many convnents were received In response to the proposed dec011111lsslonlng rule. If we have Identified an Issue that has not been previously identified, we request that it be considered for current or future rule revision. The assistance NRC has given us during our review Is greatly appreciated. We also appreciate the opportunity to participate In your rule making process. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely, 717.tv.A~ M. H. Alsworth Manager of Reactor Safety Siting and Regulation Division MHA:ja 266-Letter(dl,fl> Attachment

                                                       ~~ea.-                 ocr os i98~

The Oregon Department of Energy is an Equal Opportunity. Em:~~~-; * * * * * * * * * ' ' J-550

COlllllents On Proposed NRC Decommissioning Rules The following are comments resulting from the review of the NRC proposed deconrnlsslonlng rule: Periodic Reviews - The proposed rule states the requirement of developing a decommissioning plan within two years of rule adoption. The decommissioning funding level and method will be established and justified in the plan. Once the plan Is approved, there Is no requirement for reviewing It until 5 years prior to expiration of the plant operating license. The following concerns have been Identified with this part of the rule. I. The cost of decommissioning a plant may rise faster than the Inflation rate due to such factors as increased regulatory requirements, higher radioactive waste disposal costs due to closure of waste disposal sites, and reduction of personal exposure limits.

2. The deconvnlsslonlng funding level was determined by using data gathered as laboratories and small experimental reactors were 'D,1.1. \

decommissioned. This data may not accurately reflect the costs Involved In full scale convnerclal nuclear plant decommissioning.

3. The method of determining the funding level {le. a base amount adjusted by multiplying It by a factor equal to twice the Inflation rate> Is Inappropriate. This level may far exceed the Increased cost of dec011W11lsslonlng.

4. In the case of Trojan, decommissioning wor~ will not commence for more than 25 years. It Is Impossible to determine and reflect the effects of future regulations, politics, and economic conditions In costs and planning.

J-551

A better way to handle plann1ng 1s to 1nclude a per1od1c 5 year rev1ew of the plan. As experience Is gained In the actual decommissioning of full sized conmerclal nuclear plants, the plan could be changed accordingly. These changes would have to be reviewed and approved by the.NRC. The public and utility company would benefit with this arrangement because: '~ 1).'"2.1 (a.-')

1. The stock holder would be protected against having to pick up additional deconvnlsslonlng costs should the estimate turn out to D. 4.3 be low and the rate-setting authority refuse an Increase In D. 8'.3. \

utility rates to compensate.

2. The* rate payer would be protected against large rate Increases 1n the last five years should the estimate turn out to be low.

3. The persons who used the power generated by the plant would be the ones who actually paid the costs of decommissioning the plant.

4. The company would be able to gradually compensate for changes In planning rather than make drastic changes In the last five years.

Utility Financial Stability - The proposed rule allows a utility company to decide, with NRC approval, the method It will use to accumulate decommissioning funding. The supplement accompanying the proposed rule stated some small utilities reay not use the Internal reserve method because their only asset Is the plant they will decommission. Once the plant Is shut down they will have no D.3.'2.1. 1(b) assets to Issue bonds against. The proposed rule states that companies with larger asset bases may use the Internal reserve method of accumulating deconnlsslonlng funding. They have several levels of financial security which makes this a safe funding method. Should the company experience ftnanc1a1 difficulties they could pay for decommissioning costs by either: J-552

1. Issuing bonds on other company assets,

2. Diverting stock holder dividends, or

3. Raise electrical rates.

However, should the utility company be forced Into bankruptcy It may experience difficulty Issuing bonds. Since the ratepayer will have already paid for deconrnlsslonlng once, the rate-setting authority would be very reluctant to grant a rate Increase to pay for It again. Furthermore, If In a bankrupt condition, the company would likely have no stockholder dividends to draw upon. It would be dependent solely upon the sale of Its assets to raise decommissioning funding. 1).3. z. \. \ (b) Should a company adopt the Internal reserve funding method, It should Include an analysis of Its financial health In the periodic decommissioning plan reviews. The ability to fund deconrnlssloning should be substantiated to the NRC. If It Is found that funding is In jeopardy or not being accumulated at an acceptable rate, the company should pursue the acquisition of bonding or switch to the external funding method. Those companies using the external funding method should also substantiate to NRC that the fund Is growing at an acceptable rate. In addition, proper controls should be placed on the fund to ensure It Is not used for any other purpose. Accident Cleanup Costs - Should an accident occur at a commercial nuclear plant thf cleanup costs may be Intertwined with the deconrnlsslonlng costs. This ls especially true If the plant ls never restarted. However the proposed NRC rule does not address this complication. A good example of this Is the Three Hile Island accident. Plant cleanup v.1.1 costs are estimated to exceed $1 billion. The company was Insured to about $300 million. The shortfall In Insurance may hinder the company from paying for deconmlsslonlng since the plant, 1n all likelihood, will not be allowed to restart. This experience should be evaluated to determine what Insurance levels are needed for protection against reactor accidents. J-553

SPENT FUEL DISPOSITION - The State of Oregon Is concerned about the eventual disposition of spent fuel at Trojan. The 1985 Oregon legislature requested the Oregon Department of Energy and Portland General Electric <PGE> to work with the NRC and USOOE to achieve the following:

1. The goal that all spent fuel ls removed from the Trojan facility before the expiration of the plant operating license.

2. Ensure that PGE ls held responsible for proper temporary storage of spent fuel as long as It ls at the Trojan site.

He recognize that NRC regulation 10 CFR 50.54(bb) places the responsibility for proper storage and maintenance of spent fuel on the operator as long as the spent fuel Is at the plant. These requirements should be referenced In the proposed decommissioning rule. USOOE's plans for receiving spent fuel does not accomodate Its expeditious removal at the end of plant operation. This may cause a considerable delay in the start of plant decommissioning. NRC should encourage USOOE to make every effort to have spent fuel removed as soon as possible after final plant shutdown. This ls essential If the plant ls to be decommissioned In a timely manner. HHA/ma 83-Sltmlsc 9/12/85 J-554

                                                  ~ 1tuu r K~6"ddLl~

{.Sb Pl bC) <.Cf.!..../ STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE Dr:. -~n THREE EMPIRE STATE PLAZA ALBANY 12223 PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION "85 [ CT 1" Alf 42 I PAULL... GIOIA ,. ... _ DAVIO E. IILA8EY cn,1,man ~*  !~~ j;-, . . .., . Counsel EDWARD P. LARKIN

                                                                  .,:::~n. . *,u**-,-*-,.*-\'
                                                                                . . ..., ...,t,.. ...-

r<..l/vC~ .. JOHN J, KELLIHER CARMEL CARRINGTON MARA Secretary HAROLD A. JERRY, JR.

ANNE F.MEAD ROSEMARY S. POOLER GAIL GARFIELD SCHWARTZ October 11, 1985 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments on the Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities: Proposed Rule - Federal Register Volume 50, No. 28 (February 11, 1985) Gentlemen: These comments on the subject proposed rule are submitted in my capacity as an expert staff witness. for the New York State Public Service Commission: the comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the Commission. Through the discovery process, I obtained a copy of a letter from Thomas s. LaGuardia dated September 2, 1985 (attached). Although the comment period for the Proposed Rule has expired, I am enclosing the hearing record dealing with decommissioning in the case referred to by Mr. LaGuardia for your consideration. The New York State Public Service Commission will not rule on this matter for many month, and many briefs will proceed the ruling. Sincerely,

                                   ~      I    P HARVEY R. PRINS
                                                       ~

Nuclear Power Generation Planner System Planning Section Power Division HRP: jlh Enc. cc: r. Baag

w. Shaffer J-555

Prins 2322 previously marked for identification, wa=e received in eviaence.) 2 JUDGE MATIAS: Who's the next witneu, 3 Miss Curtin? 4 MR. VAN RYH: Mr. Prins, I believe. s JUDGE MATIAS: Mr. Prins, would you*raise I your right hand? 7 8 El A R V E Y R. PR IN s, having been called as a 9 witness, being first duly sworn by the Administrative 10 Lav Judge. was examined and testified u follows: 11 JUDGE MA'l'IAS: State your full name and 12 address, please. Mr. Prins. 13 TD WI'l'NZSS: My name is Ela.rvey Raymond 1, Pd.As. My address is '?bree E:mpire State Plaza. Al.bany. LS Nev York. 11 JODG~ MA'l'IAS: Mr. Van Ryn, is tllis your 17 witness? 18 MR. V1.N RYN: Yes. 19 JUDGE MA'l'IAS: All. right. 2D DIRECT EXAHINA'l'ION Z1

      !Y MR. V1.N RYN:

22 Q Dr. Prins, I show you a document entitled *prepared Testimony of Sarvey R. Prins* consisting of nine pages II*-

---

*----- 1111..oaTIN* S1111¥1CL INC.

