SECY-23-0062, Enclosure 2 - Proposed Rule Regulatory Analysis for Decommissioning Financial Assurance for Sealed and Unsealed Radioactive Materials

SECY-23-0062: Enclosure 2 - Proposed Rule Regulatory Analysis for Decommissioning Financial Assurance for Sealed and Unsealed Radioactive Materials

ML23012A024
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/24/2023
From:	NRC/SECY
To:
Shared Package
ML23010A137	List: SECY-23-0062, Enclosure 2 - Proposed Rule Regulatory Analysis for Decommissioning Financial Assurance for Sealed and Unsealed Radioactive Materials
References
NRC-2017-0031, RIN 3150-AK52
Download: ML23012A024 (64)

Text

Draft Regulatory Analysis for Decommissioning Financial Assurance for Sealed and Unsealed Radioactive Materials Proposed Rule NRC Docket ID NRC-2017-0031 / RIN Number 3150-AK52 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Enter date when ready to issue, 2023

[Page intentionally left blank.]

ABSTRACT This document presents a regulatory analysis of the proposed rule, Decommissioning Financial Assurance for Sealed and Unsealed Radioactive Materials. The rulemaking would amend the table in Appendix B to Part 30, which is used by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) when assessing decommissioning funding requirements for radioactive material, based on the relative risk to public health and safety. The potentially affected licensees are those authorized to possess byproduct and special nuclear material.

iii

[Page intentionally left blank.]

iv

Contents ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................. vii LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................. vii EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

..................................................................................................................... ix

1.0 INTRODUCTION

........................................................................................................................ 1

2.0 BACKGROUND

, STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, AND OBJECTIVE ................................. 1 2.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1 2.2 Statement of the Problem .......................................................................................... 4 2.3 Objectives .................................................................................................................. 5 3 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES ......................................................... 5 4 EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS .............................................................................. 7 4.1 Identification of Affected Attributes ............................................................................. 7 4.2 Analytical Methodology .............................................................................................. 8 4.2.1 Regulatory Baseline ....................................................................................... 8 4.2.2 Affected Entities ............................................................................................. 8 4.2.3 Base Year ...................................................................................................... 9 4.2.4 Discount Rates .............................................................................................. 9 4.2.5 Cost/Benefit Inflators ................................................................................... 10 4.2.6 Labor Rates ................................................................................................. 10 4.2.7 Sign Conventions ......................................................................................... 11 4.2.8 Analysis Horizon .......................................................................................... 11 4.2.9 Cost Estimation ............................................................................................ 11 4.3 Data.......................................................................................................................... 12 5 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................. 13 5.1 Cost Impact Considerations ..................................................................................... 13 5.2 NRC Implementation ................................................................................................ 13 5.3 NRC Operation......................................................................................................... 13 5.4 Industry Operations .................................................................................................. 13 5.5 Agreement State Operation ..................................................................................... 15 5.6 Totals ....................................................................................................................... 15 5.7 Uncertainty Analysis................................................................................................. 16 5.7.1 Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions ............................................................... 16 5.7.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results ....................................................................... 16 5.7.3 Sensitivity Analysis ...................................................................................... 17 5.8 Safety Goal Evaluation............................................................................................. 19 5.9 Disaggregation ......................................................................................................... 19 v

5.10 Summary .................................................................................................................. 19 5.10.1 Quantified Net Benefit................................................................................ 20 5.10.2 Unquantified Benefits ................................................................................. 20 5.10.3 Regulatory Efficiency ................................................................................. 20 5.10.4 Increased Public Confidence ..................................................................... 20 6 DECISION RATIONALE ........................................................................................................... 21 7 INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS.................................................................. 22 7.1 Defining Small Entities Affected by the Rule ......................................................... 23 7.2 Measuring Significant Impacts ............................................................................... 24 7.3 Steps Taken to Mitigate Economic Impacts on Small Entities ................................. 24 8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF REGULATION .......................................................................... 24 9 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................. 24 10 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 24 Appendix A Summary and Tables of Costs for Each Alternative by NRC, Agreement States, and Industry .............................................................................................................................. 1 Appendix B Analysis Input Variables.......................................................................................... 1 Appendix C Quantities of Licensed Material Used to Assess Financial Assurance for Decommissioning (Proposed Updated Table) ....................................................................... 1 Appendix D Position Titles and Occupations ............................................................................ 1 Appendix E Labor Categories Rates Converted to 2023 Dollars ............................................. 1 vi

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Total Net Benefit (7-Percent NPV) ........................................................................ 17 Figure 2 Key Variables Whose Uncertainty Drives the Largest Impact on Costs (7-Percent Net Present Value) ............................................................................................... 18 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 Total Benefits (Costs) of Proposed Rule................................................................. x Table 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative 2 .................................................... 6 Table 3 Impacted Licensees .............................................................................................. 14 Table 4 Total Net Costs and Benefits ................................................................................ 15 Table 5 Uncertainty Results Descriptive Statistics7-Percent NPV ................................. 17 Table 6 Disaggregation ...................................................................................................... 19 Table 7 Summary of Totals ................................................................................................ 21 Table A-1 NRC Implementation Costs ................................................................................ A-1 Table A-2 NRC Costs (Review of Licensees Submittal of Modified DFP/DFA) .................. A-1 Table A-3 NRC Averted Costs (Reviewing Licensee Submittal) ......................................... A-2 Table A-4 Industry Averted Costs (Licensees No Longer Required to Submit Exemption Requests) ............................................................................. A-3 Table A-5 Licensees Required to Revise Decommissioning Funding Plans or Financial Assurance FundingIndustry ............................................................. A-4 Table A-6 Licensees Decreasing Decommissioning Funding Plans or Financial Assurance FundingIndustry ............................................................ A-4 Table A-7 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Cost of Bank Servicing the InstrumentSurety Bond) SavingsIndustry .................................................... A-4 Table A-8 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing the Instrument Surety Bond)Industry....................................................................................... A-5 Table A-9 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing the Letter of Credit) SavingsIndustry ................................................................................... A-6 Table A-10 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Servicing the Letter of Credit) CostIndustry ....................................................................................... A-7 Table A-11 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing the Trust Agreement)

SavingsIndustry ............................................................................................... A-8 Table A-12 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing the Trust Agreement)

CostIndustry .................................................................................................... A-9 Table A-13 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Maintaining the Statement of Intent)

CostIndustry .................................................................................................. A-10 Table A-14 Agreement States Implementation Cost to Complete Rulemakings to Incorporate Compatible Regulations ...................... A-10 Table A-15 Agreement States Averted Costs (Reviewing Exemption Requests Submittal) ..................................................... A-11 Table A-16 Agreement States Review of Licensees New or Revised Decommissioning Funding Plans or Financial Assurance Funding .... A-11 vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AEA Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended ALI annual limit on intake BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPI-U Consumer price index for all urban consumers DAC derived air concentration DFA decommissioning financial assurance DFP decommissioning funding plan EPAct Energy Policy Act of 2005 FA financial assurance FR Federal Register ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection Ci microcurie mCi millicurie NARM naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material NPV net present value NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission OEWS Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics OMB U.S. Office of Management and Budget PERT program evaluation and review technique RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act SECY Office of the Secretary of the Commission SOC Standard Occupational Classification SRM staff requirements memorandum WBL Web-based licensing viii

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations for decommissioning financial assurance (DFA) for sealed and unsealed radioactive materials. The NRC would revise the current table in Appendix B to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 30, Rules of General Applicability to Domestic Licensing of Byproduct Material, using the radionuclides and quantities from Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20, Standards of Protection Against Radiation. The changes would add radionuclides not currently named in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30. These include radionuclides associated with industrial technologies and current and emerging medical uses. In addition, the NRC would remove all radionuclides with a half-life of 120 days or less from the appendix since these radionuclides are not considered when developing DFA. The default values would be set to equal the lowest values of the listed radionuclides: 0.001 Ci (microcurie) for alpha-emitting radionuclides (e.g., U-235) and 0.01 Ci for the most restricted non-alpha-emitting radionuclides (e.g., Pb-210). These changes provide an updated table for use when calculating DFA in accordance with 10 CFR 30.35(d) and 70.25(d) of 10 CFR Part 70, Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material. In addition, the title of the table in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 would be changed to Quantities of Licensed Material Used to Assess Financial Assurance for Decommissioning to reflect its current use for DFA as opposed to labeling. These changes would result in an up-to-date table with more risk-informed values for use by licensees, the NRC, and the Agreement States when assessing DFA.

This rulemaking would revise NRCs decommissioning funding requirements for radioactive material based on the relative risk to public health and safety from different radioisotopes, including naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM). The potentially affected licensees are those authorized to possess byproduct and special nuclear material. The NRCs goals in amending these regulations are to support the principles of good regulation, including openness, clarity, and reliability.

Costs and Benefits This regulatory analysis measures the incremental costs of the proposed rule relative to a baseline that reflects anticipated behavior if the NRC undertakes no additional regulatory action (Alternative 1, the no action alternative). The analysis quantifies the costs and benefits to the NRC, industry, and Agreement States for implementation and operations, as summarized in Table ES-1. The implementation cost captures the industry startup cost and the NRC rulemaking cost. The Agreement States are required to adopt NRCs regulations in order to remain compatible with the NRCs program. The operations cost captures the reporting and recordkeeping costs incurred during the first reporting period after rule promulgation. The analysis quantifies benefits and costs associated with the requirements for financial reporting and recordkeeping accrued to those licensees that relied on bond ratings issued by credit rating agencies for their financial guarantee.

The analysis resulted in the following key findings:

• Costs and Benefits to the NRC. The rule would result in estimated incremental NRC implementation costs of ($236,000). The rule would also result in NRC one-time costs of ($63,000) for review of licensees new or revised decommissioning funding plans or financial assurance funding. Also present are NRC averted costs for not performing ix

eliminated reviews of $97,000. This results in net costs to the NRC of approximately

($202,000) using a 7-percent net present value (NPV).

• Costs and Benefits to the Industry. The rule would result in estimated incremental industry implementation and operations net averted costs of approximately $993,000 using a 7-percent net present value (NPV). This is comprised of industry costs of

($1,388,000), industry averted costs of $406,000, and industry benefits from the ability to select different financial assurance mechanisms of $1,975,000.

• Costs and Benefits to the Agreement States. The rule would result in estimated incremental implementation and operations net averted costs to the Agreement States of approximately $22,000. This is comprised of Agreement States implementation costs to complete rulemaking to incorporate compatible regulations of ($134,000) using a 7-percent NPV. Also present is a net averted cost of $484,000 using a 7-percent NPV for not having to review exemption request submittals. In addition, there is a cost of

($596,000) using a 7-percent NPV for review of new or revised decommissioning funding plans or financial assurance funding.

• Total Costs and Benefits. The rule would result in total net averted costs of approximately

$813,000 using a 7-percent NPV, making the overall proposed rule cost beneficial.

Table ES-1 Total Benefits (Costs) of Proposed Rule Net Benefits (Costs) in 2023 Dollars DESCRIPTION Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Alternative 1 - Status Quo (No Action Taken) $0 $0 $0 Alternative 2 - Update the List of Radionuclides and the Values in Appendix B to Part 30 Table (NRC Selected)

($250,000) ($236,000) ($244,000)

NRC Implementation

($114,000) ($63,000) ($87,000)

Alternative 2 NRC Cost

$176,000 $97,000 $133,000 Alternative 2 NRC Averted Cost

($188,000) ($202,000) ($198,000)

NRC Total

($1,698,000) ($1,388,000) ($1,554,000)

Alternative 2 Industry Cost

$568,000 $406,000 $485,000 Alternative 2 Industry Averted Cost

$3,580,000 $1,975,000 $2,729,000 Alternative 2 - Industry Financial Assurity Mechanisms Averted Costs Industry Total $2,450,000 $993,000 $1,660,000 Alternative 2 Agreement States Cost ($729,000) ($596,000) ($667,000)

Alternative 2 Agreement States Averted Cost $1,038,000 $618,000 $816,000 Agreement States Total $309,000 $22,000 $149,000 Alternative 2 Total Net Benefits (Cost) $2,571,000 $813,000 $1,611,000 x

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations for decommissioning financial assurance for sealed and unsealed radioactive materials. The rulemaking would revise NRCs decommissioning funding requirements for radioactive material based on the relative risk to public health and safety from different radioisotopes, including naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material (NARM). The potentially affected licensees are those authorized to possess byproduct and special nuclear material.

2.0 BACKGROUND

, STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM, AND OBJECTIVE

2.1 Background

Decommissioning financial assurance (DFA) is a guarantee or other financial arrangement provided by a licensee to ensure that funds are available for decommissioning when needed (see NUREG-1757, Volume 3, Revision 1, Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance: Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness, Final Report, issued February 2012). DFA requirements ensure that adequate funds are available to complete the decommissioning of licensed nuclear facilities in a safe and timely manner. The NRCs overall objective with respect to decommissioning is to protect public health and safety and the environment from the use of radioactive materials under its regulatory authority.