J-556

Prins 2323 and ask if it was prepared by you or unce~ your direction? 2 A Yes, it was. 3 0 Do you have any corrections to make to this document?

     's A No, I do not.

0 Do you adopt this document as your prefiled testimony

• in this proceeding?

7 A Yes, I do. a MR. nN RY'N: Your Honor, I ask that 9 Mr. Prins' testimony be copied into t.he record as if 10 given orally. l1 JODGE MATIAS: Objections? 12 (No response) 13" J'ODGE MATIAS: He.a.ring none p

• Mr. Reporter 1,

take ill u though given orally the prepared testimony II of B&n'ey lt. Prins. II (Whereupon the following is the prefiled 1'1 11 testimony of Witness Harvey :a. Prins in the above-entitled matter, consisting of nine pages:) 19 20 21 2Z

    =

---

*-----------*---..----------po. .. ------

J-557

• ~

l BEFORE TBE 2 STkTE or NEW YORX 3 POBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 4

        *~--~--------------------------------

s In the Matter of 6 Cases 29069, 29070 7 Proceeding on the ll>Otion of the Commisaion as to the rates, 8 charges, rules and regulations of Niagara Mohawk Power 9 Corporation for electric and street lighting services. 10 Prepared Testimony of ll Sarvey R. Prins 12 Nuclear Power Generation Planner rv system Planning Section 13 Power Division Department of PUDlic Service 14 Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 15 16 Q. Plea.a* state your name and business address. 17 A. My name ia earvey R. Prins and my business address is 18 Nev York State Department o! PUDlic Service, Three 19 Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223. 20 Q. What is your position with the Department of PUDlic 21 Service? 22 A. I am a Nuclear Generation Planner in the System 23 Pla.nnillg Section of the Power Division. 24 J-558

PRINS l Q. Please summarize your responsibilities int:.~~ 2 position. 3 A. At the Department of Public Service, my 4 respo~ibilities are in the areas where radiological 5 factors could have an impact on nuclear power plant 6 operation. These areas include: 7 (a) outage due to radiation levels; 8 Cb) low-level waste disposal; 9 (c) spent fuel storage and disposal; 10 (d) emergency plAnning; and ll Ce) decommissioning of nucl,ar facilities. 12 I also represent the Department at interagency 13 meetings. 14 Q. What is your educational background? 15 A. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil 16 En~in.. rillg fro= New~k College of Engineering. I 17 received a Kaster of science and Doctor of Engineering 18 d19ree in Environmental Engineering from Rensselaer l9 Polytechnic Institute. My education at RPI includes 20 20 graduate credits in Nuclear Engineering. 21 Q. What are your professional qualifications? 22 A. I am ~ Professional Engineer in tbe State of New York. 23 I am also certified in Health Physics by the AJDerica.n 24 Bca.td of Bealtb Physics. 25 Q. Briefly summari:e your professional experience. J-559

PRINS ".;2o l A. I have three years' experience in teaching 2 Radiological Health at Lowell Technologies Institute 3 and the Oniversity of ~ichigan. Por nine year*, I was a Nuclear Engineer with

 's    the New York Department of Environmental Conservation.

6 My duties there were: (1) to keep infor~ed of the 7 developments in the nuclear industry and evaluate 8 their impact on the environment; (2) regulate diacharges of radioactive materials into the 10' environment; (3) formulate and implement radiological 11 aurveillance pro9rams to monitor discharges and 12 enviroru11ental levels of radioactivity; (4) perform 13 surveillance of the West Valley burial site and 14 recommend corrective action in tbe site operation l! where necessary. 16 Porth* past five years, I have been with the 17 Department of Public service. !8 Q. !ave ya~ testified i:1 other rate caaes before this 19 Commisaion? 2~ A. Yes, I testified in C!UI* 28211, Consolidated Edison 21 Company; in case 28225, Niagara Mohawk Power 22 Corporation: and in Caaes 28313~, Rochester Gas and 23 Electric Corporation. I also aw:imitted testimony in 24 caae 28553 and Case 29029, Long Island Lighting 2S company. J-560

PRINS l Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? 2 A. The pur;ose of my testimony is (l) to review the basic 3 1tudies setting forth technolocy safety and costs for 4 boiling water nuclear power reactor decor:unissioning; 5 (2) to review the studies performed for Nine Hile 6 Point Two decommissioning coat and (3) to.present a 7 current cost estimate for Nine Mile Point Tvo. 8 C, What are the basic studies on the decommissioning 9 costs associated with boiling water nuclear power 10 reactors? 11 A. In the Cni~ed States, there are two basic generic 12 studies. The first was sponsored by the Atomic 13 Industrial forum a.nd done by Nuclear Energy Services 14 (the AIF-l study). The autbor1 are William J. Manion 1S and Thom.ass. L&Guardia. The study vaa pu.blished in 16 November 1976 and included an analysia of a l,160 MW* 17 boiling water reactor (AIF/NESP-009). The coat for 18 the- imz11ediate dt.m.a.ntlement mode o! decommissioning 19 (the method previou1ly approved by the Commission) was 20 $31.2 million in 1975 dollars. 21 The second study va1 sponsored by the Nuclear 22 Regulatory Commission a.nd done by Battelle Pacific 23 Northwest Laboratory (the Battelle Study I). The 24 authors are a.o. Oak, G.M. Bolter, W.E. Iennedy, Jr. 2S and G.J. Xonzels (NOREG/CR-0672). The study was J-561

PRINS l published in June 1980. Th* analysis was !c: a l,155 2 MWe boiling water reactor, the Battelle :e!e:ence 3 pla.nt. The coat for the illlJllediate dismantling mode of 4 deco111J11iasionin9 w&a $43.6 million in 1978 dollars. s Soth of these studies were comprehensive, widely 6 distributed and received extensive peer review from 7 the interested scientific and engineering co111S11unity. 8 Q. Were these studies ever updated? 9 A. Yes, a study sponsored by the Atomic Industrial Poru= 10 and done by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation 11 was published in May 1981 (AlF/NESP-021) (AIF*2 12 study)~ This study updated the cost of ll deco111J11.issionin9 to 1980 dollars for both the All' and 14 Battelle studies. For the ALF reference plant, the 15 coat was $44.79 million And for the Battelle reference 16 plant, S56.27 million. 17 These studies are reaaonably consistent with each 18 other and the ditferences between the= have been 19 explained. 20 Q. What is the most receht study? 21 A. A study sponsored by tbe Electric Power Research 22 Institute, and done by Battelle Pacific Northwest 23 Laboratories, was published in May 1985. The title 24 is, *updated Coat for necom:misaioning Nuclear Power 2S racilitiea* (EPRI NP-4012) (Battelle-2 study). The

                                  -s-J-562

PRINS 2329 l authors are R.I. Smith, G.J. Konzel*, ,.s. ~~=~hy and 2 &.I. Elder. This group includes ao~e of tte authors 3 vbo performed the original Batttllt 1 st~oy. ~hey 4 took into account comments received on the orisinal, 5 the rise in cost and changes in the regulatory 6 er.vironment that have occurred since 1978. Their cost 1 estimates for the imznediate dismantlement mode of 8 decolllllissioning in 1984 dollars was $97.2 million if 9 done with utility staffing, or $119.7 million if done 10 with contractor staffing. These costs include a 2SI 11 contingency factor. 12 Q. What uae should be made of these generic studies? D. \. I. l 13 A. Any decommissioning study should be consistent withl). "2.l (c.) 14 the findings of these generic studies or the 15 differences should be explained in detail. 16 Q. Wbat decolllllliaaioning coat estimates have been made for 17 Rine Mil* TWo? 18 A. ID t:ha hearin~ before the State of New York Pw:ilic 19 Ser~ice Commission (Case 28059), in December 1981, 20 concerning the continued construction of Nine Mile ll Two, company witness Thomas LaGuardia presented 22 testimony. Ee estimated the cost for decommissioning 23 Rine Kile Two at $86.2 million in 1978 dollars. This 24 amowit includes a 2SI contingency. Eis estimate was 25 based on a study done for Permi Two (the Permi study), J-563

PRINS 2330 l a 1,100 KWe boiling water reactor, with acj~st~tnts 2 ~adt for Nine Mile Tlio*1pecific features. 3 In the current rate cast, the ccmpany has submitted a study done by the NOS Corporation in 5 September 1982 (Exhibit 106A and l06B) (the NOS study). This study is based on a detailed study of 7 Diablo Canyon land 2, Westinghouse Pressurized Water 8 Reactors (PWR). There were adjustments made using 9 data from the Battelle study and data from Nine Mile 10 Two. Tb* cost is estimated to be $154 million in 1982 11 dollars. This figure includes a 251 contingency 12 allowance. 13 Q. Does the method used in the HOS study produce a 14 re .. onable estimate for Nine Mile Two decommissioning 15 cost? 16 A. No, uaing a PWR data baae to obtain an estimate for a 17 Boiling Water Reactor (BW1l) is an inappropriate 18 method. Tb* Niagara Mohawk staff apparently agrees 19 with this conclusion (SM475). Tb* reference plant for 20 the Battelle studies:closely resembles Nine Mile Two; t>. \.\. \ 21 therefore, using a PWR data base when the very

                                                                ,'2..\(C.)