On June 27, 1988, the NRC published in the Federal Register (FR) its first comprehensive set of regulations addressing the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, Final Rule: General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities (53 FR 24018). These regulations were the result of a thorough review over multiple years of issues associated with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities as described in numerous Office of the Secretary of the Commission (SECY) papers and staff requirements memoranda (SRM), contractor reports, Federal Register notices, a generic environmental impact statement, public meetings, and comment analysis. The purpose of the rule was to assure that, at the time operations were 1

terminated (including premature closure of nuclear facilities), adequate funds would be available to complete decommissioning in a safe and timely manner. The regulations addressed decommissioning planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements. Regarding DFA for sealed and unsealed radioactive material, the new 10 CFR 30.35 required licensees that possessed and used byproduct material with a half-life greater than 120 days to use the quantities in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20 to determine 2F whether a decommissioning funding plan (DFP) was needed. The regulation in 10 CFR 70.25 required licensees that possessed and used unsealed special nuclear material to refer to the quantities in Appendix C to determine whether a DFP was needed.

The statements of consideration for the proposed rule did not provide a specific rationale for the 120-day threshold. Rather, the section entitled Mechanisms for Requiring Financial Assurance, stated, [t]he amounts (of financial assurance) for materials licensees were chosen based primarily on data in NUREG/CR-1754 and on licensing experience. The data in NUREG/CR1754, Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning Reference Non-Fuel-Cycle Nuclear Facilities, issued February 1981 in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML20008E869, indicated that if a licensee is 1

limited to the use of very short-lived radionuclides, then its facilities do not require a major decommissioning effort.

The greater than 120-day half-life criterion is consistent with the agencys regulation of low-level waste disposal through onsite decay-in-storage. The NRC previously had two decay-in-storage license conditions: one was for medical licensees and the other for nonmedical licensees. Both license conditions authorized decay-in-storage for waste containing radioactive material with half-lives less than or equal to 120 days, provided that the radioactive material was held for a minimum of 10 half-lives and additional conditions were met. 4F Thus, the statements of consideration for the proposed rule, the data in NUREG/CR-1754, and the NRCs licensing experience with decay-in-storage support the 120-day half-life criterion for DFA for byproduct material. The data in NUREG/CR-1754 and the NRCs licensing experience indicate that (1) radioactive materials with very short half-lives do not require a major decommissioning effort, and (2) radioactive materials with half-lives less than or equal to 120 days will decay away in a few years.

The amount of DFA for a given radionuclide with a half-life greater than 120 days is determined by comparing the licensees authorized radionuclide quantities against the criteria provided in the table in 10 CFR 30.35(d) for byproduct material and 10 CFR 70.25(d) for special nuclear material. These tables, which are identical, require specific amounts of funding for a specified range of the quantities of radionuclides possessed. In cases where the quantities exceed 1x105 times the applicable quantities set forth in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 for unsealed radioactive material and 1x1012 times the applicable quantities set forth in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 for sealed radioactive material the regulations in 10 CFR 30.35(a) and 10 CFR 70.25(a), the licensee is required to submit a license-specific DFP.

On May 21, 1991, the NRC published the Final Rule: Standards for Protection Against Radiation (56 FR 23360, May 1991). The purpose of the rule was to modify the NRCs primary radiation protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 to reflect scientific developments since their issuance in 1957 (22 FR 548; January 29, 1957) by the Atomic Energy Commission (the NRCs predecessor agency) and subsequent amendments in the 1960s and 1970s (25 FR 8595, September 7, 1960; 25 FR 10914, November 17, 1960; and 35 FR 6425, April 22, 1970). These earlier versions of 10 CFR Part 20 were based upon the recommendations of the National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements in National Bureau of Standards Handbook 52, Maximum Permissible Amounts of Radioisotopes in the Human Body and Maximum Permissible Concentrations in Air and Water, dated March 20, 1953, and Handbook 59, Permissible Dose from External Sources of Ionizing Radiation, dated January 8, 1957, that were incorporated into International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) Publication 2, Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959), issued 1960. After years of research into the biological effects of ionizing radiation, it was determined that some of the early concepts of radiation protection created unnecessary conservatisms in the regulation of radioactive material. The 1991 amendments to 10 CFR Part 20 adopted the updated and more risk-informed basic tenets of radiation protection in ICRP Publication 26, Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, adopted January 17, 1977, and ICRP Publication 30, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, issued 1979-1988. 3F 2

On December 22, 1993 (58 FR 67659), the NRC published a final rule, Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Removal of Expired Material. The rule made several minor conforming amendments to the NRCs standards for protection against radiation that were published on May 21, 1991 (56 FR 23360). It removed the text of the superseded standards and conformed references in the new 10 CFR Part 20. Regarding DFA, the NRC redesignated Appendix C to 10 CFR 20.1-20.601 as Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30. In turn, it revised 10 CFR 30.35 and 10 CFR 70.25 to eliminate references to Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20 and to insert references to Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30.

As a result, the Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 values continued to be based upon ICRP Publication 2. The NRC decided not to conform the Appendix B values to ICRP Publications 26 and 30 during the 1991 revision of 10 CFR Part 20. The NRC determined that its experience with the values in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20 over 30 years had shown that the values were generally adequate to determine the level of funding assurance required for decommissioning and, therefore, retained them.

On August 8, 2005, the President signed into law the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct).

Section 651(e) of the EPAct expanded the definition of byproduct material given in Section 11e of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA). The expanded definition placed additional byproduct material under the NRCs jurisdiction and required the Commission to provide a regulatory framework for licensing and regulating this additional byproduct material. Specifically, Section 651(e) of the EPAct expanded the definition of byproduct material to include any discrete source of radium-226 that is produced for a commercial, medical, or research activity, and any naturally radioactive material other than source material that the NRC determines would pose a threat similar to the threat posed by radium-226 to the public health and safety or common defense and security; and is extracted or converted after extraction before, on, or after August 8, 2005 and accelerator-produced radioactive material. This new category of byproduct material is referred to as naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material.

On October 1, 2007, the NRC published in the Federal Register the Final Rule: Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material (72 FR 55863; October 2007), which is commonly referred to as the NARM Rule. The purpose of the final rule was to implement the authority that the NRC obtained over NARM through the EPAct. Before enactment of that law, the NRC did not regulate NARM. However, the NRCs definition of occupational dose in 10 CFR Part 20 did include dose contributions from both licensed and nonlicensed radioactive material such as NARM. In addition, the NRC required licensees to consider nondiscrete sources, including radium, during decommissioning activities at sites such as rare-earth processing facilities that were contaminated with source material.

Before the EPAct, Agreement States and some non-Agreement States had regulatory programs for NARM. The law mandated that the NRC use model State standards to the maximum extent practicable. Thus, the NRC considered the suggested State regulations for control of radiation published by Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc., as the model State standard in developing the rule and ensured that all of the NARM radionuclide specific values were listed in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 20, Annual Limits on Intake (ALI) and Derived Air Concentrations (DAC) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations; Concentrations for Release to Sewerage, and Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20. However, the NRC did not amend Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30, which is used in DFA determinations, to include NARM radionuclides.

3

As previously stated, the NRCs regulations in 10 CFR 30.35 and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 are used together to determine the amount of DFA required for unsealed and sealed byproduct material. The regulations in 10 CFR 70.25 and Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 are used together to determine the amount of DFA required for unsealed special nuclear material. As noted in 10 CFR 30.35(a)(1) and 10 CFR 70.25(a)(2), DFPs must be submitted when the amount of unsealed radionuclide exceeds 1x105 times the applicable quantities listed in the table in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30. Individuals with licenses authorizing the possession and use of sealed sources or plated foils at quantities 1x1012 times the values in the table in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 must also submit DFPs. The NRC gives additional details about these criteria in 10 CFR 30.35(d) and 10 CFR 70.25(d).

The table in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 includes default possession values for radionuclides not specifically listed. The default possession values are equal to the lowest values listed in Appendix B for specific alpha-emitting and gamma- and beta-emitting radionuclides.

The Regulatory Basis for this rulemaking was published in April 2022 (ML21235A480) and contains more background information pertinent to the proposed rule (NRC, 2022).

2.2 Statement of the Problem This section examines the regulatory concerns that are to be addressed as a part of this rulemaking to provide specific possession values for existing NARM radionuclides and other radionuclides that are not currently listed in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 for DFA requirements for sealed and unsealed byproduct material.

The NRC is taking this action in response to a petition for rulemaking (PRM-30-66) submitted by the Organization of Agreement States on April 14, 2017, requesting that the NRC provide specific possession values for NARM radionuclides not currently listed in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30. See the Commission disposition on the PRM on November 27, 2020 (85 FR 75959).

The current values in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 are not aligned with the NRCs primary radiation protection regulations in 10 CFR Part 20 and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct),

which amended the definition of byproduct material to include NARM radionuclides and granted NRC authority over this new category of byproduct material. The current table does not include the additional NARM radionuclides and their possession values. In addition, the current list of radionuclides and quantities in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 were not developed to determine decommissioning funding costs. Rather, the values were initially derived from exceptions to labeling requirements such that certain small quantities of byproduct material could be released into the sanitary sewerage or buried in soil for disposal. In addition, the default values are based upon the radiation protection principles in ICRP Publication 2 (1959). The values in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20 are based upon these more risk-informed principles found in ICRP recommendations (ICRP Publication 26) and methodologies (ICRP Publication 30).

The current NRC regulations in 10 CFR 30.35 and 10 CFR 70.25 document the criteria for determining the amount of DFA required by licensees. DFA considerations only apply for radionuclides with a half-life greater than 120 days. However, the table in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30, which is used for calculating DFA costs, includes radionuclides with a half-life of 120 days or less. The disconnect between the criteria in 10 CFR 30.35 and the list of radionuclides in the table in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 can lead to confusion about which radionuclides need to be considered when determining DFA requirements.

4

2.3 Objectives The objectives of this rulemaking are to:

• improve the regulatory framework by adding radionuclides not currently listed in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30, including radionuclides associated with industrial technologies and current and emerging medical uses, to avoid the overly restrictive use of default values;

• base the NRCs decommissioning funding requirements for radioactive material on the cost of disposal and relative risk to public health and safety from different radioisotopes by replacing the current radionuclide values in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30, which are based on ICRP Publication 2, with more risk-informed values established in ICRP Publications 26 and 30;

• provide specific possession values for radionuclides not currently listed in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30, so that licensees using those radionuclides would not have to apply the default values to calculate decommissioning funding requirements,

• clarify that only radioactive materials with half-lives greater than 120 days are subject to DFA, and

• clarify the purpose of Appendix B by changing its title to reflect its current use for DFA.

Rulemaking would provide a regulatory solution to address issues currently regulated using case-by-case exemptions, a temporary process approved in advance of pending rulemaking to generically solve the issue. If the NRC does not complete the rulemaking process, many licensees, especially medical licensees, would require case-by-case reviews. The potentially affected licensees are those authorized to possess radioactive material licenses. In addition, since many of these unlisted radionuclides used in the medical field would remain unlisted if the NRC does not pursue this rulemaking, many users of these unlisted isotopes are likely to submit numerous requests for exemptions to the DFA requirements or submit site-specific DFPs.

3 IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES The NRC considered the following two approaches to address the regulatory problem identified in Section 2.21:

• Alternative 1: Take No Action The status quo considers no changes to the current process for assessing a licensees DFA requirements. The status quo is the baseline from which the staff evaluated the four other alternatives.

1 In the regulatory basis, the NRC analyzed five alternatives of which three are not included in this regulatory analysis as the costs involved in those alternatives were prohibitive.

5

• Alternative 2: RulemakingUpdate the List of Radionuclides and the Values in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 Table (NRC Selected)

The NRC would revise the current table in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 using the radionuclides and quantities from Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20, including additional radionuclides not currently named in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30. These include radionuclides associated with industrial technologies and current and emerging medical uses. In addition, the NRC would remove all radionuclides with a half-life of 120 days or less from the appendix since these radionuclides are not considered when developing DFA. Finally, the default values would be set to equal the lowest values of the listed radionuclides: 0.001 Ci for alpha emitting radionuclides like U-235, and 0.01 Ci for the most restricted nonalpha emitting radionuclides (e.g., Pb-210). By making these changes, licensees, the NRC staff, and the Agreement States would have an up-to-date table with more risk informed values for use when assessing DFA. Appendix C to this document contains an updated version of the table.

Actions associated with this alternative do not affect the current decommissioning funding costs outlined in 10 CFR 30.35(d) but do change the funding thresholds for some radionuclides.

Based on the current cost criteria, changes to the table would decrease costs associated with 18 radionuclides but would increase costs for others, especially alpha emitters.

Table 1 lists the advantages and disadvantages considered by the NRC for this alternative.