22 detailed study of Battelle was available, produces 23 unnecessary inaccuries. The reason Hiaqara Mohawk had 24 the HUS study performed is also unexplained, 25 especially since the study they presented in J-564

PRINS 2331 1 Case 28059 was based on the Fermi II plant wr.ich more 2 closely resembles Nine Mile Two. 3 Q. In view of the above history, what amount would you 4 reco111111end for the deco111JDi11ioning cost of Nine Milt 5 Two? 6 A. I would reco11:111end $100 million in 1984 dollars. This 7 is the amount stated in the Nuclear Regulatory 8 Commission's proposed rules on *Decommissioning 9 Criteria for Nuclear Facilities* (Feb. 11, 1985, 10 Federal Reqister, Vol. SO, page 5602). 11 Tbe NRC's proposed rules have been developed in 12 response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-50-22) 13 concerning decommissioning financial assurance, D.1.\.\ 14 initially filed by the Public Interest Research Group P. ,. \( c.) 15 on Jiu.y 5, 1977. The topic of decommissioning baa 16 received much study by the NRC and other interestetd 17 pa:ti*** The HRC sponsored the Battelle studies as* 18 baaia for its ralem&Jting. 19 The Electric Power Research Institute states* 20 tbat the estimates deyeloped in the Battelle-2 Study 21 are con.istent with the $100 million level on wbic-h 22 NRC b.. ed its ruling. 23' The $100 million derived in the very timely 24 stady, done by a competent group and endorsed by EPRI 25 includes a 251 contingency factor. T~is contingency

                                   -e-J-565

PRINS 23.?2 l factor should be sufficient to cover any c~:!e:ences 'D,\.\. \ 2 between the reference plant and Nine Mi!a :~o. o. 'Z. l (c.)' ! 3 Q. Does this conclude your testimony? i'

                                                                             ,I 4 A. Yes.                                                                    '*

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

                                                                          ~-. **--*-** --* --**-*--.*,

J-566

Prins 2333 JODGE MATIAS: Further di~ect? 1 MR. VA.~ RYN: The witness is available 2 for cross-examination. 3 JUDGE MATIAS: All right. Mr. Dax? 4 MR. DAX: Thank you, your Honor. s CROSS-EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. DAX: 7 Q Or. Prins, have you ever participated in decommissioning 8 a nuclear power plant?

• A No, I have not.

10 Q Have you conducted a study of the engineerinc; and 11 funcli.nc; requirements involved in decommission.inc; a 12 nuclear power plant? 13 JA A No, r have* not. Q Have :ro11 evu performed or supervued construction work II in a nuclear power plant? 11 A No, I have not. 17 Q You recommended that an estimate of $100 million in 18 1984 dollars be used for the decommission.ing of Nine 19

       .Mil.e 2 for purposes of rate year ::evenue requirements; 2D 21 is tllat correct?

A 'l'ha.t is correct. 22 23 Q And your reference is the proposed rules that are currently pencli.ng before the NRC; is that correct? J-567

Prins 2334 A That is correct. O And the rules, as I understand them -- ~:.d tell me if 2 your understanding differs -- provide at this point -- 3 a.nd they are proposed rules -- for giving the utilities

    '       the option of certifying that they have sufficient 5

internal fillancing to assure decollllllissioning at the end 7 of the life of the nuclear facility based on either a site-specific study or using a cost estimate of the a

            $100 million in 1984 dollars?       Is that a correct under-9 standing of the rules?

10 A I believe that's the vay it was published in the Pederal 11 1).2.l(b) Register. D.'2. IC'-) The discussion behind that was that the utility could either assure that they have the $100 million or ju.stify &11other figure, and the other figure 15

            -   since the NRC is concerned that the-utility has 11 adequate funds, tha.t they have surplus funds, the NRC 17 would not be concerned.

18 0 Right. And the NRC - this other option would be base<l 19 on. the adequacy of the funds, that would be judged by 20 the NRC based upon the site-specific study that would 21 have to be presented by the utility; is that correct? zz A In my understanding,. there were quite a few bearings 23 before that, before the rule was published. But in aon:e

---

------ ------**4--**-**--

IIA*-T IH~NO S&JtVtCL lo<. J-568

Prins 2335 of the staff meetings that the NRC staf! Nas briefing the commissioners on, they said to eith~r assure 2

             $100 million or justify another figure.

3 Now, when they had that option, it was 4 implied that the utility wanted to justify a lesser 5 figure, they would need a site-specific study. s Q And you're saying that the NRC wouldn't be concerned if 7 they were trying to justify a figure larger than $100

• million? Is that what you're telling me?

9 A That would be my interpretation cf the process that went 10 through in the rule-making proceeding. 11 12 0 But the rules as published in the register don't make 1). '2. I( b) 13 that e%plic:it,. do they? D:2., (c.) 1, A They don't make that e%t)licit,. no. 11 Q How,. are you sponsoring the $100 million as your estillla.ta 11 cf what it will cost to decommission Nine Mile 2 at the 17 end of its life? 18 A Yes, I am. 19 Q That i.s your estillla.te? You're not simply recommending 2D that the NRC's proposed prescription cf $100 million be 21 adopted? You're actually saying that that's a good esti.llla.te for Nine Mile 2? A Ho. The $100 II.ill.ion that the NRC has proposed is consistent with the Battelle studies and the EPRI review J-569

Prins 2336

---

,---------------------1_:I of the Battelle studies, and the Battella st~dy was I 1

based on .the ,WPS II plant, Washington power plant number I 2 two, which is essentially identical to Nine Mile 2, so 3 that on that basis I would propose that $100 million. 4 Q And have you conducted* study or any kind of s verification of the validity of that $100 million

• estimate for Nine Mile 2 or is your conclusion based 7

upon your knowledge of what it was -- what the NRC'* I figure was based on that you just described to me?

• A No. I did a study to compare the two plants and the 10 D, ,. '(b) nuclear steam supply parts of the plant are essentially 11 D. 2., ( c.)

identical. 12 Now~ there i.s a difference in the design earthquake for Wine Mile :Z, I think - (Paue) JS I A OJ:. 'fhe seismic design for Nine Mile Point 2 was 0.15G I 11 and the seismic- de~~gn for the Washington II plant is 17 I* 0.26G. Th&t would indicate that the Washington II 11 plant would be more ruggedly designed. 11 (Continued on following page.) 2D 21 22

        ..... _ , . lt_.,,NC 91111¥tCL INC.                -

J-570

ZS-l Prins: 2337 l Q Now, did you publish this study that you performed? 2 A No, I did -not. 3 Q And you did not present this in an exhibit or in any way as part of your testimony? s A No, I did not. 8 Q Bas it been subjected to peer review? 7 A Well, the Washington 2 design asis earthquake is in the 8 FSAR, and that did receive extensive review.

• Q No, did your study receive peer review? You said that you conducted a study by which you compared Nine Mile 2 10 11 to WPS 2, and I am asking whether that study --

12 A Well, that was on& aspect of my review or study, yes. 13 Q And was that study exposed to peer review? 1, A No, but the facts are subject to extensive review. The lS design basis earthquake is a very large part of the 18 review for constructing the plant. 17 Q But your interpretat~on of those facts is what I am 18 asking about. Your interpretation of those facts has 19 not been subject to peer review. 2D A Well,~ have talked to a Staff geologist on it, and also 21 on comparison of labor rates between the Pacific Northwe~t I).2. I (b) 22 and the North Atlantic, I looked at the Bandy Whitman 't). '2. I (c) 23 index for nuclear power plants and it is higher in the Northwest than it is in the Northeast. J-571

                                                                        .,,,a S-2
  -----t-------------------------"'-~.__-4--

Prins 1 0 But, again, whatever you did, whatever t.t.e list of things 2 *that*you*:i:ooked at, *you did not put it together in a 3 published package and subject it to review by anybody 4 in the industry? s A No, but the outline of it is contained in my testimony.

• 0 Now, in 1981 this Commission reviewed an estimate for decommissioning Nine Mile 2 of 86.2 million in 1978 7

8 dollars. I believe that was*inCase 28059, or perhaps 9 some earlier review of Nine Mile 2. 10 A This was Nine Mile 2 -- 11 Q Yes. 12 A - or Nine Mile l. 1S Q Nine Mile 2. Is that & correct statement, to your 1, knowledge? 1S A Could you repeat the question? Q I am asking you just to confirm whether an estimate of 11 86.2 million in 197S-dollars for decommissioning Nine 17 Mile 2 was presented to this Commission on behalf of the 18 coten.ants? 19 21) A Yes. It is on page 6 of my testimony. Q Now, do you. know wnether this was incorporated by the 21 Commission into its assumptions regarding the Commission

     =         and the costs of continued construction of Nine Mile?

23 A I am not sure how it was incorporated, but it was an itu

---

....J.---------------- . --.---o;.., . . --... - ....-.._ --- ---

11'*11-,. "C-"'NO Sa!Vlct. INC. J-572

-3 Prins l of conern, the decommissioning, but what t.

~e Commission 2 did to *bal*ance it to determine whether to continue 3 construction or not, I could not tell you.

4 Q Is that something you could check on in some way? 5 A The record in that area is very extensive. Unless you 8 ca.n give me a cite -- 7 Q If we were to provide you with the citation to the I record and the Commission decision in that case, would 9 you for purposes of our cbnversation right now accept 1D that the Commission used that figure in its calculations 11 of the economics and the cost of continued construction 12 of the Nine Mile 2? 1S A I lcnov that Staff did use the figure of dec:cmmissioning 1, cost in that case, whether to continue construction or lS not. 11 Q The Staff of the Public Service Commission -- 17 A ltight. 18 Q -- did use the 86.2? 11 A No, they used a higher number.

• Q A

Ose d a l:l:igber number

• ltight.

21 2Z Q Now, was that higher number also stated in 1978 dollars,

• A or was it in some -

Offhand I would not know. I would have to check that.

        ~.. .._,. I t ~ - ...,,,CL INC.

J-573

!5-4 Prins 2340 l 0 Now, if the $100 million that you are reccr.:.;ending is in

     *2    'S4 dollars and the contenants' estimate of 86.2 was in 3    '78 dollars, and Staff used some higher number, is it possible that what you are really talking about is a
      '   decrease in the estimate from prior estimates for the 5

I decommissioning of Nine Mile 2? 7 A You are saying what Staff had used in their case?

• 0 You have told me that Staff used a higher figure than 9 86.2. The missing ingredient that we do not know is 10 what year dollars that was stated in, but it is possible 11 that i:f ,re knew that fact, if we knew what year dollars 12 those were in, and we knew the number-- and we do know 13 that the 86.2 wu based on '78 dollars - that when we t I

14 compare either o:f those to the $100 million in '84 *' 15 dolla.rs, what we a.re really talking abou.t is a decrease 18 in the estimate in real tems? 17 A The total would go qcwn if you put it in '85 dollars; 18 that is true. 11 0 Now, you have shown some familiarity with the NRC rules, 2D and I would like you to state whether or not it is true that the NRC views the $100 million as not accounting an D. 2. \ (. b) Z1 2Z not including the cost of demolishing the nonradioactive 'D. '2. I (c) st.ructuresof a nuclear facility? A That is not clear exactly. In the Battelle study, they _______._____________________ -------*-.s* __. __ J-574

I I s-s Prins 2341 I 1 say administrative buildings and warehouses and some oth,~ 2 -structures *are beyond the jurisdiction of the NRC since t they do not contain radioactivity contamination~ however, the other structures would be removed to below

    $   grade and restored.

• Q I notice that you have what looked like a copy of the 7
• A Yes, I do
• D- 2..1(b) 9 Q Do you have PederaZ Regiatcr Volume 50, No. 28, dated 10 Monday, February 11, 1985, page 5600 and following?

11 A Yes. tt 12 Q Would you turn to 5606 and look in the right-hand column~ I ia 1, About one-third of the way down there begins:- '!'his ta a sentence that amc:nm: does not account for cost of Ir IS shipment of spent fuel * *

• then it goes on to say: or 11 the cost of demolition of nonradioactive structures whict 17 is not reqaired for.NRC license te:mination.

11 A That is correct. Q Now, do you have reason to dispute that? 19 2D A No, I do not. Z1 Q Do you also see there that the NR.C assumes -- A Excuae me. I lost the page again.

   =

Q ox. It really does not matter. Maybe you. do not need a ZI page reference here: that the $100 million is stated in J-575

Prins 2342 1 '84 dolla:s, but the NRC assumes escalae~=n at twice the CPI rate of inflation? 3 A That is what they are proposing, yes.

' Q   Now, have you presented a calculation based on rate year 5     dollars of what that would translate into?

8 A No, I have not. 7 Q But it would be higher than 100 million? I A Yes, sir. 9 Q Have you examined any of the comments that have been 10 filed on the proposed.rules? 11 A No, I have not. I have talked to the one who is mention u here in the Fadar<<Z Ragi*tfl.l" on the phone. 13 ha..d received about 136, something in that neighborhood, cnmments, and they would not know if the proposed rule 15 would be changed or not. They could not tell at this 11 time. 17 Q It would not surprise you if some of those comments took 18 issue with the adequacy of the $100 million, would it? 19 A No, it would not surprise me at all. 2D Q And it would not surprise you if some of those comments 21 came from both utility owners of nuclear plants and opponents of nuclear plans, opponents of the nuclear = A No, it would not be surprising.

    ~ * - - ,-&~NO SSIIYICL INC:.

J-576

Prins 2343 l Q Are you familiar with a group called Public Citizen 2 *Environmental Action? 3 A Is that Ralph Nader's group? 4 Q I believe it is a subsidiary of some sort. I do not want

     $        to misstate the facts, but I think that is the case.

I A I have heard of them.

     ., 0     Do  you know whether or not they have criticized the
     *         $100 million estimate as being inadequate?

9 MR. VAN RYN: Yoo.r Bonor, I object. If 10 Mr.Dax has some hypothetical questions, I wish he would 11 state them in that manner. It is obvious the witness is 12 not directly familiar with this matter. a MR. DAX:. Fine. I. withdraw the question. 1, BY MR. OAX: 15 Q Now,. you indicated that you were familiar with the 11 studies which underlie the $100 million estimate. You 17 re!erred to the Bat~elle study of the WPS 2 plant. A Yes, I did. 11

                                                                                                        'D. I.\.)

Q And. it is your understanding that that is the basis for 0.2.1(<) the $100 million. A That is correct. Q And is that known as Nt:7REG-Clt-Ol30? A 'rhat is NOlU:G-CR-0672. Q 0672? l'A._-r "IIIOll"l'IIIMI S1111'¥1C:L INC. J-577

Prins 2344 1 A Yes. 2 Q That is the BWR study? 3 A That is correct. 4 Q OK. Then the one I quoted would be the PWR study? A I would not know. I would have to cheek that. I (Continued on following page.)

'I 9

10 11 12 13 14 lS 11 17 11 11 2D 21 = ZI

                                ~      _____,_ *------ ___ --

J-578

Prins 2345 Q Did you ever receive correspondence froo or.e of the l authors of that study concerning aspec~s of the 2 atudy7 3 A Yes. I had correspondence from Mr. Smith concerning 4 the curve~. the correlation coefficient, when you're using scaling down to -- from the reference plant to a s lower powered reactor. 1 Q That was in the context of a Rochester case~ I A Yes. 9 0 ~ looking at the Ginna plant? 10 A That is correct. 11 Q I'd like to show you a document. Tlti s is a. four-page u document on the letterhead of Battel.J.e Pacific Northwest 13 La.bcratories dated October 29, 1982 directed to 1, Mr. Harvey ll. Prins. 15 It's signed on the second page by Richard 11 I. Smith and it bu a two-page attachment to it. 1'1 Is this the letter that you have referred 11 to? 11 A Yes, that is correct. 2D MR. DAX: Your Boner, I'd like to 21 have this marked for identification.