Table 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative 2 Advantages

• satisfies the petitioners request and Commission direction through a simple approach

• provides a more up-to-date and risk-informed table (ICRP 26/30 vs. ICRP 2)

• adds to the table specific radionuclides associated with industrial technologies and current and emerging medical uses (e.g., germanium-68, sodium-22, silicon-32, titanium-44, cobalt-57, and lutetium-177 (metastable))

• removes over 130 radionuclides with a half-life <120 days, as these short-lived radionuclides do not necessitate decommissioning costs

• increases the Appendix B values for about 18 radionuclides, thus potentially decreasing the amount of financial assurance for decommissioning, thus lowering the expected costs Disadvantages

• is not site specific or scenario specific

• decreases the Appendix B values for several alpha-emitting isotopes and Cd-109, thus potentially increasing the amount of financial assurance for decommissioning (see Table 3)

• includes the cost of rulemaking for NRC and Agreement States 6

4 EVALUATION OF BENEFITS AND COSTS This section examines the benefits and costs estimated to result from this rulemaking when compared to Alternative 1 (No Action alternative). Section 4.1 identifies attributes expected to be affected by the rulemaking. Section 4.2 describes how the NRC staff analyzed benefits and costs.

4.1 Identification of Affected Attributes This section identifies the factors within the public and private sectors that the regulatory alternatives discussed in Section 2 are expected to affect. These factors are classified as attributes using the list of potential attributes provided in Chapter 5 of NUREG/BR-0058. Each of the following attributes is quantified when possible and an uncertainty analysis is performed to report benefit and cost estimate confidence levels and to identify those variables that most affect the variation in the results distribution:

NRC Implementation. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the NRC if the rule is implemented. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on the NRC to prepare and publish the final rule. It includes NRC implementation costs.

NRC Operation. This attribute measures the projected net economic effect on the NRC after the proposed action is implemented. DFP and DFA activities would be examples of such costs.

Costs in this category generally fall over time (the licensing term). These costs are particularly sensitive to the discount factor used. For example, costs related to the NRCs review of licensee exemption requests would no longer be considered.

Industry Operation. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on industry entities caused by routine and recurring activities required by the proposed regulation changes.

Activities currently performed but would no longer be required if the alternative is implemented are treated as averted costs. For example, licensees would no longer submit exemption requests for medical licensees that use Ge-68/Ga-68 generators under certain conditions.

Other Government (Agreement States) Operation. This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect on Agreement States entities caused by routine and recurring activities required by the proposed guidance or regulation changes. This includes the development of corresponding regulations. Activities currently performed but would no longer be required if the alternative is implemented are treated as averted costs. For example, Agreement States completing rulemakings to incorporate compatible regulations.

Regulatory Efficiency. This attribute attempts to measure regulatory and compliance improvements resulting from the proposed action (e.g., removing decommissioning barriers to licensing current and emerging medical and industrial technologies that use radionuclides not listed in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30). Efficiency actions are quantifiable and addressed under other attributes. For example, the results in the updated table of values for radioisotopes include naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material, which are based on more up-to-date and risk-informed principles.

Increased Public Confidence. This attribute attempts to measure the change in public confidence in the NRCs ability to improve its regulations, adapt to regulatory needs identified by stakeholders, and maintain the NRCs role as an effective industry regulator. This attribute is qualitative.

7

Attributes that are not expected to be affected under either of the alternatives include public health (accident), public health (routine), occupational health (accident), occupational health (routine), offsite property, onsite property, industry implementation, other government, general public, improvements in knowledge, safeguards and security considerations, and environmental considerations. By choosing rulemaking, the NRC would promote openness and transparency to the public, licensees, Agreement States (included under other government) and other stakeholders; provide for the opportunity for public comment on the proposed rule; and avoid the risk of unintended impacts to important and safe medical, academic, and industrial uses of these materials.

4.2 Analytical Methodology This section describes the process used to evaluate benefits and costs associated with the recommended alternative. The benefits include any desirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary savings) while the costs include any undesirable changes in affected attributes (e.g., monetary costs, increased reviews).

Of the affected attributes discussed in Section 5, the following attributes could be evaluated on a quantitative basisindustry operation, NRC implementation, and NRC and Agreement States operations. Quantitative analysis requires a baseline characterization of the affected universe including the characterization of factors such as the number of affected entities, the nature of the activities being conducted, and procedures that licensees implement or no longer implement for the alternative being considered. The NRC used the program evaluation and review technique (PERT), triangular distributions, and uniform distributions to evaluate the uncertainty around the variables. PERT and triangular distributions involve assigning a Low Estimate, a High Estimate, and a Most Likely Estimate to each variable. Other costs were estimated using a uniform distribution which involves assigning a Low Estimate and a High Estimate. Appendix A includes the detailed cost tables that the NRC used in this regulatory analysis. The NRC evaluated the remaining attributes on a qualitative basis because the benefits are not quantifiable and the data necessary to quantify and monetize the impacts are not available.

4.2.1 Regulatory Baseline This regulatory analysis measures the incremental impacts of the rulemaking alternative relative to a baseline that reflects the anticipated behavior if the NRC undertakes no other regulatory action (Alternative 1: No Action alternative). As part of the regulatory baseline used in this analysis, the NRC staff assumes licensee compliance with existing NRC regulations. Section 5 presents the estimated incremental costs and benefits of the rule relative to the regulatory baseline. Licensees required to increase or decrease their financial assurance mechanism values (number of licensees) are counted to ensure that incremental costs and benefits are estimated. Section 5 of this regulatory analysis also presents the estimated costs and benefits of the alternatives relative to this baseline.

4.2.2 Affected Entities Licensees could be impacted by overly conservative DFA requirements during the development of the rule. As a result, the NRC developed interim guidance for staff to disposition potential exemption requests for DFA requirements for Ge-68/Ga-68 generators under specific conditions 8

for each licensee. Several NRC licensees requested and were granted these exemptions using this temporary process. While the exemptions that were granted by the NRC did not specific an end date for the exemptions, it did impose certain requirements for the exemptions to be effective. Should the rulemaking be completed, the NRC expects that exemptions similar to ones previously granted would not be necessary and licensees with exemptions may cease to rely on the exemptions as granted.

To simplify the cost model while still fully analyzing the new Part 30 proposed rule language, this regulatory analysis considers increasing or decreasing DFA values and increasing or decreasing financial assurance instruments. This rulemaking assumes that Part 70 licensees are not impacted because their authorized possession limits already exceed the table values and therefore, they are already required to submit a site-specific financial assurance plan. This review assumes that the number of NRC and Agreement States licensees authorized for use or possession of byproduct source or special nuclear material subject to DFA requirements is 440 (400 Agreement State licensees and 40 NRC licensees). Agreement States will also be required to modify their corresponding Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 regulations in accordance with the compatibility category designation assigned to each NRC regulation, as discussed in NRC Management Directive 5.9, Adequacy and Compatibility of Program Elements for Agreement State Programs, dated April 26, 2018.

The table in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 is designated Compatibility Category B, which means that the Agreement States must adopt regulations that are essentially identical to those in the NRCs regulations, including the requirements for DFA for sealed and unsealed radioactive material. The NRC has designated 10 CFR 70.25(a)(2) and (b) as Category H&S, which means that the Agreement States need to adopt these program elements because of health and safety considerations. In addition to completing rulemakings to incorporate compatible regulations, Agreement States must also review licensees new or revised DFPs or financial assurance funding. In this way, the costs and benefits can be analyzed and compared.

4.2.3 Base Year All monetized costs are expressed in 2023 dollars to agree with the NRC current annual labor rates for all rulemaking activities. The NRC staff assumes publication of the final rule in calendar year 2024. The analysis assumes that ongoing costs of operation for the alternative for NRC licensees would begin no earlier than 30 days after publication of the final rule in the NRCs regulations unless otherwise stated. The Agreement States can take up to 3 years to implement the rule. The NRC assumes that the final rule would become effective 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register in 2025.

4.2.4 Discount Rates In accordance with NUREG/BR-0058, net present value (NPV) calculations are used to determine how much society will need to invest today to ensure that the designated dollar amount is available in a given year in the future. By using NPVs, costs and benefits are valued to a reference year for comparison, regardless of when the cost or benefit is incurred in time.

Based on U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis, dated September 17, 2003 (OMB, 2003), and consistent with NRC past practice and guidance, present-worth calculations in this analysis use 3-percent and 7-percent real discount rates. A 3-percent discount rate approximates the real rate of return on long-term government debt, which serves as a proxy for the real rate of return on savings to reflect reliance on a social rate 9

of time preference concept.2 A 7-percent discount rate approximates the marginal pretax real rate of return on an average investment in the private sector and is the appropriate discount rate whenever the main effect of a regulation is to displace or alter the use of capital in the private sector. A 7-percent rate is consistent with an opportunity cost3 of capital concept to reflect the time value of resources directed to meet regulatory requirements.

4.2.5 Cost/Benefit Inflators The NRC estimated the analysis inputs from sources as referenced in Appendix B, which are provided in 2023 dollars.

The NRC estimated the analysis inputs using the consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U) and labor rates reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). To evaluate the costs and benefits consistently, the NRC converted these inputs into base year (2021) dollars using the CPI-U, where appropriate. Using the CPI-U, the NRC converted prior year dollars to 2023 dollars using the following formula:

=

Table 2 summarizes the values of CPI-U used in this regulatory analysis.

Table 2 CPI-U Inflator CPI-U Annual Year Average Index 2021 270.97 2023* 300.11 1.10754 a Source: Statista, 2022, https://www.statista.com/statistics/244993/projected-consumer-price-index-in-the-united-states/

4.2.6 Labor Rates For the purposes of this regulatory analysis, the staff applied strict incremental cost principles to develop labor rates that include only labor and material costs directly related to the implementation and operation of the proposed rule requirements. This approach is consistent with the guidance in NUREG/CR-3568, A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment, issued December 1983 (NRC, 1983), and with general cost-benefit methodology. The NRCs incremental labor rate is $143 per hour.4 2 The social rate of time preference discounting concept refers to the rate at which society is willing to postpone a marginal unit of current consumption in exchange for more future consumption.

3 Opportunity cost represents what is foregone by undertaking a given action. If the applicant or licensee personnel were not engaged in producing exemption requests, they would be engaged in other work activities. Throughout the analysis, the NRC estimates the opportunity cost of performing these incremental tasks as the industry personnels pay for the designated unit of time.

4 The NRC labor rates presented here differ from those developed under the NRCs license fee recovery program (10 CFR Part 170, Fees for Facilities, Materials, Import and Export Licenses, and Other 10

The staff used the 2021 BLS Occupational Employment and Wages data (www.bls.gov), which provide labor categories and the mean hourly wage rate by job type. The labor rates used in the analysis reflect total hourly compensation, which includes wages and nonwage benefits (using a burden factor of 2.4, which is applicable for contract labor and conservative for regular utility employees). The staff used the BLS data tables to select appropriate hourly labor rates for the estimated procedural, licensing, and utility -related work necessary during and after implementation of the proposed alternative. The table in Appendix D summarizes the BLS labor categories the staff used to estimate industry labor costs to implement this proposed rule and lists the industry labor rates used in the analysis.

4.2.7 Sign Conventions In this analysis, all favorable consequences for the alternative are positive, and all adverse consequences for the alternative are negative. Negative values are shown using parentheses (e.g., negative $500 is displayed as ($500)).

4.2.8 Analysis Horizon The NRC used an analysis horizon extending from issuing the proposed rule for public comment in 2023 through 2040 for most items (18 years). The Agreement States can take up to 3 years to implement the rule e.g., 2023 through 2025. The time horizon after the rule is active is from 2025 through 2040 (15 years). The 15-year period is the standard licensing period for Part 30 licensees.

4.2.9 Cost Estimation To estimate the costs associated with the evaluated alternatives, the NRC used the program evaluation and review technique (PERT), triangular distributions, and uniform distributions. This involved assigning a Low Estimate, a High Estimate, and a Most Likely Estimate to each variable. Other costs were estimated using a uniform distribution, which involves assigning a Low Estimate and a High Estimate. For each required activity, the NRC further subdivided the work across labor categories (i.e., managers, technical staff, administrative staff, and licensing staff). The NRC estimated the required level of effort for each required activity and used a blended labor rate to develop bottom-up cost estimates.

The NRC gathered data from several sources and consulted working group members to develop level of effort and unit cost estimates. The NRC applied several cost estimation methods in this analysis. Additionally, the agency used its collective professional knowledge and judgment to estimate many of the costs and benefits. For example, to calculate the estimated averted costs of exemption requests, the NRC used analogous data from previous exemption request submittals to determine the labor categories for the staff who would perform the work and to estimate the amount of time required under each category to complete the work. If data were not available, the NRC used the level of effort method to estimate future costs based on similar steps in the process for which data were available. Additionally, the NRC used the expert Regulatory Services under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended). NRC labor rates for fee recovery purposes are designed for full-cost recovery of the services rendered and thus include no incremental costs (e.g., overhead, administrative, and logistical support costs).

11

opinion method to fill data gaps when one or more experts were the only available sources of information.

To evaluate the effect of uncertainty in the model, the NRC used a Monte Carlo simulation, which is an approach to uncertainty analysis that expresses input variables as distributions.