        =                             J'ODGE MATIAS:   All right. B'.and a copy ZS to the reporter.

- - - - - - " " ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ -1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ * - - - - J-579

Prins 2346 Mr. Reporter, this will be 175 for 1 identification. 2 (The aforementioned document was marked 3

       ** Exhibit No. 175 for identification.)
' BY MR. DAX:

s 0 Now, let me just refer you to the second page of the I letter. It appears therein that Mr. Smith offered wba.t 7 he terms a warning with respect to the use of the

• Battelle study, and in there he states that the analyses
• were intended to provide order of magnitude estimates 10 11 good to within a factor of two, certainly, bat not D. 1.1.1 intended to be used without further site-specific 12 D. 2. \ Cc.)

analysis .. Is that a correct reading of the letter? A U I. rec:a.llp- we were talk:hsg a.boat the Gilma plant 15 which vould be scaled down from t h e ~ study. It was all 11 addend.am to the PWR** study and we were discussing on the 17 phone with Mr. Smith whether or not the scaling factor 18 they bad developed for the addendum to the PWR study 11 would be applicable to Ginn&. Now, the scaling factor is what was wider 21 consideration at that time and be said that it should be valid within a factor of tva. That was the sea.ling factor. J-580

Prins 2347 Q Now, that's with respect to the PWR stucy? 1 A The PWR study, right. The Cinna plant is a PWR some-2 where in the neighborhood of 600 megawatts -- 3 Q Now -

      '  A     -   and the NOREG study was for 1,000 megawatts, so in 5

the addendwn to the PWR study, they had developed 8 sea.ling -- scaling factors to get from the basic plant 1 down to a SmAller sized plant and that was the concern

• of ~iD.g that scaling factor, to get an estimate for 9

Gin.na. p, I. I. ' 10 Q But his cautionary remarks go to the entire study in the D.'2.,Cc) 11 addendum, do they not? Be says that they a.re good 12 vit.hiJl an order of magnitude of a factor of two. 13 A I believe he was just applying that to the scaling 1' factorr not to the vhole study. 15 Q That's how you interpreted this? 11 A That's how I interpreted that, because that was the item 11 under discussion. 18 Q Did you ever call him up or have any further 11 correspondence to disc:ua* whether your understanding of 20 that was as you so stated? 21 A Ro, r did not pursue that particular.aspect of it. 22 Q So in your view, the scaling factors, then, were to 23 be viewed as accurate within a factor of two? That's I" ~_ ~_ _ _... lts-1 _91D1¥1C:S. _ _ _INC.__...,_ _ _ _ _ _.....,p _ _ _ p_ _ _ _ _ __ J-581

Prins 2348 what you're saying? 1 A Yes. In the addendum to the PWa stud:r*, which I don't 2 have the z.wnber offhand, but it may be the one you s referred to earlier, they had evaluated three smaller 4 5 plants and drew a curve.~o I think it was three or four, I'm not sure. 8 7 But they had evaluated three or four smaller plants to draw a curve in order to extrapolate

• downwarda from the base study and one of the plants they
• had chosen for a data point to that curve was the Ginn&

1).\.1-\ 1D D. 2..1 (c.) 11 plant and. he was saying in this letter, when I was 12 t.alkillg to him on the phone, that the study for Ginna was not as thorough as the other ones and therefore it would be withiD a factor of two, definitely .. Q And you don't believe that that same caution would just iA your movledge of bow these studies are II 17 perfoz:med, you don '.t believe that that same cautionary 11 limitation would be applicable to any other parts of the 11 study? A Wel1, the precaution is published iA the study itself. 21 It coulc! not be applied blinc!ly to any plant. You would have to see if it was applicable, so there* is a precautioll iA this study that is a little different than what's in the letter and the precaution

          ~.......,. IIIDatl'TI- * ..,,,c:&. INC.

---

*------*-------- -------*------------L-J-582

Prins 2349 in the study says that if you just apply i : to any plant 1 you're liable to come up with an error. 2 However, if you examine the parameters 3 that are in there and see that they're applicable to

     '    the site you're considering, they definitely would be s

much closer th&ll a factor of two *

• Q It could be under those situations, if you find that 7

the study plant was very similar to the target plant, a that you -- D. 1. \. I

• A And you took into consideration the other factors like 10 D.'2.1(c) the weight scale and the seismic design and transportation 11 difficulty, if yoa loolced at all of them and saw no 11 reason to discard the Battelle study, then the Battelle 13 study results should be applicable.

1, Q So would you agree, then, as a general matter, that 11 the better a plant - ezcuse me. The better a study l8 appro:d..mates the copdition of a plant that's being 17 ezamined for purposes of estimating costs, the better l8 will be that stad.1 for u.sing .t a!' the basis for the 11 2D estimate? 21 MR.~ RYN: Yoar Honor, I'd just like 22 to be clear that that's a hypothetical question. 23 MR. DAX: No, it's not a hypothetical question. It's a question of procedure. __ . ___________ ----=-.--- ------*-~---------*------ *- J-583

Prins 23SO BY MR. DAX: 1 Q Is it*true that as a matter of procedure, in your 2 opinion, that the closer the study plant approximates 3 the plant in question, the better and more reliahle 4 will be the study result"s when applied to the plant in 5 question? 8

       .,                      MR. 111.N RYN:  I'll accept that

• TD WITNESS: Yes, that's true *
• BY MR. DAX:

9 Q Now, you've criticized along these lines the NOS study 10 which formed the basis for the decommissioning cost 11 estimate that the Company is currently applying prior to the '1'LG update which bu now been precluded 1, uam this case? A Right. lS Q And yoa say that one problem with NOS study was that the 11 reference plant was.a PWR plant and correctly point out 17 that Nine Mile 2 is a BWR plant; is that correct? 18 A That is correct. 19 Q And you also refer to the study presented by 2D Mr, L&Guardia in case 28059 in December of 1981, and yo1i 21 say that that was based on a plant more akin to Nine

     =

Mile 2. A That is cor:ect. J-584

Prins 2351 0 So as between the NOS study and that study, you would say that *the 19 -- December 1981 study would be the 2 preferable one as between those two? 3 A If it was just between tho.e two, t..\at would be correct.

    ' 0      And would you then agree as a general matter that the s

more effort that's taken to refine our knowledge of the I specifics of a plant, the more we focus on plant 7 characteristics that are unique to that plant, I characteristics of the whole economy, wage rates, things

• like that, the better the reliability of the study 10 in question?

11 A Are you comparing one study to another? 12 Q lfo. Again, I'm going back - A Yesr the mere effort you put into the study, the better it should be. 1S Q The more sit-specific it is, the better it should be? 11 17 MR. nN RYN: Your Honor, I object. The 18 site-specific issues have a.lready been dealt with -- 18 MR. DAX: I don't understand how this 2D MR. V1Jf RYN: - unless he makes it quite 21 clear that this is a hypothetical question. JODG! MATIAS: I don't think MR. DAX: I don't think it's a hypothetical question. I'm just talking about general

        ~Alt90fff tlll'OlffllHI 9111¥1CS. INC.

J-585

Prins 2352 policy, engineering. l JUDGE MATIAS: Of course, I think the 2 question was answered some time ago, bi:. t I will permit 3 an answer in case I'm wrong on that score *

• THE WITNESS: Well, if the studies are 5

1),'2. \(a) of equal quality, then a site-specific study would be I preferable to a generic study if it were of equal qualit~. 7 BY MR. DAX: I Q line. Now I want you to turn to Mr. LAGuardia's study, 9 and I know that his -- I mean his testimony. lQ I know his testimony has been precluded. 11 I'm only using it for reference to a quotation 12 that's in it. Do you have his - 13 MR. VAN R.YN: Your Boner, if he would 14 like to read a quotation fram another document, that 1S would be fine. I don't want* the testimony referred to. 11 If you would like t_o read a quotation - 17 JtJ'DGE MATIAS: It can be referred to. 18 MR. DAX: I can 1114.rk it as an exhibit 19 if I want to. 2D (Pawse) 11 JOt>GZ MA'l'IAS: I have it right here.

    =                       MR.. DAX:    All right *
    *                        (Docmiaent proffered by Judge Matias to

---

~---------~---------="-*'""*-- ---.-* . ***----

J-586

Prins 2353 I Mr. Dax.) 1 THE WITNESS: I believe I dcn't have it. 2 BY MR. DAX: 3 Q Well, I'll show you this. I have a copy in my file, too~ 4 I just wanted to have a** copy for you. 5 What I'm referring to is a quotation fro: 8 a.n American Association of Cost Engineers, a 7 definition of the vord or the concept *contingency* and I there is an indented paragraph appearing on that page 9 of the precluded testimony which sets out that definitio~. 10 Have you previously seen that-definition 11 in the course of reviewing this testimony or at any 12. other time? 13 A I've seen it. 1, Q OX. Juat so that I can get this in the record, si.:ice 1S th~ testimony will not be - let me read it. lJ It ~ays *eontingency is a cost element 17 of an estimate to cover a statistical probability* of 18 the occurrence of unforeseeable elements of cost within 19 the defined project scope due to a combination of 2D m:icerta.inties, untangibles and unforeseen/highly unlikelr 21 occurrences of future events based on management's = decision to usme :isks (for the occurrence of those ZI event.a).* Do you have any comment on that?

                                        "J-587

Prins 2354 Do you agree with that de!inition or do 1

                *ymi .d.is.ag.i:ee :wi"th ..t.ha.t ..de.fWtion?

2 A 110. 3 Q You agree with it~

• A I agree with that, that that's what it says.

5 However, I agree that's an acceptable standard for a 8 contingency factor. 7 Well, do you have a different definition in mind if you

• Q were to define the term *contingency*?

9 A No, I do not. 10 Q On pages 8 and 9 of your test.im.ony, you state that 11 the 25 percent contingency that was included in the 12 Battalle study which formed the basis for the NRC'* 13 1,

                 $100 million estimate should cover all differences
               *between the referenced plant. u4 Bi.De Mile 2.                   Is that 1S 11 your testimony?

17 A Ye.*, that is my tes'Umony. 18 ( Cor_ . .uiue-:.'. on following page. ) 19 m 21

   =

23 _. ~ ... _ l t l - " - SIUIYICL hoc. J-588

October**2J, 198.5 t.*,*.* .-,l Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary ' ' ,..: . -.,,! Attn: Docketing and Service Branch \ I

                                             \

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Kr. Chilk:

Pursuant to the notice of the proposed rule on the Deco11111issioning Criteria for N1*clear Facilities, 10 CFR §30, §40, §so, §51, §7o, §72, 50 FR .5,600 (1985), I am respectfully submitting the following co11111ents. It ap;ears both from the discussion of the proposed rule (Mechanisms for Requiring Financial Assurance", 50 FR 5,606 (1985)),and the content of the proposed rule (10 CFR §so.JJ(k)(l), .50 FR 5,618 (1985)), that the U.S. NRC is implicitly adopting a cost estimate of $100,000,000 (1984 dollars) for the deco111Dissioning of commercial nuclear power reactor facilities, and an annual rate of escalation for this cost estimate that is double the rate of escalation of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The adoption of the $100,000,000 figure as the least cost of deconmissioning for colml'*rcial nuclear power reactor facilities, and of the associated escalation rate at double the escalation rate of the CPI, presents the following problems that can impede the most cost efficient implementation of the proposed rule:

1. The adopted least c~~t of decoanissioning for coanercial nuclear power D.'2.\(a.,)

reactor facilities in 10 CFR §so.33(k)(1) does not differentiate between the following factors that significantly affect nuclear deconnissioning cost estimates: (a) The type(s) of the nuclear power reactor(s) present in the facility, e.g., pressurized water rea,tor(s) (P'JR's) v. boiling water reactor(s) (BWR's); (b) The adopted method(s) of deco11111issioning for the reactor(s) present in the facility, e.g., ianediate dismantlement (DECON) v. safe storage (SAFSTOR) v. entombment (EMTOMB); and * (c) The number of the nuclear reactor units present in the facility, e.g., a single reactor facility v, a multiple reactor facility.

2. Electric utilities that operate or will operate commercial nuclear power reactor facilities will be incline~ to adopt the 10 CFR §so.33(k)(l) dec01111issioning cost estimate and its associated escalation rate or a higher cost esti-te and a higher e*scalation rate. Such an inclination will be motivated by the following factors:

(a) The intention to attain the maximum level of financial assurance for the availability of decon111issioning funds; and

~k-ic*::;e'j:~d -...,, !'~e,j' .'IOV - -! i~S o/.

                                                                                ..................~

J-589

U.S. NRC Page 2 of 5 (b) The intention to attain the maximum amount of flexibility in respect to the U.S. NRC licensing requirements regarding financial assurance of nuclear deconnissioning funding (proposed 10 CFR §50.JJ(k), 50 FR 5,618 (1985), "Mechanisms for Requiring Financial Assurance", 50 FR 5,606 (1985), "Criteria for Funding Methods", 50 FR 5,607, 5,608 (1985)). p,i.3. \ Such intentions will result in undue financial burdens for nuclear utility ratepayers and in possible conflicts with utility-specific and facility-specific decoaaissioning cost estimate, escalation and funding mechanism ratemaking determinations that have been or will be made by various state public utilities connissions. J. The adopted least cost of decolll!llissioning and the relevant cost escalation rate stated in 10 CFR §50,JJ(k)(l), as well as their proposed periodic review process, fail to account for the following factors: (a) Advances in nuclear decommissioning technology, e.g., robotics; (b) Increased specialization of the labor force involved in nuclear deco11111issioning activities; (c) The effect of successive nuclear reactor decommissionings on certain deco11111issioning cost categories; and (d) The inclusion of sizeable conti~gency factors in existing deco11111issioning cost estimates of generic or facility-specific nature, As it has already been demonstrated in the U.S. NRC sponsored studies of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory, there are subst~~tial decoaaissioning cost differences between PWR and BWR nuclear power facilities even if the same decoaaissioning method was to be used, e.g., the DECON cost estimate of a single unit BWR was found to be approximately 311 higher than the DECON estimate of a single unit PWR (Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Deconwnissioning of Nuclear Facilities, U.S. NRC, NUREG-0586, January 1981, Table 0,0-2, p. 0-45). Similarly, the deco11111issioning cost estimates under the DECO~, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB -nethods for the same type of a nuclear power reactor facility do differ by substantial amounts. The cost of .dec011111issioni~g nuclear power reactor facilities is affected by the number of the nuclear reactor units present ln the facility, e.g., the cost of dec011111issioning each unit will decline after the first unit has been decoaaissioned (Norm G. Wit-tenbrock, !i:. !!.:., Technology, Safety, and Costs of Deconnissioning Light Water Reactors at a Multiple Reactor Station, NUREG/CR-1755, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, January 1982)

• The maxim1.1111 level of assurance for the availability of funds for the completion of nuclear deconnissioning activities can be achieved only at considerable cost.

Nuclear decommissioning cos~s have long being recognized by public utility regulators as a legitimate expense for electric utility operators of nuclear power facilities. Consequently, nuclear dec011111issioning costs are recovered from the ratepayers of D.<;r. 3. \ public utilities with nuclear power facilities as a "revenue requirement". This revenue requirement is usually determined on the basis of a facility-specific decoanissioning cost estimate (engineering cost derivation or generic study cost estimate with appropriate adjustments), the adopted deconnissioning cost escalation race, and by the funding mechanism chat.is approved by the utility regulators for J-590

Page 3 of 5 the future financing of-decoaai11ioning activities C!!! !!. Dec011Dis*ioning Costs of Nuclear Powered Generators, Florida Public Service C0111111ission, Docket No. 810100-EU, Order No. 12356, August 12, 1983, 55 PUR4th 1 (1983), .!!! !! Indiana and Michigan Electric Company, Indiana Public Service C0111111ission, Cause No. 36760-Sl, March 23, 1983, 52 PUR4th 340 (1983), In!!. Nuclear Facility Decommis-sioning Costs, California Public Utilities Conmission, Decision No. 83-04-013, OII 86, April 6, 1983, 5: PUR4th 340 (1983), !_!!!!Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission et. al. v. Metropolitan Edison Company, Docket No. 1-822249 et. al., October 14, 1983, 56 PUR4th 230 (1983)). If a least cost of decommissioning of $100 million and a cost escalation rate at double the inflation rate are adopted in the proposed rulemaking, then D.-z.1(a...) various electric utilities vi:.l seek to obtain rate iucreases that will:

1. Supercede any previous ratemaking decisions that were made on the state and D.<r.,.I federal levels establishing deconmissioning cost estimates that were~

the proposed $100 million benchmark, and cost escalation rates that were below the proposed escalation rate at double the inflation rate; and -----

2. Maximize the level of assurance for the availability of nuclear decommissioning funds without regard to cost, i.e., the revenue requirement that will be recovered from the utility ratepayers.