Monte Carlo simulations involve introducing uncertainty into the analysis by replacing the point estimates of the variables used to estimate base case costs and benefits with probability distributions. By defining input variables as probability distributions instead of point estimates, the influence of uncertainty on the results of the analysis (i.e., the net benefits) can be effectively modeled. The probability distributions chosen to represent the different variables in the analysis were bounded (i.e., BLS data used represented 25- and 75-percentile values and other values used the NRCs professional judgment). When defining the probability distributions for use in a Monte Carlo simulation, summary statistics are needed to characterize the distributions. These summary statistics include (1) the minimum, most likely,and maximum values of a PERT and triangular distribution;5 and (2) the minimum and maximum values of a uniform distribution. The NRC used the PERT distribution to reflect the relative spread and skewness of the distribution defined by the three estimates.

4.3 Data Cost estimates for the alternative include several actions related to rulemaking, implementation of the rule, and actions performed under the new rule, which would be done by the NRC, Agreement States, and affected licensees. The assumptions used in developing the cost estimates are based on a search of the NRCs web-based licensing (WBL) system for an approximate number of licensees and labor and licensing action estimates provided by NRC regional licensing and inspection staff. For calculating future costs, the cost estimate assumes 39 Agreement States.6 NRC staff developed hourly labor estimates for license registration and verification activities under the new rule. For example, a verification activity under the rule is the review of licensees submittal of modified DFP or DFA. The NRC relied on experience of NRC staff to develop the hourly labor estimates associated with licensee activities. The staff combined the hourly labor estimates with information from the WBL system on numbers of affected licensees to develop estimated costs and averted costs. These NRC-based estimates were also applied to the Agreement States, though the NRC acknowledges that there is variability among the NRC and Agreement States in the hourly labor resources required for licensing actions. The NRC considered the potential differences between the new requirements and the current requirements and incorporated the incremental changes into this regulatory analysis.

5 A PERT distribution is a special form of the beta distribution with specified minimum and maximum values. The shape parameter is calculated from the defined most likely value. The PERT distribution is similar to a triangular distribution in that it has the same set of three parameters.

6 The analysis assumes the current number of 39 Agreement States. If the number of Agreement States increases based on current application reviews, there will be a transfer of costs from the NRC to the Agreement States, but the overall costs will be the same or less.

12

5 RESULTS This section discusses cost and other impacts related to the rulemaking for DFA requirements for sealed and unsealed radioactive material on the three groups: (1) the NRC, (2) the Agreement States, and (3) licensees. This section contains the NRCs evaluation of the estimated costs and benefits associated with the regulatory alternative recommended.

5.1 Cost Impact Considerations The proposed rule would result in quantitative costs and benefits for the attributes of NRC Implementation, NRC Operations, Industry Operations, and Agreement States Operation. All cost information provided in these attribute sections are calculated in tables within Appendix A.

5.2 NRC Implementation The NRCs development and publication of the final rule would result in incremental costs to the agency. These include the costs of reviewing and addressing public comments on the proposed rule and developing the final rule. The staff estimates that approximately 1,745 hours0.00862 days <br />0.207 hours <br />0.00123 weeks <br />2.834725e-4 months <br /> are required to develop the final rule across the 2 years (2023 and 2024), with estimated costs of

($236,000) using a 7-percent NPV and ($244,000) using a 3-percent NPV.

The NRC will incur minor costs compared to the regulatory baseline for verifying the initial reviews by licensees are accurate. The staff did not quantify these costs due to the expectation that the costs are minor relative to the net benefits and difficult to quantify.

5.3 NRC Operation This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect of routine and recurring activities required by the proposed alternative for the NRC. The NRC will incur costs from reviewing new and revised DFPs or other financial assurance funding mechanisms for decommissioning that licensees will submit as a result of this rulemaking. NRC staff estimates that they will need to review 40 decommissioning financial assurance mechanisms when the rule goes into effect due to the updates made to the appendix B table.

These activities result in estimated costs of ($63,000) using a 7-percent NPV and ($87,000) using a 3-percent NPV. The NRC will also have averted costs due to a reduction in the number of exemption requests for DFPs or financial assurance funding, estimated at $97,000 (7-percent NPV) and $133,000 (3-percent NPV). Based on the number of exemptions previously granted, NRC staff estimate that 32 exemption requests (2 per year during the analysis period) would be eliminated as a result of this rulemaking.

Therefore, the net costs (implementation and operation) to the NRC, as noted in Table 4, are estimated to be ($202,000) at 7-percent NPV and ($198,000) using a 3-percent NPV.

5.4 Industry Operations Licensees are currently required to provide an up-to-date DFA or DFP every 3 years and at the time of license renewal. The proposed rulemaking would not change this requirement.

Licensees will need to review the changes made to the radionuclide-specific values in the 13

updated appendix B table and determine if these changes impact their current DFA or DFP. In addition, some licensees may choose to submit a new DFP as a result of these changes.

As a result, some licensees will incur costs from having to update their DFPs and DFAs to the amount of ($1,388.000) at 7-percent NPV. Licensees will experience averted costs due to not having to revise decommissioning financial assurance mechanism values of approximately

$252,000 (7-percent NPV) and $272,000 (3-percent NPV). However, licensees will also experience averted costs due to the proposed rule reducing the number of revisions of DFPs or financial assurance funding of approximately $154,000 at 7-percent NPV. Some licensees will not be impacted by the changes to the values in the updated appendix B table and therefore will not require any changes to their DFA or DFP.

Other financial surety mechanisms, such as banks servicing the surety bond, letter of credit, and trust agreement will also be affected. These changes result in net averted costs of approximately $1,975,000 (7-percent NPV) and $2,729,000 (3-percent NPV).

The costs of revising DFPs and financial assurance mechanisms add up to an estimated net averted cost of $993,000 at a 7-percent NPV and $1,660,000 at a 3-percent NPV.

Licensees will incur minor costs compared to the regulatory baseline for conducting an initial review of their DFP/DFA to identify whether any changes to DFA are needed. The staff did not quantify these costs due to the expectation that the costs are minor relative to the net benefits and difficult to quantify.

Due to the changes to the values in the revised table for the isotopes in the appendix B, there may be increased costs and averted costs to future applicants (estimated at 17 over the analysis period) from the rulemaking alternative compared to the regulatory baseline, that the staff did not quantify. In some cases, the value has become more restrictive (i.e., lowered) or a new isotope has been added, and in other cases the value has become less restrictive (i.e.,

increased), leading to a different required DFA requirement or a DFA requirement where none was previously required. The net effect of these increases and decreases in cost will be highly variable from licensee to licensee, and difficult to quantify due to a lack of information needed to evaluate which isotopes would be applicable to future licensees. Therefore, the staff chose not to quantify these costs and averted costs, which may tend to balance out for future licensees due to the fact that there are both lowered and increased limits in the revised table.

The table below shows the breakdown of the impacted licensees that were used in estimating the costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking.

Table 3 Impacted Licensees7 Benefits/(Cost) 7%

Number of Licensees NPV How many current licensees will need to review their 400 (Agreement State) + 40 N/A DFA/DFP? (NRC) = 440 How many current licensees will need to modify their 275 ($1,388,000)

DFA mechanism based on new thresholds?

7 Costs and benefits associated with this rulemaking that could not quantified are discussed in section 5.

14

How many current licensees will need to modify their DFA mechanism and have their DFA/DFP increase or 165 N/A decrease?

How many current licensees will have a reduction to their 102 $3,264,000 modified DFA/DFP?

How many current licensees will have an increase to 63 ($1,289,000) their modified DFA/DFP?

5.5 Agreement State Operation This attribute accounts for the projected net economic effect of routine and recurring Agreement State activities if the proposed rule is issued. Once corresponding rulemakings have been completed and incorporated in their regulations, Agreement States will incur costs from reviewing licensees new or revised DFAs or financial assurance funding. These activities are estimated to result in costs to Agreement States of approximately ($596,000) using a 7-percent NPV and ($667,000) using a 3-percent NPV. The proposed rule would avert the need for Agreement States to review exemption requests from licensees for their DFPs, resulting in averted costs of approximately $618,000 (7-percent NPV) and $816,000 (3-percent NPV).

Therefore, the total net averted costs to Agreement States are approximately $22,000 (7-percent NPV) and $149,000 (3-percent NPV).

The Agreement States will incur minor costs compared to the regulatory baseline for verifying the initial reviews by Agreement State licensees are accurate. The staff did not quantify these costs due to the expectation that the costs are minor relative to the net benefits and difficult to quantify.

5.6 Totals The NRCs recommended alternatives in this regulatory analysis result in net averted costs of approximately $813,000 using a 7-percent discount rate and $1,611,000 using a 3-percent discount rate, as shown in Table 4. Therefore, the staffs recommended alternative to proceed with the proposed rule is cost justified. Table 4 shows that this rulemaking would result in net costs to the NRC of ($202,000), net averted costs to industry of $993,000 and net averted costs to the Agreement States of $22,000 using a 7-percent discount rate.

Appendix A contains the detailed cost tables supporting the totals in Table 4.

Table 4 Total Net Costs and Benefits Net Benefits (Costs) in 2023 Dollars DESCRIPTION Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Alternative 1 - Status Quo (No Action Taken) $0 $0 $0 Alternative 2 - Update the List of Radionuclides and the Values in appendix B to Part 30 Table (NRC Selected)

($250,000) ($236,000) ($244,000)

NRC Implementation 15

($114,000) ($63,000) ($87,000)

Alternative 2 NRC Cost

$176,000 $97,000 $133,000 Alternative 2 NRC Averted Cost

($188,000) ($202,000) ($198,000)

NRC Total

($1,698,000) ($1,388,000) ($1,554,000)

Alternative 2 Industry Cost

$568,000 $406,000 $485,000 Alternative 2 Industry Averted Cost

$3,580,000 $1,975,000 $2,729,000 Alternative 2 - Industry Financial Assurity Mechanisms Averted Costs Industry Total $2,450,000 $993,000 $1,660,000 Alternative 2 Agreement States Cost ($729,000) ($596,000) ($667,000)

Alternative 2 Agreement States Averted Cost $1,038,000 $618,000 $816,000 Agreement States Total $309,000 $22,000 $149,000 Alternative 2 Total Net Benefits (Cost) $2,571,000 $813,000 $1,611,000 5.7 Uncertainty Analysis The NRC completed a Monte Carlo sensitivity analysis for this regulatory analysis using the specialty software @Risk.8 The Monte Carlo approach answers the question, What distribution of net benefits results from multiple draws of the probability distribution assigned to key variables?

5.7.1 Uncertainty Analysis Assumptions Monte Carlo simulations involve introducing uncertainty into the analysis by replacing the point estimates of the variables used to estimate base case costs and benefits with probability distributions. By defining input variables as probability distributions instead of point estimates, the influence of uncertainty on the results of the analysis (i.e., the net benefits) can be modeled effectively.

The probability distributions chosen to represent the different variables in the analysis were bounded by the range referenced input and the NRCs professional judgment. When defining the probability distributions for use in a Monte Carlo simulation, summary statistics are needed to characterize the distributions. These summary statistics include (1) the minimum, most likely, and maximum values of a PERT and triangular distribution and (2) the minimum and maximum values of a uniform distribution.

Appendix A identifies those data elements that are modeled with distributions and the mean value of the distribution that were used in the uncertainty analysis. Appendix B identifies the data elements, the distribution and summary statistics, and the mean value of the distribution that the staff used in the uncertainty analysis. Table 5 contains descriptive statistics containing the minimum and maximum values, the standard deviation, and the 5th and 95th percentile values.

5.7.2 Uncertainty Analysis Results The NRC performed the Monte Carlo simulation by repeatedly recalculating the results 10,000 times. For each iteration, the cost model chose the values in the cost model randomly from the 16

probability distributions that define the input variables. The model recorded the values of the output variables for each iteration and used these resulting output variable values to define the resultant probability distribution, in terms of costs and benefits.

Figure 1 depicts the staffs proposed rule would result in mean net averted costs to industry, the NRC, and the Agreement States of approximately $813,000 using a 7-percent discount rate.

The uncertainty analysis indicates that there is a positive net benefit to industry, the NRC, and the Agreement States.

The uncertainty analysis graph shows that the Alternative 2 mean net averted cost is $813,000 in 2023 dollars with a 90-percent confidence level that the averted costs are between

($1,010,000) and $2,740,000 using a 7-percent discount rate. Both Figure 1 and Figure 2 display the histograms of the net incremental costs and benefits from the regulatory baseline of the rules alternatives.

Figure 1 Total Net Benefit (7-Percent NPV)

Table 5 presents descriptive statistics on the uncertainty analysis. Table 5 reflects the 5th and 95th percentile values and minimum, maximum, and standard deviation. that appear as numerical values on the top of the vertical lines in Figure 1.

Table 5 Uncertainty Results Descriptive Statistics7-Percent NPV Incremental Cost-Benefit (2023 million dollars)

Uncertainty Result Minimum Mean Std. Dev Maximum 5th Percentile 95th Percentile Total NRC Cost ($0.21) ($0.20) $0.01 ($0.19) ($0.21) ($0.19)

Total Industry Cost ($3.05) $0.99 $1.14 $4.70 $0.82 $2.92 Total Agreement States Cost ($0.25) ($0.02) ($0.08) ($0.32) ($0.12) ($0.16)

Total Cost ($1.01) $0.81 $1.14 $4.48 ($1.01) $2.74 5.7.3 Sensitivity Analysis 17

In addition to estimating the probability distributions for the net benefits of the proposed rule, Monte Carlo simulation was used to conduct a sensitivity analysis to determine the variables that have greatest impact on the resulting net benefits. Variables shown to have a large effect on the resulting net benefits may deserve more attention and scrutiny than variables shown to have a small or minimal effect. The results are compiled into a tornado diagram, which presents in vertical order the variables that have the greatest influence on net benefits.

Figure 2 presents the tornado diagram for the benefits of the proposed rule and ranks the variables based on their contribution to cost uncertainty. The estimate that has the greatest variation in the overall results are the savings resulting from the number of Surety Bond decreases. The uncertainty in this variable would result in a change to the mean of $3.2 million, the difference in averted costs that ranges between ($0.4 million) to $2.1 million with a 90 percent confidence level.

The estimate that has the second greatest variation in the Alternative 2 overall results is the banks servicing the reduced amount of Letter of Credit resulting in savings. The uncertainty variable would result in a change to the mean of $1.4 million, a difference in averted costs that ranges from $0.1 million to $1.5 million with a 90 -percent confidence level.

The estimate that has the third greatest variation in the Alternative 2 overall results is the Number of surety bond decreases resulting in savings. The uncertainty in this variable would result in a change to the mean of $1.1 million, the difference in averted costs that ranges between $0.3 million to $1.4 million with a 90 percent confidence level.

The estimate that has the fourth greatest variation in the overall results is the savings resulting from the annual trust agreements. The uncertainty variable would result in a change to the mean of $1.0 million, a difference in averted costs that ranges from $0.3 million to $1.3 million with a 90-percent confidence level.

The remainder of the variables result in smaller differences.

Figure 2 Key Variables Whose Uncertainty Drives the Largest Impact on Costs (7-Percent Net Present Value) 18

5.8 Safety Goal Evaluation Safety goal evaluations are applicable to regulatory initiatives considered to be generic safety enhancement backfits subject to the substantial additional protection standard in paragraph 50.109(a)(3). This regulatory analysis does not contain any new regulatory impositions of this type.

5.9 Disaggregation The NRC performed a screening review to determine whether any of the individual requirements (or set of integrated requirements) of the rule are unnecessary to achieve the objectives of the rulemaking. The NRC staff concludes that each of the rule changes are necessary to achieve one or more of the objectives of the rulemaking, as described in Section 2 and summarized in Table 6. The objectives of this regulatory action are to amend the regulations for decommissioning financial assurance for sealed and unsealed radioactive materials. The NRC staff concludes that each of the rule changes are necessary to achieve one or more of the objectives of the rulemaking.

Table 6 Disaggregation Incorporating Administrative Aligning Improve Lessons Learned and Revised 10 CFR Requirement a Values with Regulatory from DFA Organizational Part 20 Framework Licensing Changes Reviews Update Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 using the list of radionuclides and possession values from Appendix C, Quantities of Licensed X X Material Requiring Labeling, to 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for X Protection Against Radiation.

Revise Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 to clarify that only radioactive X X X X materials with half-lives greater than 120 days are subject to DFA.

Change the title of Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 to reflect its use in determining DFA requirements to Quantities of Licensed Material X Used to Assess Financial Assurance for Decommissioning."

The rulemaking would revise NRCs decommissioning funding requirements for radioactive material based on the relative risk to public health and safety from different radioisotopes, including naturally occurring and accelerator-produced radioactive material. The potentially affected licensees are those authorized to possess radioactive material licenses.

5.10 Summary This regulatory analysis identified quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and benefits that will result from conducting the rulemaking to address risk-informed, technology-inclusive requirements for decommissioning financial assurance for sealed and unsealed radioactive materials. Although quantifiable costs and benefits appear more tangible, the staff urges decision-makers not to discount costs and benefits that cannot be quantified or monetized, as the latter may be of equal or greater importance. Based on this regulatory analysis, Alternative 2 is cost beneficial to industry and the Agreement States.

19

5.10.1 Quantified Net Benefit As shown in ES-1, the estimated incremental averted costs for Alternative 2 over the 18-year analysis horizon, relative to the regulatory baseline (Alternative 1), range from approximately

$813,000 (7-percent NPV) to $1,611,000 (3-percent NPV). Alternative 2 is cost beneficial. The 18-year analysis horizon is due to the 3 years for Agreement States implementation and 15-year timespan of the license renewal.

5.10.2 Unquantified Benefits In addition to the quantified costs discussed in this regulatory analysis, the proposed rule would lead to several unquantified benefits for the general public, industry, the Agreement States, and the NRC, in relation to the regulatory efficiency and increased public confidence. These costs and benefits are summarized below. Therefore, while it is important to acknowledge these averted costs, it is not necessary to quantify them, especially in view of the high levels of uncertainty in the data.

5.10.3 Regulatory Efficiency The NRC is pursuing rulemaking to update DFA. The regulations would accomplish the following:

1. Improve alignment between the DFA licensing processes in Parts 30 and 20. The alternative analyzed in this document would help ensure consistent safety standards for DFA of byproduct materials are applied. This alignment would result in a licensing process that has enhanced regulatory stability, predictability, and clarity.

2. Update Part 30 and supporting regulations based on the relative risk to public health and safety.

Addressing these changes in a single rulemaking effort would be more efficient than addressing them in separate rulemakings and would help ensure continuity and consistency between DFA byproduct licensing regulations. A single rulemaking effort also would make it easier for stakeholders to understand all the changes and provide meaningful input.

The rule would result in a licensing process that has enhanced regulatory stability, predictability, and clarity. The rule would result in a reduction in the need for the development and review of case-by-case exemption requests for new DFA byproduct license applicants. In addition, the NRC attempts to avoid regulation by exemption when it can address an issue through generic actions such as rulemaking. This rulemaking will not provide flexibility for incorporating additional radionuclides in the future and additional rulemaking actions would be required if the NRC wishes to add radionuclides to the table in the future. This is out of scope for this rulemaking.

5.10.4 Increased Public Confidence The rule would align Parts 30 and 20 by updating the table values in Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 using more up-to-date and risk-informed values currently incorporated Appendix C to Part 20 and address lessons learned from DFA for byproduct reviews. In addition, results of this rulemaking would increase public confidence in the NRCs ability to improve its regulations, adapt to regulatory needs identified by stakeholders, address emerging 20

technologies, provide opportunities for stakeholder to provide input to the changes to the DFA licensing process, and maintain the NRCs role as an effective industry regulator. In addition, the rulemaking process provides the greatest opportunity for Commission and public engagement on the issues related to the DFA process. Public comments during rulemaking provided a wide range of viewpoints for Commission consideration prior to preparation of the final rule. This attribute is qualitative in nature.

6 DECISION RATIONALE Table 7 provides the quantified and qualified costs and benefits for Alternatives 1 and 2. The quantitative analysis used mean values.

Table 7 Summary of Totals Net Monetary Savings or Unquantified Benefits or (Costs)

(Costs)Total Present Value Alternative 1: Status Quo - None No Action

$0 Alternative 2: Update the Benefits:

List of Radionuclides and the Satisfies the petitioners request and Commission direction Values in Appendix B to Part through a simple approach.

30 Table (NRC Selected).

Provides a more up-to-date and risk-informed table (ICRP Industry: 26/30 vs. ICRP 2)

$993,000 using 7% NPV.

$1,660,000 using 3% NPV. Adds to the table specific radionuclides associated with industrial technologies and current and emerging medical NRC: uses (e.g., Ge-68, sodium-22, silicon-32, titanium-44, cobalt-($202,000) using 7% NPV. 57, thulium-170, and lutetium-177 (metastable)).

($198,000) using 3% NPV.

Removes over 130 radionuclides with a half-life <120 days.

Agreement States:

$22,000 using 7% NPV. Increases the Appendix B values for about 18 radionuclides

$149,000 using 3% NPV. thus potentially decreasing the amount of financial assurance for decommissioning.

Net benefit (cost):

$813,000 using 7% NPV. Regulatory Efficiency: Enhances the effectiveness and

$1,611,000 using 3% NPV. efficiency of licensing and certification activities to maintain both quality and timeliness of licensing and certification reviews, by developing a regulatory framework that facilitates the ability of industry to manufacture and market useful medical and industrial products to support various applications, while providing reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, promoting the common defense and security, and protecting the environment.

21

Net Monetary Savings or Unquantified Benefits or (Costs)

(Costs)Total Present Value Public Confidence: The rule would align Parts 30 and 20 and address lessons learned from DFA for byproduct reviews, which would increase public confidence in the NRCs ability to improve its regulations, adapt to regulatory needs identified by stakeholders, afford opportunities for stakeholders to provide input to the changes to the DFA licensing process, and maintain the NRCs role as an effective industry regulator. In addition, the rulemaking process provides the greatest opportunity for Commission and public engagement on the issues related to the DFA process. Public notice and comment during rulemaking would provide the widest range of viewpoints for Commission consideration prior to preparation of the final rule. This attribute is qualitative in nature.

Pursuing this alternative would result in a more up-to-date and risk-informed Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 for use in the development of DFA without requiring significant time and resources.

Based solely on quantified costs and benefits, the regulatory analysis shows that the rulemaking is justified because the total net quantified benefits of the proposed regulatory action would exceed the costs for discount rates up to 7 percent. The identified qualitative benefits further justify proceeding with the proposed rule. The uncertainty analysis shows a net benefit (averted cost) for simulations with a range of costs from ($1.01 million) to averted costs of $2.74 million (at a 7-percent NPV).

Therefore, after integrating both quantified and qualitative costs and benefits, the benefits of the proposed rule outweigh the costs to implement the rule.

Relative to the No Action alternative, rulemaking results in a net benefit of approximately

$813,000 million assuming a 7-percent discount rate or $1,611,000 million assuming a 3-percent discount rate.

The NRC supports updating Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30 to include more risk-informed values for the existing radionuclides and to add the unlisted NARM radionuclides using the values in Appendix C to 10 CFR Part 20. This rulemaking satisfies the petitioners request and the Commissions direction to provide a simple approach for addressing concerns associated with the values in the current Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 30, it would also result in a table with more up-to-date and risk-informed values. These changes, which include the addition of radionuclides associated with emerging medical and industrial technologies that the table currently excludes, could enable more efficient reviews of diagnostic and therapeutic products, thus increasing the availability of new medical and industrial applications to the general public and potentially reducing the number and severity of patient health and safety concerns. Implementing this rulemaking would avert some costs to the licensees, NRC, and the Agreement States.

7 INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 22

The NRC is required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, to consider the impact of its rulemakings on small entities and evaluate alternatives that will accomplish regulatory objectives without unduly burdening small entities or erecting barriers to competition. This section describes the assessment of the small entity impacts expected to be incurred by 10 CFR Parts 30, 32, and 35 licensees because of the rule. This analysis describes (1) the NRC's definition of small entities, including small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, small educational institutions, and small organizations; (2) what number constitutes a "substantial number" of these entities; (3) whether significant impacts will be incurred by licensees under the rule; and (4) the measures that NRC has adopted in the rule to mitigate impacts on small entities.

7.1 Defining Small Entities Affected by the Rule The NRC established its size standards for small entities on December 9, 1985 (50 FR 50241).

On November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56671), the NRC conformed its format for size standards to mirror the definitions of small entities in the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended. In a direct final rule published in the Federal Register on August 10, 2007 (72 FR 44951), the NRC adjusted its receipts-based small business size standard to conform to the Small Business Act (SBA) size standard for nonmanufacturing industries. This size standard reflects the most used SBA size standard for nonmanufacturing industries. On February 17, 2022 (87 FR 89432), the NRC increased its receipts-based, small business size standard (§ 2.810 NRC size standards) from $7 million to $8 million to conform to the standard set by the SBA.

The NRC estimates that 27 small entities (6 percent of 440) licensees will be impacted by this proposed rule. The NRC based this estimate on a total of 1,100 small entity licensees out of 18,226 total licensees, which equates to 6 percent. The total number of licensees was taken from the 2021-2022 Information Digest (ML21300A290). The revenues will result in averted costs to the licensees. Therefore, as a conservative assumption the NRC has assumed that all affected small entities would benefit.

The NRC uses the size standards contained in 10 CFR 2.810 to determine whether a licensee qualifies as a small entity in its regulatory programs.

The size standards pertinent to Part 30 licensees impacted by this rule under 10 CFR 2.810 are:

• A small business is a for-profit concern and is a:

(1) Concern that provides a service or a concern not engaged in manufacturing with average gross receipts of $8 million or less over its last 5 completed fiscal years; or (2) Manufacturing concern with an average number of 500 or fewer employees based upon employment during each pay period for the preceding 12 calendar months.

• A small organization is a not-for-profit organization which is independently owned and operated and has annual gross receipts of $8 million or less.

• A small governmental jurisdiction is a government of a city, county, town, township, village, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000.

23

• A small educational institution is one that is supported by a qualifying small governmental jurisdiction or is not State or publicly supported and has 500 or fewer employees.

Ultimately, the rule will affect approximately 40 NRC and 400 Agreement States licensees.