The proposed rulemaking does not sufficiently address the area of interaction between the level of assurance for the availability of decommissioning funds that is or will potentially be required by the U.S. NRC, and the associated cost in terms of revenue requirements, e.g., the eff;cts of the Tax Reform Act of 1984 on nuclear decommissioning funding options have not *received any ... uc1,,ssion (see Federal Tax Guide Reports, Connerce Clearing House, Vol. 67, No. 42, July 20, 1984, n1146, p. 315). Similarly, the role of state and federal public utility regulatory bodies in determining nuclear deconnissioning revenue requirements, and their interaction with nuclear utilities and the U.S. NRC, have received little discussion. A review of state utility regulatory commission decisions (see previous Public Utilities Reports citations), and a review of the* technical literature (including the report by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Analysis of Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Costs, Atomic Industrial Forum, AIF/NESP-021, May 1981), suggest that the escalation rates for decommissioning costs are below the escalation ~ate of double the inflation rate that is suggested in the proposed rulemaking. In updating (or escalating) deconnissioning cost estimates we have to deal with the -ighted cost escalation rates for the various deconnissioning cost categories. D. 2. I (a..) Thus, although the radioactive material and waste disposal costs for a single unit Westinghouse PVR escalated at rates above the escalation rates of conventional cost indices (CPI, GNP deflator, various Handy-Whitman indices) for the 1978-1981 period,. these costs constituted approximately 27.6t of the total decommissioning cost estimate (NUREG/CR-0130 Addendum, including non-radioactive structure demolition excluding nuclear fuel shipment), which escalated at a rate approximate to those of conventional cost indices (Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, "Decommis-sioning Cost Updating Factors: 1978 to 1981 Cost Base", NUREG/CR-0130 Addendum, internal communication dated March 29, 1982). Considering the fact that the 1981-1984 period has been one of subsiding inflation, the adoption of a $100 million deconnissioning cost estimate and of an escalation rate at double the inflation rate is not supported by the available studies. J-591

U.S. NRC Page 4 of 5 The adoption of a decoanissioning cost escalation rate at double the inflation rate will also tend to increase the revenue requirement for decom-missioning funds, since, under any funding option, the ratepayers will not accrue any significant savings from earnings on their contributions to a decom-missioning fund, e.g., if we were to assume a $100 million decommissioning cost, an annual escalation rate of 16t (2*81), and a tax-exempt annual earnings rate of 91 for an external sinking fund, the annual revenue requirement for financing a deconnissioning fund over the JO-year life of a nuclear power reactor facility would approximately be $63 million; if the long-tenn annual cost escalation rate was to be set at 81 with all the other variables remaining the same, the annual l). 2. I (t1.) revenue requirement for decommissioning would be $7.4 million. The annual revenue requirement for deconnissioning cost funding will be considerably larger for utility ratepayers that did not c011111ence financing decoanissioning costs for nuclear power reactors from the start of their coaaercial operations. The technology of nuclear power plant deconnissioning is advancing in step with developments in the fields of robotics and of artifictal intelligence. Remotely controlled robots dedicated to the task of chemical decontamination in highly radioactive areas have been utilized in the *Three Mile Island Unit 2 cleanup (Gregg H. Taylor, "Remote handling systems help TKl-2 cleanup efforts", Nuclear News, December 1984, p. 52; see also Electric Power Research Institute, "Robots Join the Nuclear Workforce", EPRI Journal, Vol. 9, No. 9, November 1984,

p. 6). Similarly, sophisticated radiation source detection and mapping equipment has also been used extensively in the Three Mile Island Unit 2 cleanup effort.

Further development of robots with light, sound, and touch sensors that would function within the interiors of the reactor vessel could speed the process of decontaminating and cutting the most radioactive components during the deconmis-sioning process ("Using robots for remote inspection and maintenance", Nuclear C.8 Engineering International, January 1985, p. 21). The increased use of robotics will result in a reduction of manpower exposure to radiation during the phases of decontamination, dismantlement, and removal of the reactor building components. Consequent reduct ions in the manpower "turnaround rate" due to the decline in man-rem radiation exposure levels will result in increased worker efficiency and lower labor costs (according to U.S. NRC estimates the v.lue of a man-rem of personnel radiation for electric utilities ranges from $1,000 co S5,000; Elr.ctric Power Research Institute, supra). !n addition, robots involved in the dec011111issioning of one facility can be decontaminated and used ~gain. Furthermore, standardization of design and manufacturing for deco11111is-sioning equipment will lead to lower per unit equipment costs. Thus, technological improvement does hold the potential of decreasing decommissioning costs or at least substantially retarding their escalation rate. Labor specialization in nuclear deconnissioning activities is another area where economies of scale will be realized. The efficiency of the nuclear decom-missioning workers will increase after a series of nuclear reactor deconnissionings, wiLh resulting savings in time and cost. The increased specialization of the work force in the various decommissioning tasks, and the involvement of specialized firms in areas such as decontamination, cutting, waste disposal, and demolition, will have positive rather than negative effects for decoD111issioning costs and their escalation. The costs of planning and mobilizing for the decommissioning of a nuclear reactor facility will certainly be positively influenced from the previous plan-ning and operational experience of similar reactor deconwnissionings; e.g., assuming a JO-year life for pressurized water reactors, the decommissioning J-592

U.S. NRC Page 5 of 5 of Westinghouse Electric Corporation PWR's in the 2010-19 time period will benefit from the planning and operational experience of at least 1S similar Westinghouse PWR's that will be in some stage of deconnissioning in the 2000-09 time frame. Incorporation of design features during the construction of nuclear reactor facilities that will facilitate deconnissioning can also have positive implications for the duration of deconnissioning activities and their costs (Nuclear Energy Agency, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, OeCOlllllissioning Requirements in the Design of Nuclear Facilities, proceedings of the NEA specialist meeting, Paris, France, March 17-19, 1980). I have attempted to demonstrate that the deconmissioning cost estimate of $100,000,000 (1984 dollars) for co111Dercial nuclear power reactor facilities, and its escalation rate at double the inflatton rate, are not supported by the available evidence, and do not take into account any cost savings that are brought about by technological progress and accumulating operational experience. To ignore the effects of economies of scale when developing decommissioning cost estimates for !£ecific nuclear reactor facilities is to inflate dec011111issioning costs unreasonably. I do recommend to the Co11111ission that the provisions of financial assurance under 10 CFR §so.JJ(k)(l) be modified without any reference to any specific deconnissioning cost estimates and escalation rates. Respectfully submitted,

                                                        ~.

M.P.A. J-593

                                                       ;~~";*;; PR-~, 4~,5o etL,/.

c*w omccs or C5~ f=I, 5C,tJ<:J) (jJ) BISHOP, LIBERMAN. COOK. PURCELL & REYNOLDS 1200 SEVENTEENTH STREET, N W WASHINGTON. 0 C ZOOJe (ZOZ) 857-9800 ,ci-.c* 440S74 INTLAW UI Nf;W YQIIK, NCW YO.II 100:UI 1212) 704-0100 December 20, 1985 TEL.EX 2217e7 w*11'tA S D1r:tECf DIAL Mr. Samuel J. Chilk (202/ Secretary

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Proposed Rule Regarding Decommissioning Criteria For Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (February 11, 1985)

Dear Mr. Ch ilk:

The Utility Decommissioning Group ("UDG") 1 hereby submits the following additional comments relating to the Commission's proposed rule on Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities, 50 Fed. Reg. 5600 (February 11, 1985). The purpose of these additional comments is (1) to bring to the Commission's attention new information relevant to UDG's previous comments on the ltvel of decommissioning costs, and (2) to address an issue raised by the State of Illinois in its comments, filed July 12, 1985, relating to the proper funding method to be used by an electric utility licensee where a plant has ceased operation and a period of storage or long-term surveillance will be provided prior to the completion of decommissioning activities. In its comments, Illinois made certain assertions, including representations as to the Staff position on this issue, which, in some respects, are at odds with UDG's understanding of the proposed rule. We have been advised by the Staff that additional comments on this issue would be welcome.