Since the total number of NRC and Agreement States material licensees is 18,226, 440 licensees would not be considered substantial. These licensees are principally private entities, including medical institutions and individual private medical practitioners, which currently have something other than sealed sources or plated foils (i.e., are not exclusively broad scope licensees).

7.2 Measuring Significant Impacts The NRC has not established a quantitative cutoff for significant impact. For the purpose of this rulemaking, the NRC assumes "significant" impact when the revenues or costs of any class of affected entities change by more than 3 to 5 percent in 5 years. The NRC does not expect any of the small entities will be affected to the extent set by these criteria. In fact, the proposed rule would have an estimated $2,300 ($993,000 industry total net averted cost/440 impacted licensees) averted cost per impacted licensee.

7.3 Steps Taken to Mitigate Economic Impacts on Small Entities The NRC has taken several actions in this rule to ensure that the selected alternative reduces decommissioning financial assurance requirements. The rulemaking will have a positive economic impact on a significant number of small entities. For the vast number of small entities, the NRC expects that business will continue as usual. Based on that very small number of licensees, the limited scope of the rule, and the nature of decommissioning financial assurance requirements, the NRC took no steps to mitigate the impact to small entities since the rulemaking results in averted costs as described in Section 7.2.

8 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF REGULATION The NRC has implemented a program to address the possible cumulative effects of regulation in the development of regulatory bases for rulemakings. The cumulative effects of regulation are an organizational effectiveness challenge that results from a licensee or other affected entity implementing several complex positions, programs, or requirements within a prescribed implementation period and with limited available resources. The NRC is requesting feedback from the public on the cumulative effects that may result from this NRC rulemaking.

9 IMPLEMENTATION The NRC assumes that the final rule would become effective 30 days after its publication in the Federal Register in 2025. Agreement States may issue license conditions under appropriate authorities to expedite compliance with these rule changes followed by issuing their amended regulations within 3 years of the final rule effective date.

10 REFERENCES Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).

24

Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-58.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, Publication 2, Report of Committee II on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation (1959), Pergamon Press, London, 1960.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 26, Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection, Annals of the ICRP, Pergamon Press, London, January 17, 1977.

International Commission on Radiological Protection, ICRP Publication 30, Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by Workers, Annals of the ICRP, Pergamon Press, London, 1979-1988.

National Bureau of Standards, Handbook 52, Maximum Permissible Amounts of Radioisotopes in the Human Body and Maximum Permissible Concentrations in Air and Water, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, March 20, 1953.

National Bureau of Standards, Handbook 59, Permissible Dose from External Sources of Ionizing Radiation, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC, January 8, 1957.

Office of the Federal Register, Agreement State Program Policy Statement, 82 FR 48535, October 18, 2017.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule to Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 22 FR 548, January 29, 1957.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule to Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Miscellaneous Amendments, 25 FR 8595, September 7, 1960.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule to Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 25 FR 10914, November 17, 1960.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule to Appendix C to Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 35 FR 6425, April 22, 1970.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Receipts-Based NRC Size Standards, 50 FR 50241, December 9, 1985.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule: General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities, 53 FR 24018, June 27, 1988.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule: Standards for Protection Against Radiation, 56 FR 23360, May 21, 1991.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule: Standards for Protection Against Radiation; Removal of Expired Material, 58 FR 67657, December 22, 1993.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule: Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material (NARM Rule), 72 FR 55863, October 1, 2007.

25

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Receipts-Based NRC Size Standards, 87 FR 89432, February 17, 2022.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule: NRC Size Standards, Revision, 56 FR 56671, November 6, 1991.

Office of the Federal Register, Federal Register, Final Rule: NRC Size Standards, Revision, 72 FR 44951, August 10, 2007.

Office of Management and Budget, OMB Circular No. A-4, September 17, 2003.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Statista, Projected Consumer Price Index in the United States from 2010 to 2026, 2022.

Available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/244993/projected-consumer-price-index-in-the-united-states/.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1757, Volume 1, Revision 2, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance: Decommissioning Process for Materials Licensees, September 2006 (ML063000243).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1757, Volume 3, Revision 1, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance: Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness, Final Report, February 2012 (ML12048A683).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, Draft Final Revision 5, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, January 2020, ML19261A277.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1754, Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning Reference Non-Fuel-Cycle Nuclear Facilities, February 1981 (ML20008E869).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3568, A Handbook for Value-Impact Assessment, December 1983 (ML062830096).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Authorization for Granting Specific Exemption from Decommissioning Funding Plan Requirement for Germanium-68/Gallium-68 Generators, July 29, 2016 (ML16082A415).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Revision of Technical Basis for Granting Specific Exemption from Decommissioning Funding Plan Requirement for Germanium-68/Gallium-68 Generators, July 13, 2017 (ML17075A487).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Basis, Decommissioning Financial Assurance Requirements for Sealed and Unsealed Radioactive Materials, April 2022 (ML21235A480).

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG-1350, Volume 33, 2021-2022 Information Digest (ML21300A290).

26

27

[Page intentionally left blank.]

28

Appendix A Summary and Tables of Costs for Each Alternative by NRC, Agreement States, and Industry The Appendix A tables show the calculations for the net costs associated with Alternative 2 by the NRC, Agreement States, and industry. Note that Alternative 1 is not included here, because it has no additional benefits (costs). See Appendix B, Analysis Input Variables, for more information.

Table A-1 NRC Implementation Costs NRC Total Cost Year Activity Hours hourly rate Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV 2023 Develop/issue Comment Resolution for final rule 291 $143 ($41,599) ($41,599) ($41,599) 2024 Develop/issue final rule 727 $143 ($103,997) ($97,194) ($100,968) 2024 Complete final rule 727 $143 ($103,997) ($97,194) ($100,968)

Total Benefit (Cost) 1,745 ($249,594) ($235,987) ($243,536)

Table A-2 NRC Costs (Review of Licensees Submittal of Modified DFP/DFA)

Staff Weighted Number Labor Year Activity Hourly Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Plans Hours /

Rate Plan NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2025 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($6,245) ($6,740)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2026 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($5,837) ($6,543)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2027 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($5,455) ($6,353)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2028 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($5,098) ($6,168)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2029 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($4,764) ($5,988)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2030 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($4,453) ($5,814)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2031 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($4,161) ($5,644)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2032 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($3,889) ($5,480)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2033 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($3,635) ($5,320)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2034 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($3,397) ($5,165)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2035 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($3,175) ($5,015)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2036 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($2,967) ($4,869)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2037 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($2,773) ($4,727)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2038 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($2,591) ($4,589)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2039 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($2,422) ($4,456)

DFP/DFA NRC review of licensees submittal of modified 2040 2.5 (20) $143 ($7,150) ($2,264) ($4,326)

DFP/DFA Total NRC Benefit (Cost) 40 ($114,400) ($63,125) ($87,196)

A-1

Table A-3 NRC Averted Costs (Reviewing Licensee Submittal)

Weighted Staff # 7%

Year Activity Hourly Undiscounted 3% NPV Hours Occurrences NPV Rate NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2025 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $10,000 $10,000

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2026 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $8,979 $10,067

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2027 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $8,392 $9,773

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2028 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $7,843 $9,489

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2029 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $7,330 $9,212

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2030 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $6,850 $8,944

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2031 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $6,402 $8,684

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2032 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $5,983 $8,431

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2033 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $5,592 $8,185

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2034 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $5,226 $7,947

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2035 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $4,884 $7,715

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2036 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $4,565 $7,490

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2037 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $4,266 $7,272

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2038 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $3,987 $7,060

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2039 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $3,726 $6,855

1. Hours/Review NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/

2040 decommissioning financial assurance. 40 2 $143 $11,000 $3,482 $6,655

1. Hours/Review Total NRC Benefit (Cost) 640 32 $176,000 $97,000 $133,000 A-2

Table A-4 Industry Averted Costs (Licensees No Longer Required to Submit Exemption Requests)

Weighted Number #

Year Activity Hourly Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Plans Occurrences Rate Licensees no longer submit exemption 2025 40 4 $103 $69,959 $15,276 $16,486 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2026 40 4 $103 $69,959 $14,277 $16,006 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2027 40 4 $103 $69,959 $13,343 $15,539 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2028 40 4 $103 $69,959 $12,470 $15,087 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2029 40 4 $103 $69,959 $11,654 $14,647 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2030 40 4 $103 $69,959 $10,892 $14,221 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2031 40 4 $103 $69,959 $10,179 $13,807 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2032 40 4 $103 $69,959 $9,513 $13,404 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2033 40 4 $103 $69,959 $8,891 $13,014 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2034 40 4 $103 $69,959 $8,309 $12,635 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2035 40 4 $103 $69,959 $7,766 $12,267 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2036 40 4 $103 $69,959 $7,258 $11,910 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2037 40 4 $103 $69,959 $6,783 $11,563 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2038 40 4 $103 $69,959 $6,339 $11,226 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2039 40 4 $103 $69,959 $5,924 $10,899 requests for decommissioning funding levels Licensees no longer submit exemption 2040 40 4 $103 $69,959 $5,537 $10,582 requests for decommissioning funding levels Total Industry Benefit (Cost) 68 $279,835 $154,410 $213,291 A-3

Table A-5 Licensees Required to Revise Decommissioning Funding Plans or Financial Assurance FundingIndustry Staff Number Weighted Labor Year Activity of Hourly Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Hours /

Plans Rate Plan Licensees required to revise 2025 92 (60) $103 ($565,843) ($494,229) ($533,361)

DFA plans or FA funding Licensees required to revise 2026 92 (60) $103 ($565,843) ($461,896) ($517,827)

DFA plans or FA funding Licensees required to revise 2027 92 (60) $103 ($565,843) ($431,679) ($502,744)

DFA plans or FA funding Total Industry Benefit (Cost) 275 ($1,697,529) ($1,387,805) ($1,553,932)

Table A-6 Licensees Decreasing Decommissioning Funding Plans or Financial Assurance FundingIndustry Staff Labor Weighted Number Year Activity Hours / Hourly Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Items Plan Rate Licensees required to decrease their financial 2025 165 17 $103 $288,580 $252,057 $272,014 assurance mechanism values (number of items)

Total Industry Benefit (Cost) $288,580 $252,057 $272,014 Table A-7 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Cost of Bank Servicing the InstrumentSurety Bond) SavingsIndustry Number Cost /

Year Activity Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Items Licensee 2025 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $158,311 $170,846 2026 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $147,954 $165,869 2027 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $138,275 $161,038 2028 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $129,229 $156,348 2029 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $120,775 $151,794 2030 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $112,873 $147,373 2031 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $105,489 $143,080 2032 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $98,588 $138,913 2033 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $92,138 $134,867 2034 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $86,111 $130,939 2035 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $80,477 $127,125 2036 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $75,212 $123,422 2037 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $70,292 $119,828 2038 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $65,693 $116,337 2039 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $61,396 $112,949 2040 Number of Surety Bond Decreases Resulting in Savings 50 $3,625 $181,250 $57,379 $109,659 Total Industry Benefit (Cost) $2,900,000 $1,600,192 $2,210,388 A-4

Table A-8 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing the Instrument Surety Bond)Industry Number Cost /

Year Activity Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Items Licensee Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2025 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($31,662) ($34,169) the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2026 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($29,591) ($33,174)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2027 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($27,655) ($32,208)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2028 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($25,846) ($31,270)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2029 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($24,155) ($30,359)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2030 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($22,575) ($29,475)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2031 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($21,098) ($28,616)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2032 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($19,718) ($27,783)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2033 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($18,428) ($26,973)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2034 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($17,222) ($26,188)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2035 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($16,095) ($25,425)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2036 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($15,042) ($24,684)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2037 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($14,058) ($23,966)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2038 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($13,139) ($23,267)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2039 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($12,279) ($22,590)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing 2040 the Instrument - Surety Bond) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($11,476) ($21,932)

Total Industry Benefit (Cost) ($580,000) ($320,038) ($442,078)

A-5

Table A-9 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing the Letter of Credit) SavingsIndustry Number Cost /

Year Activity Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Items Licensee Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2025 30 $3,625 $108,750 $94,986 $102,507 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2026 30 $3,625 $108,750 $88,772 $99,522 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2027 30 $3,625 $108,750 $82,965 $96,623 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2028 30 $3,625 $108,750 $77,537 $93,809 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2029 30 $3,625 $108,750 $72,465 $91,076 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2030 30 $3,625 $108,750 $67,724 $88,424 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2031 30 $3,625 $108,750 $63,293 $85,848 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2032 30 $3,625 $108,750 $59,153 $83,348 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2033 30 $3,625 $108,750 $55,283 $80,920 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2034 30 $3,625 $108,750 $51,666 $78,563 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2035 30 $3,625 $108,750 $48,286 $76,275 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2036 30 $3,625 $108,750 $45,127 $74,053 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2037 30 $3,625 $108,750 $42,175 $71,897 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2038 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings 30 $3,625 $108,750 $39,416 $69,802 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2039 30 $3,625 $108,750 $36,837 $67,769 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2040 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Savings 30 $3,625 $108,750 $34,427 $65,796 Total Industry Benefit (Cost) $1,740,000 $960,115 $1,326,233 A-6

Table A-10 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Servicing the Letter of Credit)

CostIndustry Number Cost /

Year Activity Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Items Licensee Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2025 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($31,662) ($34,169)

Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2026 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($29,591) ($33,174)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2027 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($27,655) ($32,208)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2028 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($25,846) ($31,270)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2029 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($24,155) ($30,359)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2030 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($22,575) ($29,475)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2031 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($21,098) ($28,616)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2032 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($19,718) ($27,783)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2033 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($18,428) ($26,973)

Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2034 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($17,222) ($26,188)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2035 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($16,095) ($25,425)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2036 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($15,042) ($24,684)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2037 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($14,058) ($23,966)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2038 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($13,139) ($23,267)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2039 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($12,279) ($22,590)

Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2040 Servicing the Letter of Credit) Cost 10 ($3,625) ($36,250) ($11,476) ($21,932)

Total Industry Benefit (Cost) ($580,000) ($320,038) ($442,078)

A-7

Table A-11 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing the Trust Agreement) SavingsIndustry Number Cost /

Year Activity Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Items Licensee Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2025 22 3,625 $79,750 $69,657 $75,172 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2026 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings 22 3,625 $79,750 $65,100 $72,983 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2027 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings 22 3,625 $79,750 $60,841 $70,857 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2028 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings 22 3,625 $79,750 $56,861 $68,793 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2029 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings 22 3,625 $79,750 $53,141 $66,789 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2030 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings 22 3,625 $79,750 $49,664 $64,844 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2031 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings 22 3,625 $79,750 $46,415 $62,955 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2032 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings 22 3,625 $79,750 $43,379 $61,122 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2033 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings 22 3,625 $79,750 $40,541 $59,341 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2034 22 3,625 $79,750 $37,889 $57,613 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2035 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings 22 3,625 $79,750 $35,410 $55,935 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2036 22 3,625 $79,750 $33,093 $54,306 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2037 22 3,625 $79,750 $30,928 $52,724 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2038 22 3,625 $79,750 $28,905 $51,188 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2039 22 3,625 $79,750 $27,014 $49,698 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2040 22 3,625 $79,750 $25,247 $48,250 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Savings Total Industry Benefit (Cost) $1,276,000 $704,084 $972,571 A-8

Table A-12 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank Servicing the Trust Agreement) CostIndustry Number Cost /

Year Activity Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Items Licensee Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2025 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($42,580) ($45,952)

Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2026 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($39,795) ($44,613)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2027 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($37,191) ($43,314)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2028 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($34,758) ($42,052)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2029 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($32,484) ($40,827)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2030 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($30,359) ($39,638)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2031 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($28,373) ($38,484)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2032 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($26,517) ($37,363)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2033 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($24,782) ($36,275)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2034 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($23,161) ($35,218)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2035 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($21,646) ($34,192)

Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2036 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($20,230) ($33,196)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2037 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($18,906) ($32,229)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2038 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($17,669) ($31,291)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2039 Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($16,513) ($30,379)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Bank 2040 10 ($4,875) ($48,750) ($15,433) ($29,495)

Servicing the Trust Agreement) Cost Total Industry Benefit (Cost) ($780,000) ($430,396) ($594,518)

A-9

Table A-13 Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual Maintaining the Statement of Intent) CostIndustry Number Cost /

Year Activity Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Items Licensee Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2025 33 (750) ($24,750) ($21,618) ($23,329)

Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2026 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($20,203) ($22,650)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2027 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($18,882) ($21,990)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2028 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($17,646) ($21,350)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2029 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($16,492) ($20,728)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2030 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($15,413) ($20,124)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2031 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($14,405) ($19,538)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2032 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($13,462) ($18,969)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2033 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($12,582) ($18,416)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2034 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($11,759) ($17,880)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2035 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($10,989) ($17,359)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2036 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($10,270) ($16,854)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2037 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($9,598) ($16,363)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2038 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($8,971) ($15,886)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2039 Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost 33 (750) ($24,750) ($8,384) ($15,423)

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (Annual 2040 33 (750) ($24,750) ($7,835) ($14,974)

Maintaining the Statement of Intent) Cost Total Industry Benefit (Cost) ($396,000) ($218,509) ($301,832)

Table A-14 Agreement States Implementation Cost to Complete Rulemakings to Incorporate Compatible Regulations Agreement Weighted Number States Year Activity Hourly Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV of Plans Staff Labor Rate Hours Agreement States complete rulemakings 2025 5.0 (120) $91 ($54,654) ($47,737) ($51,517) to incorporate compatible regulations Agreement States complete rulemakings 2026 5.0 (120) $91 ($54,654) ($44,614) ($50,016) to incorporate compatible regulations Agreement States complete rulemakings 2027 5.0 (120) $91 ($54,654) ($41,695) ($48,560) to incorporate compatible regulations Total Agreement States Benefit (Cost) 15 ($163,962) ($134,047) ($150,093)

A-10

Table A-15 Agreement States Averted Costs (Reviewing Exemption Requests Submittal)

Weighted Hours/ #

Year Activity Hourly Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV review Occurrences Rate 2025 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $48,000 $52,000 2026 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $45,000 $50,000 2027 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $42,000 $49,000 2028 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $39,000 $47,000 2029 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $36,000 $46,000 2030 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $34,000 $44,000 2031 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $32,000 $43,000 2032 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $30,000 $42,000 2033 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $28,000 $41,000 2034 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $26,000 $39,000 2035 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $24,000 $38,000 2036 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $23,000 $37,000 2037 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $21,000 $36,000 2038 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $20,000 $35,000 2039 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $19,000 $34,000 2040 Agreement States review exemption requests 40 15 $91 $54,654 $17,000 $33,000 Total Agreement States Benefit (Cost) 640 240 $874,466 $484,000 $666,000 Table A-16 Agreement States Review of Licensees New or Revised Decommissioning Funding Plans or Financial Assurance Funding Staff Number Weighted Labor Year Activity of Hourly Undiscounted 7% NPV 3% NPV Hours /

Reviews Rate Plan Agreement States Review of Licensees New or 2025 133.3 (20) $91 ($242,907) ($212,165) ($228,963)

Revised DFPs or FA Funding Agreement States Review of Licensees New or 2026 133.3 (20) $91 ($242,907) ($198,285) ($222,295)

Revised DFPs or FA Funding Agreement States Review of Licensees New or 2027 Revised DFPs or FA Funding 133.3 (20) $91 ($242,907) ($185,313) ($215,820)

Total Agreement States Benefit (Cost) 400 ($728,722) ($595,762) ($667,078)

A-11

Appendix B Analysis Input Variables Mean Low Best Description Distribution High Estimate Source or Basis of Estimate estimate Estimate Estimate General Base Year 2023 Staff assumption Year Rule is Active 2025 Staff assumption Staff assumption: Timespan Timespan of Analysis 18

[2023 thru 2040]

Discount Rate 7% NUREG/BR-0058 Supplemental Discount 3% NUREG/BR-0058 Rate Calculated value based on previous NRC actuals. (NRC NRC Staff Labor Rate $143 Labor Rates for Use in FY2023 Regulatory Analyses)

Loaded wage burden for Private Loaded Wage Industry based on NRC 2.4 2.4 Burden NUREG-BR-0058, Rev. 5, Section 5.4 Licensee Labor Mix Composite Percent per UNIT Hour with Labor Multiplier Mean w/Benefits Description Unit  % Wt. Ave (2023) (2.4x)

Technical Staff $22.26 $53.43 $ / hour 25% $13.36 Administrative Staff $17.91 $42.98 $ / hour 25% $10.75 Licensing Staff $65.93 $158.23 $ / hour 50% $79.11 Licensee Labor Rate Composite 100% $103.22 Labor Mix Percent Composite per UNIT Hour with Labor Multiplier w/Risk Mean Low Wt. Ave High Description Distribution Most Estimate Estimate Estimate Likely Technical Staff $15.65 $22.26 $26.69 Administrative Staff $13.67 $17.91 $22.08 Licensing Staff $40.58 $65.93 $85.41 Licensee Average Labor

$103 Trigen $69.89 $106.10 $134.18 Rate Agreement States

$91 Trigen $63.77 $99.44 $114.09 Average Labor Rate B-1

Mean Low Wt. Ave High Description Distribution Source of Base Estimate Estimate Estimate Most Estimate Likely NRC Implementation Alternative 2 - [Rulemaking Implementation]

Staff hours to perform review 1,745 PERT 1,309 1,745 2,182 Mean Low Best High Description Distribution Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Operation Alternative 1 (NOT SELECTED)

Alternative 1 - Status Quo (No Action Taken)

Under the status quo, the NRC would rely on the existing regulations, exemptions, orders, and guidance as well as continue to use the current Appendix B to Part 30 table to determine decommissioning financial assurance requirements Mean Low Best High Description Distribution Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Alternative 2 - STAFF RECOMMENDATION Alternative 2 - Update the List of Radionuclides and the Values in Appendix B to Part 30 Table (NRC Selected)

Under Alternative 2, the NRC would update the current table in Appendix B to Part 30 using the radionuclides and values from Appendix C to Part 20. This includes the addition of radionuclides that are not currently in Appendix B. In addition to adding radionuclides and updating values to incorporate ICRP 26/30 methodologies, the NRC would remove all radionuclides with a half-life of 120 days or less from the table since they are not considered when assessing decommissioning financial assurance or developing decommissioning funding plans. By making these changes, licensees, the NRC, and Agreement States would have an up-to-date table with more risk-informed values for use when assessing decommissioning financial assurance and developing decommissioning funding plans. Appendix C of this regulatory analysis contains an updated version of the table.

Mean Low Best High Description Distribution Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Amend Appendix B to add unlisted isotopes and assign them risk-informed specific possession values that result in decommissioning funding requirements that better reflect expected costs.

Alternative 2 NRC Cost NRC review of licensees submittal of modified DFP/ decommissioning financial 40 40 NRC Estimate assurance NRC review of licensees new or revised decommissioning funding plans (20) PERT (25) (20) (15) NRC Estimate or financial assurance funding (hours/review)

B-1

$146 PERT $139 $146 $153 $278K from Reg Basis Para 10, Pg 29, the current generic bounding NRC Averted Cost (NRC review of estimate for the cost of a licensees submittal of exemption request license exemption is Saving) $278,000, consisting of an estimated $188,000 for the licensees development and submittal of a license 2 2 exemption request and an estimated $90,000 for the NRCs review. As of July 2019, the NRC staff had processed seven DFP exemption requests for Ge-68/Ga-68 generators at a cost of approximately

$1.95 million ($278,000 x 7 DFP exemption NRC Number of Occurrences reviews). The Agreement States had ($278,000 x 47 DFP exemption reviews) at a cost of approximately $13.1 million.

As of July 2019, the NRC staff had processed seven DFP exemption requests for Ge-68/Ga-68 generators.

Alternative 2 Agreement States Cost Agreement States Complete Rulemakings to Incorporate Compatible 15 15 NRC Estimate Regulations Agreement States complete rulemaking to incorporate compatible (120) PERT (150) (120) (90) NRC Estimate regulations (hours/review)

Agreement States Review of NRC Estimate Agreement Licensees New or Revised DFPs or FA 400 400 States DFP Plan Review.

Funding 10 to 1 ratio Agreement States review of licensees new or revised decommissioning funding (20) PERT (25) (20) (15) NRC Estimate plans or financial assurance funding hours/ review Only Licensees that currently have Decom Funding Plans must look at these decommissioning Cost Estimate and Funding Plan every 3 years. Licensees not subject to 10 CFR 30.35 Alternative 2 Industry Cost will now have to evaluate additional decommissioning funding if required. Must be related to decommissioning Funding requirements for increased funding levels.

B-2

NRC Estimate Medical Use Licensees and Industry Averted Costs (Licensees no Industrial & (broad scope longer submit exemption requests for 40 PERT 30 40 50 - Academic) WBL-verified decommissioning funding levels Number. This includes Industry)

Part 70 licensee. # of Plans/Yr.

NRC Estimate Evaluating NRC number of occurrences 4 PERT 3 4.25 5 only changes minimal.

NRC Estimate: Also includes alpha emitters.

This number includes Licensees who may need to increase or decrease their certification amounts; who need to revise their decommissioning cost Licensees required to revise DFA plans estimate for funding 275 PERT 138 275 413 or FA funding plans; and who are newly subject to decommissioning funding plan or certification requirements. We expect the number of Licensees newly subject to decommissioning funding plan requirements to be small (i.e., 300 or fewer).

No. Hours per DFP (hours/Licensee) (60) PERT (75) (60) (45) NRC Estimate. Also includes alpha emitters Licensees required to increase or 165 PERT 83 165 248 NRC Estimate, 15 NRC decrease their financial assurance Licensees plus 150 mechanism values (number of items) Agreement States Licensees (10 to 1 ratio)

Triannual review for cost estimate and funding plan only. Types of Financial Assurance Instruments anticipated were determined based on the most common instruments (Surety Bond, Letter of Credit, Trust Agreement, or Statement of Intent) submitted to the NRC. Number breakouts add up to 165.

NRC Estimate. Also includes alpha emitters.