        .!/ UDG consists of fourteen power reactor licensees.                 In addition to the thirteen licensees identified in previous comments, Florida Power & Light Company is now a member of the Group. UDG submitted comments on the proposed rule on May 13, 1985, the original deadline for comments. After the deadline was subsequently extended to July 12, 1985, UDG filed further comments on that date, providing more recent decommissioning cost data and responding to certain comments filed by other parties.

J-594

I. LEVEL OF DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING In our previous comments, UDG emphasized that the Commission should not specify any particular level of funding as generally adequate to cover decommissioning costs. In particular, UDG criticized the statement in the preamble to the proposed regulations that the specified $100 million figure for power reactors represents "sufficient funds to cover decommissioning costs for most" plants. 50 Fed. Reg. 5606, col. 3. One reason for UDG's objection was that such specified amounts may be misused in ratemaking proceedings as establishing a ceiling on the level of decommissioning costs. such a result would be counter to the Commission's desire for financial assurance. In at least one pending rate case, the amount specified in the proposed rule has already been misused in this fashion by intervenors. We append to these comments the relevant portions of the motion to intervene and protest by certain municipal customers of Connecticut Light & Power Company, in which they argue (at page 28) that the Company's rate request should be rejected on the ground that, inter alia, the decommissioning allowance would "exceed th~O iiiiTiion per unit allowance suggested by the Nuclear D. 2. , c(l._) Regulatory Commission's pending rulemaking . . * . " UDG again urges the Commission to make clear that the level of decommissioning funding is to be based on plant-specific cost estimates and that no generic cost estimate should be considered adequate for a particular plant. Recent preliminary cost studies (dated October 1985) for three multi-unit sites again show the inadequacy of the $100 million figure. These studies are in addition to cost studies described in UDG's previous comments (because the studies have not yet been filed with the ratemaking authorities, the identity of the plants is not given): Approximate Estimated Reactor Number of Decommissioning Location T:t:Ee ca2acit:t: Units Costs (1985 Dollars) Southeast PWR 860 MW 3 $400 million (for site) Southeast PWR 1180 MW 2 $300 million (for site) Southeast PWR 1145 MW 2 $350 million ( for site) J-595

II. FUNDING METHOD DURING PERIOD OF STORAGE OR SURVEILLANCE A. Background and Summary Under the Commission's proposed regulations, multi-asset utilities would be permitted to use an internal funding method for providing the costs of decommissioning. Proposed 10 C.F.R. S50.33(k)(4)(iv). However, in that part of the proposed regulations relating to license terminatton, proposed 10 C.F.R. S50.82(c), the Commission would provide as follows (emphasis added): (c) Decommissioning plans which propose an alternative that delays completion of decommissioning by including a period of storage or long-term surveillance must provide that - (1) Funds needed to complete decommissioning be placed into an account segregated from licensee assets and outside the licensee's administrative control during the storage or surveillance period, or a surety method or fund certification be maintained in accorclance with the criteria of S50.33(k) . UDG had interpreted this provision to mean that where a multi-asset utility commences SAFSTOR and continues as an on-going multi-asset utility during the SAFSTOR period, the utility may continue to use an internal funding mechanism, provided it maintains with the Commission a certification such as that contemplated by proposed Section 50.33(k)(l) that adequate financing is being provided. See UDG Comments, filed May 13, 1985, at 19-20. ~ In its comments the State of Illinois argues that an electric utility licensee should be required to assign all monies collected for decommissioning over the operating life of the plant to an external account once the plant ceases to operate if a period of storage or long-term surveillance will be used as part of the decommissioning plan. Illinois Comments at 4-6. Illinois also urges the Commission to require such external funding whenever the decommissioning activities will take longer than one year to complete. Id. at 6. In connection with this position, Illinois states that the use of a "fund certification" under proposed Section 50.82(c)(l) is meant to be restricted .to J-596

icensees that provide certification under proposed 3(k)(3)(iv) that they will serve as guarantor of ing funds. With such a restriction, investor-owned lities would be required to convert to*an external od whenever a storage or surveillance period will be d could not continue to use internal funding with a n under proposed 10 C.F.R. S50.33(k). Nothing in the the proposed regulations or the statement of Jnit ns is cited as support for such a restriction. a inois claims that "[d)iscussions with the NRC staff" ed that the use of a fund certification under Section to be limited to government licensees. he eves that Illinois' position goes too far. There is g rationale requiring a convezsion from internal f*ne. xternal funding by a multi-asset utility whenever a ~he orage or surveillance will be provided. Instead, the flity hould provide for periodic review of financial ~ of a case-by-case basis before and during the storage of termine whether continued use of internal funding is ed hat ity B. Discussion 1).3.~ nee all re Is No Rational Basis For Requiring ite. version From Internal Funding to ernal Funding By Multi-Asset Utilities never A Storage Period Will Be Provided D.3.y ng puts forth essentially three reasons for requiring re , convert to external funding in the event ,ing will be delayed by even a short period of storage .nee. First, Illinois argues that if a portion of ling costs has to be collected after the plant ceases ter a ratepayer equity problem arises in that the e rho would be required to pay this portion of ting costs may not have benefited from the power ~ its , the plant. Illinois Comments at 5. Second, ttes that "if a prepaid external fund is not required,

ould be a conflict between the need for funds to generating capacity being decommissioned and the need

,sioning funds." Illinois Comments at 6. Third, 1ues generally that internal funding is riskier and

ostly than external funding.

1' first point -- the ratepayer equity argument is ton sequitur. The question of ratepayer equity is a

oncern and has nothing to do with financial J-597

other units or purchase power from other utilities. Therefore, the shutting down of a generating facility does not in and of itself have any adverse impact on a utility's ov~rall revenues and rate of return. In short, the utility remains an equally secure institution after one of its generating facilities is taken out of service and decommissioned. Finally, it is simply irrational to require utilities to make an immediate conversion from internal to external funding at the end of plant operation. By requiring utilities to convert a substantial amount of assets to liquid capital over a short period of time, such a provision could itself strain licensee resources and financial markets and adversely affect the financial position of the utility. Such a requirement could also bias utilities against alternatives such as SAFSTOR which may be the most environmentally safe option in terms of radiation i exposure.  ! I

3. The Continued Use of Internal Funding Can Be Reviewed on a Case-By-Case Basis, and conversion p.3.Y To External Funding Can Be Ordered When Necessary As we have shown, there is no rational basis for requiring an Lmmediate conversion to external funding whenever a storage

>eriod will be used. However, we recognize that there may be

ome concern with the continued use of an internal fund where lecommissioning may be delayed for an indefinite period of time.

'.he financial stability of any institution cannot be guaranteed ndefinitely. Nevertheless, such uncertainties apply equally to

*xternal and internal accounts. The funds in external accounts 1ust be invested somewhere, and it is likely the utilities will emain as secure an institution in the long term as other nvestment opportunities.

We recommend that the Commission address each case on an ndividual basis to determine whether a conversion to external unding is warranted. The Commission may require utilities that lan to use SAFSTOR in conjunction with internal funding to ubmit, as part of the decommissioning plan under proposed ection 50.82, appropriate documentation as to their financial osture. In addition, the Commission can establish a mechanism or periodic review of financial assurance during the storage eriod. Cf. Proposed Section 50.82(c)(2)(requiring means for

 ~justing~ost estimates and funding levels during storage eriod). If it appears that internal funding no longer provides
 ~equate assurance, the Commission may then require a conversion
 , external funding. The utility, however, should be permitted
 , make the conversion on a schedule consistent with its oth~r J-600

4 n i. n n

!lo

                                     '0   financial obligations and market conditions. An immediate conversion during a period of high interest rates may result in C   excessive financing costs.

IE I II, CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the proposed rule should be i). 3 -~ clarified (1) to indicate that where a multi-asset utility commences a program of decommissioning, such as SAFSTOR, that iai.:ludes a period of storage or long-term surveillance, and the utility continues as an on-going multi-asset utility during this period, it is not required to convert to the use of an external funding mechanism; and (2) to establish a me hanism for case-by-case review to determine whether the use f n internal reserve C will continue to provide reasonable fundi g t i Attachment J-601}}