This is based on 10 percent (i.e., 44 or fewer)

Licensees newly required to perform 17 PERT 9 17 26 of the Licensees triannual review of DFPs (#/licensees).

expected to have to revise the decommissioning funding plans (additional).

B-3

Surety Bond: The cost of getting bonded can vary depending on a few factors such as personal credit and financial strength of an applicant, as well as the risk associated with a type of Number of Surety Bond Decreases bond. Part 70 Licensees 50 PERT 25 50 75 Resulting in Savings are NOT impacted by the table. All 60 Licensees (Section 5.4) are Part 30 Licensees. Of the 60 Licensees, only 50 are affected resulting in a savings, a decrease but still require financial assurance.

NRC Estimate: Surety Bond will be in an amount of ranging from 50K to

$2.25M but typically will be $50 K to $225K.

Yearly: 1% to 3%. Part 70 Licensees are NOT impacted by the table. All Annual Surety Bond Savings $3,625 Uniform $500 $6,750 60 Licensees are Part 30 Licensees. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected, 30 will go down resulting in a Savings, a decrease but still require financial assurance.

Surety Bond: The cost of getting bonded can vary depending on a several factors such as personal credit and financial strength of an applicant, as well as the risk associated with a type of Financial Assurance Mechanism:

bond. Part 70 Licensees (Annual Bank Servicing the Instrument - 10 PERT 5 10 15 are NOT impacted by the Surety Bond) Cost table. All 60 Licensees are Part 30 Licensees. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected, 10 will go up resulting in a Cost, an increase in financial assurance.

NRC Estimate: Surety Bond will be in an amount of ranging from $50K to

$2.5M but typically will be

$50 K to $225K. Yearly:

1% to 3%. Part 70 Licensees are NOT Annual Bank Servicing the Surety Bond

($3,625) Uniform ($6,750) ($500) impacted by the table. All (Cost/Licensee) Cost 60 are Part 30 Licensees.

Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected 10 will go up resulting in a Cost, an increase in financial assurance.

B-4

A letter of credit, or a credit letter, is a letter from a bank guaranteeing that a buyers payment to a seller will be received on time and for the correct amount. 1st yr. =

$225,000 + 2%; 2nd Yr.

Financial Assurance Mechanism: to End 2% of $225K. Part (Annual Bank Servicing the Letter of 30 PERT 15 30 45 70 Licensees are NOT Credit) Savings impacted by the table. All 60 Licensees are Part 30 Licensees. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected, 30 will go down resulting in a Savings, a decrease but still require financial assurance.

NRC Estimate: Letter of Credit will be in an amount typically ranging from $50 K to $225K.

Yearly: 1% to 3% (~2%).

Part 70 Licensees are NOT impacted by the Annual Bank Servicing the Letter of

$3,625 Uniform $500 $6,750 table. All 60 are Part 30 Credit Savings Licensees. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected, 30 will go down resulting in a Savings, a decrease but still require financial assurance.

A letter of credit, or a credit letter, is a letter from a bank guaranteeing that a buyers payment to a seller will be received on time and for the correct amount. 1st yr. =

Financial Assurance Mechanism: $225,000 + 2%; 2nd Yr.

(Annual Bank Servicing the Letter of 10 PERT 5 10 15 to End 2% of $225K. Part Credit) Cost 70 Licensees are NOT impacted by the table. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected, 10 will go up resulting in a Cost, an increase in financial assurance.

NRC Estimate: Letter of Credit will be in an amount of ranging from

$50K to $2.5M but typically will be $50 K to

$225K. Yearly: 1% to 3%

Financial Assurance Mechanism: (~2%). Part 70 Licensees (Annual Bank Servicing the Letter of ($3,625) Uniform ($6,750) ($500) are NOT impacted by the Credit) (Cost/Licensee)) Cost table. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected 10 will go up resulting in a Cost, an increase in financial assurance.

B-5

A trust (standby trust agreement) is a complex legal and financial entity that should be established with the help of a qualified attorney.

Costs increase depending on the complexity of the trust. The price to Financial Assurance Mechanism: establish a trust can (Annual Bank Servicing the Trust 22 PERT 11 22 33 range from $3,000 to Agreement) Savings more than $5,000 for irrevocable trusts. Part 70 Licensees are NOT impacted by the table. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected, 22 will go down resulting in a Savings, a decrease but still require financial assurance.

A trust (standby trust agreement) is a complex legal and financial entity that should be established with the help of a qualified attorney.

Costs increase depending on the complexity of the trust. The price to establish a trust can Annual Trust Agreement Savings $3,625 Uniform $500 $6,750 range from $3,000 to more than $5,000 for irrevocable trusts. Part 70 Licensees are NOT impacted by the table. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected, 22 will go down resulting in a Savings, a decrease but still require financial assurance.

A trust (standby trust agreement) is a complex legal and financial entity that should be established with the help of a qualified attorney.

Costs increase depending on the complexity of the trust. The price to Financial Assurance Mechanism: establish a trust can (Annual Bank Servicing the Trust 10 PERT 5 10 15 range from $3,000 to Agreement) Cost more than $5,000 for irrevocable trusts. Part 70 Licensees are NOT impacted by the table. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected, 10 will go up resulting in a Cost, an increase in financial assurance.

B-6

A trust (standby trust agreement) is a complex legal and financial entity that should be established with the help of a qualified attorney.

Costs increase depending on the complexity of the trust. The price to Financial Assurance Mechanism: establish a trust can (Annual Bank Servicing the Trust ($4,875) Uniform ($6,750) ($3,000) range from $3,000 to Agreement) (Cost/Licensee)) Cost more than $5,000 for irrevocable trusts. Part 70 Licensees are NOT impacted by the table. Of the 60 Licensees, only 40 are affected. Of the 40 affected 22 will go up resulting in a Cost, an increase in financial assurance.

Statement of Intent is a formal statement that the author has a serious intention of doing something under specified conditions, and Financial Assurance Mechanism:

at a specified time. Part (Annual Maintaining the Statement of 33 PERT 17 33 50 70 Licensees are NOT Intent) Cost impacted by the table. Of the 60 Licensees, only 33 are affected and will go up resulting in a Cost, an increase in financial assurance.

Statement of Intent may result in Savings if Statement of Intent will grant relief of having to go keep Surety Bonds, Letter of Credit, Stand- By Trust Financial Assurance Mechanism:

Agreement. Part 70 (Annual Maintaining the Statement of ($750) Uniform ($1,000) ($500)

Licensees are NOT Intent) (Cost/Licensee) Cost impacted by the table. Of the 60 Licensees, only 33 are affected and will go up resulting in a Cost, an increase in financial assurance.

B-7

Appendix C Quantities of Licensed Material Used to Assess Financial Assurance for Decommissioning (Proposed Updated Table)

Radionuclide Microcuries Actinium-227 0.001 Aluminum-26 10 Americium-241 0.001 Americium-242m 0.001 Americium-243 0.001 Antimony-125 100 Argon-39 1,000 Barium-133 100 Berkelium-247 0.001 Berkelium-249 0.1 Beryllium-10 1 Bismuth-207 10 Bismuth-210m 0.1 Cadmium-109 1 Cadmium-113m 0.1 Cadmium-113 100 Calcium-41 100 Calcium-45 100 Californium-248 0.01 Californium-249 0.001 Californium-250 0.001 Californium-251 0.001 Californium-252 0.001 Carbon-14 100 Cerium-139 100 Cerium-144 1 Cesium-134 10 Cesium-135 100 Cesium-137 10 Chlorine-36 10 Cobalt-57 100 Cobalt-60 1 Curium-242 0.01 Curium-243 0.001 Curium-244 0.001 Curium-245 0.001 Curium-246 0.001 Curium-247 0.001 Curium-248 0.001 Dysprosium-159 100 Einsteinium-254 0.01 Europium-150 1 Europium-152 1 Europium-154 1 Europium-155 10 Gadolinium-148 0.001 C-1

Radionuclide Microcuries Gadolinium-151 10 Gadolinium-152 100 Gadolinium-153 10 Germanium-68 10 Gold-195 10 Hafnium-172 1 Hafnium-178m 0.1 Hafnium-182 0.1 Holmium-166m 1 Hydrogen-3 1,000 Indium-115 100 Iodine-129 1 Iridium-194m 10 Iron-55 100 Iron-60 1 Krypton-81 1,000 Krypton-85 1,000 Lanthanum-137 10 Lanthanum-138 100 Lead-202 10 Lead-205 100 Lead-210 0.01 Lutetium-173 10 Lutetium-174m 10 Lutetium-174 10 Lutetium-176 100 Lutetium-177m 10 Manganese-53 1,000 Manganese-54 100 Mercury-194 1 Molybdenum-93 10 Neptunium-235 100 Neptunium-236 0.001 Neptunium-237 0.001 Nickel-59 100 Nickel-63 100 Niobium-93m 10 Niobium-94 1 Osmium-194 1 Palladium-107 10 Platinum-193 1,000 Plutonium-236 0.001 Plutonium-238 0.001 Plutonium-239 0.001 Plutonium-240 0.001 Plutonium-241 0.01 Plutonium-242 0.001 Plutonium-244 0.001 Polonium-210 0.1 Potassium-40 100 C-2

Radionuclide Microcuries Promethium-143 100 Promethium-144 10 Promethium-145 10 Promethium-146 1 Promethium-147 10 Protactinium-231 0.001 Radium-226 0.1 Radium-228 0.1 Rhenium-184m 10 Rhenium-186m 10 Rhenium-187 1,000 Rhodium-101 10 Rhodium-102m 10 Rhodium-102 10 Rubidium-87 100 Ruthenium-106 1 Samarium-145 100 Samarium-146 1 Samarium-147 100 Samarium-151 10 Selenium-79 100 Silicon-32 1 Silver-108m 1 Silver-110m 10 Sodium-22 10 Strontium-90 0.1 Tantalum-179 100 Technetium-97 1,000 Technetium-98 10 Technetium-99 100 Tellurium-121m 10 Tellurium-123 100 Terbium-157 10 Terbium-158 1 Thallium-204 100 Thorium-228 0.001 Thorium-229 0.001 Thorium-230 0.001 Thorium-232 100 Thorium-natural 100 Thulium-170 10 Thulium-171 10 Tin-119m 100 Tin-121m 100 Tin-123 10 Tin-126 10 Titanium-44 1 C-3

[Page intentionally left blank.]

C-4

Appendix D Position Titles and Occupations Hourly Hourly Hourly 25th 75th mean Position Title Occupation (SOC code)* percentile percentile Source wage wage wage

($2021)

($2021) ($2021)

Industry: State Government, excluding schools and hospitals https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/indOcc/Multiple%20o (OEWS Designation) Healthcare $37.41 $23.99 $42.92 ccupations%20for%20one%20industry Practitioners and Technical Occupations (29-0000)

Technical Industry: State Government, Staff excluding schools and hospitals https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/indOcc/Multiple%20o (OEWS Designation) Diagnostic $29.59 $23.11 $37.41 ccupations%20for%20one%20industry Related Technologist and Technicians (29-2030)

Average $33.50 $23.55 $40.17 Industry: State Government, excluding schools and hospitals https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/indOcc/Multiple%20o (OEWS Designation) Clinical $24.32 $18.02 $29.04 ccupations%20for%20one%20industry Laboratory Technologists and Technicians (29-2010)

Administrative Industry: State Government, Staff excluding schools and hospitals https://data.bls.gov/oes/#/indOcc/Multiple%20o (OEWS Designation) Radiologic $29.58 $23.11 $37.41 ccupations%20for%20one%20industry Technologists and Technicians (29-2034)

Average $26.95 $20.57 $33.23 Paralegals and Legal Assistants

$28.04 $21.82 $34.98 https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes232011.htm (23-2011)

Licensing Staff Lawyers (231011) $71.17 $39.24 $93.55 https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes231011.htm Average $49.61 $30.53 $64.27 Industry: State Government, excluding schools and hospitals Agreement State Government, excluding schools and (OEWS Designation) Healthcare $37.41 $23.99 $42.92 States Staff hospitals (OEWS Designation)

Practitioners and Technical Occupations (29-0000)

Footnotes:

(1) SOC code: Standard Occupational Classification codesee https://www.bls.gov/soc/home.htm (2) NAICS code: North American Industry Classification System codesee https://www.bls.gov/bls/naics.htm (3) Data extracted on January 10, 2023.

• Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS)

D-1

[Page intentionally left blank.]

D-2

Appendix E Labor Categories Rates Converted to 2023 Dollars 2023 Dollars BLS Mean CPI-U BLS BLS Burdened Labor Burdened Hourly Inflator Labor Mix Burdened Hourly 25th Labor Category Burden Hourly 75th wage (2021 to Percentage Hourly percentile Multiplier percentile (2021) 2023) mean wage wage wage Technical Staff $33.50 1.108 $22.26 $15.65 $26.69 2.4 25%

Administrative Staff $26.95 1.108 2.4 25% $17.91 $13.67 $22.08 Licensing Staff $49.61 1.108 2.4 50% $65.93 $40.58 $85.41 Total Licensee $106.10 Agreement States Staff $37.41 1.108 2.4 $99.44 $63.77 $114.09 NRC (2023) $143 $143.00 E-1